"The infamous 'R' rating!" (spoken in a mysterious 'dooooom' voice)

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']How on Earth do you know it is used as a flat out any defintiion of the term?[/quote]
How do I know? Do you see any alteration of the term in the image?

We've just established that various theatres have their own application and definition of the word, correct? So, with no altering at all of the term used in the MPAA image, how can we not say it's a flat definition? With no alteration in the usage of "Accompany," it's very clear that there is no singular definition intended, meaning, all forms of the definition are included. It's not being vague; it's being specific, although most simply just don't have the proper interpretive training to realize that.

[quote]Had that been their intent, they would allow the permission without a second thought, which they don't. Their intent with the way the word is used, is to have an adult with you. It has been engraved upon us, no matter what the definitions mean. In every sentence a word that has multiple definitions is used in a certain way. And it is clearly obvious that the way accompanied is supposed to be used in this sentence, is for them to be with you. Otherwise anyone could get into the movie with the permission, which is obviously NOT true. How is that so hard to see? Had they intended to encompass all the definitions, one could get in with the permission just as easily if a parent was along for the entire movie, yet it isn't true. Getting familiar with the definition will do a person no good in many cases. Seeing as how even though permission is presented, they are still not allowed to see the movie. As I have said before. Permission has been granted for me many time, and for others I am assuming just as much and they still haven't been allowed to see the movie. Getting familiar with the definition will do nothing.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you, Zeta, is your problem here with the language of the MPAA image? Or is it more with how the theatres are misinterpreting that language, even though the language is very clear, and because of that wide-spread misinterpretation, we all have been brought up to believe that there is only one way the word, "Accompany," was ever meant to be used?

The MPAA image does intend to encompass all the definitions of the term; it's just that theatres don't know a damn thing when it comes to interpretive practices.

It is a matter of [i]people[/i] becoming familiar with the definitions, yes, but it's more than that. The people are only the customers, the movie-goers. If you want to see this "problem" remedied, then the people don't need to be "shown the light." The theatres need to be made aware.

Your argument here is based solely on the theatre's misinterpretation of the MPAA's language.

Get what I'm saying? I'll explain it a bit more clearly.

The MPAA language isn't the "problem." The "problem" is uneducated, interpretively-challenged theatre bigwigs and managers.

[Zeta]

But yet, you are still making it seem a flat out definition when you cannot do that. They were made a certain way from the beginning. They intended for adults to be with the younger children, and that is why the theatres say that now.EDIT: You are telling me that more than half, hell probably 99% of the employees and managers don't know the definition of a word? Employees I can partly understand, being as how many teens work at the theatres. But all the managers of every theatre across the nation? Sorry man, not buying it. It has been passed on from what it started out as. It isn't a matter of vocabulary. A manager of a store is just as educated as you and I, hell quite possibly more. They know what the MPAA ratings truly mean. And what they truly mean, is you have to have an adult. It is a clear fact of what has been truly meant in the past. When there are exceptions to rules, they have them listed. I see those all the times in rules in a classroom, in sweepstakes. It is foolish to base it off just one vocabulary many defintions. Many, many words have more than one definition. But the definition is dependent on the context it is used in. In this way, it has been through the years that a parent should be accompaniing you to the movie, and watching it. The thing I do agree with you is this, least I think it was you that said it. Lots of people who work at theatres don't give a damn about the ratings and will sell you a rated R ticket, providing you are a reasonable age. And again, no 10 year old will walk into a movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they know what scary movies are and would know they wouldn't want to see a movie like that. But then there are many more people who still follow the rules, which has been passed down throughout the years as a parent having to be physically in the theatre with the young'n. Again I repeat, show me where it says written permission is techinically allowed, not feeding me the definition bull. The word was used in a certain context which has been followed for a long time, as meaning the parent has to be there. Unless it is clearly stated that it is allowed, that the MPAA physically says the permission is enough, then it isn't enough.Well I really have nothing more to add. It is commong knowledge what they truly mean, doesn't matter what the many definitions of the word states.

[Falkon]

Im not saying that theatre employees are not well educated, Im simply implying that some teenagaers really dont care if a younger child is admitted into a theatre. More and more these days are teens getting less and less responsible. I acknowledge that as a teenager myself.

[Guest xxphatmattxx]

:bash: :bash: :bash: [QUOTE=Siren]Again, how is this a problem? ....
And...so a 17-year-old tries to sneak into a rated-R picture and gets caught by security. Again, so what? What's the problem here?....


Why the hell should a 17 year old have to SNEAK IN a dang theater when the "R" rating suggests theaters to prevent ages UNDER 17 to view the film. UNDER 17, NOT 17. I'm 22 by the way and I try to "SAVE MY YOUNGER FRIENDS (16 & 17) FROM EXTREME ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, SO I TAKE THEM TO SEE MOVIES. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WHEN THE DAMN THEATER REJECTS ANYONE UNDER 18 FOR A MOVIE, & THEN THEY LEAVE AND GET INTO TROUBLE".


BOYCOTT THE MPAA & CARA RATINGS THEY ARE WORTHLESS


JUST LIKE THE MPAA & ALL THEATERS SUPPORTING BILL CLINTON & HIS OPPOSITION ON YOUNG'NS VIEWING MOVIES THEY SEE ON CABLE TV ALL THE TIME.
:nope:
:blowup:
:flasher2:
:lecture:

[coconuts1977]

Funny this should come up. Last year I wrote an article, for my school newspaper, on how f--ked up the MPAA is. Here it is.


[EDIT]- Uh....anyone have any feedback?

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I hear that if the F word is said more than twice ina movie it's automatically rated R, if not higher. [/quote]


Also it depends on the usage of the word. It can only be used as an explicative in a PG-13 film, but NOT as a verb.