Saint Talavar
Offline
- Quote
- Posted: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:43:38 +0000
I don't know how many of you folks are aware of this, but the MPAA ******** sucks. For those of you who don't know what the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is, they're the folks who assign films their ratings. They devised the ratings system in the U.S., and they decide whether or not a film gets an R or a PG-13, and so on. Now, this isn't an inherently bad idea. It's a great tool for audiences to figure out what sort of content they can expect from a film, and whether or not that film is appropriate for people of a certain age. If it's rated R, then it's not a good idea to bring the toddlers with you to see it. Here's the big problems with this...
1. First of all, almost every one of you reading this can recall being to an R-rated film in the theaters, and seeing little kids in the audience who shouldn't be seeing it. Granted, there are some small children who are right at home with the violence and language. I was fairly young when Alien Resurrection came out, but my cousin and I saw it in theaters, and we had fun. Still, it's up to the parents to decide whether or not the film is appropriate for their kids, based on what their kids have been exposed to. So, naturally, it's a dumb idea when kids who are squeamish and easily frightened are taken see violent horror films. But these people still do it. And when the kids scream and cry and have to leave the theater, the parents inevitably complain. This is pretty shitty, because said parents are the only people to blame for what their kids were to exposed to. It's a way of shifting responsibility to someone else, and it's nothing short of bad parenting. But this leads to another problem...
2. Because the MPAA is aware of the fact that some material isn't suitable for children, they limit the exposure that people have to it. What that means is, an R-rated film isn't going to be advertised as heavily as a PG-rated film, or even a PG-13 film. An NC-17 film naturally gets even less, and definitely no ads on TV. Not only that, but the number of theaters that carry a film is reduced if it has a harder rating. Between limited advertising and limited theater numbers, such films end up making less money for the studio. This leads to the big problem...
3. The filmmakers and the studios are aware of this. So, the studios usually don't put a lot of money into R-rated movies because they know they won't make their money back. Of course, if they did put more money into them, maybe they'd turn out better, and actually make more money. But this idea of "logic" never occurs to them. In the event that an R-rated film is made by the filmmakers, they're often forced to make cuts and remove content that wasn't meant to be removed. Now, granted, it's not unheard of that some things are left out on purpose so they can make more money with an "Unrated" DVD, but the fact of the matter is, many filmmakers don't want to do this. Heck, they often end up having to chop up their films just to get the R that they were going for! Don't get me started on films that should have been R that wound up with PG-13 thanks to interference like this. So, wait a second...what's it called when an artist is forced to make changes that pander to the masses in infantile attempts to be politically correct and more family friendly...oh yeah!
Censorship.
Why am I going on and on about this? Well, I've always hated the MPAA, but lately they've done some shitty things even for them. When the film "Hatchet 2" entered a limited theatrical run with no advertisements without a rating from them, going to theaters unrated, the MPAA stepped in, and all the theaters that were playing it ended up taking it down in a matter of days, resulting in a huge loss for the filmmakers involved. They tried to say that it was the result of poor box office returns, but it was only there for a few ******** days.
The upcoming film "Blue Valentine" almost ended up with the doom-for-filmmakers-and-studios rating, NC-17, which would have resulted in the film making very little money at the box office. Naturally the filmmakers were upset, and took the MPAA to court. They were successful, and now the film is getting an R. Seems like sunshine an roses, right? Well, think again. As the filmmakers lobbied to get the film an R rating, one of their points of anger and frustration was that the MPAA seemed to have a double standard when it came to sex versus violence in films.
So now they're going to reevaluate how they rate horror films and other such violent films.
Consider all that I've said above, and it's a sad time for movies. What they do is ultimately nothing short of Censorship, and that is wrong.
1. First of all, almost every one of you reading this can recall being to an R-rated film in the theaters, and seeing little kids in the audience who shouldn't be seeing it. Granted, there are some small children who are right at home with the violence and language. I was fairly young when Alien Resurrection came out, but my cousin and I saw it in theaters, and we had fun. Still, it's up to the parents to decide whether or not the film is appropriate for their kids, based on what their kids have been exposed to. So, naturally, it's a dumb idea when kids who are squeamish and easily frightened are taken see violent horror films. But these people still do it. And when the kids scream and cry and have to leave the theater, the parents inevitably complain. This is pretty shitty, because said parents are the only people to blame for what their kids were to exposed to. It's a way of shifting responsibility to someone else, and it's nothing short of bad parenting. But this leads to another problem...
2. Because the MPAA is aware of the fact that some material isn't suitable for children, they limit the exposure that people have to it. What that means is, an R-rated film isn't going to be advertised as heavily as a PG-rated film, or even a PG-13 film. An NC-17 film naturally gets even less, and definitely no ads on TV. Not only that, but the number of theaters that carry a film is reduced if it has a harder rating. Between limited advertising and limited theater numbers, such films end up making less money for the studio. This leads to the big problem...
3. The filmmakers and the studios are aware of this. So, the studios usually don't put a lot of money into R-rated movies because they know they won't make their money back. Of course, if they did put more money into them, maybe they'd turn out better, and actually make more money. But this idea of "logic" never occurs to them. In the event that an R-rated film is made by the filmmakers, they're often forced to make cuts and remove content that wasn't meant to be removed. Now, granted, it's not unheard of that some things are left out on purpose so they can make more money with an "Unrated" DVD, but the fact of the matter is, many filmmakers don't want to do this. Heck, they often end up having to chop up their films just to get the R that they were going for! Don't get me started on films that should have been R that wound up with PG-13 thanks to interference like this. So, wait a second...what's it called when an artist is forced to make changes that pander to the masses in infantile attempts to be politically correct and more family friendly...oh yeah!
Censorship.
Why am I going on and on about this? Well, I've always hated the MPAA, but lately they've done some shitty things even for them. When the film "Hatchet 2" entered a limited theatrical run with no advertisements without a rating from them, going to theaters unrated, the MPAA stepped in, and all the theaters that were playing it ended up taking it down in a matter of days, resulting in a huge loss for the filmmakers involved. They tried to say that it was the result of poor box office returns, but it was only there for a few ******** days.
The upcoming film "Blue Valentine" almost ended up with the doom-for-filmmakers-and-studios rating, NC-17, which would have resulted in the film making very little money at the box office. Naturally the filmmakers were upset, and took the MPAA to court. They were successful, and now the film is getting an R. Seems like sunshine an roses, right? Well, think again. As the filmmakers lobbied to get the film an R rating, one of their points of anger and frustration was that the MPAA seemed to have a double standard when it came to sex versus violence in films.
So now they're going to reevaluate how they rate horror films and other such violent films.
Consider all that I've said above, and it's a sad time for movies. What they do is ultimately nothing short of Censorship, and that is wrong.
