Can you be HUGELY successful and NOT a wh0r3?

[kurdy]

This... ...does not agree with this... Doesn't matter if it's 'about music' or not: Adele ain't nowhere near 'as big as it gets' in the current business. Not even close. To put it in perspective in timely terms: if Gaga, Katy Perry or Kanye were playing Lollapalooza this weekend, they would be headlining. Adele would not.

 

 

Well, I agree Adele herself is not a superstar, but the music she makes is about as popular as it gets. That was my point. Her music is the star. Whereas Lady Gaga may be a talented musician. But her music is not the reason she's such a huge star.

 

Used to be if your videos aired regularly on MTV, if your songs got played on the radio a lot, if your concerts sold out wherever you went, it usually meant you were a superstar.

 

But to be a superstar these days, you kinda have to be a spectacle, simulate sex acts, dress funny (or undress), date a celeb, act out on TV, make outrageous concerts in the press, have a public meltdown. All those things that have absolutely nothing to do with music. And if you've still got time left in your schedule, release a catchy song every now and then to appease the record label.

 

Was Carole King a superstar? I don't know, I wasn't there. But I do know she had a ton of hits and sold millions of records. Back in the day, that would probably qualify her. These days, she'd be Sara Bareilles (that girl who sings about how she's not gonna write you a love song.) Having hits really isn't enough these days. Which is fine. I don't believe the whole "superstar" thing is even important. But if it happens, it would be nice to see it happen for reasons pertaining to music.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, I agree Adele herself is not a superstar, but the music she makes is about as popular as it gets.

 

 

Yeah, THIS week. The bigger point is Adele is, thus far, a one-hit-wonder. She's not yet Gaga or Katy. She's certainly not yet Carole King. If she's around for another couple of albums and a few more #1 hits she'd be headlining. But today? No, she wouldn't. Neither her NOR her music.

 

It has nothing to do with dress or sex or quality of music or lack thereof. But shear number of hits.

[kmart]

Is it then your contention that media doesn't have a cumulative effect on society as a whole?

 

 

No, nor did I imply such a thing.

 

But I also don't sit idly letting media have it's way with myself/that of my family/child, and make preposterous claims about how it's going to "do me wrong", either: when there's potential negative impact on me/mine from media, you can bet your ass I'm actively involved and informed in any way possible in countering that impact and controlling as much of the exposure as possible. Where I'm unable to control, I make sure to inform/educate/prepare my child, etc.

 

And that will NEVER be enough.

That's life. I accept that: there IS no such thing as the bogeyman.

 

 

The interesting point you bring up about violence in the media sends me on another side-bar though:

Why ARE people in America, by and large, so up in arms about sex in the media, yet so blase about violence?

I'd rather my son grow up exposed to & understanding/knowing about sex and whores and S&M and kink and whatever else than think that violence (the kind of violence that's far more gratuitous in mass media than sex by a long shot), is 'normal'.

[kmart]

Should movie "ratings" go away as well?

 

Movie ratings as they stand at present?

 

ABSOLUTELY.

 

The MPAA and the process they use to rate movies is a total joke.

There is no guideline, there is no standard, there is no rationale.

 

The BEST thing that could happen would be for that system to go away.

[richardmac]

 

I'd rather my son grow up exposed to & understanding/knowing about sex and whores and S&M and kink and whatever else than think that violence (the kind of violence that's far more gratuitous in mass media than sex by a long shot), is 'normal'.

 

 

You know, a very good friend of mine and I were talking about high school aged kids (I'm not there yet but closing in on it) viewing porn online. I said something like "When my son is in high school I could care less about him seeing porn online." And said that he definitely would not want that to happen. I asked him why and he said "Because I wouldn't want my kids education about sex to come from redtube or youporn, where all their learn is that women are sex-crazed whores who love to get slapped on the ass while taking it up the rear." I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. I thought that was a good point.

[richardmac]

 

Movie ratings as they stand at present? ABSOLUTELY. The MPAA and the process they use to rate movies is a total joke. There is no guideline, there is no standard, there is no rationale. The BEST thing that could happen would be for that system to go away.

 

 

Yeah, but as a parent with young kids, I'd like to know if a movie is going to contain something that is inappropriate for my kids. So I'd still want some type of system.

[BlueStrat]

 

No, nor did I imply such a thing.

 

 

Well, you kind of did, perhaps indirectly, or at least i read it that way. Either you can shield a kid from questionable stuff and it has no affect on society or it does. This is the crux that the "if you don't like it, change the channel" folks always seem to miss. Sure, I can change the channel, but the way certain things affect other people's kids still affects the rest of us.

[Vito Corleone]

Movie ratings as they stand at present? ABSOLUTELY. The MPAA and the process they use to rate movies is a total joke. There is no guideline, there is no standard, there is no rationale. The BEST thing that could happen would be for that system to go away.

 

 

That's a bit much, IMO. Could they do a BETTER job of rating the movies? Sure. Then again, no matter WHAT criteria they used, no doubt SOMEBODY would think it was wrong. But the system of the industry rating itself and providing at least SOME basic guidelines is probably much better than having, say, the government rate the movies and/or apply strict censorship over what could or could not be shown.

[kmart]

 

But the system of the industry rating itself and providing at least SOME basic guidelines is probably much better than having, say, the government rate the movies and/or apply strict censorship over what could or could not be shown.

 

 

Totally side-barring the thread, but...

The fact is, there really don't appear to be any basic guidelines being used. At the very least, not a single person outside of the MPAA knows what those guidelines are, or what they definitively mean. Not even studios and directors who may be attempting to achieve a different rating.

 

1) Rating is decided by the MPAA before a film is released with no reasoning/explanation given as to why it received a particular rating, other than vague categories that they use "Strong sexual content' or 'pervasive violence'.

2) If a director or studio wants to attempt to get their rating changed (From 'R' to "PG-13' perhaps), the MPAA absolutely WILL NOT tell them what they would need to do to achieve that change. The MPAA will claim it's because that would be censorship; the truth is, giving a movie whose goal is to play for a PG-13 audience an R rating IS censorship as well, because the MPAA is basically saying "That audience can't see this movie." Because ratings are given so late in the film-making process, without specific feedback on how to change a movie's rating through careful editing, the MPAA is basically forcing studios to make major changes to a film's content to achieve a 'better' rating, many which might not be needed. Net result is the same in the end: it's passive censorship, and the MPAA is dictating what gets seen and what doesn't.

 

3) This I can't stress enough: the ratings doled out by the MPAA are NOT the 'industry rating itself', at all. The MPAA is it's own entity, and it goes to great lengths to make itself autonomous from the movie industry. They wield power OVER the movie industry, and revel in it. They also run themselves like some sort of secret-password society, and keep their methods (and membership, to a large degree) secret. Not just from the public, but from film-makers and studios they appear to be working 'with' to people who don't know any better.

 

I did a thesis paper on censorship, the PMRC, and the MPAA in college, and keep up on what's happening with the MPAA since because it's so absolutely broken and corrupted. I could go on for days about how Jack Valenti and the legacy he left are the absolute enemy of creative thinking as a whole, but will not...

If you're at all interested in scratching the surface of what a sham and scam the MPAA ratings process is, I can't recommend you see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" enough.

[BlueStrat]

 

3) This I can't stress enough: the ratings doled out by the MPAA are NOT the 'industry rating itself', at all. The MPAA is it's own entity, and it goes to great lengths to make itself autonomous from the movie industry.

 

 

They are also extremely arbitrary.

[Vito Corleone]

They are also extremely arbitrary.

 

 

They are. But the other option is then...what? A system where, regardless of content, a movie gets a certain rating based on how many times a certain word is used or whether or a not a nipple is slipped? That would be fraught with problems as well.

 

My biggest complaint with the MPAA system (and this is coming largely from my perspective as a former video store owner who often tried to assist parents as to which movies were or were not appropriate for them and their children) is that it has become too broad over the years. The ratings meant more 30-40 years ago. Now, virtually no one wants, or can even get a "G" rating for a movie. (A classic "G" rated movie, like the original "Planet of the Apes", would no doubt be "PG-13" today.) And even "PG" movies have to be so benign as to be useless. So there are essentially only two ratings anymore--"PG13" and "R". The MPAA tried to remedy this somewhat by instituting the "NC-17" rating several years back but the industry wanted nothing to do with it and treated any movies given that rating as if they were given the kiss-of-death. Many theaters wouldn't even show such films.

 

Adding the content descriptions to the ratings helps somewhat (even if they are often hilarious) so parents at least have a SOMEWHAT better idea of what they are getting into with a particular film.

 

But whining about the internal politics of the system? Seems pointless to me. Such politics would exist regardless of WHAT system existed.

[3shiftgtr]

The BEST thing that could happen would be for that system to go away.

 

 

Do you think there should be no system at all, or a just a better one?

[kmart]

 

They are. But the other option is then...what? A system where, regardless of content, a movie gets a certain rating based on how many times a certain word is used or whether or a not a nipple is slipped? That would be fraught with problems as well.

 

 

If a 'system' for rating content of a movie ISN'T based on some sort of objective measurement (i.e., 3 boobie shots and the f-bomb said 5 times = R; no boobs and 2 f-bombs = PG-13, etc.), then it isn't really a SYSTEM at all, is it?

 

Seriously; look into any research on the topic of how ratings are given/applied. It's not just completely arbitrary and random; it's frequently contradictory with itself. THAT's why the ratings are useless nowadays.

[Vito Corleone]

If a 'system' for rating content of a movie ISN'T based on some sort of objective measurement (i.e., 3 boobie shots and the f-bomb said 5 times = R; no boobs and 2 f-bombs = PG-13, etc.), then it isn't really a SYSTEM at all, is it?

 

 

No, because then there would be complaints that content isn't properly taken into context. Not all boobie shots and f-bombs are the same depending on how they are used and why. And frankly, there IS some degree of that sort of system now: more than couple of f-bombs will put you into an "R" rating. Mega violence with no blood will probably keep you at a "PG-13."

 

I really don't see how any system wouldn't piss off SOMEBODY. The system now is far from perfect but most people with at least half-a-brain know how to navigate it. Sure, we all see movies where we can't figure out why this one was "R" while THIS one was "PG13" but for the vast majority of films it's pretty obvious.

 

And while I hear you complaining that this system should be done away with, I've yet to see you offer a better alternative.

[kmart]

 

And while I hear you complaining that this system should be done away with, I've yet to see you offer a better alternative.

 

1) Funny: there's an ABSOLUTELY just as flawed flawed ratings system in place for music and videos broadcast on television as well, but nobody complaining about the 'porn' content of today's pop music has used that argument to counter the whining about 'my poor kid heard Cee-Lo say "Fk"!"'

 

2) Why is it my responsibility to fix that problem exactly? I'm not paid by anybody to do so, last I checked, nor am I the one complaining about myself or my family being exposed to content that I don't want. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a horribly broken and flawed 'system', and it doesn't do what it claims it's supposed to do well at all.

[Vito Corleone]

1) Funny: there's an ABSOLUTELY just as flawed flawed ratings system in place for music and videos broadcast on television as well, but nobody complaining about the 'porn' content of today's pop music has used that argument to counter the whining about 'my poor kid heard Cee-Lo say "Fk"!"'

 

 

But the people complaining DO offer alternatives: most would be happy with a MPAA-style ratings system for music.

 

 

2) Why is it my responsibility to fix that problem exactly? I'm not paid by anybody to do so, last I checked, nor am I the one complaining about myself or my family being exposed to content that I don't want.

 

 

Last I checked, nobody's paying you for your opinion about the MPAA either, but that hasn't stopped you from advocating for its abolition.

 

I'm just of the general opinion that those who rail to Tear The System Down! should offer reasonable, workable and hopefully BETTER alternatives. It's easy to bitch and moan. It's a lot harder to actually do anything substantive. Just ask the "Tea Party".

 

 

That still doesn't change the fact that it's a horribly broken and flawed 'system' , and it doesn't do what it claims it's supposed to do well at all.

 

 

No, but simply getting rid of it only puts us back where we were in the late 60s: with a public complaining about the increasingly profane content of movies and a government threatening to impose regulations on the industry if they didn't come up with their own system for dealing with it.

 

All things considered, I think the most surprising thing is that the MPAA ratings system has worked as well as it HAS over the past 45 years. The BIGGEST complaint most people have is that the ratings are virtually meaningless which makes it pretty much identical to the system YOU seem to advocate (none at all).

[3shiftgtr]

THAT's why the ratings are useless nowadays.

 

 

I'm not advocating for a rating system, or against one, I'm just curious to find out what you think would happen without one.

 

Are you against the current rating system, or against any and all rating systems?

[kmart]

The BIGGEST complaint most people have is that the ratings are virtually meaningless which makes it pretty much identical to the system YOU seem to advocate (none at all).

 

Where did I advocate no system again?

Where did I IMPLY advocating for no system again?

 

I said I'd prefer no system to the current one, because the current one does more harm than good, IMO.

That does not equate to advocating for no system.

 

And again, for emphasis, that does not equate to advocating for no system.

[kmart]

 

Are you against the current rating system, or against any and all rating systems?

 

Against the current one.

 

Not necessarily against any/all, but absolutely depends on a case-by-case basis.

IMO, unless/until the ratings are truly objective, the system doesn't work.

 

The MPAA and the parent's advisory stickers on music ARE NOT ratings; they're REVIEWS.

There is a difference.

[wwwjd]

Ratings exist because people want them to exist. If not, it wouldn't. Like prohibition. It's needed to help people protect themselves and their kids.

I rarely see R rated movies anymore because they seem to focus more on over the top violence, gore and swearing than plot. And I actually prefer a good plot. So ratings help me in that way.

Just because music took longer to get all dirtified, doesn't mean it shouldn't follow suit with some kind of rating.

I agree with whomever said they didn't want their children to learn sex online where women are objects and abused.

 

... but now our music is doing that lyrically.

And famous idols dress like whores. Again, I'm not a prude at all - just want clarity of vision about presentation verses talent.

That and I would like to get hugely famous but not if I have to strip to do it.

[kmart]

Again, I'm not a prude at all - just want clarity of vision about presentation verses talent. .

 

Debatable at best, but honestly, I'm leaning towards it looking like a duck and quacking like a duck: in your original post, you basically said that an artist like Pink or Cee-Lo has shown they are talentless because of the usage of the f-bomb in a song.

 

Sorry, but to me that's a preposterous exaggeration and blanket-statement and IMO (stress ME and MY opinion) anybody who truly believes that is a prude/close-minded/naive and a whole host of other things I personally don't want to be.

 

Bottom line is you are coming at this from a perspective that I can scarcely fathom a rational adult having.

That doesn't make you wrong, of course but perhaps my post here will cause you to step aside from your personal beliefs on the overall matter of what's objectionable, etc. and see that they are just that: PERSONAL (i.e., not really objective).

 

 

Maybe not.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, then most are morons, or at best, don't really have any understanding at all about how flawed & corrupt of a job the MPAA is actually doing...and I guess most prefer being lazy and having someone else figure things out for them as well. Their loss.

 

 

What's your interest in "corruption" at the MPAA? Do you really give a fig whether some producers get a "better" rating than others? Why?

 

As far as it being "flawed"? To what degree? What system would be better? Like I said, we've all seen movies that leave us shaking our head as to why it got a certain rating, but are you telling me you wouldn't be able to guess the rating that was given to the vast majority of movies you've seen if you didn't know the rating ahead of time? Really?

 

 

 

Ok then, see my previous posts (I'll expand: A scoring system of sorts: -define what constitutes an offense (and be specific: nipple only, on-screen for 1.5 seconds, in a non-sexual situation (actress getting out of bathrobe) = .5 point; girl flashing her chest and flicking her tongue to a group of horny guys for 2 seconds = 2 points; girl straddling a guy in bed grabbing both breasts in a slo-mo wide shot for 5 seconds = 5 points, etc.) -Add up the points and the total dictates what the rating is -go Done. Thank you very much.

 

 

Problem is there is zero context in such a system. You're putting all the weight on a flash of boob or a word.

 

Americans are prudish enough as it is, IMO. If we start taking a "all boobs are created equal" approach to rating movies, it would be an even WORSE system than we have now, IMO.

 

 

Where did I advocate no system again? Where did I IMPLY advocating for no system again?

The posts where you decry the system, declare it should be gotten rid of, and offer no alternative.

 

 

I said I'd prefer no system to the current one , because the current one does more harm than good, IMO.

 

 

Really? What "harm" is created by the current system?

[kmart]

Really? What "harm" is created by the current system?

 

Actual bona fide censorship, for starters.

Again, I've given the supporting resources where I derive my opinions of the MPAA from; I'm not going to debate them being accurate or not or keep repeating why my beliefs about it are valid. If you have evidence to refute my stance about the MPAA (i.e., show that the MPAA is actually not corrupt, flawed to the core, bases their ratings on anything remotely resembling an actual system, etc.,) I am all ears, seriously.

[Vito Corleone]

It's based on opinion alone. INDIVIDUAL opinions, and the opinions used to rate one film are NOT the same (or necessarily similar) as the opinions to rate the next one. As was said: it's ABSOLUTELY arbitrary.

 

 

 

Again, so what? I notice that the ONE question/comment of mine you didn't address in my last post was the one where I asked if you wouldn't be able to guess what rating a movie was given the vast majority of the time. I know I could. Couldn't you? And if that's the case, then it either isn't quite as arbitrary as you insist it is, or "ABSOLUTELY arbitrary" is virtually meaningless when it comes to rating movies. It's only designed to provide basic guidelines, of which is does a reasonable job for the needs of the vast majority of the American public.

 

 

 

ANY system not based on the opinions of an individual/few.

 

 

If we instead instituted a system like you suggested, there would be just as many complaints about that---"WHO gets to decide how many nipple shots deserves an "R" rating?" "Why 5 and not 4?" "THIS movie only had 1 nipple shot so it got a PG-13 but that single nipple shot lasted longer than the 5 nipple shots COMBINED in THAT movie that got an "R"!!". You wouldn't solve or improve anything. At most, you'd just shift the debate somewhat.

 

Personally I think you're assuming there is way more context applied under the current ratings system. There is not; it's an INDIVIDUAL'S opinion, period.

 

 

And individual opinions can't involve context?

 

 

 

(i.e., show that the MPAA is actually not corrupt, flawed to the core, bases their ratings on anything remotely resembling an actual system, etc.,) I am all ears, seriously.

 

 

I don't think I've challenged any of those statements you made. In fact, I've agreed that the system IS corrupt and IS flawed. I've simply stated that I don't see any evidence that this corruption or these flaws result in any REAL harm. And you've yet to show any evidence of such.

 

The point of the system is to give parents a guidelines as to which movies are acceptible for their kids to see. Is the system perfect in that regard? No. Far from it. I've acknowledged that from the beginning. But it A) provides a basic guideline that most everyone has come to understand and find useable over the last 40 years, B) has prevented the government from stepping in and taking control of the system, which I think most everyone agrees WOULD be censorship, C) I've yet to see any system proposed that would garner better overall results (certainly the one you proposed did not, IMO) and D) hasn't resulted in any measurable harm---especially to either kids or their parents.

[daddymack]