Can you be HUGELY successful and NOT a wh0r3?

[kmart]

 

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.

 

 

Incorrect: re-read my proposal.

Setting VERY SPECIFIC infractions or 'offenses' on a points system as I described that applied across all films equally would inject consistency into the ratings, something that is sorely lacking from the current system: your nipple example is EXACTLY what happens now because there are no firm guidelines to attempt at any sort of consistency with how films are rated:

 

One MPAA rater feels a 5-second boob shot as a woman gets out of the shower is gratuitous and slaps an R rating on the film. Another reviewer feels that 10 boob shots seen when the horn-dog protagonist and his comic sidekick buddy sneak into the girls' locker room, lasting one second each aren't, and gives the film a PG-13.

Which one is 'worse'?

Or are they somehow equivalent?

 

My suggestion takes ALL interpretation out of the equation and puts the rating purely in terms of what's shown on film. As I said, it would take forever to come up with the actual guidelines, but then there it is in black and white and EVERYBODY knows what the infractions are: they can now be applied equally to any/all films.

 

 

BTW, individual opinions CAN involve context, however, MPAA raters don't seek context for the movies they rate. AT ALL: There is no process by which the studio is allowed to pitch the concept and rationale behind the film or where the rater asks the studio why it's important to show nudity at this point, or why the protagonist shoots the bum in the park 6 times instead of 5, etc. The raters decide what they want to decide based solely on their personal preferences and make their decisions completely arbitrarily; in a vacuum from any and all context actually attached to the movie.

Your movie gets assigned to an MPAA rater who's a closet misogynist? That scene where the hero backhands his secretary will likely slide by. BUT, that same rater is a homophobe too, so your sub-plot about the brother with AIDS means you get a worse rating than you would have if his coworker got it.

 

The ratings are luck (or misfortune) of the draw.

 

It's a total sham. Sorry you don't see it that way.

Seriously; sorry.

[Vito Corleone]

One MPAA rater feels a 5-second boob shot as a woman gets out of the shower is gratuitous and slaps an R rating on the film. Another reviewer feels that 10 boob shots seen when the horn-dog protagonist and his comic sidekick buddy sneak into the girls' locker room, lasting one second each aren't, and gives the film a PG-13. Which one is 'worse'? Or are they somehow equivalent?

 

 

Who cares? Why? That's my point here. So WHAT if exactly where the line is drawn when it comes to nipple shots is arbitrary? How is anyone harmed by these inconsistancies? I find them humorous. I shrug my shoulders. But I'm in no way harmed by them.

 

It's a total sham. Sorry you don't see it that way. Seriously; sorry.

 

I don't think I ever said it wasn't a "sham". I've just said I don't see how anyone is harmed by it. But most Americans DO find value and guidance in the ratings. Even IF they know they either miss the mark or aren't going to agree with every rating handed out.

 

I don't think most people EXPECT them to be perfect. Most people are perfectly capable of navigating through the inconsistancies.

 

If you and I and 8 other movie buffs watched the same 100 movies we'd no doubt nail the MPAA ratings on well over 90% of them. We know an "R" movie when we see one the vast majority of the time as well as a "PG13" movie. That there's a grey area where these ratings overlap is not only a fact but something that is almost certainly unavoidable in any situation.

 

And the fact that there is corruption involved in which movies fall on which side of this gray area? Oh well. Here's a news flash for you: any endeavor that involves great sums of money is going to have a degree of corruption. That's life. I suppose the corruption at the MPAA might suck if you're a filmmaker that ends up on the wrong end of the deal, but seriously...that's their problem, not mine. Is my kid going to be harmed if she sees a couple of extra nipple shots in that PG13 teen comedy I thought would only have one or two? Or a bit more blood than I thought would normally show up in a PG13 action film? You and I both know that isn't going to happen. Are ticket prices affected by this corruption? Is the artistic integrity of these films hampered in any meaningful way that is going to diminish my enjoyment of the films?

 

No, no and no.

 

So explain to me again why I should give a {censored} even if it IS a sham?

[3shiftgtr]

Who cares? Why? That's my point here. So explain to me again why I should give a {censored} even if it IS a sham?

Well, if I may step in here, it is a matter of the effects of the current rating system on the DELIVERY of a piece of art. Filmmakers will change content to achieving a certain rating, rather than focusing on the effectiveness of the art. It borders on censorship.

This is the same argument made by the musicians against the PMRC, btw.

And as a fellow creative, you should give some kind of a {censored} why....irregardless of what side you come down on.

Aww, hell. Since you don't make films, I reckon you don't HAVE to give a {censored}!

But your opinion focuses on the effect of YOU going into the movie theater. The ratings don't matter to you cuz you have never known a world without a rating system. You accept it as is and are fine with it cuz you don't feel its effects directly. But the folks who make the films do, and they have to deal with the ramifications and effects of erroneous ratings.

And that is why THEY give a {censored}.

But you don't have to. Seen any good movies lately?

[Scafeets]

OK...I'll step into the muck.....

MPAA ratings (and the "Explicit Advisory" stickers no one sees on CDs anymore because of downloads) is not censorship -- it's filtration.

Censorship means the Big Bad Gummint doesn't allow you to release the film, recording or written piece. In this country (and most others) artists are free to produce whatever they want. However, if you want to show bloody mayhem, Coital Action, throw a few F-bombs around, etc. then it's nice to know they're coming.

The reason for the MPAA is to help parents screen movies before deciding if it's appropriate for their kids. I don't know about you, but I shielded my son from excessive violence when he was a little guy. I didn't care about nudity and coarse language, but I did wait until he was a little older before he could see the real gory blood n' guts crap. And I didn't think I abridged his constitutional rights by restricting his ability to watch porn. That's my right (some would say obligation) as a parent.

Filmakers are not required to submit to this screening. They do it because they're inthe BUSINESS of making films. Likewise, CeLo is no fool: There are different versions of his "{censored} You" song because he knows it's not appropriate for 5-year-olds to go around singing the original.

_________________

www.faqme.com/len

[richardmac]

Why are we talking about this again? Are we THAT bored? I'm not. Just put my second Strat together. I can see how people really get into modifying Strats. It's a blast.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, if I may step in here, it is a matter of the effects of the current rating system on the DELIVERY of a piece of art. Filmmakers will change content to achieving a certain rating, rather than focusing on the effectiveness of the art. It borders on censorship.

Yeah, I remember watching one of the bonus features on the "Joe Dirt" DVD and David Spade was complaining that HE had to cut a few things out in order to get a PG13 rating that were common in many other PG13 films. I guess Spade didn't have the necessary clout . But unless someone can convince me that "Joe Dirt" was somehow a lesser film by not having those things in it, I'm really going to have a hard time finding a way to give a {censored}.

This is the same argument made by the musicians against the PMRC, btw.

The point is, nobody HAS to cut out anything. UNLESS they value getting a particular rating over the content of their work, and then that's THEIR choice to make. You don't want to make any cuts to your film? Fine. Accept the "R" rating and be happy with it.

But your opinion focuses on the effect of YOU going into the movie theater.

Only because noone has yet explained to me how these OTHER effects result in films of lesser quality. In fact, more often than not, I find the "unrated" versions of a movie to be worse than the cut version.

But the folks who make the films do, and they have to deal with the ramifications and effects of erroneous ratings.

Then that's their issue. The entire issue is "intra-industry". There's no law requiring films to be presented to the MPAA for ratings, there's no law requiring the MPAA to exist, and the MPAA has no legal authority over anything. No theater owner gets fined for letting kids in to see R rated movies without being accomponied by an adult. I know some indy filmmakers feel they have tougher standards than the big studios and I don't doubt that happens, but I don't see how getting the public involved benefits them. Are we all supposed to start clammoring that more R rated indy films should really be rated PG13?

Again, what really are the effects of "erroneous ratings"? A few big-studio actions films are made less-violent so they come in PG13? Some indy films that probably aren't of any interest to kids anyway get a "R" rating that they maybe don't really deserves? The whole system should be scrapped because of that?

The reason I got into this discussion was I thought Kmart's comments that because of the problems with the MPAA rating system that "the best thing that could happen would be if the whole system were to go away" were overblown. I've yet to see any argument to convince me otherwise.

And again--to the main point---the entire point of the rating system is to serve as a basic guideline for parents. Even WITH the "corruption" and erroneous ratings, it serves that purpose fairly well.

Seen any good movies lately?

I have a 3 year old daughter. I rarely see ANY movies anymore, unfortunately and I'm way behind on a very long list of movies I'd like to see. The last really good movie I saw was we watched "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" a couple of weeks ago. Really good movie. I have no idea if it was rated R or PG13, but I can remember seeing a couple of R-rated Woody Allen movies in the past that left me scratching my head as to why they got an R rating. Apparently Woody doesn't have any friends at the MPAA? That wouldn't surprise me.

But what is the effect of Woody's movies getting R ratings when the same movie coming through a big studio might have gotten a PG13? He has to change a couple of swear words to get a PG13? Fewer kids are able to go see his movie on a Saturday afternoon if it's rated R?

Again, I'm just trying to see the REAL harm here. I'm guessing Woody doesn't really give a {censored} whether his movies get a PG13 or a R, but I could be wrong.

[Vito Corleone]

OK...I'll step into the muck..... MPAA ratings (and the "Explicit Advisory" stickers no one sees on CDs anymore because of downloads) is not censorship -- it's filtration. Censorship means the Big Bad Gummint doesn't allow you to release the film, recording or written piece. In this country (and most others) artists are free to produce whatever they want. However, if you want to show bloody mayhem, Coital Action, throw a few F-bombs around, etc. then it's nice to know they're coming. The reason for the MPAA is to help parents screen movies before deciding if it's appropriate for their kids. I don't know about you, but I shielded my son from excessive violence when he was a little guy. I didn't care about nudity and coarse language, but I did wait until he was a little older before he could see the real gory blood n' guts crap. And I didn't think I abridged his constitutional rights by restricting his ability to watch porn. That's my right (some would say obligation) as a parent. Filmakers are not required to submit to this screening. They do it because they're inthe BUSINESS of making films. Likewise, CeLo is no fool: There are different versions of his "{censored} You" song because he knows it's not appropriate for 5-year-olds to go around singing the original.

 

 

Yep.

 

And here's the irony to the entire topic:

 

BEFORE the introduction of the PMRC sticker, musical content was relatively benign because the labels had more of an interest in policing it themselves. There was just certain stuff THEY were NOT going to release ("censorship", if you will.) AFTER the introduction of the sticker, they started putting out EVERYTHING, regardless of how profane it was, because now they were off the hook. They could hide behind the sticker (which most people don't pay attention to anyway). So, to that degree, the goals of the PMRC probably backfired.

[wwwjd]

 

Debatable at best, but honestly, I'm leaning towards it looking like a duck and quacking like a duck:

 

 

So, you are nothing but a troll? And you wasted all this time here? wow.

I don't have to tell you anything about my personal life, sexual activities, interests etc for the original point to stand on its own having nothing to do with my personal sexual activities, the likes of which you know absolutely nothing about. Good bye.

[3shiftgtr]

The point is, nobody HAS to cut out anything. The entire issue is "intra-industry". Again, what really are the effects of "erroneous ratings"? Again, I'm just trying to see the REAL harm here.

O.k., let's put it in music industry terms. While I know you are not a songwriter, imagine if you were trying to write an album, and you knew if you used a certain note, you'd loose 1/3rd of your audience. Not because of the art, but because of a label. That one note, would make somone slap a label on it that would effect your sales by 1/3....it would limit access to your art.

That comes from the point of view of the artist. You may go "Still, who gives a damn. No harm done. One note doesn't matter." Well, TO YOU it doesn't. TO YOU. But it ain't your money making the film, it ain't your time, it ain't you vision, it ain't your crew, it ain't your ANYTHING....cept your coulpa bux and some popcorn. So why SHOULD you care? Your opinion regarding the board's effect on quality came from the "Joe Dirt" special features.

No offense here guido, but have you ever scored a film? Have you ever written and pitched a screenplay? Have you ever been in or worked on a film? If the answer is no, then your opinion comes from being an audience member. And ONLY that. While your keen powers of reasoning and perception give your argument some weight and truth, you have never had to change anything about your movie as a result. You have never felt the board's presence while writing, pitching, or making a film. Joe Dirt dvd special features and 'director's cuts' not withstanding.

While what they do is not censorship, it has some similar effects. Just enough to make it matter to the artist.

And with that in mind, let me say that THAT is the reason that it will stay. And why it mostly works. But when the board ruins something, boy they really screw it up. And a LOT of folks have lost a LOT of money as a result.

Granted, a lot of money to me right now is $500!

[Vito Corleone]

O.k., let's put it in music industry terms. While I know you are not a songwriter, imagine if you were trying to write an album, and you knew if you used a certain note, you'd loose 1/3rd of your audience. Not because of the art, but because of a label. That one note, would make somone slap a label on it that would effect your sales by 1/3....it would limit access to your art.

 

 

I understand the argument.

 

What I'm saying is I don't see the real negative results of this supposed censorship. I understand the concept in the ABSTRACT, of course. But other than somebody telling me to go watch a documentary on the subject, I've yet to presented with anything CLOSE to real world example of this and how a work of art was harmed as a result.

 

I'm sure there has to be an example out of the thousands upon thousands of movies that have been subjected to the ratings process over the years, but I would venture the number of movies whose artistic or commercial potential was ACTUALLY negatively affected by this would have to be quite small.

 

I can't imagine that there are very many SERIOUS filmmakers who care that their serious film gets an R instead of a PG13. I really don't think a Terrence Malick or a PT Anderson cares about what rating they get much, do you? And the cuts needed to be made to "Transformers 3" so that it is acceptible for the mass market target audience only available to PG13 films? (Or stuff ADDED to PG movies so that it becomes PG13, which happens as well...) Do those cuts/additions REALLY hurt the integrity of such a film? Really?

[Vito Corleone]

Furthermore, I'm not arguing that these problems DON'T exist. I fully acknowledge that they do. What I'm arguing is that I don't see how they exist to such a degree that throwing out the entire system would garner a better overall result for the industry or the public.

And while replacing it with another system is always a viable suggestion, I don't really see how that would change things much for the better as ultimately we're talking about subjective art. We might stop being upset with what the MPAA does now, but I'm virtually 100% certain we'd just be arguing about something else.

I suppose Kmart's strict count-the-boobies proposal would help in giving filmmakers a better idea of what restrictions they face going into the process, but how does that result in any LESS censorship of artistic content? It just draws the line in another place. Until, of course, the day it is decided that it's now ok to add an extra boobie to the PG13 criteria.

[kmart]

 

So, you are nothing but a troll? And you wasted all this time here? wow. I don't have to tell you anything about my personal life, sexual activities, interests etc for the original point to stand on its own having nothing to do with my personal sexual activities, the likes of which you know absolutely nothing about. Good bye.

 

 

Wow, name calling because you don't like that you've come off to me as close-minded and prudish.

How shocking.

 

Not that you'd care, but I just ran into Cee-lo (without talent according to you) at Lollapalooza.

 

He had a message for you...

[Scafeets]

 

Why are we talking about this again? Are we THAT bored? I'm not. Just put my second Strat together. I can see how people really get into modifying Strats. It's a blast.

 

 

There are a hundred threads for that, too. Just not in the Music Biz channel.

[daddymack]

well, the MPAA ratings are not exactly MBiz fodder, strictly speaking, but it's been a while since we had a good debate about nothing in particular...

[BlueStrat]

Less filling! Tastes great! etc etc etc....

 

[daddymack]

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

rabbit season!

duck season!

[Scafeets]

Less filling! Tastes great! etc etc etc....

"I feel very strongly both ways!"

[wwwjd]

twas a great discussion, until you decided it wasn't

[BlueStrat]

twas a great discussion, until you decided it wasn't

 

If by "great discussion" you mean "semantic pissing match", I agree!

[3shiftgtr]

If by "great discussion" you mean "semantic pissing match", I agree!

semantic pissing match = internetz fun!

[wwwjd]

well, it DID start well and good..... BRILLIANT initial topic by a smart and observant person decent followup points and side discussions....

[daddymack]

road to hell is paved with good intentions...

[mpegsucks]

You're not a whore if your first REAL intention was to sell and entertain to the masses. There's nothing wrong in earning money in the field you have been trained in. There's a fine line between absolute musical purity and entertainment. Sometimes they overlap.

[wwwjd]

did ya even READ this thread?? Did ya SEE the pictures I posted? The topic is meant LITERALLY, not figuratively

[kmart]

 

did ya even READ this thread?? Did ya SEE the pictures I posted? The topic is meant LITERALLY, not figuratively

 

 

Literally literally?

 

Can you direct me to actual facts/information about any of those acts actually hooking, please?

Because that's what LITERALLY means in this case.

 

Unless you can do so...continued hyperbole.