StriperAddict
Senior Member
FYI, a "Parent beware" thread....
=====================
Dumbing down the ratings Michael Boyer - Guest Columnist - 10/27/2008
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://s9.addthis.com/js/widget.php?v=10" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<STORYLEAD>
Liz Swanson of Atlanta was happy to be among the first in her neighborhood to get tickets to The Dark Knight for herself and her 13-year-old son. The PG-13 rating didn't concern her because, "This was Batman; how harmful could that be?" It didn't take her long to bolt from the theater in disgust with her son in tow.</STORYLEAD>
<STORYBODY>The same was true for Ann Folger of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who "found herself squirming during several scenes," according to Scott Bowles of USA Today. As Folger complained, "It should have been rated R." Bowles noted that "some parents were shocked and taken aback by several scenes, including a man being impaled with a pencil and a videotaped torture."
Swanson said, "I will never again trust the movie ratings," referring to the age-based system of ratings applied by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). She was equally shocked in 2005 when she took her son to the fourth installment of the Harry Potter series, Goblet of Fire, also rated PG -13. "My son read the book at age nine but they made a movie that should have been rated R."
How could this happen, you ask? According to former casting director Shirley Crumley, the answer is easy -- money. "These producers do not have the best interests of your children in mind. They want to make dark, edgy films that can truly disturb adults, not just children. But without the attendance of children and adolescents the movies will bomb, or at least reduce their profitability. That's why the R rating must be avoided at all cost for movies with young teens and children as a target audience."
And what are the costs involved in getting a "dumbed-down" rating for a movie clearly containing "adult" content? There are three main methods filmmakers have used for over 20 years to get a "passing grade" for the lucrative rating:
Ploy number one is the most popular ruse used by filmmakers to receive favorable ratings. Instead of submitting a film to the Ratings Board as producers would like to see the movie exhibited, the filmmakers submit a "loaded" print with extra helpings of all the offensive material guaranteed to warrant an NC-17 or R rating.
When the Ratings Board slaps the film with one of the two "highly restrictive" ratings, the producer spits and curses, declaring the unfairness of this "censorship" process and infringement of their rights under the Constitution of the United States of America!
Then, calmly, the producer returns a few days later to the board with the print of the film that was "intended" for submission in the first place. After some token wailing and gnashing of teeth, the board members "of good parental judgment" will give the film a reluctant PG-13.
The second ploy for preferential ratings, lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, was perfected by Harvey Weinstein, the former head of Miramax. The production company was often dubbed "Disney's X-rated subsidiary." In 1990, Weinstein sued the MPAA and its president Jack Valenti for giving an X-rating to his cannibal-sex film The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover. Weinstein felt it was his duty to destroy the X-rating forever because the audience was given the wrong impression that the X stood for "depravity" instead of the "art" he was producing.
The MPAA caved and thus was born the "friendly-sounding" NC-17 (No children under 17) to replace the X-rating. Adding injury to insult, Weinstein returned in 1994 to sue the MPAA again because of the NC-17 rating that was given to his grotesque profanity-laden film Clerks. Again, the Ratings Board caved to avoid the cost of the suit and gave the film an R. (Some DVDs of the film have been dumbed down with a PG-13.)
Finally, personality persuasion and simple lying about "socially responsible content" are often used by gore-fest producers to get the desired rating. Blood-and-guts filmmaker Rob Zombie is a director who openly admits to lying in order to get the rating he wants.
Zombie's friend, director Darren Lynn Bousman, was shocked that his movie Saw III was going to be labeled with an NC-17 by the Ratings Board due to the "tonality" of the film being too dark. "It's a horror movie!" Bousman screamed in frustration. As columnist Rebecca Winter Keegan of TIME magazine described the event, Rob Zombie told Bousman to calmly return to the board and "Explain why the extreme violence is necessary to tell the story in a way that's more socially responsible."
As Keegan added, "Zombie admits that he actually doesn't care what's socially responsible. He just wanted to help out a kindred spirit, another guy who understands the unique beauty of a properly lighted visceral shot." The advice was well-taken by Bousman. The most horrific movie in recent film history received an R rating by the Rating Board at the MPAA, the group of parents "of good parental judgment."
More shocking to many is the rating of PG applied to such movies as Sherwood Picture's Facing the Giants and Fireproof. The description under the rating explains "For thematic elements" -- MPAA code for "Christian content."
More and more, parents are ignoring the MPAA ratings and turning to more responsible grassroots organizations with detailed descriptions about the true content of films. Sites such as AFA.net, MovieGuide, PluggedInOnline, Al Menconi Ministries, and the Parents Television Council offer a broad spectrum of entertainment content for movies, television, video games, and even music.
Besides, do you really want to see a movie by someone named Rob Zombie?
=====================
Dumbing down the ratings Michael Boyer - Guest Columnist - 10/27/2008
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://s9.addthis.com/js/widget.php?v=10" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<STORYLEAD>
<STORYBODY>The same was true for Ann Folger of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who "found herself squirming during several scenes," according to Scott Bowles of USA Today. As Folger complained, "It should have been rated R." Bowles noted that "some parents were shocked and taken aback by several scenes, including a man being impaled with a pencil and a videotaped torture."
Swanson said, "I will never again trust the movie ratings," referring to the age-based system of ratings applied by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). She was equally shocked in 2005 when she took her son to the fourth installment of the Harry Potter series, Goblet of Fire, also rated PG -13. "My son read the book at age nine but they made a movie that should have been rated R."
How could this happen, you ask? According to former casting director Shirley Crumley, the answer is easy -- money. "These producers do not have the best interests of your children in mind. They want to make dark, edgy films that can truly disturb adults, not just children. But without the attendance of children and adolescents the movies will bomb, or at least reduce their profitability. That's why the R rating must be avoided at all cost for movies with young teens and children as a target audience."
And what are the costs involved in getting a "dumbed-down" rating for a movie clearly containing "adult" content? There are three main methods filmmakers have used for over 20 years to get a "passing grade" for the lucrative rating:
- Submit a "loaded" print to the Ratings Board and, when rejected, resubmit a "milder" print for the target rating.
- Threaten to sue the Ratings Board at the MPAA for unfair application and arbitrary rating standards.
- Simply lie to the Ratings Board about the "profound meaning" of using content that would have been considered depraved only 20 years earlier.
Ploy number one is the most popular ruse used by filmmakers to receive favorable ratings. Instead of submitting a film to the Ratings Board as producers would like to see the movie exhibited, the filmmakers submit a "loaded" print with extra helpings of all the offensive material guaranteed to warrant an NC-17 or R rating.
When the Ratings Board slaps the film with one of the two "highly restrictive" ratings, the producer spits and curses, declaring the unfairness of this "censorship" process and infringement of their rights under the Constitution of the United States of America!
Then, calmly, the producer returns a few days later to the board with the print of the film that was "intended" for submission in the first place. After some token wailing and gnashing of teeth, the board members "of good parental judgment" will give the film a reluctant PG-13.
The MPAA caved and thus was born the "friendly-sounding" NC-17 (No children under 17) to replace the X-rating. Adding injury to insult, Weinstein returned in 1994 to sue the MPAA again because of the NC-17 rating that was given to his grotesque profanity-laden film Clerks. Again, the Ratings Board caved to avoid the cost of the suit and gave the film an R. (Some DVDs of the film have been dumbed down with a PG-13.)
Finally, personality persuasion and simple lying about "socially responsible content" are often used by gore-fest producers to get the desired rating. Blood-and-guts filmmaker Rob Zombie is a director who openly admits to lying in order to get the rating he wants.
Zombie's friend, director Darren Lynn Bousman, was shocked that his movie Saw III was going to be labeled with an NC-17 by the Ratings Board due to the "tonality" of the film being too dark. "It's a horror movie!" Bousman screamed in frustration. As columnist Rebecca Winter Keegan of TIME magazine described the event, Rob Zombie told Bousman to calmly return to the board and "Explain why the extreme violence is necessary to tell the story in a way that's more socially responsible."
As Keegan added, "Zombie admits that he actually doesn't care what's socially responsible. He just wanted to help out a kindred spirit, another guy who understands the unique beauty of a properly lighted visceral shot." The advice was well-taken by Bousman. The most horrific movie in recent film history received an R rating by the Rating Board at the MPAA, the group of parents "of good parental judgment."
More shocking to many is the rating of PG applied to such movies as Sherwood Picture's Facing the Giants and Fireproof. The description under the rating explains "For thematic elements" -- MPAA code for "Christian content."
More and more, parents are ignoring the MPAA ratings and turning to more responsible grassroots organizations with detailed descriptions about the true content of films. Sites such as AFA.net, MovieGuide, PluggedInOnline, Al Menconi Ministries, and the Parents Television Council offer a broad spectrum of entertainment content for movies, television, video games, and even music.
Besides, do you really want to see a movie by someone named Rob Zombie?
