In what ways could the MPAA rating system be changed?

[Alpha]

So this recent New Penn study shows that the violence in recent PG-13 rated films is nearly equal to that of R rated films.http://www.philly.com/entertainment/?wss=/philly/entertainment&id=235002101I think the MPAA rating system needs to be updated to condition to today's society. What do you guys think could be done in order to solve this issue?

[4815162342]

Changing it to be more like the UK system could work (12, 12A, 15, 18) and to weigh language much less than currently and weigh violence a bit more.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 4815162342

[Lordmandeep]

Yeah King Speech's R rating shows the flawed system 

[lab276]

Changing it to be more like the UK system could work (12, 12A, 15, 18) and to weigh language much less than currently and weigh violence a bit more.

But that's kind of already like PG13, R and NC17.

[Jack Nevada]

But that's kind of already like PG13, R and NC17.

NC-17 should be put in more use, then.

[SchumacherFTW]

But that's kind of already like PG13, R and NC17.

Not really. 12A is the equivalent of PG-13, but 15 and 18 are completely restrictive. They also allow for a much wider range of potential outcomes. It means that a film like The Matrix wouldn't be held to the same standards as Saw which were 15 and 18 respectively.

 

15 allows you to use the F word without end, show copious amounts of boobage, as well as cock, and get a reasonable level of gore (Final Destination and 300 came under 15). To get an 18 here you need hardcore drug use, more than 2 uses of the C word, huge amounts of gore and pretty graphic sex scenes.

 

Distributors here seem pretty happy with it as it means they can get to a younger audience than the US, as The Hangover and Ted managed here, whilst not seeming irresponsible thanks to the restrictive nature of the certificates.

[4815162342]

But that's kind of already like PG13, R and NC17.

Nah, 15/18 would allow for distinguishing between normal R-rated films and "hard" R-rated films. It would also have some "hard PG-13" films bumped up to 15 for excessive violence. And it would have soft R films like The King's Speech downgraded to 12A.Something like American Hustle would be a 15, Wolf of Wall Street would probably be an 18.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 4815162342

[The Stingray]

2 "fucks" for the PG-13, is what I would propose.

[SchumacherFTW]

Nah, 15/18 would allow for distinguishing between normal R-rated films and "hard" R-rated films. It would also have some "hard PG-13" films bumped up to 15 for excessive violence. And it would have soft R films like The King's Speech downgraded to 12A.Something like American Hustle would be a 15, Wolf of Wall Street would probably be an 18.

That's exactly the case. And PG-13 films such as Cloverfield, I Am Legend and most recently World War Z got 15 ratings here.

 

edit: Also, I love your avatar, Vakarian is a legend!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Schumacher FTW

[Alpha]

I was thinking of this new idea for a rating system in the US. I think the gap between PG-13 level content and R level content is too big, and leaves parents confused. I think this idea builds a better foundation.F: Film designed specifically for families with younger children (approx. ages 2-7).G: All ages admitted.PG: Parental guidance suggested.M: Recommended for mature audiences. Specifically for teenagers.MA-12: Under 12 must be accompanied by an adult. Marketed towards teenagers, however it features more intense content than M films.MA-15: Under 15 must be accompanied by an adult.R: No one under 18 admitted.X: No one under 18 admitted. Special group for pornography.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Nut how do you know who is a 12 year old and who isn't?

[Alpha]

Nut how do you know who is a 12 year old and who isn't?

Obviously there would need to be an identification system the same way there is today for R and NC-17 films.I don't know how they do it in the UK, but I'm pretty sure the 12A rating has been working for years, and every one is pretty satisfied with it. We need that kind of regulation in the US.

[SchumacherFTW]

Obviously there would need to be an identification system the same way there is today for R and NC-17 films.I don't know how they do it in the UK, but I'm pretty sure the 12A rating has been working for years, and every one is pretty satisfied with it. We need that kind of regulation in the US.

Generally 12A is only moderately policed. Usually only if they look younger than 10 or 11 they stop them, but they don't stop with families (I had a crying baby at an Avengers screening). They ask for passport for a 15 usually as it's the only photo Id you would have at that point.

[Killimano3]

The MPAA system cares way too much about language. I mean why does the use of the f word automatically make it rated R... People hear swearing on a regular basis at school since like elementary. Sure it's not a good idea to purposely expose kids to that sort of thing but the fact that they even try to keep teens from seeing that sort of thing is kinda stupid. Especially considering the amount of blood and violence that gets by with a PG-13 rating. I agree with the idea of have a sort of PG-15 rating to better distinguish things

[mahnamahna]

For one, they could stop rating kids movies with no cuss words or intense violence PG. Frozen, Tangled, The Muppets, The Game Plan, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Parental Guidance, first 2 Alvins, Yogi Bear, Planes, Brave, both Despicable Mes, The Lorax, Dolphin Tale, Hotel for Dogs, Bolt, Nim's Island, The Water Horse: Legends of the Deep, The Last Mimzy, Over the Hedge, Flushed Away, Barnyard, The Shaggy Dog, and Nanny McPhee 1 & 2 are just numerous examples from the last 7 years of G rated films with apparently "mild rude humor" or "thematic elements"

 

Sadness makes you PG these days and anything resembling gets you a PG (Wizard of Oz re-release is PG for scary action) 

 

Soccer moms now think smoking and cuss words don't belong in PG films when 25 years ago, Big had an F-bomb in it. Rango, Life of Pi and We Bought a Zoo fit the genuine "Parental Guidance" moniker well. 

 

Worse yet... they thought Cars 2 and Toy Story 3 should be PG because their little dear couldn't handle sometning that might make them GASP... sad 

Edited December 19, 2013 by mahnamahna

[Alpha]

For one, they could stop rating kids movies with no cuss words or intense violence PG. Frozen, Tangled, The Muppets, The Game Plan, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Parental Guidance, first 2 Alvins, Yogi Bear, Planes, Brave, both Despicable Mes, The Lorax, Dolphin Tale, Hotel for Dogs, Bolt, Nim's Island, The Water Horse: Legends of the Deep, The Last Mimzy, Over the Hedge, Flushed Away, Barnyard, The Shaggy Dog, and Nanny McPhee 1 & 2 are just numerous examples from the last 7 years of G rated films with apparently "mild rude humor" or "thematic elements"

 

Sadness makes you PG these days and anything resembling gets you a PG (Wizard of Oz re-release is PG for scary action) 

 

Soccer moms now think smoking and cuss words don't belong in PG films when 25 years ago, Big had an F-bomb in it. Rango, Life of Pi and We Bought a Zoo fit the genuine "Parental Guidance" moniker well. 

 

Worse yet... they thought Cars 2 and Toy Story 3 should be PG because their little dear couldn't handle sometning that might make them GASP... sad 

 

If anything, kids movies getting rated PG isn't a big problem. Parents still take their young children to G and PG films regardless of whether it's G or PG, because it's just the same content with small baby steps between each.

[luna]

the only category that should be considered at all for restriction is violence - the thing that is actually intrinsically harmful, unlike anything else. i don't want regulation conditioned to 'the society of today', because our society is still pointlessly scared of things that have no basis in reality at all. and the way the MPAA enforces them - through a voluntary union, not some mandatory bullshit like the UK or elsewhere - is perfectly fine.

[AniNate]

the only category that should be considered at all for restriction is violence - the thing that is actually intrinsically harmful, unlike anything else. i don't want regulation conditioned to 'the society of today', because our society is still pointlessly scared of things that have no basis in reality at all. and the way the MPAA enforces them - through a voluntary union, not some mandatory bullshit like the UK or elsewhere - is perfectly fine.

 

I agree with the sentiment that violence isn't regulated enough, but you don't think there should be even a slight regulation on language and sex? Both can be harmful in certain circumstances and require maturity to be handled correctly.

Edited December 20, 2013 by tribefan695

[JohnnY]

Blood, non erotic nudity and some profanity should fall in the PG-13 category. Kids can watch PG-13 without their parents, right?

 

I also agree that violence should be more regulated and sex scenes less regulated. Here we have 6 ratings (All Ages, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18) and some sex scenes are accepted in "14" movies, I don't think many PG-13 movies in the US have sex scenes, do they?

[AniNate]

I think foreplay is as far as you can go in a PG-13 movie. You can imply sex occurs later but you can't actually show it.