web
counter
 

Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face Earns You An NC-17

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (61)



Passion of The Christ.jpg

Just as the digital ink was drying on my commendations to AMC Theatres for finally saying no to pressures from the thuggee crew of the MPAA, they were pulling Hatchet II from their theaters. They claimed it was because of poor box office reception, even though they were pulling it midweekend. While The Other Guys and other summer dingleberries clung to their theatres, Hatchet II was deemed not worth to earn its keep. Everyone smelled bullshit, including the bull doing the shitting.

Parents groups claimed they would boycott and picket the theaters if AMC didn’t pull the Unrated horror film from its screen offerings. The mere existence of a gruesome horror film that didn’t agree to jump through the arbitrary hoops set by the MPAA set their collective panties ablaze. Not one with sexually graphic content — there’s one scene of nudity that very well might have earned a PG-13 rating in a lesser film — and not one with sexually explicit language — the f-bomb count is less than a quarter Tarantino or maybe a half-Mamet.

I can’t understand why a parent’s group should care. The film is Unrated, which means that nobody under the age of 17 should be watching it. R-rated films mean that anyone not of voting age should have to be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Either way, these films are not intended for a younger viewing audience. And last time I checked, it’s not mandatory or compulsory to see any movie, so if a child is somehow watching these films, it means that they actively made the choice to sneak in and find a way to see the film. If these parents are so worried about the safety of their children, then they should watch their stupid fucking children better. But are the same people whose protection against school shootings was to install $12 an hour rent-a-cops and metal detectors instead of shutting down the gun shows where the guns get purchased. We always wait to buy fire extinguishers until the kitchen has already burned to the fucking cabinets.

If a group of middle schoolers started setting fires in the basements of elder care facilities, you don’t scream out, “Oh, my God! We need to outlaw matches! Or we need to shut down all of our elder care facilities! Kids could set fires there!” But that’s the same reaction. Rather we need to police the children better. Maybe we should set up a committee that decides what activities children can and can’t do. Monitor their exact ratio of activities and decide exactly what sports and playground games are viable, and for how long they can play them. I should be on this committee, because I was once a child and I know how most games work. At least the ones normal, decent children play. Actually, I was a summer camp counselor for something like 13 summers, and I was once a day-care provider for a month. Sure, I don’t have children of my own, but that limits my bias and prevents me from making provisions that would allow children leeway. I can arbitrarily decide on a child by child basis whether or not certain activities are appropriate and you have to blindly agree with me. So, for example, sunlight can cause cancer in children who can tan, so all white and Asian children have to go indoors an hour early. We’re just protecting them.

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it? And yet, this is how the MPAA operates. It’s a collective of ministers and conservative parents — most of whom have limited if any experience with filmmaking. They can arbitrarily decide what gets what rating. Disney can cut off several heads and even gouge out an eye or two — in glorious 3D!, and it’ll get you a PG rating, but if you happen to have to be a gay couple having consensual sex, then it might earn you a NC-17. I can see Jason Segel’s penis, repeatedly for extended periods of time, but since it’s a major studio comedy, that’s an R. Show a guy masturbating out of frame from listening to dirty talk from a guy, it’s NC-17. Have Ben Stiller do the same thing with a newspaper ad and show sperm dangling from his ear, and it’s an R. A guy can graphically rape a woman on a pinball machine, and it’s an R. But if a guy has consensual sex with another man, NC-17. But if that man’s a pie, it’s okay, it’s back to an R.

But we’re not even talking about sex here! We’re talking about Hatchet II, which has a couple of gruesome kills. For the purposes of this article I’m going to explain the murders that might very well have earned the extra NC-17 rating. Only, I’m not sure which one it was. As I said one guy gets his face shoved into a propeller and torn open like a orange peel. It can’t be this one, because Piranha 3D has a similar kill, only in that flick, a girl’s hair gets caught in the propeller which causes her facial skin to rip off. To me, that’s much more graphic. Of course, Indiana Jones shoved a dude into a propeller, but because we only see the blood spray, it’s PG. They were saving all the rest of that same PG rating for three Nazis faces to physically melt down to blood and eyeballs in a skull. There’s a scene where a guy gets his head belt sanded until we see an exposed bit of brain like a yarmulkah, which Victor Crowley then belt sands until it bloodily exploded. That can’t be it, because in Hannibal, Ray Liotta gets his head opened up and we see his brain, which Lector then removes a piece of, cooks, and feeds to him. Of course, Lucy Liu gets her brain sliced in Kill Bill as well. And both of those got R ratings, so can’t be there. Maybe it’s what happens to poor Tony Todd. Tony Todd gets chopped in half with an axe. Victor Crowley then grabs on to his spinal cord as he crawls away, and somehow manages to tear the torso out of the skin, leaving a muscular half-Candyman screaming which he hurls against a tree. This was probably the not-gonna happen. Even though three different characters have similar fatalities in the Mortal Kombat video game series. Which was deemed by the ESRB as MA, the video game version of an R. It might have been the part where Victor Crowley rides through the desert, violently exploding the opposing army and lopping off their heads with a fiery sword. Oh, shit, sorry. That was Glorious Appearing in the Left Behind series and it was Jesus making people explode. My bad. I’m desensitized to that shit.

You don’t get to decide what I want to watch because you can’t control your kids. You don’t get to decide what I want to watch, period. It’s absolutely ridiculous to assume that you know what’s appropriate for me. Just like I don’t get to decide what you think is appropriate for your kids. If you think seeing a naked breast will cause them physical harm, by all means, don’t let them see one. If you think a child should watch a man beaten and whipped bloody and tortured for two plus hours because he happens to be Jesus Cavesus, hey, that’s your business, and I’ll stay out if, provided you stay right the fuck out of mine. If you don’t want your children to watch something, then don’t let them. If they find a way to, punish them. I won’t even flinch if you beat them like a rented fucking mule. Because you decided to breed and can’t control your spawn should not effect my movie watching and more importantly my accessibility to movies. Why is it that a theatre should be punished for exhibiting a film that might be dangerous because you can’t prevent your children from being exposed to it?

I’m sorry that Hatchet II was the hill we had to make our stand on. It’s not a great film to make the point with. But it’s not offensive so much as cartoonishly over-the-top, a Looney Tunes cartoon taken to a shockingly violent end. Like that episode of “Family Guy” (which airs on Fox which is a broadcast channel available to everyone for free) that showed Elmer Fudd violently shooting Bugs Bunny repeatedly as he gagged in pain for mercy and then snapping his neck and dragging him away in a pool of blood. The violence is no less cartoonish than anything in most video games, only in those you are an active participant in making that violence happen. A better film to fight for would have been Requiem for a Dream, which was also released Unrated in limited brave theatres. There’s a film that I feel should be shown to every ninth grader in America, and then no one anywhere ever will do hard drugs again. Except the stupid, stupid children which would Darwin them out. But I know, I know. Darwin isn’t real, like the Tooth Fairy or Social Security for anyone born after 1970.

If you don’t like what you watch, look away. Or walk out, and demand your money back. Films get released Unrated all the time in smaller theatres. I Spit On Your Grave is getting a theatrical release today, Unrated in several different theatre chains. And I’m glad it is. I want those filmmakers to have every opportunity to present the film as they see it. And I will absolutely not be going to see it. Not because I find the content morally reprehensible, but because it looks like a terribly unnecessary remake. But at least you have the choice.

The MPAA is not federally mandated. There’s no regulation that says all films must be rated by the MPAA. It’s a voluntary effort on the parts of major studios in conjunction with the different theatres that screen movies. It’s basically a giant monopoly, a bully pulpit created by moralists to prevent indecency. If you don’t get your film screened by the MPAA, then it won’t get played in any national film chains. And then you won’t be able to earn money. And as we see with Hatchet II, even when they do decide, pressure that maybe studios won’t allow their films to be screened at AMC or any theatre that doesn’t toe the line prevent them from sticking to it. Independent theatre chains don’t have that problem. Which is why you should always go to independent movie chains and leave the major theatres to play Transformers 3: A Momentary Lapse of Reason on all twenty-seven of their screens.

If the movie distributors manned the fuck up and told the parents groups and the moral hounds of the MPAA to stick it where the sun don’t shine — but don’t show them that on camera because that would earn you an NC-17 rating, unless it’s Sandra Bullock’s adorable anus — this wouldn’t be an issue. Because movies want to make money. And if the studios said you can’t screen our movies, and all the theaters banded together and said, you’re damn right we won’t screen your movies, then they’d back right the fuck off. And if you honestly think a few angry parents are going to shut down the films, you’re insane. First of all, its not like you’ll lose money on the fucking R and NC-17 films, because they aren’t going to see those anyway. They spend their money on the PG and PG-13 films. And so what are they going to boycott? Guardians of Ga’Hoole? Alpha and Omega? Nobody should watch those anyway. But ultimately, parents are going to take their children to the movies for the same reason they fear Hatchet II being released. Because kids will beg and plead and cajole until they do see the films. Kids are the monsters here. And they’ll watch whatever the hell we tell them to watch. Protests never work. People vote silently with their dollar. And if one kids sees a movie and tells their friends, other people will join in. Mostly, you might lose a few churchgoers, who usually only go to see the mega-millions blockbusters anyway. So the studios won’t lose a hot red fucking cent.

I don’t know what it will take for us to get rid of the MPAA. Because everyone’s afraid that if we get rid of the gatekeepers, we’re going to see movies about people shitting into each others mouths and people having disgusting sex, and people getting chopped in half while worshipping Satan. We already have those movies. All over the internet. For free. And if one of those should get a major theatrical release? Don’t go see it. Vote with your dollar. If you don’t think a movie is very good, don’t go see it. Personally, I feel that movie theatres should put up ingredients listings like we do with food. This contains: gay sexual relations, violence, rape, incest, sodomy, and the gruesome beating and torture of a young male. But that’s basically just the Bible. Well, only the good parts.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 08/10/10 | Diane Lane Career Assessment | Wife For Life









Comments

I have one of those nut jobs as a neighbor. She ran a door-to-door petition to try to get ads for sanitary napkins off the TV. She refuses to take her children to the Art Institute because they will be exposed to pictures and sculptures of bare-breasted women and penises. But she also had a mini breakdown when her seven-year old came home from school one day and announced he didn't want to be breast-fed anymore because she "didn't want to lose their bond". As I said, nut job.

Posted by: PaddyDog at October 8, 2010 1:14 PM

Holy GAH Paddy.

Posted by: Julie at October 8, 2010 1:18 PM

It's going to take time, many brave and defiant filmmakers, and more time. I'm actually surprised that the government hasn't made it compulsory yet. Just wait. There will be some sort of crisis- a bunch of kids watch an unrated movie and go kill someone- and the 'ol nanny will step in and blame it on lack of regulation, then regulate the shit out of it.

And, for some reason, I'm absolutely positive that Sandra Bullock's anus really is adorable. I just get that feeling in my cockles.

Posted by: logar at October 8, 2010 1:30 PM

There is nothing about this post that I didn't like.

Well done, sir.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at October 8, 2010 1:31 PM

Nice rant.

I've been railing against these bastards since the Eyes Wide Shut fiasco in 1999. That twist at the end of This Film Is Not Yet Rated revealing the membership of the appeals board was an absolute killer.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 8, 2010 1:33 PM

If these parents are so worried about the safety of their children, then they should watch their stupid fucking children better. But are the same people whose protection against school shootings was to install $12 an hour rent-a-cops and metal detectors instead of shutting down the gun shows where the guns get purchased. We always wait to buy fire extinguishers until the kitchen has already burned to the fucking cabinets.

YES YES YES YES YES. All of this yes, but this passage is BRILLIANT. So fucking well done, sir.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at October 8, 2010 1:34 PM

I completely agree with everything you've stated within this post, Brian. It's always bothered me that other people get to decide what I can watch and what my kids can watch. I should be deciding what my kids and I can and can't watch.

What I will say is that at least this is about violence and not sex as in the examples you've given. It's always mystified me as to why decapitations, shoot-outs and other types of violence are fine but a pastied tit is cause for a fucking revolt. It's an attitude that seems to be adopted throughout North America and it's just fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: admin at October 8, 2010 1:54 PM

You don’t get to decide what I want to watch because you can’t control your kids.

A-fucking-men. This whole paragraph is gold, Prisco.

When I rent a horror movie or a movie with an r-rating that I'm not sure of the content I watch the thing sans kids first to see if it's something I'll let them watch. If it's not extremely super gory (they're both 12 so that's hardly ever an issue anymore) and it has no nekkid people then I let them watch.

I don't give a shit about swearing. I swear around my kids all the time and when they're older I won't care if they swear.

I was watching Nightmare on Elm Street and the like when I was much younger than most of the kids these pampering parents are trying to protect from life and while no one can accuse me of being the MOST well-adjusted person, I turned out OK.

Fuck you MPAA.

Posted by: PaulterA at October 8, 2010 1:55 PM

This is just one of the MANY reasons why it is so sad that most communities don't have a decent non-chain movie theatre where they can go to see all the awesomeness they miss out on!

Posted by: peachfish at October 8, 2010 1:55 PM

Y'all dont get it. It's not the children they are worrying about. That's just their excuse. The mere existence of such a film is what offends them.

Posted by: logan at October 8, 2010 1:56 PM

Nice work indeed!

I've never really understood the basis of the rating system here. How appropiate too that this is ran the same day that "Blue Valentine" recieved a NC-17 rating for what the AV Club called "for its shocking, gory depiction of a dying marriage"

Posted by: PhotoGirl at October 8, 2010 2:03 PM

I think a lot of the responsibility for the elimination of groups like this lies not with the people who make movies, but the people who watch them. There's very little an aspiring filmmaker can do to fight the system, and those successful enough to do so are far too wrapped up in the system to want to fight. It's a vicious circle, and one I feel only we as viewers can handle. When we start, as Prisco pointed out, giving our money to independent theaters instead of the chains which are beholden to the MPAA, then a message will be sent that for every film you attempt to blame for the failure of parents to shield their children from things they shouldn't be seeing, moviegoers will tank a blockbuster. Because that's the only thing they react to, falling short of that bottom line.

Posted by: Smokin at October 8, 2010 2:06 PM

Y'all dont get it. It's not the children they are worrying about. That's just their excuse. The mere existence of such a film is what offends them.

Oh I get that. But if you're going to hold that up as your justification, I'm going to hate-fuck it in its ass. If these types of people were honest and just said, "I don't like it and neither should you" then at least I would give them a modicum of respect for being fucking honest. I'll still fuck them like jM on a panda after a three week asian sex drought, but at least the fucking wouldn't be so hateful. (Yes it would).

Posted by: admin at October 8, 2010 2:07 PM

Leave my gun shows alone. Other than that, well, well done. If it is any consolation, comic books went through this some years ago. Hint- the comics artists and writers won. This film is Not Yet Rated expressed many of the same concerns as you did, equally finely I might add. Censorship sucks, and the MPAA is just another form of censorship. A pox on them.

One correction to your piece however: I Spit On Your Grave is a terribly unnecessary remake of a terribly unnecessary "make" in the first place. I bet I haven't seen that in 15 years and I can still see some of those awful scenes in my head.

Posted by: EJ at October 8, 2010 2:09 PM

When I rent a horror movie or a movie with an r-rating that I'm not sure of the content I watch the thing sans kids first to see if it's something I'll let them watch. If it's not extremely super gory (they're both 12 so that's hardly ever an issue anymore) and it has no nekkid people then I let them watch.

I'm not attacking your parenting decisions PaulterA but I'm really curious as to the logic you employ. Murder: yes Titties: no?

Posted by: admin at October 8, 2010 2:10 PM

I see Prisco has some free time in between Extra assignments.

And word to your fucking mother.

You know who the gatekeepers at the theater are, right? OTHER TEENAGERS!!! The MPAA puts their power into the hands of high school seniors (and soulless adults), hoping they'll try like hell to stop some 13 year olds from sneaking into a boob-filled gorefest. And those are just the curious kids. We need to be worried about the school bullies, budding rapists, sociopathic manipulators and other gems of society being raised by dumbfuck parents.

I've said it a million times before and I'll say it again: Everyone should be forced to take a comprehensive mental exam before engaging in sexual activity and possibly having kids. You fail? Your shit gets tied up until you are deemed mentally competent enough to raise another human being. Shitty adults are raised by other shitty adults. "Idiocracy" isn't far from the truth, folks, and the MPAA is proof of confused parents spending too much energy on manipulating society to fit their world instead of raising the best people they possibly can.

Posted by: Kballs at October 8, 2010 2:10 PM

I know this is a decidedly first-world problem, but this film is not yet rated is one of the most depressing documentaries I've ever seen, and I've seen Waltz with Bashir. Just thinking about it makes me want to cry, so thanks for that Prisco.

Posted by: The_wakeful at October 8, 2010 2:13 PM

Excellent article Prisco. Well written and well worth reading, though I did have to tackle it in 2 parts. When I got to "Sandra Bullock’s adorable anus", I adjourned while I took the python to the bouncy house

Posted by: Groundloop at October 8, 2010 2:15 PM

One of my favourite inconsistencies of the MPAA is the use of one 'fuck' to push your film from the PG certificate to the edgier PG-13.

Of course, if can only be used once and it can only be used as a curse. Who knows what would happen to the children if they heard 'fuck' thrice instead of once or, heaven forfend, actually used as a verb?!

Posted by: Simon at October 8, 2010 2:19 PM

I'm not attacking your parenting decisions PaulterA but I'm really curious as to the logic you employ. Murder: yes Titties: no?

Isn't that the logic of US network TV?
CSI or L&O can show explicitly how a psychopath brutally butchered three women, but it would be terrible if you should you glance a nipple whilst they are lying on the slab.

Posted by: Simon at October 8, 2010 2:26 PM

Somewhere in here, there's an argument to be made that all of this will change once the medium evolves. If you think about it, the theater is becoming an increasingly-antiquated idea. It started off as a public gathering to view moving images. It was not portable. It got people off the farm and into town for a night out. Etc.

When TV became ubiquitous, one might guess that movie theaters would die. They haven't. It remained a different and unique experience. However, video technology is on the move, again. It's affordable to the masses. It's portable. It's customizable.

I know that the cynics will say (and that's most of you): it will never change; we will always have mass-moving-watching experiences and that content will be regulated in some way.

I'm not so sure. Once you strip the "public" experience out of delivering the content, you're making a case for personal responsibility. To me, this plays in the favor of the artist. We've seen in other mediums, namely music.

Artists can literally do an "end-around" on the regulatory bodies by delivering content straight to the masses via Internet. All that to say: fuck the theater chains. Life as they know it will be over in the near future.

Posted by: gunnertec at October 8, 2010 2:26 PM

ADMIN,
For the time being yes, it's murder:ok titties: not ok. I brought my kids up to know the difference between real life and TV so I'm not worried about a horror movie scarring them. (There's a limit of course. I won't let them watch just ANYTHING.)

As far as nudity goes, they'll probably be allowed to watch that to an extent before long but not until at least after "the talk" which is regretfully sneaking up on me sooner than I'd hoped.

Posted by: PaulterA at October 8, 2010 2:31 PM

The problem is that it's not parents worrying about what their kids will watch. The crusading types know that THEIR kids aren't going to be seeing Hatchet II because their little angels are properly supervised and ne'er an f-bomb shall pass through their saintly ears.

The crusaders are worried about what my kid watches. And what her friends watch, and you know, all those children of us morally inept parents who don't hyperventilate at the thought of their kids watching a hard "R" movie if we've researched it first. But because they're passionate, they do get to call the shots. Who's going to be out there on Saturday protesting at AMC to bring back Hatchet II? Internet outrage is all well and good but it doesn't stop censorship until the other side is willing to fill theater seats as a counterargument.

Posted by: Wednesday at October 8, 2010 2:48 PM

AMEN! Thus sayeth the Prisco! Every word you wrote is scripture, for lack of a better word.

My only quibble is with @Kballs:

I understand in theory where your logic comes from with evaluating sex and parenting, etc. but I pray to god that was just some sort of "Modest Proposal," logical solution followed out to its illogical end kind of thing.

Because, if not: that would pretty much entail creating a new MPAA--> Modern Parenting Analysis Alliance or some shit. Just a whole new group of assholes controlling all the rest of us assholes.

And that's just scary. Plain eugenics, fascist scary.

There's always been shitty children raised by shitty adults and there always will be. Today's are just a little more rancid than yesteryear's, unfortunately.

/gets down off soap box/

Posted by: AngelheadHipster at October 8, 2010 2:49 PM

I totally get what you're saying here and agree with sentiment. But (and maybe I'm just having reading comprehension issues today), I don't quite get your guns and matches examples. In the gun example, you seem to be advocating the regulation of gun shows ( i.e. the source) while in the next paragraph you seem to imply that outlawing matches (the source) is ludicrous. Am I misreading these passages?

Otherwise, an excellent piece. And I agree that the doc This Film is Not Yet Rated is some pretty depressing shit.

Posted by: elsie at October 8, 2010 3:14 PM

Your logic is tragically flawed. And the MPAA doesn't prevent anyone from viewing any movie. Like you said...you can see it on the internet right? If you're older than 17 than you can see these movies at IFC or any privately owned movie theater.

The MPAA shouldn't go away. Should hypocrisies within the organization be fixed? Absolutely. But I'm sorry...I don't buy this, we don't need limits on morality in movies. We absolutely do. And the MPAA ratings give me some what of guideline to what a movie's moralities are.

Also if kids set fires to elderly care facilities you don't ban matches and close down facilities, just like NC-17 movies aren't banned and the theaters that show them aren't shut down. You do however make it illegal to sell matches to kids under a certain age and ban kids from entering the facilities unsupervised. That's what MPAA does.

Your logic is flawed.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at October 8, 2010 3:59 PM

AngelheadHipster,

I'll administer the tests and I can assure you I am 100% free of bias.

Except for albinos. Shifty fuckers.

Posted by: Kballs at October 8, 2010 4:01 PM

KBalls,

Well, now that you've explained your plan in detail, I suppose I can get down with that. Ha.

As for Littlejon2001:

I think the entire point Prisco was making is that the MPAA is pretty much nothing BUT hypocrisy. So doing away with "hypocrisies within the organization" is to do away with the organization it its entirety.

Posted by: AngelheadHipster at October 8, 2010 4:14 PM

I am 100% in agreement with this article: Sandra Bullock’s anus is indeed adorable.

Posted by: The Mutt at October 8, 2010 4:17 PM

Oh. And I totally be down for watching Sandy use her adorable anus to sing "Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow" as an homage to Pink Flamingos.

Posted by: AngelheadHipster at October 8, 2010 4:25 PM

Movie ratings are like cell phones for 8 year olds -just one more way to not parent. I've gotten vilified for this statement so many times. Why take the time and find out what your kids are doing and/or watching? Society and electronic devices can monitor them for you! It's the shortcut, the easy way out for time crunched parents who want the Cliff Notes version of child rearing.

Posted by: slower lower at October 8, 2010 4:33 PM

"You don’t get to decide what I want to watch because you can’t control your kids. You don’t get to decide what I want to watch, period."

Why did you say this? Isn't the point of your whole rant that they in fact do get to decide what you watch?

Posted by: mrsachmo at October 8, 2010 4:54 PM

Hopefully if the supreme court doesn't completely cock up the California vs video games decision on the docket we may finally get media to be protected speech and away from the puritanical and completely arbitrary bullshit of the MPAA. If they DO side with Cali, then Freedom of Speech is going to get eroded as every do gooder fucktard with a lawyer on retainer is going to sue for whatever butthurt they have endured at the hand of make believe.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 8, 2010 5:31 PM

Littlejohn,

I see your point, but I live in BFE East Texas. There are no independently/privately owned theaters around here. And currently, I don't have cable because it's not available where I live and I can't afford satellite service (so no IFC channel). I have Internet access, but it's not terribly fast and it is truly painful trying to watch video on my computer. Granted I can always netflix whatever I want to watch, assuming netflix doesn't bow to the pressure, right?

I think Prisco's point was that there is a shit ton of hypocrisy going on at the MPAA and we, as consumers, get the short end of the stick. We have no recourse. I can always boycott what I don't want to see, but I can't support something I never had access to in the first place.

Posted by: elsie at October 8, 2010 5:53 PM

Littlejon2001,

I hear what you're saying, but you're actually wrong about the effects of the MPAA. In the vast majority of cases, films dubbed NC-17 are, in effect, "banned" from national theater chains, preventing them from being shown in the vast majority of movie theaters in America (not every area has ready access to an independent theater that is willing to challenge the ratings board for the sake of artistic integrity).

Also, with threats of protests and picketing, parent groups, which the MPAA blatantly represent, can limit a theater's business, hurting overall ticket sales in addition to sales for the one or two movies with which they're displeased. These two factors combined can make it so films that are given harsher ratings, which, as was pointed out above, is often for hypocritical reasons, are in effect nullified from making a profit or being seen by the general public, who, I might add, may not have the bandwidth to download movies readily or the money to order IFC.

Your logic is flawed-er.

Posted by: ChristianH at October 8, 2010 5:53 PM

we should just switch to random descriptive ratings, that would help a film-literate parent decide what a kid could go to, but wouldn`t represent a narrow list of tiers(of which the upper end get the shaft at the theatre)

a fine example was made with the `half mamet` indicating lots of cussing. we could have `porky`s lite`indicating the modern tamer version of teenage sex comedies. èarly peter jackson` would indicate tremendous laughworthy gore`. `merchant ivory` would mean safe for reserved adults, all others will sleep.

and the descriptive ratings could be limitless and therefore hard to codify or stratify.

`Sandra Bullock`s adorable anus`would refer to any film that might hint at naughtiness but still be pretty family safe. damn, cheated again.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 8, 2010 7:19 PM

I remember some years back right after we'd wrapped on "Starship Troopers" (the final few weeks of which were spent going back over some shots and removing buckets of the digital blood we'd added, as well as the pain in the ass of removing large amounts of practical blood shot on set with blood packs). I ran into a mother of four who saw my crew jacket and scolded me. "That would have been a great film for my kids, except you guys went and ruined it". Well I could think of any number of ways she might have felt that way about the film, but no, her complaint was about the s-e-x. One co-ed shower scene that was, other than nudity, not sexual in the least, and a brief flash of tits during an interrupted sex scene. And she considered on-screen dismemberment, beheadings, people having limbs melted off, and the topper of having a guy have his brains sucked out by an alien phallic palp that emerged from an alien vaginal mouth, as just good clean fun for her kids.

I wanted to call child protection services on the spot. What must their home video collection include for the kids: Sing-a-Long with Leatherface?

If kids can hurt themselves with hammers, we should have foam rubber hammers, right?... or maybe you don't allow your kid to use a tool designed for adults...maybe?

I'm all for government protection of children - the measure of any society is in how it treats it young and old. But it's also the measure of a parent how they protect their children. It's pure negligence on the part of parents to stuff money in a kid's pocket and send them out into the world unescorted. Try as hard as any other responsible adult in the community, there's only so much you can do (particularly in this paranoid era of "stranger danger" where you can get accused of child molestation by even helping a fallen child get back up) since it is in the nature of a child's developing ego to push boundaries and rattle doorknobs to see what's inside. Try to see that nudie magazine, try to sneak in and watch "inappropriate movies", try to play with dad's gun...

Posted by: Jeffery Sargent at October 8, 2010 7:27 PM

From a kid's point of view...
THANK YOU. This was a brilliant article.

I am continually frustrated by the MPAA. I'm 15, and most of the movies I want to see tend to get rated R. I'm not talking Hatchet II here, I'm talking Public Enemies, Winter's Bone, Let Me In, etc. I still see the films - and usually with my parents' full permission. But I can't go see them in theaters because I have been deemed too young and impressionable.

It seems like the majority of good movies coming out tend to get the R rating. There are a few PG-13 or PG exceptions (Inception or Scott Pilgrim this year, for instance) but almost everything that I'm old enough to see by myself in theaters is total shit.
I have seen so many films that probably should have gotten a much stronger rating, but didn't because they were mainstream or because they needed to make money.
Movies like Kick-Ass, which are really not that bad for mature teens (heck, my 13 year old brother saw it and loved it), lose tons of money because the kids who want to see it either pay for a PG film and sneak in, or watch it online, or have to wait 4 months for the dvd.

It's absolutely the parents' responsibilty to monitor what their kids watch and what their kids do. It's exactly like you said - you don't ban matches because kids might set fires. You keep them out of reach of the kids if they can't be trusted.
I completely agree that films should just have a warning or something listing the contents - strong language, brief sex scene, etc. That would be infinitely more helpful than making generalizations and commands based on age.

I always love visiting Quebec because pretty much every movie which is R here in the States is G or 13+ here. Why? They don't feel the need to patronizingly give age-related guidelines to parents, or to censor everything within an inch of its life.

My dad is one of those amazing parents who resents being told what to do with regards to his kids. When he lets me pick movies to watch, he tells me to consider the actual content and whether or not I think I can handle it, and whether the benefits of watching the film will outweigh any possible negative effects on me. Because he has come to trust my maturity and because he has a good relationship with me - he knows that I'm not going to go sneak off and do the things he tells me not to behind his back.

Unfortunately for me, where I'm currently living, the closest independent theater is a half-hour drive away and my mom, not being a film person, doesn't like paying for movies in the theater. So most of the year, I'm screwed when it comes to seeing films on the big screen unless it has jumped through the MPAA hoops and gotten a PG-13.

I'm still confused as to how The Social Network got PG-13. It was amazing and I really loved it, but it had a lot more "objectionable" content (drugs, language, nudity, underage whatever) than a lot of movies I've seen that are R.
It baffles me.
It's a dumb system.

Anyway. I'll stop rambling since this is pretty incoherent.
I love all you guys at Pajiba.

Posted by: Talia at October 8, 2010 8:01 PM

Thank you guys for mentioning This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It is one of my favorite documentaries; couldn't give it a higher recommendation for anyone who's ever wondered about the MPAA.

Posted by: monkeyhateclean at October 8, 2010 9:01 PM

Anyway. I'll stop rambling since this is pretty incoherent.
I love all you guys at Pajiba.

Posted by: Talia at October 8, 2010 8:01 PM

On the contrary, Talia, your post was a pleasure to read. You write and express your opinions exceptionally well. Young people like you give us old-timers hope for the future.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at October 8, 2010 10:42 PM

That's the nature of business though. You're not being controlled by what a select group of individuals deem "right and wrong", you're being severely limited by a MAJORITY that finds movie ratings necessary for the protection of children. If the consumer didn't as a whole didn't believe in the MPAA then the organization would have no power. However, that obviously isn't the case. And as long as we live in a democracy you WILL be limited (not controlled because as I have said there are ways around the limitations if you have the resources)by the majority that is the consumer.

You don't think kids will be effected by movies that are rated R or NC-17, fair enough. But on the opposite side, kids won't be dramatically effected by having to wait a couple of months to view a movie they really wanted to see on DVD. You say you shouldn't be prevented from seeing a movie because of a NC-17 rating that makes a movie impossible to be seen in the majority of the country, fine. But on the flip side, should a majority of parents be forced to ban their children from movie theaters because they have absolutely no help from an organization like the MPAA in preventing their kids from watching movies them deem to be inappropriate for young viewing?

I'm half playing devil's advocate here, but half serious as well. MPAA serves its purpose and the business has been doing fine with it for years. If anything MPAA's ratings are getting much softer nowadays and will continue to do so. But God...can't we have some semblance of morality in film? Or must we be subjected to depraved films like Human Centipede being available for viewing to children of all ages?

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at October 8, 2010 11:58 PM

Yeah, Talia, welcome. Stick around and comment often!

Posted by: replica at October 9, 2010 1:00 AM

Great article, I've been saying this stuff for years.

I'm 23 now. I believe I was raised with sound judgment, an inquisitive but well-grounded mind, and a moral compass that bettered that of most. I'm an avid movie-goer, with an appreciation for all forms of artistry. Never have I developed the ego to say that I ever thought whether or not I appreciated a work should dictate whether other people could see it.

Interestingly enough, I was never carded for a rated R movie until I turned 18. I've been going to see them since I knew people with driver's licenses. My dad, a conservative christian, would take us to movies he though of as just... well, good. If there was something I was considered too young for, he would cover my eyes... I didn't like it, but at least I questioned why he cared to do that. If it seemed like a crap parade, he didn't take me to it and expected me to understand why. I did.

I like the point someone made, that the power of the MPAA is ultimately placed into the hands of burnout adults and high school students on part-time jobs. Honestly... The only thing being accomplished is the stifling the creative efforts of the small filmmaker.

I've read the accounts of Indie directors and writers who just couldn't get their work seen because it wouldn't pass the bar, and to change it would break the heart and purpose. It's not even that this is a broken system; it's really just a "no girls" club populated by self-righteous and self-appointed bigots.

Bad parenting will always exist, but hey someone needs to needs cook my burgers and fries, and it won't be the guy with the PhD. Accountability is inexcusably absent from America's family system.

Cheers.

Posted by: Tim at October 9, 2010 2:04 AM

@ Simon,

Funnily enough, CSI actually did show a woman's nipple once as she lay dead on the slab. Made damn sure to warn everybody a-nudity was coming though. And guess what? It was as about as unappealing as you would think, even for what passes for a dead girl in Las Vegas (meaning models and hot chicks trying to break into the biz). I mean, I enjoy looking at, say, Kate Winslett's boobs as much as the next guy, but when they are attached to nekkid Kate toward the end of Quills, well, not interested.

As a cop, I can tell you, there are more things I see daily that are NC-17 than on TV. Its always bad to find dead folk, and older dead folk more often than not die naked. But I see lots more of some of the living than I ever want to. I could talk about the crazy guy in a padded room with hemorrhoids so bad he nearly bled to death, or the drunk man hung like Dirk Diggler who stripped naked on the side of a busy intersection and the comedy that was getting his pants back on, or the toes, feet, and teeth of homeless people. Life is a scary, sick place, and there's no point sugar-coating it or hiding it. My parents tried to shield me from it for years with church, no HBO or Cinemax, etc., but that didn't stop all the bad from finding me and kicking my ass daily. I am who I am today because I learned very early on that the reality of life ain't Ozzie and Harriet. The reality isn't Jr Aparagus and the Veggie Tales gang singing to my kids the LIE that there aren't monsters out there and that God will protect them. Half the monsters out there come in the form of God in the first place.

Ok, I'm rambling. One final thought- My wife and I love Friends, its a guilty pleasure. We watch reruns daily at dinnertime. Should my 3 and 7 yr old watch 6 adults talking about sex all the time? Probably not. However, I don't want them growing up thinking, as I was taught, that sex is a bad thing and something to be feared. When I think they are old enough to handle more mature programming, then we'll revisit things, but I feel I have the right and the duty to determine when my kids are mature enough for shit like Hatchet II (really? a sequel?), and the MPAA can fucking die (just the one fuck, and not in verb form, so as to keep this post PG-13).

Posted by: EJ at October 9, 2010 4:54 AM

you know what is also a disgrace? the MPAA's hypocritical decision to mark all movies containing a homosexual relationship (an un consumed one that is) R rated. Like that lovely flick "Imagine me and you" which just shows two women falling in love, they only kiss shortly. It's sweet and funny, and rated R!! there are no dismembered body parts, torture scenes, no display of graphic sex, nothing like that. It's just the fact that it is two women, it makes me sad to be honest. If this were a man and woman, the movie would be PG probably.

Posted by: lauwer at October 9, 2010 4:55 AM

Littlejon, thank you for arguing eloquently. Honestly, I appreciate where you are coming from, but I think you are missing my point. I don't think any child should see films like Human Centipede or Serbian Film. I don't want them to be exposed to that. But if I want to see something, why should I be limited because we're trying to protect the children? Aren't films intended to be screened in a theater? Your major concern seems to be what if a child gets exposed to an objectionable movie? And my answer is, that's not my problem. What your children get exposed to or not is your problem. And we all shouldn't have to be limited because of your offspring.

You say that the MPAA is getting softer on their ratings. Which is a load of shit. If anything, they're getting more conservative -- and I mean that in the political sense. Sure, we can see people explode or get gored or die horribly and it's an R. But look at this latest fucking bullshit with Blue Valentine. It got an NC-17 rating for a single sex scene that not a single fucking person can figure out why. There's apparently no graphic nudity. But somehow, this earned an NC-17.

This is why I advocate the contents listings. But it's mostly a precaution for parents. What I can't understand is how the ratings are protecting children? The only thing it does it make it more difficult to get passed by the arbitrary rules and regulations of the MPAA. And in most cases, they don't say, you can't do that. They say, well, if we see it, and we see it for more than three seconds, then it's too bad. So the same parent who says I don't want you to see Hatchet II because it's NC-17 and the murders are too gory but would allow it if it was R, would still be exposing their children to all of the many murders, but they'd just be pared down a little bit. It's still violence, no matter how you hack it.

And Talia, good for you. Don't apologize for being eloquent. I don't know a good way to make it permissible for you to see what you want to see. I first saw the word "fuck" on the printed page when I was seventeen, when our teacher read us "Howl". This was seven years after it had become a regular and popular member of my vocabulary, and five years since I heard it uttered on screen. My parents gave me leeway, and look how I turned out. Maybe I'm not the best example. But hey, the kids who find and appreciate Pajiba usually tend to turn out okay, so you're already on a good path.

Of course, the ultimate irony of this is that I type this at 2 AM having just gotten back from my job as a cast member in a haunted hayride. Two parents brought their three little children on the ride. I scare the adults I work with just by walking around in my costume. Two of these kids were cowered and whimpering against their mother like looking up would have killed them. The third child actually passed out from fear. Was I the bad guy for scaring people -- which is my job -- or was the parent wrong for exposing their child to a haunted hayride? My personal belief is neither of us. They made a choice, the kid probably lived, and maybe one day he remembers this and grows up to be the best scare-haunter in his haunted hayride. Because that's what happened to me in the same situation.

Posted by: Prisco at October 9, 2010 5:04 AM

I suddenly feel like rereading "The Allegory of the Cave". Haven't read it since high school. This is a very good argument going on here. Thank you.

Posted by: Beckster "tri-tip" Goddess at October 9, 2010 5:10 AM

While I give a hearty Amen And Hell Yes to everything you wrote, I do have to say that I am not anti-ratings system. Maybe not the broken and biased system that we have, but something. There are just some things that I don't want to see. And I'd like to be made aware of these things before I have the image of Ben Stiller jacking off burned into my brain. Though that is kind of my fault for going to see a Ben Stiller movie. If I had known I was going to see Ray Liotta's brain being eaten, I would never have rented that cursed DVD. Though, again, my fault for renting an idiotic threequel.

I would love to make well-informed decisions about what I want to watch based on content, rather than an arbitrary rating. It's just a bit more difficult than I'd like. I'm lazy; I don't want to hunt for MPAA-like websites before I hand my money over to a studio. And I don't want an entire movie spoiled for me. I'd just like to know how repulsive a film is before I waste my money on it. Is that so much to ask?

Posted by: sillytwoshoes at October 9, 2010 10:22 AM

You say "If these parents are so worried about the safety of their children, then they should watch their stupid fucking children better." Then turn around and say that instead of paying rent-a-cops a low wage to watch schools, we should shut down gun shows. Uh...shouldn't parents also monitor if their child owns a fucking gun? You even say (basically) you can't take away freedoms from the rest of us, just because a few people fuck it up.

Also, if you remove the MPAA (which I think needs a huge overhaul), then how will that keep kids out of certain films? Realistically, parents can't monitor their children every minute of the day, so while I'm not a fan of the MPAA, I can easily thank them when I'm watching Bruce Willis drop Alan Rickman off the Nakatomi Plaza building, without some emo pre-teen kicking the back of my seat.

Also, how do protests never work? How did Hatchet II get booted from AMC?

Posted by: ash at October 9, 2010 12:03 PM

See the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated.

That'll REALLY fucking piss you off.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 9, 2010 12:17 PM

ANYONE arguing in favour of NC-17 doesn't get it: it is effectively KILLING a film before it has a chance to be seen, because most fucking theatres won't show an NC-17 film.

How fucking hard is this to understand?

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 9, 2010 12:18 PM

Any evaluation - say a rating on a movie - is worth exactly as much as its source. Sadly, many folks are happy to delegate their opinions to self-nominated authorities qualified mainly because they claim they are.

I can play too. Ahem ...

As the world's foremost authority on everything, I hereby give all the sheeple permission to ignore the MPAA because the MPAA are self-righteous tools. Because I said so, and I'm, you know, an authority. Because I said so.

Now, pay me & I'll tell you what else to think.

I don't mind the MPAA having opinion based on whatever rattles about in their tiny brains. I don't even mind folks delegating their own choices to the MPAA if deciding what they think about a movie is too much of a commitment to make. (Seriously?) If I find their opinion valuable I'll seek it out and might even pay for it. When I'm no longer free to ignore the diktats of the MPAA & their sheeple, well, fuck you. Because I'm not you, I don't need your permission to be wrong.

The folks who reach for directives & bans are actually saying they don't think they have much of a case. If they have to impose their opinions they haven't been very convincing, have they?


/Rant

Yet, the temptation to impose is huge when one is right, and really, who among us isn't? Right that is. At least in our own tiny brains. The MPAA doubtless thinks they are right, and that this rightness gives them license to impose. They're only imposing on us lesser beings, after all, us being obviously lesser because we don't recognize their rightness. (As the serpent eats its tail.)

It's not the opinion that's the problem, it's the imposing, and passion makes it worse. Even Prisco, while right in his point, trips on tangled logic when passion takes over:

But are the same people whose protection against school shootings was to install $12 an hour rent-a-cops and metal detectors instead of shutting down the gun shows where the guns get purchased.

This is exactly the rational used when the MPAA says "ban all films with boobies" because some kid might wear a rash on his little-hipster over some Taylor Momsen nips. The specifics are different, but the argument is structured the same. (What do they teach in schools these days?)

Staying with the boobies, (I'm so happy when that happens.) the MPAA argues that boobies are so dangerous and so lacking in legitimate uses in a civil society that they should be banned for everyone, everywhere. (NC-17 amounts to a ban, and they know it.) They argue that because somebody, sometimes can't handle it - er, them - responsibly none of us should be allowed to - er - handle it - er, them, ever. Granted, mishandling your GF's boob will find you banned from her sugar mountains and uncanny valley for quite some time, but this is a specific, private consequence, not a general prohibition. Also, not prior restraint. Not that there's anything wrong with. Use a safe word.)

So, what's a legitimate use of boobies anyway, I mean in society, since MPAA-land is about protecting the precious bodily fluids of "society?" Nursing a child? Filling out a tank top? Who's to say it's illegitimate to use boobies for life cast jello molds, melted butter delivery or ... um, I feel I've said too much.

Now that I think about it, boobies have inspired far more questionable behavior out of me over a weekend than guns have over my whole life. So, by the MPAA's logic, my weakness means that noone is to ever be trusted with a boob. That seems kind of extreme. This isn't pro or anti-guns. Or boobies. For the record, I'm for both. And those gun-boobie Fembots? Hottest thing(s) ever. I'm pointing out one bad analogy in Prisco's otherwise lovely rant & piling on the MPAA because, well, it's fun.

On point(s), back in the day Tippy Gore (the wronged-ish spouse of the crazed sex poodle) & her PMRC wanted the music industry to "voluntarily" rate & regulate music and lyrics under threat of federal intervention. "Nice business you've got there. Would be a shame if it got regulated ..." This is fucking extortion, people, and if regulations "helped" it wouldn't be much of a threat, would it?) Tippy & Crew said "Do something like the MPAA or your interstate distribution just might get it, right in the commerce clause." Subtle.

Frank Zappa, Dee Snyder and John Denver testified in congress (in character - John Denver was frea-kay.) on the costs & inscrutable "standards". How would Whitesnake, Motly Crue & Prince know what Tippy & Crew would find offensive with their more refined moral sense? Zappa had the zinger - the people who care about being told what's offensive are free to pay for evaluations from someone they respect.

You know, I think I'd pay for movie ratings from Frank Zappa, if he weren't dead, that is. Sigh. Stuck reading Pajiba.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at October 9, 2010 3:54 PM

Anal sodomy? For a really big surprise, google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click once or twice to get the surprise.

Posted by: Robert Hagedorn at October 9, 2010 5:11 PM

Prisco, I understand your point but would still argue that the reason the MPAA is messed up isn't because of its inherent nature of "banning" certain films it deems too immoral for mass public consumption, its because (as you stated with the Blue Valentine example) the MPAA is corrupt. They let certain things fly and ban others and give certain movies R ratings and others that for arguments sake are much worse morally a PG-13 rating. It's obviously a corrupt system like all systems...like Hollywood. However, the system still needs to be in place regardless.

And think about what your saying. The average American is prevented from seeing movies all the time and it goes way beyond the MPAA. If you live in an area where independent theaters aren't common place then you probably live in an area where small-budget, independent films (like the ones usually nominated for Oscars) aren't seen either. If a movie earns an NC-17 rating then in all likelihood...it wasn't going to make that much money in the first place. And if it wasn't going to make that much money in the first place...then many people would have been effectively "banned" from seeing it as well.

I guess I could understand an argument for allowing NC-17 movies into commercially owned theaters (though in essence that would be porn films would be allowed in those theaters as well, unless they made a distinction between the two...which I'm sure would draw debate as well). But, it shouldn't kill filmmakers to show a little bit of moral discretion in films they want shown to the masses. Not just for the children...for adults...for America...for morality's sake.

But hell what do I know. It's a free country so, people can make whatever they want. They just can't make money on it unless Hollywood (and the MPAA) say so.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at October 9, 2010 6:47 PM

And come on guys...boobies don't get you a ban. Pubic hair does. Have you seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated?

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at October 9, 2010 6:51 PM

Little John,

so, are you saying that pubic hair is immoral?

my understanding is that ratings are to help define age appropriateness of films which is hopefully pretty far away from saying what is moral or not.

i can begrudgingly accept age ratings, though it saddens me that filmmakers curb their visions for fear of not getting distribution. but a ratings board that is deciding on the morality of a film would need to be sent to the firing squad. a lot of people crossed the pond to get to America to escape that game.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 10, 2010 2:10 AM

ANYONE arguing in favour of NC-17 doesn't get it: it is effectively KILLING a film before it has a chance to be seen, because most fucking theatres won't show an NC-17 film.

In which case Maryscott, the problem is with the theatre and not the rating.

Here in the UK, plenty of mainstream films get released with a 15 or 18 (you're not allowed in under that age, regardless of whether an adult accompanies you) and they get shown at all our major chains.

Recent examples of 18 certificates can be found here at the BBFC site.

In fact, a recent idea gaining popularity is 18+ only shows for kids films. That way adults who want to watch the latest Pixar movie can do so without the children running riot throughout.

A sensible certificate approach is not a bad idea. Any decent society would not want children watching The Human Centipede or Enter The Void; but you need a system that does not say just because children shouldn't see a movie, it means adults can't see it either.

Posted by: Simon at October 10, 2010 7:22 AM

This article should be posted in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Village Voice...just send it to some newspapers and magazines so people can read it and agree!!!

What chaps my mother's ass is these should also be teachable moments for kids, but the parents are so embarrassed to have a frank discussion about sex and violence. I'm not saying you take a five year old to "I Spit On Your Grave", but you should sit with a young teen and watch "Schindler's List" or "Mississippi Burning" or anything historical or timely (hell, in the right context they could watch "The Accused" or "The Laramie Project"). YOu don't glorify the violence, but you talk with them and say "Why do you think they put this in the movie?" "Do you think it's right?" "What do you feel when you see people do that?" Jesus, start a discussion with your kid! They'll be more apt to respect you for treating them as an equal when talking about film or uncomfortable things in history.

Posted by: scorzi at October 10, 2010 12:46 PM

As someone who grew up in a home where movies were strictly regulated and lax ratings frequently bemoaned, I find this discussion fascinating, particularly how the MPAA is not a federal agency. In many ways it is completely illogical - one f-bomb or even *gasp* smoking being enough to get a higher rating. There also seems to be motivation to max out what is permitted on each rating tier - "We're allowed 7 more dick jokes in this PG-13 - let's go for it!"

A clear "ingredient list" might cause a few spoilers, but would be infinitely more helpful than just vague "violence, sexuality, and thematic elements." Often, that's what these ultra-conservative people are looking for. They don't want to go see a romantic comedy and be surprised by the heroine pantomiming oral sex. If only they were aware of the many Christian websites that already do so, such as screenit.com

Posted by: Empress of All the Russias at October 10, 2010 9:17 PM

Here's where I feel the ESRB has an advantage over the MPAA. The ESRB is a group formed from from actual members of the videogame industry, whereas the MPAA it full of Bible-thumpers from the Moral Majority.

The ESRB has strictly defined catagories that encoumpass all age groups, like the MPAA, but where the ESRB excels is in the descriptors that get a game a specific rating.

All the descriptors the ESRB uses are standard and defined. Chop some guy's head off? That's Intense Violence, Likely coupled with Blood & Gore. Drop a few F-bombs? That's Strong language.

The MPAA, however, makes up whatever it feels are appropriate descriptors. The stupidest one I've seen is "Extreme Zombie Violence." Is that better then regualr Extreme Violence? Where would Extreme Elf Violence fit in? because of this, the MPAA can manipulate a movie's rating to serve there own agenda.

Posted by: Nomanisat at October 10, 2010 10:46 PM

The MPAA does serve a purpose, or at least it did originally. Back before there was the MPAA, various groups were flipping out about various movies. The government pretty much told the producers come up with your own system or we'll be the arbitor. Look how well that worked out in Britain. The MPAA can effectively hold back certain types of films and ideas, but at least it is not an all-out legal ban.

Posted by: Bryan at October 12, 2010 1:35 AM