The problem I see with Ebert's proposed solution is that it's no better than what we have today. Ebert wants an "A" rating which will apply to non-pornographic, adult-only material. But how many blockbusters will ever fall into that category? Let's face it, the "A-rated" movies would be niche-market, art house films at best. Exhibitors would not be anxious to show them. It would do nothing to shield youngsters from stuff like Scary Movie. One could say that "the genie is out of the bottle" when it comes to raunchy comedies which are seen by children (with or without their parents) and violent movies which are seen by children too. Will a change in the rating system cause parents to suddenly care what their kids are watching?

The problem with discussions like this is that they always go to examples of specific movies. One guy might think that A Clockwork Orange is a beautiful film which should be seen by adults and maybe teenagers. Another might say that the movie is pornographic and should still be rated X. Who's right? But the argument cannot be solved using that example. Pick another example... should Blazing Saddles still be rated R? The system can never be truly fair because every time you compare one movie to another it's an apples and oranges situation.

Regardless of whatever designations you put on it, underage kids are going to want to see movies that the ratings say they aren't suppose to see. It's the nature of kids. Deny them something and they'll want it. Any parent knows this.

I don't know why the industry doesn't do what the cable TV people do...institute "sub ratings." An R-rated movie ad could have a line underneath the rating block with abbreviations for the content. You'd have the large "R" block, then underneath you'd have letters like S, L, V, D (for sex, language, violence, drugs). Maybe these sub-ratings could have an "E" in front for Extreme. So you might have S, EV, L, D.

Roger Ebert should go through all the movies he reviewed in the year 2000 and he should make a list of which ones were given an incorrect rating. He should provide us with his own opinion of which rating those movies deserved (and he could use his "A" rating if he wanted to). And then he could tell us which movies were rated R only because a director was constrained by the studio to cut what might have been rated NC-17 (or "A").

Is it just because of the changing attitudes in America, or is the MPAA just wishy-washy?

Or are Americans just considered by the MPAA to be THAT stupid?

PG-13 came about because of the parental grumblings to the industry from two PG-rated movies that were just a smidge 'too scary/gross/violent' for the little ones, although the advertising for both made things sound like they were good clean family fare: Gremlins and Indiana Jones/Temple Of Doom... I can remember many times when parts of both these films would scare the bejeezus out of younger kids who would run screaming and crying out of the auditorium!

IIRC, NC-17 was created to give studios and exhibitors an option to having an 'adults-only' rating without the boxoffice-deadly stigma of using the 'X' rating (which by this time was synonymous with pornography).

Unfortunately the idea didn't work as it was supposed to, as the NC-17 rating also carries an 'undesireable' (not necessarily 'pornographic') stigma and seems to also be boxoffice poison.

Aaron

 |  IP: Logged