Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When did "Approved for All Audiences" become "Approved for Appropriate Audiences"?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » When did "Approved for All Audiences" become "Approved for Appropriate Audiences"? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: When did "Approved for All Audiences" become "Approved for Appropriate Audiences"?

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 11-25-2010 08:35 AM

Anyone else notice this on green bands? Did I miss something? When did that change? Seems like a silly thing to me. Who decides what audiences are "appropriate"? It kind of gets the MPAA off the hook when you can no longer say "They approved it for ALL audiences" when some over zealous parent complains. Now all of a sudden they have a legitimate complaint that they believe that particular audience is "inappropriate" for that trailer.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-25-2010 08:42 AM

I've no idea when it happened, but probably related to almost all "children's" movies being rated PG.

Here is some BS about advertising from the MPAA's official site:

quote:
In the theater, our objective is to give parents a reasonable expectation that if they are comfortable enjoying the content of the feature film they have chosen to see with their children, then they will be comfortable with the content of the trailers preceding it. Movie trailers featuring stronger content are permitted to run only with compatible features. We also are working closely with filmmakers to allow them to reach their target audiences in innovative ways. For this reason, you may see advertising with stronger content on television only at certain times, on certain channels or with certain programs, or on specific websites depending on the content of the advertising, including sites which are intended only for adults, as well as on restricted websites.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-25-2010 11:04 AM

It started happening about a year ago. There was a NATO email about it. As usual, they tried to spin it to say that "it gives the exhibitor more flexibility" or some such nonsense, but in reality it makes the green band completely meaningless.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-25-2010 12:02 PM

For the paranoid, it is probably a way for distributors to completely control what trailers get played with their movies, at least in the digital realm. They just develop a list of trailers and then set up some sort of blocking code to prevent from playing trailers they don't want shown with their features.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-25-2010 07:41 PM

Astually the distribs have no control whatsoever what trailers you play, unless they embed them directly onto the feature film file, and even then it could be manually bypassed.

Sometimes there are contractual obligations to play certain trailers but that still requires the theatre to playlist the trailers involved.

This has been my experience, at least.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-26-2010 11:41 AM

Well, as I said, for the paranoid;>

I'm curious to know if this is at least theoretically possible. It seems as a programming matter it would be simple. And in contractual obligations as you mentioned and complete control.

Profitable and or practical are two different beasts.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 11-27-2010 08:59 AM

And . . . . if you're not "Appropriate" it is your duty to leave! [thumbsup]

Louis

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-27-2010 09:34 AM

When did Rated "M" change to Rated "GP"? When did Rated "GP" change to Rated "PG"? When did Rated "R" change from banning children under age 16 to age 17? When did the MPAA show any consistency in rating selecting a film's rating?

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11-27-2010 11:40 AM

1970. 1972. 1970.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-27-2010 12:45 PM

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
When did the MPAA show any consistency in rating selecting a film's rating?

As the ratings by design are without rules or standards, they can't possibly be consistent over the years. They are, afterall, only suggestions for parents made by other parents. Or mostly parents, I guess they get a few none parents on the ratings board now and then.

In short, the ratings are meaningless and should be ignored by adults. Not being a parent, I'll leave it to others to speak to their usefulness in selecting movies for the kiddos.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 11-27-2010 01:25 PM

Martin is correct. I did the new screening rooms for the MPAA and had a chance to meet most of the ratings board. There are indeed no written rules, only a very brief "guideline" as to certain things that would push a movie into a more restrictive rating.

There are NO single (without kids) raters, there is a mix of "moms and dads" as well as ethnicities. All were over the age of 30. (I'd say average age was 45-50.)

Two direct questions I posed to them were: Why did "The Right Stuff" end up with a PG (or was it PG-13) rating when "fuckin-a bubba" was said (as well as a direct callout of pussy, and not the cat) was used? (Formerly any use of the f-word or derivatives was an automatic "R"). The answer was that since "fuckin-a bubba" wasn't a direct sexual reference, it was only said a few times in the 3-hours plus, and the movie had no other factors (sexuality, graphic violence) it did not warrant an "R" rating. Fair enough.

The second question was "Why (for a long time) was full-frontal female nudity only worthy of an "R" but ANY full-frontal of a male, for even a second, was automatically an "X" (or "NC-17")?

There was a lot of hemming and hawing but the answer was pretty much "just because." I guess a guy's junk was somehow more horrifying and sexual (even when limp) than a woman's pootinanny. [Big Grin]

(I find a guy's junk to be more funny that sexual most of time anyways.)

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-27-2010 01:38 PM

The bigger issue with the ratings is that independent films are rated with a much stricter standard than major studio releases. Major studios are also more likely to successfully appeal a rating they don't like with no, or minimal, changes than an independent release. Either the content is appropriate, or it is not. Unfortunately they seem not to rate films that rate it that way.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 11-27-2010 08:57 PM

Watch the documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"- if you can get Netflix instant streaming it's available on there. It points out TONS of inconsistencies with the rating system which are pretty amusing. I've never understood all the hate for the NC-17 rating- Blockbuster refusing to carry movies with that rating was the main reason for avoiding it, but now that Blockbuster's on the way out (I've always boycotted them for that reason) it doesn't seem as big a deal. Part of the documentary has them submit it to the MPAA for a rating and of course they give it an NC-17 since they show clips from a few movies that were rated NC-17 (like "this movie was rated NC-17 because of THIS"- cut to clip) , and they make a big stink about not being able to appeal it.

I heard that 3 F-words automatically got you an R, but All The President's Men has it a bunch of times (all non-sexual) and that was PG (there was no PG-13 rating yet) and Gunner Palace (a documentary) got a PG-13 just because someone thought the movie was overall educational for kids who might want to join the military.

The "Appropriate Audiences" thing on trailers is stupid- they should have just come up with something other than a red-band that says that it can't be shown with G-rated movies.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-27-2010 11:49 PM

Can you find inconsistencies in movie ratings? Sure. Does the system still work? Absolutely. The most important thing that the MPAA does is prevent government censorship. Beyond that, if a parent truly cares, then it's certainly means something that a Will Ferrell movie is rated G or PG-13 or R.

If someone sees a PG-13 movie and enjoys it and THEN says, "I guess every PG-13 movie will be okay for me and my kids," then they will be proven wrong. I'm glad the system doesn't work for people who refuse to use their brains.

As for "appropriate audiences," yes, this is a laziness on the part of the MPAA and a way to pass the blame for offense material in trailers which wasn't allowed in the past. Then again, the movie makers are the ones pushing for more "inappropriate material" in trailers. So it's their fault and the MPAA is just letting them advertise in the way they want to.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-28-2010 10:06 AM

quote: Greg Anderson
The most important thing that the MPAA does is prevent government censorship.

Actually, the First Amendment does that. Though you have to fight to make it work. Just look at how obscenity for children laws are worded and think of all the PG movies you know of that are in violation.

The MPAA is a lobbying group for the motion picture industry. They do what lobbying groups are designed to do: get the government to work to their advantage. It is to the MPAA's advantage not to have politicians getting involved in the content of their movies, but to their advantage to have the government extend and enforce copyright, so the MPAA does things that keep the politicians happy, like maintaining a ratings system...and spreading money around.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.