MPAA Film Ratings
Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:37 AM
Personally, I view the MPAA as restricting what films can be made. Some premises can't even be explored at all because exploring them in any realistic way would yield an NC17 rating which is not commercially viable. Furthermore, even if one accepts the idea that films ought to be rated so the public can get an idea of what they're getting into, or what type of movie they're bringing their kid to, (an idea I do not accept) there's still the problem of a bunch of random people with sensibilities that don't necessarily reflect those of the general public putting labels films we all see.
Posted 28 July 2013 - 10:37 AM
Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:29 AM
Posted 28 July 2013 - 01:12 PM
Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:11 PM
Zappa was always one of my favorite proponents of intellectual freedom and the dissolution of these groups. Here's a great look back through the window of time:
The good news, however, is that the MPAA is fast losing relevancy. I'd love to help speed that along.
Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:24 PM
|QUOTE (Otter @ Monday, Jul 29 2013, 02:11)|
|The good news, however, is that the MPAA is fast losing relevancy.|
Is it, though? I mean, sure, there's the internet now, but movie theatres and stores that sell DVDs won't touch an unrated movie, or a movie that is rated too inappropriate, and those places are still how film studios make the bulk of their income, and being that film studios are the people that commission and finance most major movies, I'd say the MPAA is still very relevant.
Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:36 PM
The landscape is changing in a huge way and the MPAA in its current form won't be able to keep up. So in that spirit, we're actually in the middle of a really exciting time, and conversations like this are increasingly more relevant. I guess what I'm rambling on about here is... the MPAA's throat is exposed; we should be going in for the kill.
Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:53 PM
I think the point I'm making is that the current system isn't going to change, so it needs to be done away with. Movie studios make their money from places that won't step outside of the rating system, therefore the people who control the rating system still have a stranglehold on the industry. It's all inextricably linked. This is just another reason to force the industry to evolve. Offer your sh*t for free, but make us watch ads and be done with it. It's time things became pro-consumers and pro-creators, rather than pro-soulless-middlemen-in-suits.
Posted 29 July 2013 - 03:10 AM Edited by Zugzwang, 29 July 2013 - 04:43 AM.
That being said, I'd disagree with Otter in saying that NC17 films are commercially viable. A film doesn't make most of it's profits from things like iTunes and Hulu. A successful theatrical release is essential to a commercially successful movie (except perhaps in the case of some cult films). Cinemark, the third largest theater chain in the US, won't even carry an NC17 film and that's a pretty large dent alone. Besides that there's of course the problem of not letting anyone under 17 into the theater at all, even if they're accompanied by a parent like they would have to be for an R rated movie.
Posted 29 July 2013 - 04:47 AM
I do agree, though, that the over-reliance on a single sometimes abused ratings system isn't probably in the best interest of creative freedom or even the market. I'd actually like to see a greater number of ratings groups. I actually saw a rating on the back of a DVD that I at first mistook for the soap brand "Dove" but was actually more of a faith based group called The Dove Foundation. In another vein, I can picture a more liberated ratings market having a Frat-based rating system from A to DD or having the film's theater score from rotten tomatoes on the back or even some excessively exclusionary ratings systems like a CryptNet level 1-33 for SciFi.
Posted 29 July 2013 - 04:57 PM Edited by Otter, 29 July 2013 - 05:02 PM.
I'll reiterate - there's the myth of Hollywood profit, and then there's the truth. Box office gross is just one factor in a successful film these days. Do I mean to say that Paramount will spend $200 Million on a ClockWork Orange 3D reboot? Of course not. But we're arguably closer to that becoming a reality. Direct-to-download films are becoming more and more common. Sharknado, people, sharknado.
Rown - I think that's a bit simplistic. Theatres don't refuse to play NC-17 films because they don't think people will come in to watch them; the do so because there are powerful "morality" and faith-based groups that can and will create an absolute ruckus. So the MPAA has this responsibility to be fair in their judgements because they have been blessed with this absurd power of summary judgment with no transparency whatsoever. It's thuggy. I applaud efforts to classify work in terms that will inform parents but.... is that even relevant any longer? A quick google will send you in the right direction. So yeah, it is the result of a "censorship state" of sorts, but that's like treating cancer and ignoring the tumor. This thing needs to be cut out.
Posted 14 August 2013 - 03:39 AM Edited by sivispacem, 14 August 2013 - 06:53 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users