Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:04 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13" 
Author Message
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
James Berardinelli wrote:
This presupposes there is something "wrong" with sex and that it's not a natural part of the human experience. The fundamental disconnect here is not whether the sex is real or simulated but whether there's anything repugnant about its depiction in the first place.


Part of the problem is that your stance here presupposes that everyone who doesn't approve of sex on film considers it evil or repugnant. You certainly don't have to agree, but isn't it perfectly acceptable and logical for someone to approve of sex and consider it a beautiful part of the human experience but consider it a private matter, and therefore not useful for young people to view on film? As has been pointed out, very little movie sex is realistic, and there's nothing of value to be learned from Hollywood sex. I certainly don't disagree that the vast majority of the vocal people who protest these things appear to despise sex outright, but there are many who simply don't find it useful. Is there a good reason to depict sex on film (by this I mean anything beyond letting the viewer know what is happening; obviously sexual relationships are crucial to stories)? In a few cases, certainly, but not often.

James Berardinelli wrote:
The problem with violence is that, while most people accept that it's real and don't try to emulate it, there's a small percentage that don't fall into that category. That's why every once in a while a real-life criminal makes reference to copycatting something from a movie. I don't blame the filmmaker in cases like this, but it punches a hole in the argument that violence should get a pass because it's obviously fake.


This I agree with. And obviously rape or any kind of non-consensual activities that involve sex or nudity fall under the violence category.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:14 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
MeekayD wrote:
A couple of people have touched on this, but I wanted to lay it out more explicitly.

No matter how violent the images on the movie screen, be it someone slipping on a banana peel, punched by Batman, gunned down by a Nazi, or tortured to death with a scythe, it's all 100% fake. None of it is real. No one was actually hurt, and when the camera stopped rolling everyone smiled and went on about their lives. As convincing and involving as any well-made film can be, at the end the credits still roll.

Sex and nudity can't be faked, at least not in the same way. When someone takes off their shirt, the shirt is off, you've seen it, it's real. They can "fake" having sex, but it's still two actors rubbing against each other erotically. They're faking the feelings behind the sex, and there may not be any penetration, but they're still all over each other. You've seen it, and been titillated by it, and it's almost no different than if you'd seen it "for real".

Now, I absolutely agree that the MPAA system is past its prime, and needs dramatic changes, and I have my own version of what the new system would look like. And American prudishness (at least publicly) is epic. But I take serious issue with the "European" sensibility that movie violence is so much worse than movie sex. One is fake, and one really isn't.


You're right to an extent but in the UK at least, sex is still worse than violence or at least it will gain the movie a higher age rating (The Dark Knight was a 12 and Lost In Translation, despite it's subtlety, was a 15).

Is there a problem here with 'prudishness'? It's hardly a crime, when felt on a personal level, so how about we stop using it as a criticism?


Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:26 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
James Berardinelli wrote:
This presupposes there is something "wrong" with sex and that it's not a natural part of the human experience. The fundamental disconnect here is not whether the sex is real or simulated but whether there's anything repugnant about its depiction in the first place.


Indeed!


Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:12 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Shade wrote:
Part of the problem is that your stance here presupposes that everyone who doesn't approve of sex on film considers it evil or repugnant. You certainly don't have to agree, but isn't it perfectly acceptable and logical for someone to approve of sex and consider it a beautiful part of the human experience but consider it a private matter, and therefore not useful for young people to view on film?


This might be true, but this raises the question why people below a certain age shouldn't be allowed to see it just because you and others like you think that it is not useful. I think this is behind James's idea that aged-based ratings should be done away with and that instead stuff should be listed explicitly and used as a basis for people to decide on what they want to see. Yes, one can see in the "rating" full-frontal nudity (both sexes), (simulated) sex, adult themes etc and some teens might want to see the movie on that basis. But if so, what's wrong with that? If you don't think it's appropriate for your children, that is your responsibility.

On the other hand, with hard-core pornography available over the internet, I doubt many people go to the cinema just to see a few seconds of boobs.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:18 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
5wivesofbergman wrote:
This might be true, but this raises the question why people below a certain age shouldn't be allowed to see it just because you and others like you think that it is not useful.


I'm not going to debate with myself; you haven't made a point or argument here. Why is it useful? If you think that it's meaningless, that it falls between usefulness and uselessness, that's fine, but that doesn't call for me to defend anything. I never said anything about policing what anyone else does, and I never even said what my opinion is or isn't. All I did was point out that it's fairly ridiculous to hold the stance that everyone who doesn't think it's useful 9 year-old girls to see Kevin Bacon displaying his bacon thinks that sex is evil or repugnant.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:12 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
AkiraKaneda wrote:
The thing that bothers me, however, is that the majority of folks arguing about the unfairness of the MPAA system aren't the ones for whom it was made -- parents with kids. The rating system is meant to protect the weakest of our society, not the strongest. Should parents take more responsibility? Absolutely..


Among other things, I completely agree with this and, in fact, am saddened by the lack of support for what was written.

Now, I hear what James is saying in the article, but I fear he painted the issue in broad strokes. To say that it is an improvement to remove the ratings system and age restricted viewing in light of better content write-ups is a bit of a stretch. There is no way around the fact that kids should NOT watch a lot of material distributed to the public, regardless of a ratings system, and that decision should be based on basic moral conviction and human decency (i.e. Saw series). Yes, we adults freely make that choice, but in the absence of parents we don't let kids make that decision.

I can't help but see a moral boundary being widened here which, for a new father, surprises me a little. I hear JB essentially saying "what's right and wrong is in the eyes of the beholder and as long as we let them know ahead of time everything will be fine."
No offense, but the ability for James to say movies should just have more content details instead of ratings is to me the same as removing the legal drinking age and making them print on the bottle "don't drink and drive" and saying its safer this way. Sure alcohol/movies can be harmless at times, but mix in other elements like age and peer pressure and one can make a good case that movies can be dangerous ( Fast and Furious or Jackass).
And for the MPAA I'm impressed they didn't just dismiss that notion, but actually took responsibility for it. Yes, I can hear people talk about it being the parents responsibility but that of course is assuming the parents are around and care about their kids.
The MPAA is actually making a statement that I think our society no longer has the courage to make which is...there is actual right and wrong and here are the boundaries to them. They take into consideration that explicit content affects kids in psychological and emotional ways and can make impressions that last and may even alter behavior. To say that isn't true is just foolish. Plenty of people in here I'm sure know people who have seen pornography and I bet many of them don't brag about it or encourage their kids to do it. Why? Because instinctively they know its wrong and feel shame without having to be told its wrong. What does it mean though when movies and TV come along and "normalize" pornography or violence without any depiction of what its like to deal with the consequences. I think the MPAA takes that into consideration and draws a line to say this is dangerous material and we'll step in for absent parents and say here are the boundaries.
I guess I'm just a little surprised at the somewhat dismissive attitude that people have towards what is being censored, like there is no consequence for impressions or exposure to content at certain ages. People talk all the time about what "shaped" their lives or a "defining" moment and a lot of those were childhood events...why couldn't that moment be in a movie? What if that moment is negative? We suspend our disbelief in movies to the point that people's heart rates go up or we cry because we allow our minds to believe its real. That is only compounded when it is viewed by a kid.
I think the least we could do for the upholding of some form of moral and safety boundary is have ratings and age restricted viewing.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:30 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
I wholeheartedly agree with James on this issue and think he makes a very valid point in his comparison between alcohol consumption and movie ratings. As he states, if a child is raised with exposure to alcoholic beverages (within reason of course) then it holds no mystique. This is, of course not true in places that regulate it heavily. In Canada, depending on the province you live in you can drink at the age of 18 or 19; and it is much worse in the U.S where the age is generally 21. Studies have even recommended that the age be lowered precisely because it limits rather then increases alcohol consumption and alcohol-related incidents amongst youngsters and in the wider society generally. In Europe, there is no age restriction (at least not ones that are heavily enforced) and in most jurisdictions you can actually imbibe alcohol in public - even just walking down the street. As a result, someone from North America would expect to find vast numbers of drunken youngsters running amok, but that simply isn't the case. Ultimately, whether we are refferring to alcohol consumption, nudity/violence/profanity in movies, sex, etc. it all comes down to education. Just as citizens of European countries are socialized into accepting alcohol as a normal product that have positive and negative qualities, so too should people be taught that movies are a form of art and expression and to respect it as such, not to view and and label them as vehicles of immorality and indecensy that will poison the minds of our youngsters. It is odd that a society claiming to be so liberal and free would be so backward and conservative in relation to something as innocent as a movie. And I would have to disagree wholeheartedly with a previous post regarding Schindler's list. You can read about certain events in history and grasp what occurred, but a well-done movie can certainly strengthen that grasp and literally transport the viewer into that moment in time. There is no better education than viewing events for oneself. I have to admit that whether it be Schindler's List, Amistad, or Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg has been a master at doing so.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:01 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Timothy T12 said:

"Plenty of people in here I'm sure know people who have seen pornography and I bet many of them don't brag about it or encourage their kids to do it. Why? Because instinctively they know its wrong and feel shame without having to be told its wrong. What does it mean though when movies and TV come along and "normalize" pornography or violence without any depiction of what its like to deal with the consequences. I think the MPAA takes that into consideration and draws a line to say this is dangerous material and we'll step in for absent parents and say here are the boundaries.
I guess I'm just a little surprised at the somewhat dismissive attitude that people have towards what is being censored, like there is no consequence for impressions or exposure to content at certain ages. People talk all the time about what "shaped" their lives or a "defining" moment and a lot of those were childhood events...why couldn't that moment be in a movie? What if that moment is negative? We suspend our disbelief in movies to the point that people's heart rates go up or we cry because we allow our minds to believe its real. That is only compounded when it is viewed by a kid.
I think the least we could do for the upholding of some form of moral and safety boundary is have ratings and age restricted viewing."


People don't "instinctively" know pornography is wrong, they are ashamed precisely because conservative elements in the society in which you reside have labelled them shameful. Pornography is not inherently wrong, and that is the reason why it has never been outlawed completely in the U.S. Hence the problem with a Big Brother-type organization "telling" you rather then forming an opinion of whether something is right or wrong, especially when no movie fits neatly into such a dichotomy. I agree that parents are not always responsible but censorship is never the answer as it robs people of an education. How can you educate someone on sex, violence, etc. if in fact you do not expose them to a certain degree? It is violence IN REAL LIFE that leads to behavioural problems in children, not what you see in Hollywood. I'm sure many of us saw violent or frightening movies growing and didn't turn into sadistic killers. I also think you give too much credit to movies and television shows for "normalizing" violence and I am frankly very uncomfortable with some unaccountable organization telling me what is or is not "dangerous material" (in your own words). This is also highly hyprocritcal considering that the MPAA does not care so much about "violence" in movies per se, then about how much blood you see or how many F-bombs are dropped. And again, let's not pretend the MPAA acts as some sort of moral compass when they are entirely in the pockets of film companies. So long as children are taught to view movies as a form of expression just as you would a picture or a song then the MPAA has no inherent value. Luckily I live in Ontario, Canada where these issues do exist but the rating system is not nearly as restrictive.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:29 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Excellent, excellent post, James, no matter that the
topic has been a bone of contention for longer than I
can remember. I'm so tired of the hypocrisy and cant
of the more hidebound elements of our society; it just
boggles the mind that we're so conflicted.

When will Americans ever actually grow up and join
the rest of the world?


Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:31 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
You people are insane!

I was never allowed to see any movie above a G when i was a teen and i never saw boobs anywhere, as it is a commonly known fact that if denied said boobs in film you automatically lose any ability to seek them in any other way!


Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:04 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
I saw a boob in a movie once when I was 10. I was immediately brain damaged, evident by the fact that I had a sudden urge to hump everything in sight, and my heart was pumping blood into a strange place...It was so developmentally scarring, I've had to endure years of psychotherapy.


Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:11 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Rather than reply to specific comments, I thought I'd just contribute a couple more thoughts based on the overall discussion.

What bothers me greatly about this discussion (and many like it) is that there is a severe Euro-centrism to the whole thing, as if Europe was in fact made up of only one culture and that this (fictional) culture supersedes all others. Let me take apart a couple of the myths I believe we've seen in this conversation.

First is the myth of European drinking ages. Of the 42 countries in Europe, only 11 have no legal drinking age -- and most of these are not major European powers. And all of them have an age prohibition on selling alcohol to minors (ranging between the ages of 16-20). The rest of the world is not dissimilar. The key issue surrounding the US drinking age is driving. In the US, a DUI is at .08 BAC. Guess what? Only 3 countries in Europe are that high. Drive at .08 BAC in Europe and you will face much stiffer penalties -- jail time, licenses suspended for 2 yrs to life, etc. Europe also has a lot of public transport, which means that many folks can drink without driving...ever. Let's not kid ourselves to try and compare the US and Europe and say that they are so much more "civilized" or what not.

Second is the myth of European age standards for films. Britain, Finland, Germany...all have rating systems that do in fact censor films and can make them illegal for sale. In the US, as long as you don't want an MPAA rating, you can release virtually anything. Not so in countries with a governmental film rating system...and there, a number of films cannot be sold or rented to minors either. Even less restrictive systems like those in France affect who can see what. From my research (which is admittedly brief), only a couple of places (like Denmark) are very nonrestrictive.

Does Europe have a more relaxed attitude to nudity in public than America? Yes, to an extent. Having lived in Russia for a year in the mid-1990s, I know that the local buses often had a poster up (the bus driver's choice) with a topless model. People didn't really approve of them; it just was the way it was. Even during the summer, Russians tended to wear a lot more than Americans. Television shows were far less prone to violence and sexuality than American ones. Other parts of Europe are different, of course, and some are more relaxed in certain situations. But it's not as if all of Europe is going nudist any time soon.

I'm just of the opinion that whenever you must quote another cultural context to attack your own, perhaps you don't understand the other culture thoroughly enough to understand the trade-offs. Every culture has its own issues to deal with, and before you lament what you don't like in yours, seriously consider whether the culture you wish to emulate is really all that much better.


Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:10 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
AkiraKaneda wrote:
Every culture has its own issues to deal with, and before you lament what you don't like in yours, seriously consider whether the culture you wish to emulate is really all that much better.


I just came from over there, the grass really is greener.

In my opinion, there should be no ratings system. I do think it's ok to add warnings about the content of the film, i.e. this film contains nudity, violence, drug use, etc. However, it should be at the discretion of the PARENT of what they want their children to be exposed too. Moreover, everyone knows that, as much as they'd like to be able too, parents aren't always going to be there to supervise their child's media intake, so it's important that they explain to them the artistic value/vanity of a specific scene/shot in a film, so the child has the ability to decipher the message and formulate their own thoughts. But the way the system is now, I think it's doing more brainwashing than helping children develop minds capable of critical thought.

It might boil down to the irrational (albeit natural) instinct of a parent to "protect" their children and preserve their innocence. For example, young adults and the elderly are more likely to support the legalization of cannabis than adults of parenting age. What I can't understand is why people are so willing to let other people judge what is suitable for their children...isn't that their job? When did we decide to let a bunch of strangers be the ones who gauge the value of something for our offspring? Especially people who have clearly demonstrated bias and don't effectively judge something by its context rather than its content. It might not be such an issue if the MPAA practiced a little more objectivity...

I don't blame the MPAA. I blame the parents who enabled them.


Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Timmy Shoes wrote:
What I can't understand is why people are so willing to let other people judge what is suitable for their children...isn't that their job? When did we decide to let a bunch of strangers be the ones who gauge the value of something for our offspring?


This is why I said in my original post that the ratings system isn't in place to protect the strongest in our society but the weakest. I certainly don't trust the MPAA to get ratings right in terms of material that is truly appropriate for the various ages represented. However, I actually care about what my children watch. Many, many parents don't...it's not that they don't care about their children per se, they just care about their own needs far more. They use the MPAA rating as a guidelines...sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. But I believe it is better than nothing at all, certainly.


Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:22 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3204
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
TimothyT12 wrote:
No offense, but the ability for James to say movies should just have more content details instead of ratings is to me the same as removing the legal drinking age and making them print on the bottle "don't drink and drive" and saying its safer this way. Sure alcohol/movies can be harmless at times, but mix in other elements like age and peer pressure and one can make a good case that movies can be dangerous ( Fast and Furious or Jackass).


I can't believe anyone would make this comparison. Eliminating age-restrictive movie ratings = eliminating drunk driving laws? Are you out of your mind? When someone close to you is killed by a drunk driver, maybe you'll understand the sheer idiocy of this comparison.

If you want to debate my point, fine. But try to do it with a comparison that at least makes sense.


Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:02 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Wow. I can't believe I overlooked that bit.

The science of alcohol intoxication is indisputable. The statistical relationship between alcohol intoxication and traffic fatalities is indisputable. The argument for laws against driving while intoxicated is rational and robustly supported.

If there is any similar empirical evidence to damn movies in nearly the same way, I'd sure like to see it. Evidence to suggest that movies can be directly harmful to the physical health of the person watching them. Evidence that they cause the viewer to become potentially harmful to the physical health of others in turn. Evidence that certain kinds of movies are measurably more harmful than others. Evidence that the ratings correspond to this in any way whatsoever.

If there is a rational defense for the ratings system, this isn't it. I think most of us are adults. There is no reason to play dumb here.

No offense.


Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:25 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Eliminating age-restrictive movie ratings = eliminating drunk driving laws?


James, the comparison was made to illustrate that both movies/alcohol are DANGEROUS without restriction, not the removal of drunk driving LAWS. If I struck a nerve I apologize, but wouldn't you concede that movies can be dangerous to a child's mind, regardless of parental preparation?


MikeB wrote:
Pornography is not inherently wrong, and that is the reason why it has never been outlawed completely in the U.S.


This is ridiculous. Would you then say we should have porn on broadcast TV if we put a warning up beforehand? Is there no wrong that "education" can't make right?


Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:09 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
I was just watching an interview with Eminem on Anderson Cooper and he said something that reinforces how I feel about this whole thing. Basically, when asked by Cooper whether or not he felt any responsibility over the fact that young people could hear his music and possibly emulate the vulgarity in it, he responded by say that it's parents job to "parent their children" and I couldn't agree more with that. Artists, in whatever form they choose to express that art, shouldn't be forced to have to tone down their messages or "clean it up" to make it more accessible to a certain crowd. Like I said earlier on in this thread and Eminem reiterates here, it should be the responsibility of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to see, and after those children reach a certain age, they should be trusted enough to make their own informed decisions on what to see or listen to.


Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:37 am
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
TimothyT12 wrote:
James Berardinelli wrote:
Eliminating age-restrictive movie ratings = eliminating drunk driving laws?


James, the comparison was made to illustrate that both movies/alcohol are DANGEROUS without restriction, not the removal of drunk driving LAWS. If I struck a nerve I apologize, but wouldn't you concede that movies can be dangerous to a child's mind, regardless of parental preparation?


MikeB wrote:
Pornography is not inherently wrong, and that is the reason why it has never been outlawed completely in the U.S.


This is ridiculous. Would you then say we should have porn on broadcast TV if we put a warning up beforehand? Is there no wrong that "education" can't make right?


Don't you think your comparing apples and oranges here? If I had to guess, judging from your point of view, that you are probably a parent of a child below the age of 17. While I can understand the instinct to want to protect your children, there should be a stature of limitation of that kind of thing. You don't want to overprotect your child, because then they won't be able to deal with the realities of the world in the future. Can a movie be "dangerous" to a child's mind even with parental "preperation?" I suppose, but it seems much less likely. Moreover a parent should be able to discern what their child can handle; if the kid is still having night terrors, then watching Jurassic Park is probably a bad idea. Now, I'm not trying to accuse anybody, you might not even be a parent, but your comparison seemed to leap the bounds of rationality. That being said, anymore addresses to "you" in this post shouldn't be viewed as directed towards you, TimothT12.

I think it boils down to being ideological vs. damage control. I happen to agree with James' stance that a cookie-cutter labeling system is unnecessary when sufficient warnings are able to do that job better...I don't understand the logic that you need a G, PG, PG-13 or R to decide if a movie is suitable or not, if it's properly labeled with things like "this movie contains graphic depictions of violence, nudity, drug use, etc." Shouldn't that be enough distinction to make a judgement over whether or not a film would be suitable for one's child? Do you really NEED that label to be able to make a decision? In essence, your protecting your children from the letters rather than the content...moreover the system implies that every child is the same, which is clearly not true. A mature 14 year old girl's mind may be able to handle/understand the depiction of something graphic in a film better than an immature 17 year old male. Which leads me back to the belabored point that it should be on the parents to decide, not the MPAA.

Like I said, ideologies vs. damage control. Does the restrictions on alcohol stop underage drinking? Obviously not. Does the rating system prevent children from seeing movies they "shouldn't" be allowed to see? Not all the time. But parents have this psychological disorder where they try to preserve their child's innocence for as long as possible, when really there's a time to stop protecting the innocence and start building a person capable of surviving the harsh realities of existence. Now this goes a lot deeper than video, but it fits in with the topic of discussion.

Another belabored point, if the MPAA showed a little more objectivity between violence and sexuality, there wouldn't be so much of an issue. If you are an ardent defender of the system, then the bias towards violence must not bother you. But then again, that kind've makes sense; I suppose a parent would rather expose their child to a depiction of a violent act than have them exposed to a sex scene, 'cus the Lord knows no parents want their children to ever have sex! What a horrid thing! We all know you want

I think the conversation might have diverged from a discussion of the MPAA's bias to one of whether or not the system should be in place. But when talking about violence and violent movies, I think it's important to consider human history. Over the course of history (recent history being most poignant, I imagine, what with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the other violent campaigns happening around the world) it has been shown that humans can be a violent creature. I think the depiction of violence might help placate that dark urge we have. That's not to say a child might see something violent and then try to imitate it, but 99 times out of 100 in those cases it's because there was no parent (or a neglectful parent) to guide the child.

In the end, though, I can't believe making a determination about what is and isn't appropriate for a child can be deduced simply by an arbitrary label...especially a label given by a board of prudes...lol...but the main issue is the bias, which should be eradicated. If parent's lives are really hectic enough to the point where they can take their kid to the movies but can't take 5 minutes to research the movie rather than make a 5 second decision based on a letter designation, maybe they should re-think their priorities.

On that note, I'd like to make a friendly reminder to everyone to read the thread before you make a post. I'm guilty of having expressed a sentiment that was already expressed by a previous poster. I might have done that again just now, as I am STILL guilty of not having read the entire thread, lol. So if I repeated a bunch've stuff that's already been said, I apologize in advance.


Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:53 pm
Post Re: October 3, 2010: "Life Is Not PG-13"
Timmy Shoes wrote:
I don't understand the logic that you need a G, PG, PG-13 or R to decide if a movie is suitable or not, if it's properly labeled with things like "this movie contains graphic depictions of violence, nudity, drug use, etc." Shouldn't that be enough distinction to make a judgement over whether or not a film would be suitable for one's child? Do you really NEED that label to be able to make a decision?


I think it has more to do with the ability to restrict kids from viewing it without their parents. Countless kids are let loose on the weekend with no supervision and I don't think it would be an improvement to allow them to just walk into any movie regardless of content. I personally think that the MPAA does society a service by not allowing kids to freely walk into a graphic movie and, more or less, desensitize them to violent, sexual, and vulgar things. They are protecting the kids and stepping in for the absent parent. Plus, the fact remains, if parents are with the kids, they can go to any movie they want anyway regardless of rating. Ratings simply act as a barrier for unsupervised kids getting into graphic movies and that is a good thing.

And prudes? Really? The MPAA isn't restricting or infringing on any freedoms of any adults...they only restrict kids. Yes, the world is harsh and real life can be ugly, but why would I want to cozy up to those types of things and act like its normal. Rape, drugs, murder displayed in graphic ways are unnatural horrible things that should remain bad and not normalized parts of our lives and certainly kids. If that makes me a prude too then I'm fine with that.

The unfortunate bi-product of age restricted viewing is certainly what began this discussion which is the economics of movies and how the MPAA is affecting films because of their standards. I think having some moral and protective boundary on movies is worth it though.


Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:30 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr