Is Too Much Attention Paid to MPAA Ratings?
Should the rating be any judge of quality?
 |
On April 5, 2006 I posted the first ever MPAA Ratings bulletin on RopeofSilicon. Since that time I have posted every single ratings bulletin since and have posted a total of 146 separate updates in my weekly The Ratings Board feature (posted every Wednesday). Occasionally the news causes a stir such as when I announced Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince would be rated PG and even though it was my 136th consecutive ratings post I got email after email asking me if it was true. The Dragonball: Evolution announcement also recently caused a minor stir.
I think taking a look at the ratings once they are official can be a fun practice. It's interesting to see how the MPAA rates a film, but it is by no means a way to judge the quality of a feature. However, nowadays it has become common practice to lambaste a film before it even gets a trailer if the wrong MPAA rating is even hinted at. Most recently the victim was Terminator Salvation.
Understandably, online Terminator fans want the franchise to continue down the dark and R-rated path of the previous three films, but there has been chatter Warner Bros. and director McG have been shooting for a PG-13 rated film. McG has gone to ridiculous lengths to rile up crowds even to the point of throwing female star Moon Bloodgood under the bus asking an audience of convention goers if they want to see her naked in Salvation. You can imagine the audience reaction as Bloodgood sat on stage and listened to the whole thing.
There was a similar online backlash when Live Free or Die Hard was made as a PG-13 film while its three predecessors where all rated R. Many used the rating as a reason to hate the film; I personally liked it, but haven't watched it since. Not sure what that means.
I bring this up now, because recent news out of IESB.net says Warner Bros. "is apparently skittish about losing money if a superhero/tentpole film is rated R rather than the more family friendly PG-13" following the box-office letdown of Watchmen.
As a result of all this IESB goes on to say Warner Bros. is said to be focusing solely on PG-13 rated superhero/tentpole films only, definitely harder than the "family friendly" superhero films of Fantastic Four but not in the R rated range. If true, this sounds as if they will allow for a film to go as dark as The Dark Knight went, but the sex and blood will need to be kept to a minimum, two aspects prominently featured in Watchmen. And just to simply get it out of the way, I am sure many fans will argue Watchmen isn't necessarily a superhero movie in the same vein as Fantastic Four or even The Dark Knight or Iron Man. Let me say I agree with you, but for this topic of conversation that is beside the point and on top of that IESB also adds to "tentpole" films to the equation.
IESB also uses the Salvation example and references upcoming WB properties such as Green Lantern and the long gestating Wonder Woman saying audiences should certainly expect PG-13 from those titles.
My question is, "Who cares?"
I am not saying IESB's story isn't newsworthy, because it is, but until a film is released the rating doesn't matter one bit, and even then it is still intended as an audience guide and nothing more.
Take a look at The Dark Knight for example, that movie is so close to an R-rating that had a single drop of blood squirted as The Joker made a #2 pencil disappear into another man's cranium it would have meant those under 17 would need to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, but in its current form it was simply enough for parents to be strongly cautioned.
How about The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian? That film was rated PG and featured a mouse that went around slicing throats and included an actual beheading. A beheading — in a PG-rated motion picture. According to the MPAA Prince Caspian contained epic battle action and violence. That's how it got its PG-rating. The PG rating for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is due to scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality. Not sure about you, but it sounds like Harry may have gotten away with a little bit more than the complaining fans are assuming, but that's exactly my point.
Fans of the Potter franchise are worried Half-Blood Prince may not live up to the novel due to this "softer" rating, but the MPAA seems to always be softening its stance on violence and dark materials. It's with sex that they maintain their firm grip.
If Terminator Salvation is extremely violent and merely doesn't include one scene with Moon Bloodgood in the rain topless and gets a PG-13 rating does that mean it isn't worth seeing? If John McClane doesn't say "Yippee Ki Yay Mother Fucker" does it mean Live Free or Die Hard should be knocked down another notch?
I will admit when films deviate from a director's original vision in order to satisfy an MPAA rating that is a problem. A film such as this would include Touchstone's King Arthur in which director Antoine Fuqua made an extremely violent film for a Holiday 2004 release only to be told it was going to be moved into summer and would need to have all the violence edited out and made into a PG-13 movie. Guess what, it sucked. Not just because the violence was cut out, but because the violence was so ingrained into the film therefore removing the raw nature of it all sucked the life out of it. Granted, while I enjoyed the unrated cut of the film it was still flawed, but there is much more to that story than this simple paragraph, but suffice to say, it didn't turn out as the director intended.
As for my question in the headline, there's no doubt it's a difficult question to answer.
On one hand not enough attention is paid to MPAA ratings as children too young for R-rated films and even a film such as The Dark Knight are brought in with their parents. On the other hand fans get too worked up when it comes to ratings as they worry their highly anticipated film may not have gotten the treatment it deserved when in fact they have no idea of the treatment until they see it.
One thing is for certain — something I think we can all agree on — the MPAA rating process is seriously flawed and it either seems to cater to studio pressure, producer pressure (find a Spielberg or Disney film that didn't get the rating it wanted) or simply seems to lean much further one way than the other, a distinction between sex and violence being the #1 issue. Of course, I am old enough none of it matters anymore and since I don't have children I don't have to worry about that either. My interest is purely from an editorial perspective and from what I see an MPAA rating is no way to judge a film's quality, and occasionally no way to judge a film's content.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 18 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
See the part in this article that states if a squirt of blood was seen in TDK, then it would have been R.
…..so is that saying that if Terminator is a PG-13 there is no squirting blood? What kind of a terminator film could that possibly be without squirting blood?
The problem arises when a director is forced to go out of his way to accommodate a studio-dictated attempt at achieving a more "family friendly" rating. It is in this way that a film's quality can be compromised. I have no problem buying your argument if film's were rated on their merit based on the director's original vision. But since the studio's often want to reach the largest audience possible, the MPAA rating system certainly does factor into the quality of a film (sometimes the visceral response to some blood splatter is more desirable than all the subtle implications an anonymous masked henchman shaking his arms and legs to the rhythm of machine-gun fire can convey).
I agree with the last comment
Have you seen that documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated"?
^ brilliant film. The MPAA are Republican Bible-thumpers in disguise.
Need proof? It is considered to be acceptable for a 10 year old child to view a decapitation, but seeing a breast or two? Christ, that's indecent! That's immoral! That's the equivalent of the conservative attitude; war and violence is acceptable and necessary in a civilized world, but there must be nothing explicit that does not conform to Judeo-Christian moralistic standards.
The problem is, the MPAA terrifies studios. Thus, filmmakers working for them must make their films 'fit' with the MPAA's standards, because a rating that is too high will be box office suicide. Thus, a film is often tamed down and made more 'family-friendly' at the cost of artistic merit. For example, one of my biggest complaints regarding the Dark Knight was the un-explicit nature of its violence. It was obviously aiming for a dark, gritty, and realistic atmosphere. However, the actual ramifications of real urban violence were ignored. Why? Because going all-out and creating a film that displays violence in all of its bloody truth could not possibly escape with a PG-13. And would TDK have made a billion dollars if it was rated R?
Live Free and Die Hard was a damn decent action flick, but it lacked what made Die Hard Die Hard. The profanity, McClane's catchphrase, the fights with the terrorists were all subdued; it prevented the film from becoming what it honestly should have been. The same applies to Harry Potter, Terminator, etc.. to studios, who only view films as a way of making money, conformity and safety are more important than quality. Studio intervention will often destroy a good movie. Thankfully, certain directors have enough credit, balls, and business savvy to stand up to the studios' desires and create a movie that is their own.
Bottom line: MPAA sucks.
Thanks for writing this article. I've always had a problem with the MPAA because the ratings limit what a person can view (from a liberty stance) and they screw with the quality of a film. If the MPAA would get rid of its ratings system and allow any moviegoer to enter any film, while still advertising the films content, the system would be corrected.
Maybe it’s just me but less profanity and a missing catch phrase doesn’t destroy the Ark of the Covenant. Artists rights should always come first, but business is business and no matter how attached people feel to a piece or a character at the end of the day your nine bucks is a drop in the bucket and a studio has to do what is right financially because if they don’t instead of seeing a slightly neutered John McClain your going to see no John McClain.
Another thing that needs to be considered here is, with the advent of DVD most movies that the MPAA take issue with come out with an unrated DVD (Live Free or Die Hard is the perfect example because the UnRated is brimming with Fucks and even a Yippee Ki Yay Mother Fucker for fun). And I know it’s not the same as seeing it on the big screen but take heart the fact that the whole and unmolested film gets its day in the sun.
So I think the answer is, no there is not too much focus on the MPAA. As a governing body they seem unfair on violence and leniency towards certain project but not others and are almost wholly of base when it comes to sex.
AND
Yes there is too much attention paid to the ratings because at the end of the day a movie is a movie. It’s not up to the self righteous to tell anyone whether a movie is “acceptable” I make that choice, parents make that choice. If a movie has to be changed because the people behind it want a wider audience that’s their choice. But really if you don’t want your kids hearing “the F word” I can’t imagine you want them to see a woman hit by a man or someone having a gun pressed against their heads either. So is the difference between PG-13 and R really all that great?
nice stereotype about Christians up there.
Not Christians, Evango-Republican fundamentalists. There's a difference. Some of the people I most admire (even within the film industry) are deeply religious people. I, however, find it problematic when these people attempt to force their religious standards of morality upon others.
One thing at least we know: Harry Potter did not sacrifice anything to get a PG. They would have made just as much money with a PG-13 (and maybe a bit more), as movies 4 and 5 show. Heck, they may have even been shooting for a PG-13. But they merely made the film and ended up with a PG.
I agree that the rating alone doesn't determine the quality of a movie. However, studios often shooting for a certain rating, and what rating they shoot to shows which audience they're aiming at. And R-rated films tend to be aimed at older audiences. Sometimes older means more intelligent, sometimes not. But at any rate an R-rated movie is more likely to be intelligent than a PG-13 or PG or G.
The extreme violence that James Cameron explored through 2 Terminator films were part of what made them so memorable. How can you have a great, scary, apocalyptic film with a robot that goes around murdering people en masse not be rated R? I don't have to have violence, or for that matter, an R-rating, to enjoy a film with a dark premise; however, sometimes it is necessary for the effectiveness of the film. A PG-13 Matrix or Terminator 2 would have seriously lessened the impact of these landmark films. So, as a longtime Terminator fan, I must say I was disappointed when I found out about the PG-13 rating. I'll still be camped out in front of the theater awaiting Salvations release.
Also, I think that Bruce Willis' (and Samuel L. Jackson in Die Hard 3) clever useage of words such as Fuck and Shit throughtout the Die Hard films were part of what them so enjoyable. I think that Live Free or Die Hard would have been a better film had it got the R-rating. Still, I greatly enjoyed my fourth outing with John Mclain.
There is no beheading in Prince Caspian. I just watched the scene again in slow motion. All that is shown is an empty helmet.
This Film is Not Yet Rated is one of my favorite films and my favorite documentary.
Die Hard films need ample use of "fuck" and graphic violence.
I really hope Salvation is R, but I'll still see it. The trailer is brilliant.
Fundamentalist Christians are what's wrong with America.
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated"'s content, while brilliant, probably didn't surprise anyone. Anyone who watched it probably already knew of the MPAA's bias against sex (homosexuality especially), indie filmmakers, and realistic violence. However, it showed some brilliant "specific examples" which have already changed the way the MPAA operates, and hopefully the MPAA will eventually move out of the Victorian Age entirely (or just wither away and die).
The MPAA says it's not a censorship board because it doesn't "tell filmmakers what to put in (or take out of) their films" and that they're "not a government organization, and in fact nobody is FORCED to get their movies rated by the MPAA at all". Well, a 5 year old could see through that. If your film is totally independent, true, they won't tell you why they gave you an NC-17… so you'll wind up having to cut and re-submit your film for a "lower" rating numerous times. If you are the opposite (as somebody mentioned earlier, do you think Disney or Spielberg EVER failed to get the rating they wanted?), they won't tell you what to take out of your film either, because there's an unspoken agreement between them and the MPAA. Mostly, it's "don't show any sex and we'll give you whatever rating you want… even if we have to invent one for your film!" (Spielberg didn't want an 'R' for "I.J. and the Temple Of Doom", but he insisted on keeping in a scene where a cult leader pulls out the beating heart from a living man. So the MPAA created the 'PG-13' for him. There was a LOT more than "a drop of blood" [re:"TDK"'s rating] in that scene, but he's Spielberg, so…). Of course, if you're one of the 95% inbetween "totally independent" and "Disney/Spielberg" the MPAA *WILL* tell you exactly what to take out to get the rating you want (I loved the discussion in "This Film…" about "Orgazmo" vs. The "South Park" movie, esp. the part about "Well, if you say 'mother fucker' that many times we'll have to give you an NC-17… but if you say 'UNCLE fucker' instead, that'd be okay with us". LOL!), but that's supposed to be a big secret.
Of course I could continue forever (about how the MPAA's "non-censorship" and "you don't HAVE to get a rating from us" completely ignores the economic censorship of the system… or how "This Movie…" FINALLY got the MPAA to allow filmmakers to say, "Hey, you gave THIS film [some] rating; you can't penalize US for doing the same thing!"… or how every member of the MPAA is supposed to be a parent, only it's conviently forgotten that the average age of an MPAA member's child is 26 [or something like that]…), but I suggest EVERYBODY go and watch the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" if you want a clear picture of what the MPAA is doing to movies in North America.
im just gonna throw this out there. Here is what i would give the new terminator xmen star trek as may movies
Terminator Salvation PG-13- for an appeal on intense violent sci-fi action throughout, some bloody images, nudity, and for some language
star trek PG-13- for intense sci-fi violence and action, brief sexuality and some language
X-Men: origins PG-13- for intense sequences of violence and action, disturbing images and language
Im just seeing “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”’, and i belive some things that
1. Conflict of interests – MPAA shouldnt rate Disney; Columbia; Sony; Paramount; 20th Century Fox ; Universal or Warner movies, is arguable that movies by these studios colud get a "better raiting"
2. No accountability – Rating Board is protected by Anonymity; the criteria is fuzzy, etc
3. No real appealing process – The rules 4 appeal dont allow a fair process
4. Censorship – Because a NC – 17 spells economic disaster filmmakers compromise their vision to get a "better raiting". To me that is a sutile way of cansorship
I am going to re rate star trek from what i9 did b4
Star trek PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action violence and some sensuality
I'm pretty sure most peoples, have seen way more "PG" movie then they really think they have?