New Film Ignites Debate on Ratings Policy

[danarhea]

This is ridiculous...

LOS ANGELES — The romantic comedy “It’s Complicated” arrived at the multiplex on Friday complete with an R rating, ranking it in the same category as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Basic Instinct” in the eyes of the Motion Picture Association of America.

But there is no violence in “It’s Complicated,” and the bedroom scenes are decidedly tame by contemporary standards. Instead, the R rating — which experts say could limit the box-office potential of the Universal Pictures film — comes largely from a sequence in which Steve Martin and Meryl Streep smoke marijuana.

Yes, folks, the nannies are at it again, trying their hardest to protect Americans from themselves, namely watching a 2 minute scene of 2 people smoking a joint. Yes, teens will not be allowed to see this without an accompanying parent or guardian. It is "bad" for them.

Our nannies will give a PG rating to war movies, in which kajillions of people are killed, westerns, in which people shoot each other up, crime movies, which portray mob killings, bank robberies, hit jobs, cop killings, and the like, and many other movies, in which sex and violence run rampant. But, if a movie portrays someone smoking a joint, it is to be put in the same class as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and "Saw". Marijuana is just that dangerous, they tell us.

Want to know what I would do if my kid were still living at home? If it is a good movie, I would buy the damn thing and let him watch it, if he wanted to. It would be a damn sight healthier than letting him play any of those shoot-em-up video games, complete with bloody carnage, that companies target towards kids.

Is it just me, or is regulation in the name of protection gone rampantly out of control? What kind of dumb asses are putting themselves on pedestals, telling us what is healthy to watch, anyways? I know, I know. They are same the kind of dumb asses who preach that marijuana is bad, but drive home from the bar, after a hard day of regulating others, stoned as hell on alcohol, and think that's OK, until they run some little old lady over. Then that ends up on the news, in technicolor, and guess whose home it gets beamed to? Families with kids, that's who. So what about that joint now?

Hypocrites all. The whole ****ing lot of them!

[/rant]

[/pot stirring]

Discussion?


Article is here.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Drugs Are Bad mmkay. And If You Do Drugs You're Bad. 'Cause Drugs Are Bad , mmkay

 

[Orion]

It's about liability. Movie companies don't want to be sued, and they will. It's the lawsuits that have given parental groups so much power, because of how willy nilly tort laws are. You just know that if it's PG-13 and some kid smokes pot, some parent out there will blame it on the movie and sue.

I do see the contradiction you're talking about though. What's "decent" in movies is wildly varied.

 

[Renae]

Nannies, or people that feel glorifying illegal behavior deserves a mature audience?

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Nannies, or people that feel glorifying illegal behavior deserves a mature audience?

Considering that you can do things like kidnap, premeditate murder, commit arson, and cause massive property damage in a PG-13 movie, the premise that they classified it as R simply to dissuade glorifying illegal behavior is laughable. Oh, and Jackass: The Movie is rated R, so the idea that an R rating prevents immature people from watching a movie is similarly ****ing retarded.

 

[Oftencold]

It's about liability. Movie companies don't want to be sued, and they will. It's the lawsuits that have given parental groups so much power, because of how willy nilly tort laws are. You just know that if it's PG-13 and some kid smokes pot, some parent out there will blame it on the movie and sue.

I do see the contradiction you're talking about though. What's "decent" in movies is wildly varied.

I think that you hit the nail on the head about it probably being a liability concern. I've seen people smoking weed (personally I think such people are best pitied and quietly enslaved to low-tech industrial interests,) on television shows and PG movies for years.

I can hardly imagine that alone getting a movie and "R" rating.

 

[spud_meister]

wow, saw was rated "R" in america, it was only MA here in Australia.
but just for a 2 minute pot smoking scene that's rediculous

 

[apdst]

Pot smoking should get the show and R rating. I don't think that smoking pot should be peddled to a minor audience so they'll see it going on and think it's cool.

 

[spud_meister]

Pot smoking should get the show and R rating. I don't think that smoking pot should be peddled to a minor audience so they'll see it going on and think it's cool.

yeah, 'cause 14 year olds would know where to get it from if they saw it in a movie

 

[molten_dragon]

I do think it's odd how it seems that violence is acceptable to show to teenagers in america, but sex and drug use are not. We do have rather odd ideas about what is 'okay'.

 

[spud_meister]

I do think it's odd how it seems that violence is acceptable to show to teenagers in america, but sex and drug use are not. We do have rather odd ideas about what is 'okay'.

of course, violence only ends in people getting hurt, sex and drugs are moraly wrong

 

[PeteEU]

I do think it's odd how it seems that violence is acceptable to show to teenagers in america, but sex and drug use are not. We do have rather odd ideas about what is 'okay'.

Well that is what happens when you let religion influence the political process. Most ratings were and are some what still inspired by religious dogma of the early 20th century. That is why you can have violent movies pass, but if there is a breast in it, then it is X-rated.

 

[MsRetro]

It's about liability. Movie companies don't want to be sued, and they will. It's the lawsuits that have given parental groups so much power, because of how willy nilly tort laws are. You just know that if it's PG-13 and some kid smokes pot, some parent out there will blame it on the movie and sue.

I do see the contradiction you're talking about though. What's "decent" in movies is wildly varied.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's not the studio making this decision, it's the ratings board, which is a separate and independent entity. If the studio was worried about liability, wouldn't they just cut the scene?

The MPAA is definitely a nanny organization, trying to make moral decisions for the rest of us. It's a sort of de facto censorship, since films will be edited to meet certain rating levels.

 

[spud_meister]

It's about liability. Movie companies don't want to be sued, and they will. It's the lawsuits that have given parental groups so much power, because of how willy nilly tort laws are. You just know that if it's PG-13 and some kid smokes pot, some parent out there will blame it on the movie and sue.

I do see the contradiction you're talking about though. What's "decent" in movies is wildly varied.

wow, so if i stabbed someone with a sword, i could then sue everyone involved with lord of the rings?

 

[TOJ]

wow, so if i stabbed someone with a sword, i could then sue everyone involved with lord of the rings?

Sure, go ahead and try it. You'll get rich. :roll:

.

 

[hazlnut]

This is ridiculous...



Yes, folks, the nannies are at it again, trying their hardest to protect Americans from themselves, namely watching a 2 minute scene of 2 people smoking a joint. Yes, teens will not be allowed to see this without an accompanying parent or guardian. It is "bad" for them.

Our nannies will give a PG rating to war movies, in which kajillions of people are killed, westerns, in which people shoot each other up, crime movies, which portray mob killings, bank robberies, hit jobs, cop killings, and the like, and many other movies, in which sex and violence run rampant. But, if a movie portrays someone smoking a joint, it is to be put in the same class as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and "Saw". Marijuana is just that dangerous, they tell us.

Want to know what I would do if my kid were still living at home? If it is a good movie, I would buy the damn thing and let him watch it, if he wanted to. It would be a damn sight healthier than letting him play any of those shoot-em-up video games, complete with bloody carnage, that companies target towards kids.

Is it just me, or is regulation in the name of protection gone rampantly out of control? What kind of dumb asses are putting themselves on pedestals, telling us what is healthy to watch, anyways? I know, I know. They are same the kind of dumb asses who preach that marijuana is bad, but drive home from the bar, after a hard day of regulating others, stoned as hell on alcohol, and think that's OK, until they run some little old lady over. Then that ends up on the news, in technicolor, and guess whose home it gets beamed to? Families with kids, that's who. So what about that joint now?

Hypocrites all. The whole ****ing lot of them!

[/rant]

[/pot stirring]

Discussion?


Article is here.

If Universal wanted a PG-13 rating, they would have gotten it. The film was given an R-Rating for marketing purposes.

Directors are contractually obligated to deliver a certain rating.

Nancy Meyers, who directed the film, declined to comment, as did Universal and the film’s producers.

No where in the article does it say Meyers or Universal was unhappy with the rating or tried to resubmit the film to MPAA for review.

It doesn't sound like this story was generated by anyone who had anything to do with the making of the film.

 

[Strucky]

I remember a time when PG-13 movies had nudity and swearing in them.The family movie "National Lampoon's European Vacation" was PG-13 and had both.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089670/parentalguide

 

[American]

This is ridiculous...



Yes, folks, the nannies are at it again, trying their hardest to protect Americans from themselves, namely watching a 2 minute scene of 2 people smoking a joint. Yes, teens will not be allowed to see this without an accompanying parent or guardian. It is "bad" for them.

Our nannies will give a PG rating to war movies, in which kajillions of people are killed, westerns, in which people shoot each other up, crime movies, which portray mob killings, bank robberies, hit jobs, cop killings, and the like, and many other movies, in which sex and violence run rampant. But, if a movie portrays someone smoking a joint, it is to be put in the same class as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and "Saw". Marijuana is just that dangerous, they tell us.

Want to know what I would do if my kid were still living at home? If it is a good movie, I would buy the damn thing and let him watch it, if he wanted to. It would be a damn sight healthier than letting him play any of those shoot-em-up video games, complete with bloody carnage, that companies target towards kids.

Is it just me, or is regulation in the name of protection gone rampantly out of control? What kind of dumb asses are putting themselves on pedestals, telling us what is healthy to watch, anyways? I know, I know. They are same the kind of dumb asses who preach that marijuana is bad, but drive home from the bar, after a hard day of regulating others, stoned as hell on alcohol, and think that's OK, until they run some little old lady over. Then that ends up on the news, in technicolor, and guess whose home it gets beamed to? Families with kids, that's who. So what about that joint now?

Hypocrites all. The whole ****ing lot of them!

[/rant]

[/pot stirring]

Discussion?


Article is here.

Uh, it's you. It's so plain you're not conservative, why not stop the hackery here?

 

[American]

Well that is what happens when you let religion influence the political process. Most ratings were and are some what still inspired by religious dogma of the early 20th century. That is why you can have violent movies pass, but if there is a breast in it, then it is X-rated.

Another domestic issue you're sticky your nose into. You just don't get it do you? You're opinion on our domestic matters means nothing. You don't vote here, and you don't pay taxes here. When you do, let me know and I'll listen.

 

[PeteEU]

Another domestic issue you're sticky your nose into. You just don't get it do you? You're opinion on our domestic matters means nothing. You don't vote here, and you don't pay taxes here. When you do, let me know and I'll listen.

Pathetic reaction. How about debating the issue instead of resorting to personal attacks.

 

[apdst]

yeah, 'cause 14 year olds would know where to get it from if they saw it in a movie

It may motivate them to go find it.

I do think it's odd how it seems that violence is acceptable to show to teenagers in america, but sex and drug use are not. We do have rather odd ideas about what is 'okay'.

It's not ok for my kids.

 

[Jmills1]

Somehow i doubt Meryl Streep is setting trends and fashions amongst today's kids. Many valid points have been brought up particularly the disparity between ratings for violence versus love making. The whole thing really seems laughable to begin with because yours kids are probaly already smoking pot and having sex to begin with so stop whinning and complaining about how everything in our society has to be tailored as not to offend you or corrupt your precious little offspring.

 

[Zyphlin]

Nannies, or people that feel glorifying illegal behavior deserves a mature audience?

Your sig line

"We can't risk people making the wrong choice, we must make it for them!"
The call of Liberalism, and slave

God the irony.

This is ridiculous here. If the marijuana scene really is the prime reason for it to be Rated R instead of PG-13 its completely ridiculous. Go back and look at the Dark Knight. Two people are left to fight to the death, a woman gets exploded and a man half incinerated, kidnapping is prevelant, a man has a pencil jabbed fully into his eye, batman illegally collects the signals of thousands of cell phones, countless amounts of extremely reckless and dangerous driving are done...on and on and on. Buts its PG-13. But a couple of sex jokes and two old people trying marijuana means it needs to be R?

This is one issue that the religious right/big government social conservatives come together with the liberals on that makes me laugh at those that say bipartisanship solves all.

 

[danarhea]

It may motivate them to go find it.




It's not ok for my kids.

Fine, then don't take your kids to the movie, and turn the channel if something on TV offends you. But don't even dare to attempt to make that decision for others. The best censor for your family is YOU, not nannies. Man up and take a little responsibility, instead of relying on others to make those decisions for you. And, of course, if someone else doesn't mind their kids watching 2 people smoking a joint, then keep your nose out of it. It's none of your business.

 

[Harshaw]

Well that is what happens when you let religion influence the political process. Most ratings were and are some what still inspired by religious dogma of the early 20th century. That is why you can have violent movies pass, but if there is a breast in it, then it is X-rated.

As usual, your profound ignorance of what actually goes on in the United States is showing.

The MPAA gives the ratings, and it's a private organization having nothing to do with the government or the "political process." And the MPAA would laugh itself silly at your preposterous idea that it's influenced by "religion."

There are no X ratings, and breasts have appeared in PG movies.

But hey, any opportunity to bash the United States, right?