The whole premise seems pretty flawed. If the director thinks the current rating system is flawed, I am pretty sure he a
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — This Film Is Not Yet Rated
dioditto — 13 years ago(June 20, 2012 03:47 PM)
The whole premise seems pretty flawed. If the director thinks the current rating system is flawed, I am pretty sure he also think the jury system is flawed too then?
-
larzhoban-930-720978 — 13 years ago(August 06, 2012 11:21 PM)
Our jury system is made of selections of people of different age/race/ideology etc. etc. Its called a jury of your peers because its just that. If any factor of your life makes the court feel that you will have a biased agenda in ANY case, you're immediately let off of your duty and not allowed to be on that jury.
This film pointed out the heavy bias in the fact that the MPAA seems to only hire stuffy 40-50something, white parents (when in reality a majority of their kids are in their 20s/30s) who seem to think that they are the moral judge and representation of what every other parents' child should and should not see.
No offense, but I think the only flaw is your comparison of the two. -
lazarillo — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 08:14 PM)
The jury system WOULD be flawed if the most wealthy and powerful interested party were in charge of putting together the "jury". That's what the MPAA is. The studios put together an anonymous jury to rubber-stamp their own products and harshly judge their indie and foreign competitors.
-
ultimatenexus — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 09:46 PM)
Exactly. It's always going to be corrupted; there's no perfect system, and frankly in the MPAA's case, it could be improved by NOT forcing theater chains and filmmakers to cut down on the NC-17. "For the children!" my ass. If everything was for kids, the world would be a boring P.C. glob of crap.
It's halfway there already.
"Welcome to the middle of nowhere-
-the center of everywhere." -
doggie_rodriguez — 10 years ago(July 27, 2015 07:57 PM)
It's only flawed if you didn't understand it. You clearly did not. (proof is your logically flawed analogy). For it to be even comparable you would need people on the committee that were PEERS of yours.