Exposing the raters seemed misguided…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — This Film Is Not Yet Rated
SwampThang — 11 years ago(August 11, 2014 03:24 PM)
I really didn't understand the arc of the documentary focused on exposing the raters, it seemed like a red herring.
I personally agree that the sex/violence sensitivities should be reversed, but I think the current system reflects American culture. More time should have been spent either demonstrating that the ratings do not reflect american society, or that there is merit to the board taking an activist approach towards different values despite general consensus.
Secondly the idea of the industry as a cartel, is key. If they won't show NC17 movies then its not a suggestion, it is de facto censorship. This should have been even more emphasized. -
Tobey — 11 years ago(October 29, 2014 03:05 PM)
The filmmaker was pointing out that the organization was secretive and that the information they gave the public about their make-up was not accurate. I don't remember the specifics but the MPAA often said that most of their members had young children or teens when it was shown that only a very few did.
There was also the make-up of the panel and the secretive nature of including certain clergy in the process. -
lazarillo — 11 years ago(October 30, 2014 04:53 PM)
I don't know if they needed to personally "expose" the raters. But I think it is naive to not realize who the people on the ratings board are REALLY working for (the Hollywood media conglomerates). It's also naive to think these people are not showing extreme favoritism towards their benefactors.
This is not a non-issue at all. Why does the MPAAif they supposedly exist to protect CHILDRENhave any rating other than "R" when it comes to movies for ADULTS? Well, up until 1948 the studios basically owned the theaters in American, but that was broken up by an anti-trust case. Right now in 2014 we're back to that. The studios and theaters aren't a monopoly now, but they're a collusive oligopoly (big improvement, huh?) and the MPAA is part of that with it's otherwise unnecessary NC-17 (and before that X) rating used to exclude truly independent filmmakers.
Many people are against regulation, and I don't personally think it's warranted these days with movies. But if it is, it should be for CHILDREN and parents of children. And, moreover, you don't give all the regulatory authority to the biggest companies in an industry and expect them to play fair. Imagine if the health inspection of all the microbreweries in America was handled by Coors and Miller. Would it be a surprise that Coors and Miller held their smaller competitors to much higher standards (like the dreaded NC-17 rating) while cutting corners themselves (like violent PG and PG-13 Hollywood movies aimed at children)?