I enjoyed this documentary, I just finished watching it a second time after seeing it come up in a few discussions.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — This Film Is Not Yet Rated
clever-username — 13 years ago(August 28, 2012 07:15 AM)
I enjoyed this documentary, I just finished watching it a second time after seeing it come up in a few discussions.
There's a lot of good stuff in here. They make many valid points. But I'm not sure the filmmakers even have a conclusion they're trying to build up to.
But the biggest trouble was that the filmmakers never seemed to accept that it's appropriate to rate at all!
They also fail to suggest an alternative to the MPAA as a whole or within their system.
This seems to be quite the omission seeing as the MPAA is US only. That means there are plenty other systems in place worldwide. They're even re-rating the exact same movies! How easy is that for comparison.
There also seemed to be quite a signal to noise problem too.
While it was fun to watch them dismantle the annonymity of the ratings board, it added nothing to the premise that the ratings they graded were accurate or not.
They also seemed to gloss gently over what could have been one of the biggest points of their whole flick.
Yeah, the regular ratings board is made up of a lot of average Joes and Janes.
But the appeals board is made up of HIGH LEVEL STUDIO EXECUTIVES. -
toddp-10 — 13 years ago(November 03, 2012 08:25 PM)
dismantle the annonymity of the ratings board, it added nothing to the premise that the ratings they graded were accurate or not.
That was my problem too. Its stupid that its anonymous for sure. Makes them almost unaccountable, for sure. But they wasted too much time on that.
They should have tried to focus on why its so locked in and carved in stone. Why do the major studios keep it locked in? What is their advantage to the system as it is? Religious people and a handful of middle aged folks that think a vagina is nasty controlling the whole industry can not be an advantage to anyone.
I know its a huge cash cow. They change like 5k every viewing or something crazy.
There has to be a ratings system obviously. People need to see at a glance if its suitable for children and young adults. But the system having a handful of people that dont represent the whole country is criminal. There should be people from every walk of life in there.
The board should be short term. Always changing and always different types of people. Should be a year long gig max. 10 people of various backgrounds voting would likely come up with more balanced ratings.
A half dozen people that are too uptight about sex should not be in control. Is this 1950?
But again, the movie wasted way too much time on who they were. They could have summed that up in 10 minutes -
whereismikeyfl — 12 years ago(December 28, 2013 06:29 PM)
The version of the film that is out now does not give any indication that the filmmakers are against any rating system at all. Instead, they are critical of the way the current one is applied. (I guess the parts where they indicate that they are against ratings must have been edited out.)
Rather they repeat the usual criticisms of the current system (anonymity, greater emphasis on sex than violence, anti-gay bias, bias against womens sexuality, etc). All of these have been said since the 1970s and not much has changed.
The brilliance of the rating system is that there are actually no defined standards. Because of that, one cannot make a specific criticism. One can only present anecdote that indicate a possible standard. This has made the rating system bulletproof.