MPAA still relevant?

[Karma]

Is the MPAA relevant in this day & age? Has it EVER been relevant in your opinion?

Growing up, my MOM was my "MPAA" lol! If there was something she didnt want me to say, she forbade it. :nod:

I only defied her once, to see "Nightmare on Elm street" w/ several older cousins (& i was merely 7-8 @ the time) & i paid for it dearly. She didnt even have to punish me. The nightmares I had for MONTHS to follow & her REFUSAL to come & comfort me in the night when I'd wake up & call out for her was punishment enough .

By 17 though she really backed off but for years leading up to that? She was very aware of what was going on & would keep me from seeing stuff she didnt think I was ready for.

I find myself wondering why "parents" TODAY dont do that? & What does the MPAA really DO exactly? yes i know the premise & their mission statement but what do they accomplish? any film they cut up w/ their censorship can be found in a "directors/unrated/uncut" version on DVD or online etc.

They claim that they dont want movies to have a negative impact on children/audiences. Well what about the net? the NEWS? & what about times when there were no movies but violent things still happened? There were no movies during Jack the Ripper's carnage (for example.)

I personally dont see any point to the MPAA. This isnt something responsible parents couldnt handle & once upon a time, they did. For ADULTS who want to see a movie w/ violence, nudity, sex gore etc & they're paying for it...why should they have to be bothered w/ the MPAA?

Thoughts?

 

[Clara Oswald]

I do think it's relevant - whether they are doing what they're there for is another discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with having tools for parents to decide what their children should be watching. The fact of the matter is a lot of parents don't do their homework before letting their children see something, so at least if they might take the time to say "Oh that's rated R, you can't see it" to their 8 year old, that's something. There's nothing wrong with allowing kids to stay kids.

I have one sister who is very strict with what her kids are allowed to watch, and one sister who is not so strict about it. It's the latter's kids who won't sleep in a room by themselves because of nightmares brought on from movies (and yes, we know that's what's causing them).

My parents allowed me to see some movies before I was old enough, but it was a conscious decision on their part and only for certain types of movies.

For ADULTS who want to see a movie w/ violence, nudity, sex gore etc & they're paying for it...why should they have to be bothered w/ the MPAA?

See, adults AREN'T bothered by the MPAA - we can see whatever we care to. But if filmmakers want 13 year olds to be able to see their movies, then they'll have to cut out all the extra shit which usually doesn't add anything to the movie/tv show. If they want it left in, take the R and be done with it.

 

[Black King]

the MPAA is for the children so if an adult wants to see something who cares. Rock out. However there are definitely movies that 12-3 yr olds shouldn't be getting into see and i really think the rating system needs to be overhauled so they don't

 

[Karma]

The fact of the matter is a lot of parents don't do their homework before letting their children see something, so at least if they might take the time to say "Oh that's rated R, you can't see it" to their 8 year old, that's something. There's nothing wrong with allowing kids to stay kids.

no argument there. but the key word is the parents. most of em these days don't do their homework b/c they just don't care but then they wonder where their kid is "getting this stuff from." & THEN you get ppl talking about abolishing this or blaming hollywood & seeking to restrict/censor what EVERYBODY watches.

like for example- i couldnt stomach the idea of seeing "Black snake moan". I was really unhappy w/ the idea of a movie that featured such exploitation of a woman. But instead of trying to get the movie pulled from theatres just becaue I didnt like it...I just DIDNT GO SEE IT. Some ppl really think they should be able to change the movie going experience for EVERYONE b/c of their issues/hangups w/ any given thing. I've never agreed w/ that.

So maybe its not necessarily the MPAA (even though i felt they were on some serious BS w/ the cuts they called for Scream just to give it an R rating rather than NC-17) but rather the parents who expect other ppl/places/things to raise/watch out for their kids. i agree w/ you...no 'tween or child needs to be going to see Hostel or something like that. & i've seen parents who BRING their children to see films like that...

another example- it's bad enough that I allowed myself to be taken to see "Devils Rejects" by an acquaintence a few years back & when it was over, I felt FAINT & had to have him help me out the theatre (that doesnt happen to me often when it comes to a movie LOL) & yet, there were ppl in their who had their KIDS (clearly younger than 10) watching that shit! The shit going on in that movie (& house of 1000 corpses) was WAY worse than Scream ....it's even classified as "exploitation horror" & yet both films got passed w/ an R rating & parents BROUGHT their kids. I think that's another scenario that makes me question the relevance of the MPAA.

the MPAA is for the children so if an adult wants to see something who cares. Rock out. However there are definitely movies that 12-3 yr olds shouldn't be getting into see and i really think the rating system needs to be overhauled so they don't

i agree w/ you & vil on that. but isnt that more of a parent's job? & if anything, changes need to happen @ ground level. the theatre's themselves. more uniformed & consistently enforced policy for ID check, more (& better trained) theatre monitors etc.

 

[Clara Oswald]

My nephew watched I Am Legend at a birthday party several years ago (I think they were 10 at the time) and he's still not recovered from it. Seriously.

But I honestly don't think what you're talking about has to do with the MPAA. Yes, an adult needs to accompany a kid under 13 to see a PG-13 movie, and under 18 for a R, but I think that is a minimal thing. Yes, parents should do it, but a lot don't, so there's at least a baseline for keeping kids from watching crap they shouldn't be watching (a la Devil's Rejects or that awful House of 10,000 Corpses which was such a f-ing misnomer!)

 

[Karma]

well there's what they do w/ the movies (like forcing Wes Craven & Dimension films to cut out certain things to give Scream an R rating rather than NC-17) ...but then when you see them obsess like they did over Scream & then NOT over films like 1000 Corpses or Devil's Rejects...that's what makes me wonder.

& then there's their rating system, which as you all said, provides @ least SOME kind of warning/guidance for ppl...KIDS who might not otherwise have it but we know that if they can, they'll get past the the gate keeper @ the theatre.

& then you have ppl who cry foul over the kids who arent being properly raised/sheltered from things that are totally age inapproprite & want EVERYBODY to be censored in what they watch.

i dunno. just seems to me like the MPAA is kind of obsolete in someways. But that's just my view. I wanted to see what others thought & I agree w/ alot of the points made.

 

[Clara Oswald]

Well personally I guess I don't think an NC-17 rating is the end of the world lol. If the studios weren't so greedy they wouldn't think that either

I guess maybe I just don't see the MPAA as having much power one way or the other - I just see it as a tool. I guess parents could instead just use those sites that break down the content of movies, but again that would require EFFORT on their part lol