The MPAA

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)

#51 Post by Matt » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:42 am

An ad I saw the other day for some fake Hannah Montana movie had it rated PG for "rude behavior."

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The MPAA

#52 Post by Brian C » Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:45 am

Eat Pray Love got tagged for "male rear nudity." Seems like this is more specific than they usually get - doesn't "brief nudity" usually suffice in this case? I have a hard time believing that they'd put "female chest nudity" in a ratings description.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The MPAA

#53 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:59 am

I hope we get to see the phrase "side boob" in a ratings description at some point.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The MPAA

#54 Post by Matt » Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:35 pm

One of my favorite reasons for movie ratings is "thematic material." What the hell is that? "Hmmm... I'm detecting a theme in this movie. PG-13!"

"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The MPAA

#55 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:44 pm

Matt wrote:"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.
That's why the action is "mild" - too much talking, not enough doing!

User avatar
med
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm

Re: The MPAA

#56 Post by med » Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:45 pm

So, is "graphic nudity" in a MPAA descriptor pretty much a guarantee that you're going to see genitals?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: The MPAA

#57 Post by zedz » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:04 pm

Matt wrote:"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.
Just about every Woody Allen movie must have been hit with those two.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: The MPAA

#58 Post by Murdoch » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:34 pm

I always liked the rating flag of "partying," sometimes "mild partying."

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The MPAA

#59 Post by MichaelB » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:37 am

We get "peril" and "mild peril" quite a bit on British ads.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The MPAA

#60 Post by Brian C » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:39 am

Peril is definitely not suitable for children.

Some MPAA fun here.

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: The MPAA

#61 Post by Jonathan S » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:56 am

MichaelB wrote:We get "peril" and "mild peril" quite a bit on British ads.
I can't remember the title but I remember something like "mild holocaust images" on a BBFC-rated disc.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: The MPAA

#62 Post by Murdoch » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:40 pm

Brian C wrote:Some MPAA fun here.
Twister – Rated PG-13 for “intense depiction of very bad weather.”
:lol: The MPAA really loves to use "intense" and graphic", I'm going to start scouting rating flags now

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The MPAA

#63 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:00 pm

The Fugitive – Rated PG-13 for “a murder and other action sequences in an adventure setting.”
My favorite

Numero Trois
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Florida

Re: The MPAA

#64 Post by Numero Trois » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:43 pm

My favorite MPAA WTF? of all time was the 'R' rating given to Michael Radford's adaptation of "Merchant of Venice." Supposedly given for "some nudity." The skin baring was pretty tame, as I recall.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The MPAA

#65 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:01 pm

Nothing in recent censorship can be as bizarre as the suspiciously manufactured 'scandal' over the 18 rating given by the BBFC to Neil Jordan's remake of The End of the Affair just because Ralph Fiennes did a couple too many vigorous buttock thrusts during his sex scene with Julianne Moore! (I'm trying to remember but I think there was some discussion that three thrusts or less shown in a wide shot was OK to get the point across, but any more than that was totally unacceptable!)

I say suspicious because it certainly generated a lot of 'hot and steamy' publicity for a film that is really about guilty consciences feeding into religious epiphanies, which was perhaps not as enticing a prospect to general audiences! (While I like the film I think the 1950s version just has the edge on it, mostly for Peter Cushing's great performance as the cuckolded husband - sort of played in the same 'resigned to his partner's transgressions and waiting quietly to accept her back when the thrill of the affair has worn off' vein as Denholm Elliott's character in Bad Timing)

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The MPAA

#66 Post by Brian C » Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:59 pm

Matt wrote:One of my favorite reasons for movie ratings is "thematic material." What the hell is that? "Hmmm... I'm detecting a theme in this movie. PG-13!"

"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.
Along those lines, here's the explanation for Nacho Libre: "Rated PG for some rough action, and crude humor including dialogue."

So let that be a lesson to all you young filmmakers out there - if you want a G, you can keep the crude humor, but leave out the dialogue.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: The MPAA

#67 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:07 pm

Joe Bob Briggs had the most honest (and, incidentally, most entertaining) rating system, simply cataloging the number of breasts, beheadings, types of "fu" and so on. The MPAA could earn a modicum of respect if they followed suit. As it is, their descriptions are simultaneously too narrow and too vague.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The MPAA

#68 Post by Brian C » Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:08 pm

As with The Simpsons Movie, which was rated PG-13 for "irreverent humor throughout" (no further explanation given)?

User avatar
lacritfan
Life is one big kevyip
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: The MPAA

#69 Post by lacritfan » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:54 pm

Some MPAA fun here.
The breasts of the woman in the couple get less R rated as the ratings go up.

planetjake

Re: The MPAA

#70 Post by planetjake » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:21 am

Some of my personal favorites:

Tideland: Rated R for bizarre and disturbing content, including drug use, sexuality, and gruesome situations - all involving a child, and for some language.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Rated PG for quirky situations, action and mild language.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: The MPAA

#71 Post by HarryLong » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:03 am

Brian C wrote:As with The Simpsons Movie, which was rated PG-13 for "irreverent humor throughout" (no further explanation given)?
Hey! Gotta protect our youngest young'uns from irreverent humor.
And fluoridation.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The MPAA

#72 Post by Matt » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:38 am

Brian C wrote:Some MPAA fun here.
This is why I hate going to the movies now: giraffes, rabbits, kids with boom boxes, little boys in pilgrim hats, pervy little grinning midgets wearing bow ties. It's a nightmare.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The MPAA

#73 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:44 pm

It's those sunglasses wearing 'NC-17' white rabbits that you really have to watch out for though!

Since the article linked to above mentions the MPAA classification of Lost Highway as 'bizarre violent and sexual content', it might be fun to note that the classification of the film Rampo goes one step further in featuring 'bizarre sexuality'!

User avatar
Markson
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:50 am

Re: The MPAA

#74 Post by Markson » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:17 pm

Following an appeal from Harvey Weinstein himself, the MPAA has knocked down Blue Valentine's rating from an NC-17 to an R.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

Re: The MPAA

#75 Post by tavernier » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:47 pm

Maybe Michelle Williams will discuss it on Jon Stewart tonight.

Post Reply