This week at ShoWest in Las Vegas, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman will try to convince movie theater owners that a new Hard-R movie rating is needed.
A quick history according to Wikipedia: In the early years of the ratings system, X-rated movies such as Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, and Last Tango in Paris, could win Oscar nominations and awards. But the rating, which was not trademarked by the MPAA (as were its other ratings), was self applied by the “adult entertainment” segment of the industry to the point where an X rating could be included in advertising gimmicks and came to be equated strictly with film pornography, which was never the intent behind the original rating. This concern led to a large number of newspapers and TV stations refusing to accept ads for X-rated movies, and some theaters’ landlords forbade exhibition of X-rated movies. In 1989 two highly acclaimed films, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover and Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer were released featuring very strong sexual and violent content. Neither one was able to get approved for an R rating so they were left as unrated with limited release. It was around this time that the MPAA decided to re-think the current rating system.
So the MPAA introduced the NC-17, which means No Children Under 17 Admitted. Some media outlets that refused ads for X-rated titles viewed ads for NC-17 rated films as equally unsuitable. While a number of movies have been released with the NC-17 rating, none of them has been a major box office hit. Movies studios would rather release a film unrated than under NC-17. Everything has basically come full circle.
Well the new idea being proposed is to create a new rating for the “Hard R” films (i.e. content so graphic that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it at all in theaters).
I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this issue.
If the creation of a Hard-R rating could successfully remove the dreaded NC-17/XXX stigma, and allow darker films to have bigger theatrical and video releases (newspaper ads, blockbuster…etc) I might be all for it. Many of the modern day horror films are presented multiple times to the MPAA before they are granted the “okay” R-Rating. While the cut content will end up on the inevitably unrated DVD release, it would be cool to see it on the big screen. Art shouldn’t have to be censored, but money talks.
But then again, would the movie studios want to release a film under a Hard R? That would prevent one of the target audience entrance into the film even with an adult. I have a feeling that the Hard R rating would also become the redheaded stepchild of the ratings line-up. So what’s the point?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:40 am
It’s about TIME! They did that with PG…made the PG-13 sub-rating so as to separate it from PG, so Why not with R? In Fact, there were movies that have been rated R that should have been rated PG-13, although it may contain certain things that are still R potential, and then vice versa. So i think there should be a middle ground for movies that end up in a battle of whether it should be PG-13 OR R.
Why can’t the MPAA be like the BBFC of the UK, where they use AGE certifications after the “Uc” and “U” rating (equivalent to our G-rating) and PG (their PG is equal to our PG). After PG, they use ratings 12, 12A, 15, 18 and R18? Just as we have G and PG, we should have ratings by age category, for example instead of PG-13, change it to simply 13, and then have a 15 and a 17 rating (originally i was hoping the R rating would divide to two sub-categories: R-15 and R-17), and the NC-17, up it to 18.
Or, another solution: Remove R altogether. make the rating for what used to be R, as these: 17-A, 17-R, and 17-NC (swapping NC-17 to reverse). Make the age 17 THE rating category. The “17″ Rating, obviously shown here, disected into 3 sub-ratings, explain the following:
17-A, normally any movie that was originally to be PG-13, but contain mild to moderate, but not necessarily, intense, scenes that involves substantial amount of psychological terror and, but not limited to, brutal death scenes, also can involve ONE scene of sexual intercourse, as well as scenes of drug usage, and (though not mentioned) may include as well, moderate to semi-strong violence (but MAY NOT BE horror-related), pervasive mild to strong language, the usage of the F word more than once but no more than 4 times. (This was also my idea of the 15 or R-15 rating, or perhaps reviving the M rating but use it in that function than what it was purposedly used in the past, when the M was what today is known as the PG rating)
17-R, specifies all of the above mentioned from the 17-A rating, however, includes scenes of intense violence, involving tools used to kill people, harsh brutal death scenes, horror-related violence, including blood and gore, but not to harsh. May also include: strong to mildly intense sexual situations, including rape, may show more than one sex scene, but limited to at most 3. Pervasive use of strong language, may include racist, sexual, perverted, or sexist, an/or anti-semitic dialogue that may offend the light-hearted.
17-NC (a swapped NC-17), specifies all mentioned in 17-R, but may include intense horror violence, pervasive sexual situations, including use of sexual dialogue and scences of sex, including rape, may show more than 3 sex scenes, intense drug usage, as well as intense usage of strong language, including racist,sexist and/or anti-semitic dialogue.
17-A = All audiences aged 17 and over admitted without guardian. Under 17 may be admitted with a parent or adult guardian. Parental/Viewer discretion is highly advised.
17-R = All audiences aged 17 and over admitted without guardian. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PERSONS UNDER 17. Parental/viewer discretion is MANDATORY AND IS STRONGLY ADVISED.
17-NC = Same as NC-17; No change. No persons under 17 admitted for ANY REASON.
Anyone think this is a good idea, or maybe something better? let my comment bring other ideas that can be as similar to this or better. In any case, perhaps we can all work something out in making ratings better for the general public.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:53 am
FUCK THE MPAA
July 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I like Victor’s idea. Although BOB’s idea is much more straightforward lol.
I’m not so sure about this. It seems that the “Hard-R” rating is just going to take the place of the NC-17 rating. If this is the case, it will just cary the stigma of “unsuitable movie” over. Like it said, there have been movies made with an NC-17 rating, but none of them have been major hits. While I’ve seen movies that were given an NC-17 rating, I’ve never seen one in theaters due to the stigma.
So what will the Hard-R rating achieve? Its meaning is “No one under the age of 17 permitted inside.” Isn’t that exactly what the NC-17 is? And before that, the X rating had the same definition. Simply giving these less frequently used ratings a new name won’t help anything. “A rose by any other name…”
I don’t think there’s any point to the new Hard-R. However, the NC-17 rating had its purpose, and I believe it was an important one. The only problem was that the X rating’s stigma carried over. So that’s really hte problem here. It’s not the amount of censorship required to attain a rating, it’s what the public will assume of a movie based on its rating.
Seems like all the horror movies today come out as Unrated DVDs because, to be shown in movie theaters, they had to be cut. Why not have this in the first place. Yes, I know there is an option to not have a movie rated, but people will imply the worst of that movie. At least with R, they tell you why it got that rating. So, why don’t the directors just tell you why they chose not to have the movie rated?
For example, The Hills Have Eyes, from 2006. It was cut to be rated R in theaters, yet came out with an Unrated DVD. Instead of R, it could have been “Unrated, due to extreme violence, gore, language, and terror.” That way, it wouldn’t have to edited on the front end, and people would know what they are getting themselves into.
And that’s pretty much all I have to say. :D
April 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I would like to see a rating on the box of films that clearly states that there will be images of violent acts towards children. I will admit, I love scary movies, but in all honesty, the last thing I want to see is a child being graphically maimed by demons, mauled by wild animals or eaten by zombies… It’s like putting love scenes in Horror flicks, it’s unnecessary and tasteless…