MPAA's Oddest reasons to give a film G/PG/PG13/R/
- disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
MPAA's Oddest reasons to give a film G/PG/PG13/R/
Okay...we all know that MPAA's Rating system is crazy and sometimes ( most of the time) is insanely stupid or laughable... here is a site that has some info of the Oddest MPAA Ratings ever
The MPAA’s Greatest Hits: Exploring the vernacular of movie ratings
http://moviechopshop.com/2009/08/10/the ... e-ratings/
This next link has the Top 24 Weirdest MPAA's Ratings on Movies..
http://www.screened.com/profile/rockink ... /233-1900/
The MPAA’s Greatest Hits: Exploring the vernacular of movie ratings
http://moviechopshop.com/2009/08/10/the ... e-ratings/
This next link has the Top 24 Weirdest MPAA's Ratings on Movies..
http://www.screened.com/profile/rockink ... /233-1900/
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
Cool links. These are too obscure to get notice, but they're among my favorite MPAA ratings:
Frank and Ollie:
"Rated PG for a moment of language and a brief view of a nude drawing."
Walt & El Grupo:
"Rated PG for historical smoking."
Frank and Ollie:
"Rated PG for a moment of language and a brief view of a nude drawing."
Walt & El Grupo:
"Rated PG for historical smoking."
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
- Scarred4life
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:18 pm
-
Disneyphile
- Special Edition
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:27 am
- Location: San Jose CA
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
PixarFan2006
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6166
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
- Location: Michigan
WTF?!Semaj wrote:Home on the Range: This film earned its "PG" rating due to one of Maggie's lines about her udders ("Yeah, they're real. Quit staring.")
Is there anybody who still takes the MPAA seriously? Much too many people, I'm afraid. Everyone should watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006), a humorous documentary about the hypocritical and corrupt ways the MPAA operates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c (trailer)
It's absurd that such a small, secretive group that nobody knows anything about and are not accountable to anyone, is making decisions that influence filmmaker's careers.
- KubrickFan
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am
Absolutely, that documentary would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. But, it seems, that's the US. Throw a pair of naked breasts or (heaven forbid!) a penis and it's an R or NC-17, while you can get get a PG-13 rating while still having a lot of violence, as long as either the blood doesn't show (The Dark Knight) or if it's animated (Wonder Woman). Being a little bit less prudish would go a long way.Goliath wrote: WTF?!![]()
![]()
![]()
Is there anybody who still takes the MPAA seriously? Much too many people, I'm afraid. Everyone should watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006), a humorous documentary about the hypocritical and corrupt ways the MPAA operates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c (trailer)
It's absurd that such a small, secretive group that nobody knows anything about and are not accountable to anyone, is making decisions that influence filmmaker's careers.

- milojthatch
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2646
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:34 am
Most of those rating made sense to me. The smoking issue is something the MPAA has recently been adding in to their ratings. I guess it is them doing their part to keep America smoke free.
Really, what I'd like is more accurate ratings and probably more ratings, like they have in Australia. I bet they could split "PG-13" up into two or three new ratings easy. I and many others like me, just feel that too many things get rated lower then it should and "PG-13" or even "PG" has far too much range for it's own good.
I understand when ever the topic of movies and rating and all that stuff comes up, it gets subjective. But, could we at least have a little bit more organization with that subjectivity?
Really, what I'd like is more accurate ratings and probably more ratings, like they have in Australia. I bet they could split "PG-13" up into two or three new ratings easy. I and many others like me, just feel that too many things get rated lower then it should and "PG-13" or even "PG" has far too much range for it's own good.
I understand when ever the topic of movies and rating and all that stuff comes up, it gets subjective. But, could we at least have a little bit more organization with that subjectivity?
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
-Walt Disney
- KubrickFan
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am
Or, you know, the parents could get a little more proactive in that regard, and realize that protecting your kids constantly can have opposite results.milojthatch wrote:Most of those rating made sense to me. The smoking issue is something the MPAA has recently been adding in to their ratings. I guess it is them doing their part to keep America smoke free.
Really, what I'd like is more accurate ratings and probably more ratings, like they have in Australia. I bet they could split "PG-13" up into two or three new ratings easy. I and many others like me, just feel that too many things get rated lower then it should and "PG-13" or even "PG" has far too much range for it's own good.
I understand when ever the topic of movies and rating and all that stuff comes up, it gets subjective. But, could we at least have a little bit more organization with that subjectivity?
Frankly, the ratings are completely twisted already. Like I said, the slightest bit of nudity gets you an R rating most of the time. Saying the F word (I'll keep it clean) gets you an R rating when it's used in a sexual context, but only a PG-13 rating when it isn't, and only one or two times. Completely ridiculous. Not to mention the ban on smoking.

- disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6868
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Goliath wrote:WTF?!Semaj wrote:Home on the Range: This film earned its "PG" rating due to one of Maggie's lines about her udders ("Yeah, they're real. Quit staring.")![]()
![]()
![]()
Is there anybody who still takes the MPAA seriously? Much too many people, I'm afraid. Everyone should watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006), a humorous documentary about the hypocritical and corrupt ways the MPAA operates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c (trailer)
It's absurd that such a small, secretive group that nobody knows anything about and are not accountable to anyone, is making decisions that influence filmmaker's careers.
I just checked and it's on the streaming part of Netflix. I'll have to watch this sometime, I won't buy it since it would just collect dust since my family probably wouldn't watch it to the extent or enjoy it or interested in it as much as I would be.
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
- KubrickFan
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am
-
Disneyphile
- Special Edition
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:27 am
- Location: San Jose CA
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
- KubrickFan
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am
Honestly, how is that the alternative? How do you go from "the MPAA ratings are terribly inconsistent and need to be altered" to "otherwise, four year olds can go see GoodFellas without a problem"?Disneyphile wrote:The one-F rule may seem ridiculous, but the alternative is for your kid to walk to a theater and buy a ticket for a movie like "GoodFellas" without your knowledge or consent.

-
Lazario

