DVDizzy Forum

KubrickFan wrote:

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.

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"?

I was responding specifically to what you had said earlier about the F-word rule.

KubrickFan wrote: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.

Disneyphile wrote:

KubrickFan wrote: 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"?

I was responding specifically to what you had said earlier about the F-word rule.

KubrickFan wrote: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.

You don't see the difference between the MPAA being completely random in their appointing of ratings, and the admittance of everyone without the parents consent? The MPAA has double standards, where they can lower the rating when a big studio pushes a big movie, and where they can give anything with sex in it, an R rating. They can also slap a rating to something, and cite the reasons for doing it, but asking them what to cut to obtain a different rating can't be done, because that would be censoring

Frankly, I think the MPAA is unnecessary anyway. A good parent knows what his child can watch or not. If I know that my hypothetical kid can watch a horror movie or something with a bit of sex in it, at age 13, why would I wait?

KubrickFan wrote:

Disneyphile wrote: I was responding specifically to what you had said earlier about the F-word rule.

You don't see the difference between the MPAA being completely random in their appointing of ratings, and the admittance of everyone without the parents consent?

Again, I was replying specifically to the F-word rule. If there is no limit to the number of F-words in a PG-13 movie, then "GoodFellas" could have been rated PG-13, meaning that any kid who's old enough to be at the mall unsupervised (let's say, 9 or 10 years old at the young end) would be able to buy a ticket for it, alone. I don't know why this is so hard to follow.

Why would there be an unattended 9-year-old at the mall?

It reminds me of those "Unattended Children" signs - Unattended Children will be given an espresso and a free puppy!

kids are their own shopping at younger ages, that's why.

granted, it's usually with friends.

Disneyphile wrote: Again, I was replying specifically to the F-word rule. If there is no limit to the number of F-words in a PG-13 movie, then "GoodFellas" could have been rated PG-13, meaning that any kid who's old enough to be at the mall unsupervised (let's say, 9 or 10 years old at the young end) would be able to buy a ticket for it, alone. I don't know why this is so hard to follow.

Well, seeing that a PG-13 movie would mean that there must be a parent or guardian present for those under 13 years old, I don't think that would be the case.
And would that really be such a bad thing? I, and I'm sure there are many others, watched titles like Rambo at age 10, and we turned out fine. Kids these days think GoodFellas is probably too talky anyway .

And I would also like to think that this example proves perfectly how skewered the MPAA system actually is.

KubrickFan wrote:

Disneyphile wrote: Again, I was replying specifically to the F-word rule. If there is no limit to the number of F-words in a PG-13 movie, then "GoodFellas" could have been rated PG-13, meaning that any kid who's old enough to be at the mall unsupervised (let's say, 9 or 10 years old at the young end) would be able to buy a ticket for it, alone. I don't know why this is so hard to follow.

Well, seeing that a PG-13 movie would mean that there must be a parent or guardian present for those under 13 years old, I don't think that would be the case.
And would that really be such a bad thing? I, and I'm sure there are many others, watched titles like Rambo at age 10, and we turned out fine. Kids these days think GoodFellas is probably too talky anyway .

And I would also like to think that this example proves perfectly how skewered the MPAA system actually is.

Actually, the PG-13 rating is not an ironclad restriction, just a suggestion to parents that material inappropriate for children 13 and under can be found in the movie. And I know that some parents don't want their kids to think that an F-word should follow every "the" that they use in conversation.