DVDizzy Forum

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/

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."

Giovana's comment on the first link made me laugh.

Oh my gosh, thanks for posting these hilarious links, disneyboy20022. I laughed out loud while reading the first article. I am still in stitches over the Twister rating!

My favorite is Alice in Wonderland's (live action) "smoking caterpillar."

I guess the MPAA can't win. If they just issue ratings, they're being too vague. If they give explanations, they're being too specific.

Twister has (and probably will always have) the weirdest MPAA description for a movie I have ever seen.

Disneyphile wrote:My favorite is Alice in Wonderland's (live action) "smoking caterpillar."

I guess the MPAA can't win. If they just issue ratings, they're being too vague. If they give explanations, they're being too specific.

They'd win more if they were just a little less specific.

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.")

Also, shouldn't this be in the movies section of the forum?

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.")

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Goliath wrote:

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.")

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.

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.

ironically , that movie was rated NC-17

ajmrowland wrote:ironically , that movie was rated NC-17

Obviously. It has pieces of SEX in it.

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.

KubrickFan wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:ironically , that movie was rated NC-17

Obviously. It has pieces of SEX in it.

lolyeah, but i wasnt thinking of *that* exactly

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"?

And let's not forget that kids can SWIM in profanity on YouTube. Give them 5 minutes alone on YouTube and they'll hear things that will make parents' HEADS SPIN!!!