Jump to content

Motion Picture Association film rating system: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by RealisticMan28 (talk) to last revision by Discospinster (HG)
Fixed typo; THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING STOP REVERTING
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit
Line 130: Line 130:


===Violence===
===Violence===
* The violence in a G-rated film must be cartoonish in nature and/or minimal in quantity. If the violence is little more than minimal, or has fantasy elements, it requires a PG rating. If the violence is stronger than mild, it requires a PG-13 rating. If the violence is too rough and persistent, it requires an R rating. If the violence is extreme and exaggerated, it requires an NC-17 rating.
* The violence in a G-rated film must be cartoonish in nature and/or minimal in quantity. If the violence is little more than minimal, or has fantasy elements, it requires a PG rating. If the violence is stronger than mild, it requires a PG-13 rating. If the violence is too rough and intense or persistent, it requires an R rating. If the violence is extreme and exaggerated, it requires an NC-17 rating.


===Language===
===Language===

Revision as of 00:28, 14 August 2014

"PG-13" redirects here. For the wrestling team, see PG-13 (professional wrestling). For the Sharon Needles album, see PG-13 (album).
"R-rated" redirects here. For other uses, see R rating (disambiguation) and Rated R (disambiguation).

The Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) film-rating system is used in the United States (US) and its territories to rate a film's suitability for certain audiences. The MPAA rating system is a voluntary scheme not enforced by law and films can be exhibited without a rating, though many theaters refuse to exhibit non-rated or NC-17 rated films. Non-members of MPAA may also submit films for rating.[1] Other media (such as television programs and video games) may be rated by other entities. The MPAA rating system is one of various motion picture rating systems used to help parents decide what films are appropriate for their children.

The MPAA's rating system is administered by the Classification & Ratings Administration (CARA), an independent agency.

Ratings

MPAA film ratings

Since the late 1990s, the MPAA film ratings have been as follows:

Rating symbol Meaning
G rating symbol
G rating symbol
G – General Audiences
All ages admitted. This movie contains little or no content that would offend parents for viewing by children.
PG- rating symbol
PG- rating symbol
PG – Parental Guidance Suggested
Some material may not be suitable for children. Parents are urged to give parental guidance as the motion picture contains some material that parents might not find suitable for their young children.
PG-13 rating symbol
PG-13 rating symbol
PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned
Parents are urged to be cautious as the motion picture contains some material that parents might consider inappropriate for children under 13 years.
R rating symbol
R rating symbol
R – Restricted
People under 17 years may only be admitted if accompanied by a parent or guardian.
NC-17 rating symbol
NC-17 rating symbol
NC-17 – No One 17 and Under Admitted
This film is exclusively adult in content and people under 18 are not admitted.

The G, PG, and PG-13 ratings are unrestricted age ratings, the only age restrictions are R and NC-17.

Other labels

If a film has not been submitted for rating or is an uncut version of a film that was submitted, the labels Not Rated (NR) or Unrated (UR) are often used. Uncut/extended versions of films that are labeled "Unrated" also contain warnings saying that the uncut version of the film contains content that differs from the theatrical release and may not be suitable for younger children or minors. When a film is not submitted for rating it may have content that is a mix of various ratings. Previews and trailers might also be approved for certain audiences only, but some may be approved for all audiences as well.

If a film has not yet been assigned a final rating, the label This Film Is Not Yet Rated are used in trailers and television commercials.

History

Replacement of Hays Code

Jack Valenti, who had become president of the MPAA in May 1966, deemed the Motion Picture Production Code – in place since 1930 and rigorously enforced since 1934 – as out of date and bearing "the odious smell of censorship".[2] Filmmakers were pushing at the boundaries of the Code, and Valenti cited examples such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, which contained the expressions "screw" and "hump the hostess"; and Blow-Up, which was denied Code approval due to nudity, so the MPAA member studio had released it through a subsidiary.[2] He revised the Code to include the "SMA" (Suggested for Mature Audiences) advisory as a stopgap measure. To accommodate "the irresistible force of creators determined to make 'their films'", and to avoid "the possible intrusion of government into the movie arena",[2] he developed a set of advisory ratings which could be applied after a film was completed. On November 1, 1968, the voluntary MPAA film rating system took effect, with three organizations serving as its monitoring and guiding groups: the MPAA, the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO), and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA).[2]

The ratings used from 1968 to 1970 were:[2]

  • Rated G: General audiences – suggested for general audiences (all ages admitted)
  • Rated M: Mature audiences – suggested for mature audiences (parental discretion advised)
  • Rated R: Restricted – persons under 16 not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian
  • Rated X: Adults only – persons under 18 will not be admitted

This content classification system originally was to have three ratings with the intention of allowing parents to take their children to any film they chose. However, the National Association of Theater Owners urged the creation of an adults-only category, fearful of possible legal problems in local jurisdictions. The "X" rating was not an MPAA trademark and would not receive the MPAA seal; any producer not submitting a film for MPAA rating could self-apply the "X" rating (or any other symbol or description that was not an MPAA trademark).[2] In 1969, the "G" rating was simplified to "General Audiences – All Ages Admitted."

With the MPAA's introduction of its rating system, the U.S. was a latecomer as far as film classification was concerned. Countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom had begun this practice earlier in the 20th century.[3]

From M to GP to PG

Many parents were confused by the "M" and "R" ratings, thinking that the former was the "sterner" rating.[2] In 1970, "M" was renamed to "GP" (intended to indicate "General audiences, Parental guidance suggested"),[2] then revised in 1972 to "PG".[4][5] In 1971, they added the content advisory "Contains material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers"; in 1978 it was reworded, with pre-teenagers becoming replaced with children.[6][7]

In 1971, the ages for "R" and "X" were made the same (17), such that the only practical difference was whether children would be admitted if accompanied, or not at all.

The ratings used from 1970 to 1972 were:

  • Rated G: All ages admitted – general audiences
  • Rated GP: All ages admitted – parental guidance suggested
  • Rated R: Restricted – under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
  • Rated X: No one under 17 admitted

The ratings used from 1972 to 1984 were:

  • Rated G: General audiences – all ages admitted
  • Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – some material may not be suitable for [pre-teenagers] (1972–1978) / [children] (1978–present)
  • Rated R: Restricted – under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
  • Rated X: No one under 17 admitted

Addition of PG-13 rating

In the early 1980s there were complaints about violence and gore in films such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both of which received PG ratings.[8] Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and executive producer of Gremlins, suggested a new intermediate rating between "PG" and "R".[9] The "PG-13" rating was introduced in July 1984, with the advisory "Parents Are Strongly Cautioned to Give Special Guidance for Attendance of Children Under 13 – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Young Children"; in 1986, the wording was simplified to "Parents Strongly Cautioned – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13". Around the same time, the MPAA won a trademark infringement lawsuit against the producers and distributors of I Spit on Your Grave over a fraudulent application of its R rating to the uncut version[10] and forced its member studios and several other home video distributors to put MPAA ratings on the packaging of MPAA-rated films via a settlement that would come into effect by fall that year.[11]

The ratings used from 1984 to 1990 were:

  • Rated G: General audiences – all ages admitted
  • Rated PG: Parental guidance strongly suggested – some material may not be suitable for children
  • Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
  • Rated R: Restricted – under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
  • Rated X: No one under 17 admitted

X replaced by NC-17

In the rating system's early years, "X"-rated films such as Midnight Cowboy (1969), A Clockwork Orange (1971), the animated Fritz the Cat (1972), and Last Tango in Paris (1973) were understood to be unsuitable for children, but non-pornographic and intended for the general public. However, pornographic films often self-applied the non-trademarked "X" rating, and it soon became synonymous with pornography in American culture.[12] In late 1989 and early 1990, two critically acclaimed art films featuring strong adult content, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, were released. Neither was approved for an MPAA rating, thus limiting their commercial distribution, and prompting criticism of the rating system's lack of a designation for such films.[13][14] In September 1990, the MPAA introduced the rating "NC-17" ("No Children Under 17 Admitted").[15] Henry & June – previously to be assigned an "X" rating – was the first film to receive the "NC-17" rating instead.[15][16] Although films with an "NC-17" rating had more mainstream distribution opportunities than "X"-rated films, many cinemas refused to screen them, most entertainment media did not accept advertising for them, and many large video outlets refused to stock them.[17] In 1996,[18] the minimum age for "NC-17" films was raised to 18, by rewording it to "No One 17 and Under Admitted".[19]

The current ratings used since 1990 are:[20]

  • Rated G: General audiences – all ages admitted
  • Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – some material may not be suitable for children
  • Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
  • Rated R: Restricted – under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
  • Rated NC-17: No children under 17 admitted (1990–1996) / No one 17 and under admitted (1996–current)

Re-released films

Films which are re-released can be resubmitted for a new rating to take advantage of the new categories and changing standards for them. Mainstream films rated "X" during the early years of the system are routinely re-rated "NC-17", usually with no change to the content of the film. On some occasions, the resubmitted film may be re-classified as an "R" rated film. Midnight Cowboy was rated "X" when released in 1969, but re-rated "R" in 1971.[21] A Clockwork Orange was slightly edited, and the film was re-rated "R" in 1972. DVD and Blu-ray versions of the film contain the original "X"-rated version but still retain its "R" rating. Pink Flamingos and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls were re-rated "NC-17" when those films were submitted for re-classification by the MPAA.

Rating explanations

Since September 1990, the MPAA has added brief explanations of why each film received an "R" rating, allowing parents to know what type of content the film contained. For example, some films' explanations may read "Strong Brutal Violence, Pervasive Language, Some Strong Sexual Content, and Drug Material". Around the late 1990s, the MPAA began applying rating explanations for "PG", "PG-13", and "NC-17" films as well.[22]

Advertising materials

The MPAA also rates film trailers, print advertising, posters, and other media used to promote a film. Green, yellow, or red title cards displayed before the start of a trailer indicate the trailer's rating.

  • Green – When the trailer accompanies another rated feature, the wording on the green title card states "The following preview has been approved to accompany this feature." For trailers hosted on the internet the wording has been slightly altered to "The following preview has been approved for appropriate audiences."[23]
  • Yellow: A yellow title card exists solely for trailers hosted on the internet, with the wording stipulating "The following preview has been approved only for age-appropriate internet users." The MPAA defines "age-appropriate internet users" as visitors to sites either frequented mainly by grown-ups or accessible only between 9 p.m. and 4 a.m. The yellow card is reserved for trailer previewing films rated PG-13 or stronger.[24]
  • Red: A red card indicates that the trailer is restricted and when it accompanies another feature the wording states "The following restricted preview has been approved to accompany this feature only." For trailers hosted on the internet the wording is tweaked to "The following restricted preview has been approved for appropriate audiences."[23] The red title card is reserved for trailers previewing R and NC-17 rated films. Trailers hosted on the internet carrying a red title card require viewers to pass an age verification test which entails user aged 17 and older to match their names, birthdays and ZIP codes to public records on file.[24]

Rating components

Violence

  • The violence in a G-rated film must be cartoonish in nature and/or minimal in quantity. If the violence is little more than minimal, or has fantasy elements, it requires a PG rating. If the violence is stronger than mild, it requires a PG-13 rating. If the violence is too rough and intense or persistent, it requires an R rating. If the violence is extreme and exaggerated, it requires an NC-17 rating.

Language

  • G rated films usually can have language beyond polite (e.g. heck, rats, dang, darn, shoot, and fart), but rarely, if ever, with profanity (and even then it is always mild). PG rated films may have mild profanity (e.g. damn, ass, hell and, uncommonly, shit). PG-13 rated films may contain stronger language (e.g. bitch, shit, tits) and one uncensored use of the word fuck, provided that it is not used for sexual intercourse. If said expletive is spoken more than once and/or used sexually, it is routine today for a film to receive an R rating. There have been at least five known exceptions to the "two or more F-words in a PG-13 rated movie" ruling noted so far: Adventures in Babysitting, which features two F-words in the same scene;[25] The Hip Hop Project has seventeen uses;[26] Gunner Palace, a documentary of soldiers in the Second Gulf War, has forty-two uses of the word with two used sexually;[27] Bully, a 2011 documentary about bullying;[28] Philomena, released in November 2013, has two uses of the word.[29]

Additionally, some notable PG films contain uses of the word fuck, including All the President's Men, The Front, Tootsie, Terms of Endearment, Sixteen Candles, Spaceballs, Big and Beetlejuice. The first four were released before the PG-13 rating was introduced; they were originally rated R for language but their ratings were overturned on appeal.[30]

Drug use

See also: Product placement § Tobacco
  • A reference to drugs, such as marijuana, usually gets a film a PG-13 rating. An example of an otherwise PG film getting a PG-13 for a drug reference (momentary, along with brief language) is Whale Rider. The film contained only mild profanity but received a PG-13 because of a scene where drug paraphernalia were briefly visible. Critic Roger Ebert criticized the MPAA for the rating and called it "a wild overreaction."[31] Having more illegal drug use and/or abusing drugs as well as onscreen drug overdose, requires an R or NC-17 rating.
  • In May 2007, the MPAA announced that depictions of cigarette smoking would be considered in a film's rating.[32][33]

Usually, if smoking is listed as one of the factors for a film's rating, the DVD and Blu-ray will contain an anti-smoking commercial that plays just before the main menu of the disc itself.

The 2011 Nickelodeon-animated film Rango caused some controversy over its PG rating among anti-smoking advocates. It was argued that the film showed over 60 depictions of characters smoking in the film, and therefore the child-friendly PG was inappropriate.[34]

Sexual content

As of 2010, the MPAA has added a descriptor of "male nudity" to films featuring said content.[35] A brief scene of nudity (non-sexual) will require a PG rating. More than a brief nudity (non-sexual) will require a PG-13 rating. Sexually oriented (full frontal) nudity will require an R rating. An explicit or violent sex scene, including scenes of rape or sexual assault, will require an NC-17 rating.

Effects of ratings

During the last decade until 2004 PG ratings have begun to be associated with children's films, and are widely considered to be commercially bad for films targeted at teenagers and adults. For example, the 2004 film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which was not targeted at children, received a PG rating, which some believe caused it to underperform at the box office as preteens and teenagers may have brushed it off as a "kiddie flick".[36]

Commercial viability of the NC-17 rating

In its initial years of use, few films with the NC-17 rating were profitable. Today, the NC-17 rating is found primarily in art house films where patrons are less likely to have a positive or negative impression of the rating. During the controversy about the MPAA's decision to give the film Blue Valentine (2010) an NC-17 rating (the Weinstein Company challenged this decision, and the MPAA ended up awarding the same cut an R rating on appeal), actor Ryan Gosling noted that NC-17 films are not allowed wide advertisement and that, given the refusal of major cinema chains like AMC and Regal to show NC-17s, many such films will never be accessible to people who live in markets that do not have art house theatres.

In 1995, United Artists released the big-budget film Showgirls (1995). It became the most widely distributed film with an NC-17 rating (showing in 1,388 cinemas simultaneously), but a financial failure that grossed only 45% of its $45 million budget.[37] This helped establish the perception that the NC-17 rating was commercially untenable.

When the horror film Scream was submitted, it received an NC-17 rating for its graphic violence. However, Miramax Films, which funded the film, refused to release a film with this rating, so director Wes Craven fought long and hard, making many cuts to attempt to get an R rating. In the end, it took a second showing, with the members having an open mind toward the humorous subject matter, to get the wanted rating. Ironically, when the film was released to video, the version shown was the original, uncut version, though that was fixed in subsequent releases.[citation needed]

Requiem for a Dream (2000) was given an NC-17 rating. When Darren Aronofsky refused to edit the film for an R rating, Artisan Entertainment backed him up by releasing an unrated final cut. An R-rated cut was released later.

Some modest successes can be found among NC-17 theatrical releases, however. Fox Searchlight Pictures released the original NC-17-rated American edition of the European film The Dreamers (2003) in theaters in the United States, and later released both the original NC-17 and the cut R-rated version on DVD. A Fox Searchlight spokesman said the NC-17 rating did not give them much trouble in releasing this film (they had no problem booking it, and only Mormon-owned Deseret News refused to take the film's ad), and Fox Searchlight was satisfied with this film's United States box office result.[38] Another notable exception is Bad Education (2004), a NC-17 foreign-language film which grossed $5.2 million in the United States theatrically[39] (a moderate success for a foreign-language film[40]).

With the growth of the home entertainment market since the late 1990s, a successful marketing vehicle for NC-17 films has emerged. Since R ratings are preferred for theatrical exhibition, filmmakers often cut films to meet the requirements. The "uncut" (either unrated or NC-17) version is sometimes released in limited engagements, other formats (such as DVD or Blu-ray), and in foreign markets. This practice has become commonplace as an enticement to sell the films for home entertainment use.[citation needed]

As of March 2007, according to Variety, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman had been made aware of the attempts to introduce a new rating, or find ways to reduce the stigma of the NC-17 rating. Film studios have pressured the MPAA to retire the NC-17 rating, because of its likely impact on their film's box office revenue.[41][42]

Legal scholar Julie Hilden wrote that the MPAA has a "masterpiece exception" that it has made for films that would ordinarily earn an NC-17 rating, if not for the broader artistic masterpiece that requires the violence depicted as a part of its message. She cites Saving Private Ryan, with its bloody depiction of the D-Day landings, as an example. This exception is troubling, Hilden argues, because it ignores context and perspective in evaluating other films and favors conventional films over edgier films that contribute newer and more interesting points to public discourse about violence.[43]

The 2004 horror film Saw was going to be NC-17, but was rated R (after cuts), as were its subsequent sequels.

Issuance of "R Cards"

Starting in 2004, GKC Theatres (now Carmike Cinemas) had 'R-Cards' that let teens see R-rated films without adult accompaniment. The cards generated much controversy, and Jack Valenti of the MPAA said in a news article: "I think it distorts and ruptures the intent of this voluntary film ratings system. All R-rated films are not alike."[44] The president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, John Fithian, also says that the cards can be harmful. He noted in a news article for the Christian Science Monitor that the R rating is "broad enough to include relatively family-friendly fare such as Billy Elliot and Erin Brockovich (both rated R for language) along with films that push the extremes of violence, including Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill."[45]

Criticisms

Emphasis on sex and language versus violence

The film rating system has had a number of high profile critics. Film critic Roger Ebert argued that the system places too much emphasis on sex while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. The uneven emphasis on sex versus violence is echoed by other critics, including David Ansen, as well as many filmmakers. Moreover, Ebert argued that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the film (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the film (for example, if the film realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He called for an A (adults only) rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content that should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex. He also called for the NC-17 rating to be removed and have the X rating revived. He felt that everyone understood what X-rated means while fewer people understood what NC-17 meant. He called for ratings A and X to identify whether an adult film is pornographic or not.[46][47][48][49]

MPAA chairman Dan Glickman has disputed these claims, stating that far more films are initially rated NC-17 for violence than for sex but that these are later edited by studios to receive an R rating.[50]

Despite this, an internal critic of the early workings of the ratings system is film critic and writer Stephen Farber, who was a CARA intern for six months during 1969 and 1970. In The Movie Ratings Game,[51] he documents a prejudice against sex in relation to violence. This Film Is Not Yet Rated also points out that four times as many films received an NC-17 rating for sex rather as they did for violence according to the MPAA's own website.

The 2011 documentary Bully received an R rating for the language contained within the film. The decision spawned controversy, as the rating would prevent most of the intended audience, middle and high schoolers, from seeing the film.[52] The film's director, Lee Hirsch, has refused to recut the film, stating, "I feel a responsibility as a filmmaker, as the person entrusted to tell (these kids') stories, to not water them down." A petition collected more than 200,000 signatures to change the film's rating[53] and a version with less profanity was finally given a PG-13 rating.

Tougher standards for independent studios

Many critics of the MPAA system, especially independent distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. They allege that Saving Private Ryan, with its intense depiction of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, would have earned an NC-17 had it not been a Steven Spielberg film. The independent film Saints and Soldiers, which contains no nudity, almost no sex (there is a scene where a German soldier is about to rape a French woman), very little profanity, and a minimum of violence, was said to have been rated R for a single clip where a main character is shot and killed, and required modification of just that one scene to receive a PG-13 rating.[54][55] Eric Watson, producer of the independently-distributed, NC-17-rated Requiem for a Dream complained that the studios are paying the budget of the MPAA, which gives the studios leverage over the MPAA's decisions.[56]

The comedy Scary Movie, released by Dimension Films, at the time a division of The Walt Disney Company, contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence," including images of ejaculation and an erect penis, but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tame porn spoof Orgazmo, an independent release by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17 (the only onscreen penis seen is a dildo). As Parker and Stone did not have the money and the time to edit the film, it retained its NC-17 rating. In contrast, Parker and Stone's second feature film, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, was distributed by a major studio (Paramount) and, after multiple submissions and notes from the MPAA, received an R rating.[56] Adam Carolla's film The Hammer was given an R rating for brief language which prompted him to question why the MPAA would rate the film R, despite there being one to two instances of "fuck", and other minimal profanities, which is mostly considered PG-13 rated fare. A similar incident occurred with the Oscar winning independent film The King's Speech, which had a rough total of 17 instances of "fuck" used over two brief scenes. The film's subsequent R rating was criticized due to the tame content of the rest of the film, as well as the relative importance to the plot the cursing plays. Eventually, an edited, PG-13 rated version was released, but not on DVD.

Call for publicizing the standards

Many critics of the system, both conservative and liberal, would like to see the MPAA ratings unveiled and the standards made public. The MPAA has consistently cited nationwide scientific polls (conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey), which show that parents find the ratings useful. Critics such as Matt Stone in Kirby Dick's documentary This Film is not Yet Rated respond this proves only that parents find the ratings more useful than nothing at all.[57] In the film it is also discussed how the MPAA will not reveal any information about who or why certain decisions are made. They will not even reveal to the film maker the specific scenes that need to be cut in order to get alternative rating.

Accusation of "ratings creep"

Although there has always been concern about the content of films,[58] the MPAA has, in recent years, been accused of a "ratings creep", whereby the films that fall into today's ratings categories now contain more objectionable material than those that appeared in the same categories two decades earlier.[59] A study put forward by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2004 concluded that there had been a significant increase in the level of profanity, sex and violence in films released between 1992 and 2003.[60] Kimberly Thompson, director of the study, stated: "The findings demonstrate that ratings creep has occurred over the last decade and that today’s movies contain significantly more violence, sex, and profanity on average than movies of the same rating a decade ago."[60]

Questions of relevance

Slashfilm.com managing editor David Chen wrote on the website: "It's time for more people to condemn the MPAA and their outrageous antics. We’re heading towards an age when we don’t need a mommy-like organization to dictate what our delicate sensibilities can and can’t be exposed to. I deeply hope that the MPAA’s irrelevance is imminent." [61] Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips wrote that the MPAA ratings board "has become foolish and irrelevant, and its members do not have my interests at heart, or yours. They’re too easy on violence yet bizarrely reactionary when it comes to nudity and language."[62]

See also

References

  1. ^ Rialto Cinemas (2012). "Frequently Asked Questions". Rialto Cinemas. Rialto Cinemas™. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h vbcsc03l@vax.csun.edu (snopes) (25 May 1993). "Re: The MPAA". The Skeptic Tank. The Skeptic Tank. Retrieved 1 August 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Austin, Bruce A. (1989). "The Movie Rating System". Immediate Seating: A Look at Movie Audiences. Wadsworth Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 0-534-09366-3.
  4. ^ United Press International (1972-02-03). "New 'PG' Film Rating Clarifies Picture Type". Chicago Tribune. p. W14.
  5. ^ Kovalchik, Kara (11 May 2012). "11 Signs, Announcements, and Disclaimers That Are No Longer Necessary". Mental Floss. Mental Floss Inc. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  6. ^ Austin, Bruce A. (1980). "The Influence of the MPAA'S Film-Rating System on Motion Picture Attendance: a Pilot Study". Journal of Psychology. 106.
  7. ^ MPAA rating at end of movie clip on YouTube
  8. ^ RICHARD ZOGLIN; MEG GRANT/LOS ANGELES; TIMOTHY LOUGHRAN/NEW YORK (25 June 1984). "Show Business: Gremlins in the Rating System". Time. Time Inc. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  9. ^ Windolf, Jim (January 2, 2008), "Q&A: Steven Spielberg on Indiana Jones", Vanity Fair
  10. ^ Entertainment Law Reporter – Business Affairs for March 1984
  11. ^ "Dealers will label ratings on cassettes". Eugene Register-Guard. August 11, 1984. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
  12. ^ "The MPAA Rating Systems". September 16, 1994.
  13. ^ Roger Ebert (1 January 1999). "THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE, AND HER LOVER (NO MPAA RATING)". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  14. ^ Ebert, Roger (14 September 1990). "HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (UNRATED)". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  15. ^ a b David J. Fox (27 September 1990). "X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17 : Movies: Designation would bar children under 18. Move expected to clear the way for strong adult themes". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
  16. ^ Jack Mathews (27 August 1990). "Henry Miller Meets the MPAA : Movies: Philip Kaufman's very adult 'Henry & June,' a tale of the controversial author's days in Paris, apparently is the latest recipient of the dreaded X rating. Its U.S. release is in limbo". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
  17. ^ Weinraub, Bernard (July 21, 1995). "First Major Film With an NC-17 Rating Is Embraced by the Studio". New York Times.
  18. ^ Video Watchdog (31–36). Tim & Donna Lucas: 80. 1996. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  19. ^ Sandler, Kevin (2007). The Naked Truth: Why Hollywood Doesn't Make X-rated Movies. Rutgers University Press. p. 85. ISBN 9780813541464.
  20. ^ "Film Ratings". Motion Picture Association of America. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
  21. ^ IMDb contributors. "Parents Guide for Midnight Cowboy (1969)". Retrieved 31 January 2012. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ "Changes in the Rating System". Motion Picture Association of America. Archived from the original on May 30, 2009.
  23. ^ a b "Advertising Administration Rules" (PDF). Motion Picture Association of America. January 1, 2014. pp. 21–28. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  24. ^ a b Halbfinger, David M. (June 13, 2007). "Attention, Web Surfers: The Following Film Trailer May Be Racy or Graphic". The New York Times. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  25. ^ Keith Coogan (December 12, 2011). "Keith Coogan, Star of Adventures in Babysitting and Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, Indulges Our Nostalgia". Vulture.com (Interview). Interviewed by Patti Greco. Retrieved August 3, 2014.
  26. ^ "'The Hip Hop Project' Rated PG-13, Despite 17 F-Words – The Moviefone Blog". 2007-04-27. Retrieved 2012-03-31.
  27. ^ "SCREEN IT! PARENTAL REVIEW: GUNNER PALACE". screenit.com. 2005-03-11. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  28. ^ McClintock, Pamela (February 28, 2012). "Tens of Thousands Sign Petition Urging MPAA to Overturn 'Bully's' R Rating". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
  29. ^ "Philomena: Weinsteins win MPAA appeal against R rating". November 14, 2013. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
  30. ^ "Filmratings.com online record".
  31. ^ Ebert, Roger (2003-11-16). "Movie Answer Man". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  32. ^ "FILM RATING BOARD TO CONSIDER SMOKING AS A FACTOR" (PDF). MPAA. 2007-05-10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-12. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  33. ^ "Universal Pictures Policy Regarding Tobacco Depictions in Films". Universal Studios. 2007-04-16. Retrieved 2008-08-05.
  34. ^ Rubin, Rita (2011-03-08). "PG-rated 'Rango' has anti-smoking advocates fuming". USA Today.
  35. ^ Thompson, Brian (2010-10-11). "Spangle Magazine". Spangle Magazine. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  36. ^ Byrne, Bridget (2004-09-20). ""Sky Captain" Takes Flight". E! Online. Archived from the original on 2004-09-22. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  37. ^ Dirks, Tim (2012). "Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops: The Most Notable Examples 1995 - 2". filmsite. AMC Network Entertainment LLC. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  38. ^ Dutka, Elaine (20 April 2004). "NC-17 comes out from hiding". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  39. ^ "Bad Education". Box Office Mojo.
  40. ^ "Foreign affairs". The Hollywood Reporter.[dead link‍]
  41. ^ "MPAA Creating 'Hard-R', A More PC Version of NC-17". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting LLC. 12 March 2007. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  42. ^ Stewart, Ryan (10 March 2007). "MPAA Wants New Rating For 'Hard R'". Moviefone. AOL Inc. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  43. ^ Hilden, Julie (July 16, 2007). "Free Speech and the Concept of "Torture Porn": Why are Critics So Hostile to "Hostel II"?". FindLaw's Writ. Retrieved 22 March 2011.
  44. ^ Pinto, Barbara (2004-06-01). "'R-Cards' Let Teens See Racy Movies: Some in Industry Say Cards Defeat Purpose of Ratings". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  45. ^ Paulson, Amanda (2004-05-24). "Under 17 not admitted without R-card". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  46. ^ Tassi, Paul (December 14, 2010). "Roger Ebert thinks the MPAA's ratings are useless". Time.
  47. ^ Roger Ebert thinks the MPAA's ratings are useless
  48. ^ Ebert, Roger (February 24, 2004). "The Passion of the Christ". Time.
  49. ^ Ebert, Roger (December 11, 2010). "Getting Real About Movie Ratings". Time.
  50. ^ Cruz, Gilbert (October 30, 2008). "Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings". Time.
  51. ^ Farber, Stephen (1972). The Movie Rating Game (Paperback ed.). Public Affairs Press. ISBN 978-0-8183-0181-0. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
  52. ^ "MPAA: Don't Let the Bullies Win!". Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  53. ^ Sandy Cohen (8 March 2012). "Teenager petitions to change R rating for 'Bully'". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
  54. ^ "R rating stuns 'Saints' makers". Deseret News. Retrieved 2008-03-15.
  55. ^ Baggaley, Thomas. "LDS Cinema Gets Better and Gets a Bum Rating". meridianmagazine.com. Retrieved 2008-03-15.
  56. ^ a b Atschison, Doug. "Separate and Unequal? How the MPAA Rates Independent Films." The Best American Movie Writing 2001. Ed. John Landis. 59-69.
  57. ^ Kirby Dick (2006-01-25). This Film is not Yet Rated (Film).
  58. ^ Tobias, Patricia Eliot (November 1999). "Who Put the Sin in Cinema?". Written By. Archived from the original on April 16, 2003. Retrieved September 6, 2010.
  59. ^ Greydanus, Steven D. (October 24, 2004). "'Ratings Creep' – or a Case of 'Once Bitten, Twice Shy'?". National Catholic Register. Retrieved September 6, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  60. ^ a b Thompson, Kimberly M.; Yokota, Fumie (2004). "Violence, sex and profanity in films: correlation of movie ratings with content". MedGenMed. 6 (3): 3. PMC 1435631. PMID 15520625. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  61. ^ Chen, David (November 8, 2010). "Why the MPAA Should Be Ashamed of Itself". slashfilm.com. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
  62. ^ Phillips, Michael (November 4, 2010). "There's a word for the MPAA..." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system&oldid=621138678"