Export thread

!

A movie made directly for kids who are bullied and for the bullies who torment them (in some cases as shown in the trailer to the point of suicide) has been given an R rating by the MPAA. Why? It contains language that the kids use in day to day life which deems it an R rating and completely unsuitable for anyone under 17. Apparently, the Weinsteins are so angry about this that Weinstein company movies will no longer be submitted for MPAA approval. The MPAA is calling their reaction to the R rating and the criticism to the R rating a publicity stunt.

Stuff like this and the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated just goes to show how badly the MPAA in the US needs to be either straight up abolished or reformed in a great way.

Fuck the MPAA. It's time to stop using them and taking away their power.

I couldn't make it through that trailer. It broke my heart to see that kid getting bullied. No kid should ever have to go through that and this 'it's just kids being kids' bullshit has got to go. If I went to that school and hit any of those little fuckers I'd get locked up but they are free to gang up on one kid. I'm going to be pissed all night because of that. Damn.

The Weinsteins made this documentary to show to kids at schools without teachers and parents. It's a fucking tragedy that the rating will more than likely prevent some chicken-shit administrations from showing this. It's one of those films everyone needs to see.

That's nice Dave but I'm still pissed. I want to become that kid's big brother. I swear if he lived anywhere near me I'd hang out with him. Frankie, you more than likely ruined my entire weekend. Every time I think about the trailer I get mad.
I wish these kids would realize that there are more kids who get picked on than who do the picking and all buddy up. I hate that any kid has to grow up thinking they have no friends.

All it means is that children have to have parental approval before watching it.

Not every parent agrees that children should be swearing, or watch others swearing when it can be avoided.

I agree that the MPAA ought to be changed to allow for a more fine-grained rating approach (rather than lumping all the "bad" things in R, they would rate a movie on several scales - one for sexuality, one for violence, one for language, etc).

It's stuff like this that bugs me:

With school-age children of my own, I know this is a crucial issue and school districts across the U.S. have responded in kind. The Cincinnati school district signed on to bus 40,000 of their students to the movie - but because the appeals board retained the R rating, the school district will have to cancel those plans.

Click to expand...

The movie producer knew what would happen if they left those words in the film. This is not something that surprised them. They could have made modifications that would allow them to present the material in a PG-13 format if they wanted to.

This is a publicity stunt and nothing more. Free publicity is great.

It boggles my mind that people think that the director should get a free pass even though he knew exactly what rating he'd get given the language used. If he didn't want a rating, he shouldn't have sought one. But he plans on making mad cash on it by showing it in theaters, and had to get it rated. I suspect he's trying to go for the "This is the movie the man doesn't want you to see!" angle in some respects.

Either way, the issue is not the MPAA. It's the director's choice, and he chose and directed for an R rating. He can claim that he's wet behind the ears, doesn't understand the rating system, or that the film content should override the MPAA system, but it's quite obvious what his intent is, and that this is not an unexpected outcome.

You act as if the MPAA has a strict set of guidelines, which they absolutely do not no matter how much they claim otherwise. The movie This Film is Not Yet Rated points out exactly how inconsistent they are.

The MPAA is a fickle load of shit.

However, in steinman's defense, the "one fuck for PG-13" rule has been pretty consistent.

Quotemander Prime said:

The MPAA is a fickle load of shit.

However, in steinman's defense, the "one fuck for PG-13" rule has been pretty consistent.

Click to expand...

Eh, not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/f-word-pg-13-movies_n_930165.html

Doesn't really matter anyway. The MPAA is not just out of touch with reality on this issue, they are out of touch with reality regarding their relevance. Used to be a movie getting an NC-17 rating, or no rating, would die in limited theatres and hope to make up its costs if it managed to get a home video distribution. Now, it doesn't even need to go to theatres to turn a profit. If it's good, it will find its audience thanks to the internet. Not necessarily true for big budget action spectacles, but it'll be the saviour for independent films and documentaries, for sure.

There isn't a specific list, but the gray area is narrow enough that for some things - such as specific words (I don't recall seeing any PG-13 movie with more than one or two "fuck" and I haven't yet come across one that has used "cunt", although "damn", and "shit" seem to be allowed more frequent usage), full or partial nudity, and the level and type of violence, etc, one can know whether they are straddling the line or not.

Perhaps he is straddling the line, and it could have gone either way. I'd be interested to know if they really were on the line, or well away from it on either side.

So yes, I am aware that it's not a cut and dried situation. It sounds like you know enough about the movie, though, to be able to declare with certainty that it should have been rated PG-13 under the current system. What do you think the MPAA got wrong about it, specifically?

So even that's down to "whatever the fuck we feel like at the moment".

I'm curious what would go on with a movie that doesn't get submitted to the MPAA. Does it go into theaters as Not Rated?

EDIT: On violence, lots of it is allowed--just don't show blood. 'Cause that's icky.

Theaters typically won't show movies without an MPAA rating. There's a stranglehold on the industry that the MPAA has, and the studios encourage it, as it means one more big hurdle for smaller distributors to jump over.

Quotemander Prime said:

So even that's down to "whatever the fuck we feel like at the moment".

I'm curious what would go on with a movie that doesn't get submitted to the MPAA. Does it go into theaters as Not Rated?

Click to expand...

Only if they can actually convince a theatre to carry it. Which is hard enough with an NC-17 rating, let alone without a rating at all.

Couldn't anybody just make up their own system?

Steinman hasn't watched "This Movie Has Not Yet Been Rated" thus his opinion on the subject.

Ah! In one fell swoop you have fully gutted all my arguments. I am lost!

"16 Candles" - Full frontal female nudity, language, underage drinking. Rated PG.
"The Aristocrats" - Strong language, no nudity, no violence. NC-17 (taken away from teh MPAA so no rating)
"Scarface" - Full frontal female nudity, language, extreme violence, extreme drug use. Rated R.
"The Sure Thing" - Man's naked butt, no language, no violence. Rated PG-13.
"The Shawshank Redemption" - Language, violence, no nudity. Rated R.
"The Passion of the Christ" - Violence, no nudity, no language. Rated R.
"Pretty Woman" - No nudity, mild violence, mild language. Rated R.
"Dances With Wolves" - Male nudity, violence, mild language. Rated PG-13.

Tell me where the rhyme or reason is. If you'd like me to I could certainly go on.
Added at: 22:29

Quotemander Prime said:

Couldn't anybody just make up their own system?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. They could, but most theaters are owned by mega-corporations who contract to only show movies which have been rated by the MPAA. Only art houses and small independent theaters can get away with showing unrated and it's the same as making sure hardly anyone sees it.

What will start to happen, though, will be more independent films will be available for a fee digitally. I think that's when the MPAA will start to die like the RIAA is with music.

First, there are always mistakes and exceptions - this is a human rating system after all. Especially in the early years of the MPAA: http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/07/the_8_pgrated_movies_that_should_not_have_been_rat.php

Second, generally when you see a rating you know what you're getting. Again, there will be outliers in each category, but most of the time you won't see frontal nudity in PG-13, you won't hear more than a handful of curse words, you won't see sex acts, and you won't see human torture or significant (gory) violence.

It's a guideline - not a strict standard.

Thirdly, there will always be a constant battle between those that feel that everything should be exactly spelled out, so every rule is clearly explained and every movie can be objectively measured and those that believe that like the IRS code, the more you define the line, the more ways people will sneak past it because once you have a well defined set of rules, then you have merely created a well defined set of loopholes. "I know it when I see it" applies particularly here because this is a subjective moral rating system. Not only is it subjective and morally based, but society's morals change over time. If the MPAA had to re-rate all the films it's rated over the years I'd be surprised if they gave the same rating to more than 75% of them.

We can't give cast-in-concrete-rules for this sort of system.

Again - perhaps this film should be rated PG-13. Perhaps it should be rated R. The MPAA has an opinion on that, and they've asserted it during the appeal.

I'm curious why some who haven't seen it are suggesting that it shouldn't have been given R. There should be a reason behind this anger - in what way did the MPAA wrong this film, and are people just reading from the film's press release and discussion with reporters to get their opinions on the rating of the film?

So far I have been reasonably satisfied with the MPAAs ratings. I've seen PG-13 films I think should have been R, and PG films I wish had been rated PG-13. But I don't believe the system is perfectly designed for me or my needs - thus I use it as a guideline only.

I've seen schools take kids to see rated R films (Schindler's list being the prime example) and they sent home parental assent forms.

If the film Bully is as important for our youth to see as you might argue Schindler's List is, then you'll likely see school trips being taken.

stienman said:

Ah! In one fell swoop you have fully gutted all my arguments. I am lost!

Click to expand...

It was as strong as yours. I figured a retort of the same factual basis was in order.

stienman said:

I'm curious why some who haven't seen it are suggesting that it shouldn't have been given R. There should be a reason behind this anger - in what way did the MPAA wrong this film, and are people just reading from the film's press release and discussion with reporters to get their opinions on the rating of the film?

Click to expand...

This question was already answered while you were ranting.

Shegokigo said:

This question was already answered while you were ranting.

Click to expand...

It still hasn't been answered. I don't see anything from anyone suggesting that they've seen the film and that they disagree with the rating based on what they saw. Perhaps you are talking about Dave pointing out the inconsistencies in the MPAA rating system? That doesn't say anything about this film, and is less than a few percent of all the films they've rated over the last few decades, so it's hardly representative.
Added at: 00:02

Dave said:

"16 Candles" - Full frontal female nudity, language, underage drinking. Rated PG.
"The Aristocrats" - Strong language, no nudity, no violence. NC-17 (taken away from the MPAA so no rating)
"Scarface" - Full frontal female nudity, language, extreme violence, extreme drug use. Rated R.
"The Sure Thing" - Man's naked butt, no language, no violence. Rated PG-13.
"The Shawshank Redemption" - Language, violence, no nudity. Rated R.
"The Passion of the Christ" - Violence, no nudity, no language. Rated R.
"Pretty Woman" - No nudity, mild violence, mild language. Rated R.
"Dances With Wolves" - Male nudity, violence, mild language. Rated PG-13.

Tell me where the rhyme or reason is. If you'd like me to I could certainly go on.

Click to expand...

The only one where I don't see the reason is 16 candles - which I haven't seen.

The sure thing and wolves are rear nudity only, which has occurred in other pg-13 films (typically in an embarrasing situation, rather than a sexual situation).

Pretty woman is likely due to the subject matter and the way the film treats sex.

There are probably much better examples of MPAA flubs than that list, but on the whole it appears to follow what I expect ratings to be.

I can sort of understand The Aristocrats. Sure, it was just language, but it was some pretty damn strong, graphic language. Like, really, really filthy imagery described. I'd give it a hard R, myself, but certainly wouldn't want anyone under 18 watching it, either way.
Added at: 23:08
Passion of the Christ I can understand, too. It's torture porn on level with the Saw movies.

It's obvious you're arguing for the sake of it when your point has already been refuted and your questions answered Stein. It was expressly stated how giving it an R rating was going to dramatically hurt the impact on the film's perspective and most needed audience.

Ah. I disagree that a film should receive a rating based on its audience rather than its content.

If this film is important for youth to see, why don't they forego the rating, and sell it directly to the schools? Even better, get one or more of the many youth organizations to recoup costs, and distribute it for free? Then it would achieve a much wider distribution to the target market.

stienman said:

Ah. I disagree that a film should receive a rating based on its audience rather than its content.

If this film is important for youth to see, why don't they forego the rating...

Click to expand...

You mean, like they're doing?

Does anyone know how small claims court works? Specifically, if your child is bullied and you set up a meeting with the school officials and the parent's of the abuser and the bullying continues could you take that matter to small claims court and sue for damages to your child? Or does there have to be actual loss (like damage to property) to take it to small claims?

If you can prove the school knew that the bullying was going, that they did nothing to stop it, and that your child has been severely harmed because of it (physical injuries or mental problems) then yes, you can sue the school. However, you really need to be proactive in proving it and you have to know that your child will face reprisals from the school.

Also, you need to remember that the school's options for stopping the bullying are basically worthless... they can really only get the parents to stop it, expel the kid for repeated instances of violence (hard to do), or have the kid arrested for fighting. If you do much else, your going to get sued by money hungry assholes.

As for suing the family of the bully, yeah, you can do that, but it has it's own problems.

No child should have to go through what Alex and the rest of those children endured. The school continually denied there was a problem but the video tells another story. In cases like that I think a civil suit against the school and the parents of the bully would be a viable option. If it continues you keep hauling their asses back to court. I keep thinking how scared Alex is and how worthless he feels for doing absolutely nothing but existing. He tells his parents not to get involved but short of beating the living shit out of the bully's parents and going to jail I don't see any other alternative. If the steps were laid out about documenting everything, getting a meeting set up with the school and the parents as first notification. Second incident contact the police and file a report (so you can get the address of the parents of the bully) and then file a civil suit using court records from the police report to get the address of the parents. It would also help to have someone capture the incident on video. In the video when he is getting beat up on the bus several kids are yelling for the bullies to stop. I'm sure someone could provide video. I think you hit schools and parents with a civil suit might just correct some of these issues.
And I know suing the bully's parents brings other issues but the kid is already being beat and ridiculed daily. You hear the stories of the kids who kill themselves because of bullying. In some cases it's never going to correct itself. And my suggestion is only for extreme cases. I'm not endorsing suing the first time a kid is called a name.

Authorities don't give a shit about bullying until some kid brings a gun to school. Until that point, it's just lip service about zero tolerance policies.

Shegokigo said:

It's obvious you're arguing for the sake of it when your point has already been refuted and your questions answered Stein. It was expressly stated how giving it an R rating was going to dramatically hurt the impact on the film's perspective and most needed audience.

Click to expand...

If it's so important that kids in schools see the movie perhaps they should have released the movie directly to digital, or dvd, bypassing the need for an MPAA. Or even send copies to schools to watch, instead of banking on a wide theater release and getting large groups to go and purchase group tickets.

Its about an obvious a money grab as Passion of the Christ. Only instead of religion it's "won't someone think of the children!"
Added at: 11:31

checkeredhat said:

You mean, like they're doing?

Click to expand...

Ugh, I need to finish reading the thread before I start replying.

So if their ignoring the rating, and offering free distribution to schools, what's the problem in this thread exactly?

The MPAA is full of shit, but they really have no power if you take kids to go see it anyway. Which it seems to be what is happening. At least word is getting out about the BS ruling, so more people should be aware of this movie and what it's supposed to do.

There's a documentary on the MPAA's bullshit, right? Thought I saw snatches of it on Netflix before.

This Film is Not Yet Rated.



Funny part about it is the movie contains a ton of scenes illustrating the inconsistencies of the ratings system (most involving women enjoying sex, which is a huge no no for the MPAA) of the NC-17 rating. In Canada, it's rated 14A (Canadian equivalent of the PG-13).

Is that the rating all accross Canada? Cause I know its done provincially.

This is only an issue because the Weinstein's wanted some free publicity for their movie - and what better way to do it than "It's for the chilluns!"

Hey, look at that! AMC picked it up anyway, even without th eMPAA rating, and is even offerering printable permission slips for children under 17 to see it:
http://go.amctheatres.com/bully

Good for them! Still, because of this no rating thing, schools will refuse to show it and that's where I think it would do the most good.

If I worked at a theater, I would allow SO many fake IDs if it were to see dis movie.

Yoshimickster said:

If I worked at a theater, I would allow SO many fake IDs if it were to see dis movie.

Click to expand...

Because you couldn't tell they're fake?

Ravenpoe said:

Because you couldn't tell they're fake?

Click to expand...

I'm crazy, not blind! I can see through deception.

Question: Why do we hold documentaries to the same standards as scripted films? I mean, I'm no idiot, I know that documentaries are edited to laid out to at least some kind of narrative and interesting flow, but the point of the genre is to examine or capture the facts about something in an informative and entertaining fashion. Why the hell it is considered appropriate to judge a film that shows the real day-to-day problems of real kids with the same standards you us to judge Clerks or The Big Lebowski? It doesn't make any sense to me. Documentaries attempt to show reality, albeit from the filmmaker's viewpoint, and reality is not always nice.

Norris said:

Question: Why do we hold documentaries to the same standards as scripted films? I mean, I'm no idiot, I know that documentaries are edited to laid out to at least some kind of narrative and interesting flow, but the point of the genre is to examine or capture the facts about something in an informative and entertaining fashion. Why the hell it is considered appropriate to judge a film that shows the real day-to-day problems of real kids with the same standards you us to judge Clerks or The Big Lebowski? It doesn't make any sense to me. Documentaries attempt to show reality, albeit from the filmmaker's viewpoint, and reality is not always nice.

Click to expand...

And flame-war in 3-2-1...

Because documentaries are still extremely biased? Most documentaries are still heavily biased in its scope and craft.

Yoshimickster said:

And flame-war in 3-2-1...

Click to expand...

Why? I'm not saying that documentaries shouldn't carry advisories of their content, I'm not saying that they shouldn't go through some kind of checking process, I'm saying that a slightly more utilitarian review of their content should be made. Something like:

• Extreme Sexual Language​
• Extreme Vulgar Language​
• Extreme Foul Language​
• Extreme Descriptions of Violence​

Hell, it would probably be better if every film was judged that way. However, without completely rewriting the current rating system, documentaries should get some kind of different guideline based on (presumed) didactic content.

ElJuski said:

Because documentaries are still extremely biased? Most documentaries are still heavily biased in its scope and craft.

Click to expand...

That's true, but generally speaking the director of a documentary isn't telling his subjects "Ok, now call him a cocksucker and whip out your dick!" or "Ok, now we're going to have this patient vomit up some blood." They're not (usually) manufacturing the events or the reactions of people, they're manufacturing the lens through which the audience sees them.

Norris said:

Why? I'm not saying that documentaries shouldn't carry advisories of their content, I'm not saying that they shouldn't go through some kind of checking process, I'm saying that a slightly more utilitarian review of their content should be made. Something like:

The Aristocrats​

This film has been reviewed by the MPAA and has been found to be in compliance United States obscenity laws, contains no explicitly pornographic material, and is not considered exploitative in nature.​

​

This film contains the follow elements that some viewers may find objectionable:​

• Extreme Sexual Language​
• Extreme Vulgar Language​
• Extreme Foul Language​
• Extreme Descriptions of Violence​

​

Hell, it would probably be better if every film was judged that way. However, without completely rewriting the current rating system, documentaries should get some kind of different guideline based on (presumed) didactic content.

Click to expand...

...I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that comment. I mean, if there is violent and sexual content it should be heavily rated so to warn parents, but if it's educational with a good message than teens should be able to see it with-out persecution. Maybe an "Rated RE" like restricted to those under 17 unless for educational purposes. Course I'm not sure that would help either. A conundrum indeed.

Yoshimickster said:

...I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that comment. I mean, if there is violent and sexual content it should be heavily rated so to warn parents, but if it's educational with a good message than teens should be able to see it with-out persecution. Maybe an "Rated RE" like restricted to those under 17 unless for educational purposes. Course I'm not sure that would help either. A conundrum indeed.

Click to expand...

See, I think the purpose of "rating" a documentary should be to inform, not to restrict. Essentially the equivalent of a Super-PG - "Parents, you're really going to want to either look into the content of this film before you let your kids see it or better yet, watch it with them."

Norris said:

See, I think the purpose of "rating" a documentary should be to inform, not to restrict. Essentially the equivalent of a Super-PG - "Parents, you're really going to want to either look into the content of this film before you let your kids see it or better yet, watch it with them."

Click to expand...

Ah yes, similar to the "Rated E ages 10 and up". Only it sounds even sillier. I was also pretty much joking about the flame-war thing.

To me the MPAA rating for this one is COMPLETELY irrelevant. I think parents should be seeing with their kids anyway. I think its important that it opens up a dialogue between parents and their children, so that both can walk away all the more enlightened. But the rating does effect the willingness of parents to bring their children. What's interesting here is that because they're doing it unrated, its receiving enough media attention that that probably won't matter.

but yeah the entire MPAA ratings system needs some major revisiting, and not just for documentaries. They need to actually examine the films with the film's message in mind, scenes with the context in mind, and not just focus on individual shots/ clips of dialogue that contain potentially offensive material when viewed alone.

IE: A documentary featuring what kids face in school every day, is not going to scar kids with its language. They've clearly heard it before, its right there on the screen. A film that features two consenting adults in love having sex could probably stand to be viewed a little more leniently than one that features rough, lude sex or a rape scene. Its not the same thing and shouldn't be looked at the same. I could go on.

Norris said:

See, I think the purpose of "rating" a documentary should be to inform, not to restrict. Essentially the equivalent of a Super-PG - "Parents, you're really going to want to either look into the content of this film before you let your kids see it or better yet, watch it with them."

Click to expand...

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you're not looking at documentaries as the broad spectrum it is.

But really the rating system for any movie, not just documentaries, is for the dogs anyways.

Remember when Rated X was a thing? If you do, than you should take your meds grampa. It's nap time! That is how irrelevant such ratings are. Midnight Cowboys by today's standards is on the boderline of PG-13/R. Man thikin' bout that ending still makes me cry. OH RATZO!

Norris said:

Why the hell it is considered appropriate to judge a film that shows the real day-to-day problems of real kids with the same standards you us to judge Clerks or The Big Lebowski? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Click to expand...

So your argument revolves primarily around the belief that if it's real, then kids should be able to see it without parental permission, regardless of content? Or that standards should be relaxed if it's "real"?

I would like you first to give a loophole free definition of a "documentary" that would clearly differentiate between "real" and "scripted" so that we can choose examples of existing "documentaries" and "scripted films" that would gut your argument that children should be able to watch "documentaries" without restriction, or with relaxed standards, or with different standards that couldn't also apply equally well to scripted films.

Without a clear delineation, though, it would be pointless to argue with you about your silly belief that one visula art is fundamentally different than another visual art in its ability to impact the attitudes and beliefs of others.

In fact, one might be able to turn your argument around and say that since documentaries are real and do have meaningful impact on youth's identities and belief of what is normal human behavior, they should be held to significantly higher standards.

But first we'll need common ground to define what counts as a documentary and what doesn't. I'll let you decide what that is.

MPAA will still be better than the alternative. Having some Government Official decide what you can and can not see.

stienman said:

So your argument revolves primarily around the belief that if it's real, then kids should be able to see it without parental permission, regardless of content? Or that standards should be relaxed if it's "real"?

Click to expand...

I'm arguing that the context objectionable material is presented in is more important than just material being objectionable. A documentary about an ethnic cleansing could come up with images and descriptions that would make Eli Roth blush but that would not make it equal to Hostel. An R-Rating means, usually though there may be a few exceptions, that schools do not even have the option of showing it. Sometimes that applies to unrated material as well. What documentaries should get from the MPAA is an unbiased fact sheet describing their content - the kind of thing a teacher would be able to print off and send home as part of a permission slip.

I would like you first to give a loophole free definition of a "documentary" that would clearly differentiate between "real" and "scripted" so that we can choose examples of existing "documentaries" and "scripted films" that would gut your argument that children should be able to watch "documentaries" without restriction, or with relaxed standards, or with different standards that couldn't also apply equally well to scripted films.

Click to expand...

THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My argument is that saying "This film, which documents real life goings on and has educational potential, has naughty words or violent images in it so let's place it in the same category as The Hangover and ensure that it can never be used widely as an educational tool below the college level" is fucking stupid. If you put health class videos about birth and sexual development in front of the MPAA, you'd probably end up with some R-ratings for graphic content. Should those videos be taken out of schools?

I see what Norris is going for here. He's making a "spirit of the rule" versus "letter of the rule" argument. A documentary that strictly falls under R rating on technical points still may not qualify as that gestalt that makes something R. There's a load of connotation, like the R should apply to movies where R was the intent, rather than a side effect of filming a slice of reality.

But, I don't agree. I have to agree with Steinman. People want to know whether there's language in this film, and until their kid is 17, they have a right to determine whether that's appropriate (just like the actually DO with sex ed videos shown in school). They may appreciate the message and still hate that there is so much language, and that's their right, whether we like it or not. It really is that simple to a lot of people who want the ratings to tell them how much cursing or adult situations to expect at a glance.

You know a lot of this makes me think of the original Scared Straight documentary. I wonder if the the networks will have to stones to play this one on prime time as well.

sixpackshaker said:

MPAA will still be better than the alternative. Having some Government Official decide what you can and can not see.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, having it rated publicly is much worse than bitter old men and women and the church doing it arcanely in complete secrecy.

sixpackshaker said:

MPAA will still be better than the alternative. Having some Government Official decide what you can and can not see.

Click to expand...

The MPAA operates in secrecy, the government is required to have a certain level of transparency.

And our films are rated by a government board yet our ratings are all significantly more lenient than the ones in the States.

checkeredhat said:

The MPAA operates in secrecy, the government is required to have a certain level of transparency.

And our films are rated by a government board yet our ratings are all significantly more lenient than the ones in the States.

Click to expand...

Though I have seen more R (Canadian NC-17) movies in Canada than I think they've released in the US. According to Wikipedia, BC is ruining it for everyone by some BC theaters refusing to screen R rated movies. I know that isn't the case here, Cineplex theaters here have always shown the R rated movies. I can't imagine Cineplex in BC would be any different.

fade said:

But, I don't agree. I have to agree with Steinman. People want to know whether there's language in this film, and until their kid is 17, they have a right to determine whether that's appropriate (just like the actually DO with sex ed videos shown in school). They may appreciate the message and still hate that there is so much language, and that's their right, whether we like it or not. It really is that simple to a lot of people who want the ratings to tell them how much cursing or adult situations to expect at a glance.

Click to expand...

Because actually researching what your (in the general sense, not the personal) will be exposed to is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard. I don't care if the MPAA breaks it down like:

This documentary film contains profanity:

• 5 nonsexual instances of the work "Fuck".
• 4 non-literal instances of the word "Shit".
• 2 blasphemous instances of "God Damn".
• 1 blasphemous instance of "Gadzooks".

This documentary film contains sexual imagery:

• Gay men kissing heavily.
• Women enjoying sex.

I'm all for giving parents and schools the tools they need to determine if a documentary's educational value outweighs concerns about content, what age groups the film would be best suited for, etc. Emphasis again on TOOLS. Right now the MPAA decides "the flick is not appropriate for anyone under seventeen according to our arcane and subjective standards" and that's the final word. The subjects of the doc in the OP are being told "your day to day life is inappropriate for you to see on a video screen". Does that not seem at least a little bass ackwards to you?

Researching movies IS haaaaaaard. I can go find 50 different opinions on any movie right now, many of which vary in how "inappropriate" they feel the film might be. Add this to the fact that little billy just ran up and said that his friends are going to see Bully, which starts in 5 minutes, and boy if only there was some group that went through these movies and told me what general standard of appropriateness it stood up to, which I understand to be in terms of language, violence, sex, and nudity, regardless of content.

YOU don't care if the MPAA breaks things down that way, but many people do. Some people just don't want their kids exposed to that kind of language regardless of content. That may bother you to no end, and maybe rightly so, but that's what many, many people care about. That's the problem. ANY rating system is always going to be subjective. I could make an argument very similar to yours about a film that might be considered highly artistic, but that contains lots of violence, sex, and swearing. It probably could be used as an educational tool, to demonstrate artistic technique.

So after all that, and after releasing the film unrated, they went back and edited it anyway to get a PG-13 for another release.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...edited-bully/2012/04/05/gIQAHjfHyS_story.html

...an edited version of the film will be released April 13 with a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America.

Click to expand...

Couldn't they just bleep out the swear words? Would that not solve the problem?

In the meantime, apparently there's a very major omission from the movie:



Tyler was not only gay (which I don't know if it's mentioned in the movie or not), but he also had aspergers. Aspergers Syndrome is a form of autism. To leave this out of the film is ridiculous because while it doesn't condone or support the bullies, it does give you additional reasoning as to why they were bullying him. Hurm.

Bullshit. The kid could have had a clubfoot and vestigial tail with Tourette's and he shouldn't have to put up with bullying.

ThatNickGuy said:

Tyler was not only gay...

Click to expand...

That's a different Tyler. The film is about Aspergers' sufferer Tyler Long who was bullied to death, but there is also a far more well known gay teen named Tyler Clementi was bullied to death. He's the young man whose college roommate video taped him on a date, for the purpose of shaming him.

Dave said:

Bullshit. The kid could have had a clubfoot and vestigial tail with Tourette's and he shouldn't have to put up with bullying.

Click to expand...

You didn't watch the video. The video is criticizing the filmmakers so omitting any mention of Tyler Long's autism because it was what he was bullied for (more accurately, it caused the things that he was bullied for). He compares it never mentioning Tyler Clementi was gay if one were to make a documentary about him.

Frankly, I agree with the video.

I'm not saying that at all. But the fact is, the aspergers is a pretty defining trait.

EDIT: Ah, my bad, Covar.