13
   

Should a movie be punished by an R rating simply because of an X number of F-bombs?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 04:35 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
So why do you think said film can only be seen by adults in America

Please enlighten me as to the real reason why.


Quote:
Same Difference? - A Comparison of the British and American film and DVD Rating Systems


http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/education-news/same-difference

Quote:
In overview, the categories are as follows:

The United Kingdom

U: Universal, suitable for all
PG: Parental Guidance
12/12A: Suitable for 12 years and over
15: Suitable for 15 years and over
18: Suitable only for adults

The United States

G: General audiences
PG: Parental guidance suggested
PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned
R: Restricted
NC-17: No-one 17 and under admitted



12 vs 13 whoooooooooooo

17 vs 18 omfg


Quote:
Sex and nudity
In general terms, it appears that the US ratings board, representing the views of the American public, has a lower tolerance for nudity or sex scenes appearing in lower rated films.

Violence and tone
Conversely, the UK public seems to have a lower tolerance for aggression, or a dark and disturbing tone in a lower category film – even with an absence of overt violence and injuries.


language doesn't seem to be a factor in the very minor age differences in the ratings schemes



some fun history

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189

https://gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-the-movie-rating-system-1676334900

Quote:
As for PG-13, it was Steven Spielberg who helped usher in that rating. When Jaws was released in 1977, it was rated PG, despite the violence being too much for young kids, but of course deemed not enough that it needed an R rating. In 1984, he directed Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and was the executive producer on Gremlins, and both received a PG rating. He felt the PG rating was too broad and suggested a PG-14 rating. The next year, the MPAA, taking Spielberg's suggestion, instituted the PG-13 rating and Red Dawn was the first film with that rating. And the rest, as they say, is history.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 04:41 pm
@chai2,
I did read it. I also read the part where you said certain words in one part of Britain would be offensive in another. I can't think of any, perhaps you'd like to give an example.

The amount of British telly available in America is tiny compared to the huge amount of American stuff we get on a daily basis.

One of the effects of cultural imperialism is that the rest of the World knows significantly more about America than the other way round.

Neither of you, with the exception of Beth's history lesson about Canadian Thanksgiving have told me anything I didn't know already. In fact Beth's use of decades old references only confirms what I've been saying.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 04:43 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your references are very old, Corrie and Keeping Up Appearances. Got anything that originated this millennium?


the reality is those ^ are shows that are currently shown here so that is how you're judged by people who judge people by what they see on t.v. - maybe we see you as the lovely Onslow Cool

it could be worse - I could have used On The Buses or Are You Being Served as examples
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 04:45 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Your references are very old, Corrie and Keeping Up Appearances. Got anything that originated this millennium?




Why?
Have people changed that much in 22 years?
Are you saying the show was a good representation of the population as a whole was like during the 1990's?

What's with all the roadblocks you keep throwing out?

Well, you don't know because that's so old
Well, you don't know because you don't know what a bloody fanny is
Well, you don't know because you're a puritan
Well, you don't know because I've meet some Americans, Countless Americans.
Well, you don't know because I've watched American TV Shows.

You should be teaching a course at Harvard.


WTF?
What are you arguing exactly?


And I know you've address this to Beth, but honestly, if you want to know the why's how how ratings are given out, for the 3rd time, ask the Motion Picture Association of America.

An honest, valid answer from me is "I don't know"
Ask someone who does.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 04:57 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
One of the effects of cultural imperialism is that the rest of the World knows significantly more about America than the other way round.


from the BBC link
Quote:

Many people – especially children – are unwilling to read subtitles on film, so this exposure of British viewers to American films is partly a result of the shared English language, which makes it instantly easier for fans to access the same movies.

However, as George Bernard Shaw is credited with stating, the British and the Americans are ‘two nations divided by a common language’.


ties in with this

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/28/british-linguaphobia-has-deepened-since-brexit-vote-say-experts

Quote:
Speaking at the Hay literary festival on Friday, a panel including Cardiff University professor Claire Gorrara and linguist Teresa Tinsley, said that Britons had too long relied on a false belief that English was the world’s lingua franca. Only 6% of the global population are native English speakers, with 75% of the world unable to speak English at all. But three-quarters of UK residents can only speak English.

“That English is somehow the norm is a complete misapprehension of the facts, but this notion that everyone is speaking English is persistent and believed by many in the UK,” said Gorrara, warning that economic opportunities and bridge-building with the rest of the world was at risk after Brexit if Britons did not become less “linguaphobic” and learn more languages.


I know the linguaphobia isn't a problem for you, but it does have an impact on what media is watched where you are - and other countries/cultures don't necessarily get the same hit of American media.

More people are watching Bollywood movies (it's def the case in my part of town) than Hollywood films.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/09/03/bollywood-indias-film-industry-by-the-numbers-infographic/#184ce3452488


Quote:
The numbers are certainly impressive - in terms of the number of films produced each year, Bollywood is firmly on top of the pile with 1,602 in 2012 alone. The U.S. churned out 476 films that year while the Chinese managed 745. In the same year, Hollywood sold 1.36 billion tickets compared to Bollywood's whopping 2.6 billion.


0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:00 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I did read it. I also read the part where you said certain words in one part of Britain would be offensive in another. I can't think of any, perhaps you'd like to give an example.


Can you point that out to me? I don't want to go reread every post. Plus, you've already stated I've said things I haven't (having only met one Brit in my life for one), so I think it's on you to search for where I may or may not have said something.

Quote:
The amount of British telly available in America is tiny compared to the huge amount of American stuff we get on a daily basis.


Yes....and?

As I said, if you're talking about network TV, that's some pretty bad stuff that doesn't represent anyone on the planet. There's also bad cable, pay per view and streaming stuff too. Plenty of stuff I've started to watch on Netflix, my go too, get taken off my list because it's just too gawd awful stupid, yet has 4 or 5 stars.

Quote:
One of the effects of cultural imperialism is that the rest of the World knows significantly more about America than the other way round.


Yet, I think Beth and I know more about our own countries. If I'm saying that what you're seeing isn't typically representative of my own land, why wouldn't you trust that?

Quote:
Neither of you, with the exception of Beth's history lesson about Canadian Thanksgiving have told me anything I didn't know already. In fact Beth's use of decades old references only confirms what I've been saying.


If you already know everything about this, and you know why we do everything, and who we are, what exactly are you getting at?

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:00 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I did read it. I also read the part where you said certain words in one part of Britain would be offensive in another. I can't think of any, perhaps you'd like to give an example.


does everyone in the British Isles use all words and idioms the same way?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:03 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your references are very old, Corrie and Keeping Up Appearances.


it doesn't matter.

You can't control what I have as my reference points anymore than I can control what you have as your reference points.

I think they're all equally bad if we're using tv and film as how we understand other cultures and countries.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:09 pm
@chai2,
What I'm pointing out is that if you saw as much British telly as we do American your references would be up to date.

And yes things do change in 22 years, gay marriage for starters.

Talking in general terms, which when you think about it are the only terms you can use when talking about something as broad as film classification, does not mean refusing to acknowledge regional and cultural differences and dialects in one particular country.

Take gender, if I was to say that generally speaking women earn less than men, does it follow that I'm saying that there aren't any high earning women or low earning men? By your logic it does.

Telling me to take something up with the film classifiers is a cop out. Why do you think there is such a big difference in certification? After all millions of widely differing American from different cultures and backgrounds with differing incomes, like widely differing Britons are all subject to the same cinema classification. There has to be a bloody reason doesn't there?
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:41 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

What I'm pointing out is that if you saw as much British telly as we do American your references would be up to date.


Yes......and again.....so?

So are you saying that since a reference is from the 1990's that it means it is an accurate depiction of what people were like during that decade? So families and people where really like Hyacinth Bucket during the 90's?

I hope not, because I saw a few of those episodes, and thought it was awful. Brits equiv of Three's Company.

What about if a British show was made in 2015, but depicted something going on in 1950, or 1850? Does that mean it's an accurate depiction of those times? Or still a depiction of how things are in 2015?





Quote:

Talking in general terms, which when you think about it are the only terms you can use when talking about something as broad as film classification, does not mean refusing to acknowledge regional and cultural differences and dialects in one particular country.


Huh?
No idea what you're talking about.

I think all I've talked about is regional and cultural differences of the country I'm most familiar with.

Except that you seem to hold two thoughts simultaneously. One is that you know what all Americans are like because you know some Americans, and watch American TV shows, and from these shows and people you know we are all puritans and don't use as much profanity.....and that at the same time we are now all widely different.

Quote:

Telling me to take something up with the film classifiers is a cop out. Why do you think there is such a big difference in certification? After all millions of widely differing American from different cultures and backgrounds with differing incomes, like widely differing Britons are all subject to the same cinema classification. There has to be a bloody reason doesn't there?


I didn't cop out. I gave an answer......

I......don't......know.

As far as a reason, bloody or otherwise, again...

I......don't.....know.

I readily admit, I not only don't know everything, there are many things I know absolutely nothing about. The answer from me is I don't know why both widely differing differing Americans and Britons are all subject to the same cinema classifications.
If you want to know, you'll need to ask the people who do know, and I'm not that person.

Or, did you want me to make something up, so you can disagree with me?
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2018 05:46 pm
Ok, I'm off this thread.

Rereading the last page or 2, I've no idea what it is you want from others izzy, what you are trying to make a point about, or where it is you are going.

No offense, but it's just gone too far down a rabbit hole.

Whatever it is you are attempting to prove, consider it proven.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2018 12:52 am
@chai2,
I'm not trying to prove anything, I made a casual off hand remark about why I thought something was the case and I stirred up a hornet's nest.
0 Replies
 
TheSubliminalKid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2018 12:01 pm
@ehBeth,
That...

I don't know what question you think you're answering but you certainly didn't answer Izzy's.

He asked why you think this should be rated for adults and above, not "what is the difference between every single rating".
0 Replies
 
TheSubliminalKid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2018 01:23 pm
@chai2,
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/548/129/538.jpg

What on Earth did I just read?!

Oh my Goodness this is a train wreck and a half. I'm sorry but I just HAVE to put in my thoughts.

To go back to the beginning of the thread, I don't think the F-Word is just done for "shock value". I think that films that are trying to be realistic (especially when they're a biopic such as The King's Speech) should definitely not censor such a thing. People swear. Most people swear, and to censor that would just be showing a version of life that isn't true (but acceptable to people who have issues with such a thing).

In the USA, swearing is seen as much worse and far more taboo than in the UK. I remember watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and seeing a character say they wanted to be on HBO so they could swear. This in itself shows general values as over here you can find swearing on most channels as long as it's past the watershed.

This is a general difference between two nations that has been noted. As we get an awful lot of American television over here, Britain as a whole general knows what American values and ideals are.

This pendulum does not swing both ways. You only mentioned a handful of programmes, all of which were incredibly outdated. Izzy's point was valid - none of these programmes can really give an insight into British values today.

I should know, I was born in the early 1990's and I remember homophobia being commonplace and accepted as a child in school and on television as a joke - now we wouldn't tolerate such a thing.

The world has changed a HELL of a lot since the 1990's, not just in the UK. To say "Ok so?" simply says "I'm going to spew dated observations based on very little and I don't have a problem with that."

The thing that gets me though is why... this has offended you so much? Izzy made a very valid comment and you went straight on the defence, turning it into some kind of argument/competition instead of recognising that this has a lot to do with the original query/discussion topic.

Quote:
No offense, but it's just gone too far down a rabbit hole.


I don't think anyone else has gone down there - I think you just threw yourself down the rabbit hole
0 Replies
 
Agent1741
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 09:22 pm
I am a big Jason Statham fan but when he released Crank (1& 2 ) I was really turned off by all the continual swearing in it, quite unecessasary.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2018 03:31 pm
@Agent1741,
Agent1741 wrote:

I am a big Jason Statham fan but when he released Crank (1& 2 ) I was really turned off by all the continual swearing in it, quite unecessasary.

Please keep in mind that Crank and Crank: High Voltage were both hard R's in the US and not because of the swearing. It earned its rating via explicit sex and pretty graphic violence as well as the language. You were more disturbed by the language than the other content issues?

This thread is how adult language alone can trip the R rating by the MPAA.
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2018 04:45 pm
I was certainly put off by the scene in Old Boy where the guy being brutally dismembered tells the ones doing it to go **** themselves.

Totally uncalled for. Someone wash his mouth out with soap.
0 Replies
 
Agent1741
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2018 10:51 pm
@tsarstepan,
I stand by my comment in light of the title of the thread which I think is pretty clear!!! There was a lot of foul language in it so it deserved a "R" rating!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/15/2019 at 11:32:52