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

So why do you think said film can only be seen by adults in America

Please enlighten me as to the real reason why.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your references are very old, Corrie and Keeping Up Appearances.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.