Topic: Rating Soupe

[TechPro]

I admit it, I’m a bit of a sucker for good movies that stars John Wayne (not all movies that star John Wayne are good) and when we came across a good copy of “Big Jake” on DVD at a yard sale, it was a “must have” for our personal collection.  I’ve watched “Big Jake” multiple times and I’m very familiar with it but didn’t have it on DVD.  So when I sat down all set to enjoy nearly two hours of the Duke, I was suddenly surprised when the video flashed a rating by the Motion Picture Association of America.  I couldn’t remember ever having seen a rating for “Big Jake” and I wasn’t surprised to see the “PG-13” rating for a movie that I consider to be one of the more violent westerns that John Wayne ever did.  What surprised me and got me to pause the playback so that I could verify what I thought I’d just seen, was the explanation for the “PG-13” rating which I’d expected it to say for violence.  No, instead the rating stated “Western Violence” … as if there is something different with “Western Violence” than say… “Eastern Violence” or perhaps “South Seas Violence” (Pirates, anyone?). 

What the heck.  “Western Violence”?  If the same movie had been filmed on the streets of New York, London, Paris, or Tokyo and had used cars instead of horses, it wouldn’t have been described as “Western Violence” but probably would have been described more generically as “violence and language”.  Granted it’s all acting, but it’s acting attempting to appear real, so… Let’s compare.  An undercover agent brutally shoots a filthy kidnapper and crook in the streets of New York.  Compare that to a tough old cowboy who brutally shoots a filthy kidnapper and crook in some south of the border village … what’s the difference?  That they wore big hats and spurs?  Oh, maybe it was the accent used by the guns when fired (western accent as opposed to New York accent guns).

Really, this ratings thing is … silly in it’s attempt to explain sometimes.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing most of the time.  Like when trying to decide what movie to watch and the rating explanation states the rating is for “sexual content and language” or “violence and drug use” or various combinations of such.  That’s useful and (in my opinion) done correctly.  Especially when looking for movies to enjoy with the kids, or with the wife.   All the ratings really need to do is rate the content, not the region or ethnicity of the movie.

I feel like my cherished copy of “Big Jake” has been discriminated.

[-<WillyP>-]

It's all politics.

[Foil]

Yeah, I've actually noticed a number of ratings giving more detailed info lately. We've watched a couple of Disney flicks with our son which are rated for "animated violence".  I've also seen a couple of movies recently with ratings for things like "intense science-fiction action".

There are some funny/odd ones from the MPAA as well:

Alice in Wonderland (2010): "Rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar"

G.I.Joe (2009): "Rated PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout"

I think some people just have a sense of humor when they write these up. 

[Scyphi]

Either that, or some clerk got bored of writing the same sort of thing all the time and was looking for new ways to say it.

I think I've seen a "sci-fi violence" description, now that you mention it. But I get sci-fi violence, because the kind of violence you'd see in a sci-fi film isn't always the same as in other films. So by calling it "sci-fi violence," it gives the viewer some loose expectation of what sort of violence to expect. I imagine that's the same kind of reasoning that's behind "western violence," though I agree that such labeling for westerns is kind of a "go-figure" sort of move.

But hey, as WillyP said, politics.

Generally, I've found these descriptions for ratings to be pretty useful, even if you might not agree with the wording of said description.

[VANGUARD]

Saying G, PG, PG13, R, X, NC-17, whatever doesn't always help a great deal.
Some yes. G is pretty safe. Anything X, or NC-17, yeah, that will have a bit of you know what.
But I have seen some older movies that in my opinion, isn't much. it's R. Star Wars, which has violence, language? I don't think it has that, but IMO, worse than the other. It's PG. This other movie, R. Star Wars, PG.
okay....

What I like are the old style PC game ratings. like from Doom, Descent, Hexen, old Star Wars games.

Violence level 2- (description)
language level 1 (description)

that's fine. but PG or R, or PG13, isn't the same. And a cold cut description is sort of pointless. if you say due to language, violence, nudity, etc, you're expecting a lot, and it may be very mild.
that's why I like the old PC game ratings. it shows the level and a description.

[Matthew]

It's not as if people pay attention to ratings anymore anyway. Literally every time I go see a movie, even if it's barely PG-13, there are people bringing their 6-year-old to see it.

[Foil]

...even if it's barely PG-13, there are people bringing their 6-year-old to see it.

Yep.  One of the last times my wife and I went out to a movie, there was a 6 or 7 year old girl, pleading with her Dad to let her leave ("Daddy, I need to go potty", "Daddy, you said this wasn't going to be violent", etc.), but he kept her there.  Absolutely crazy.

[VANGUARD]

What channel something is on could do more damage. I don't think one show it too horrible. Yeah, it is a bit, but I think I have seen worse. I mentioned what channel its on and my mom immediately said it must be bad.

I don't mind ratings, but I suppose I don't look at them too often. They may benefit religious people though

[Matthew]

They may benefit religious people though

A) Wut? B) Aren't you rather religious, IIRC?

[VANGUARD]

Spiritually yes, religious, no.

some religious people may easily frown from nudity, sexuality, violence, drug use, etc.

[-<WillyP>-]

I understand what you're sayin' Van.

Personally, I frown on frowning. 

[Matthew]

Prudishness and religion aren't the same thing, imo.

[Scyphi]

[Redacted]

[VANGUARD]

did I say something wrong? I just said some may. And others are not religious that just don't like that stuff. Ratings tend to be more for the kids, and if some steer away from violence, gore, nudity, etc.

[TechPro]

I've found that the content I surround myself with, has a major effect on my temperament, spirituality, and overall quality of well-being.  Going to movies with a lot of gore, nudity, foul language, etc. tends to 'dirty' and clutter the thoughts and actions of the viewer/listener.  Therefore, I avoid all materials and most movies with a lot of foul language (and wish the rest used foul language less), avoid movies with nudity and sexual themes/scenes, and I avoid violent and gory movies.

Does that make me a prude?  No, certainly not.  It simply means I like to avoid filling my mind with what I consider filth and trash, thus making it easier to keep my thoughts clean, fresh, and... (drumroll) ... happy. 

One cannot reach greatness while in the garbage. (personal opinion)