|
|
Posted by Adam H. Kerman on 03/25/07 05:56
At 10:29pm -0400, 03/24/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:22:14 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>At 8:45am -0400, 03/22/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:32:07 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>At 11:59pm -0400, 03/21/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>>>>http://commanderbond.net/article/4067
>>>>The Chinese people have been kept in the dark about the Cold War? Didn't
>>>>the censors understand that was a dig at the Russians?
>>>It was a dig a *communist* Russia.
>>Why would Chinese censors care?
>Because China is communist, and was allies with communist Russia.
Not since the early '70's.
>>>>While the US has no Board of Film Censors, cuts negotiated with MPAA
>>>>CARA to get a more favorable rating are in no way voluntary.
>>>Yes they are. The producers could've accepted the R rating the MPAA first
>>>gave the film, but they chose to go for a lower rating.
>>Huh? They were making a Bond movie, not an R-rated movie. They knew going in
>>that they'd make cuts to receive the more commercially-viable rating,
>>otherwise they couldn't have gotten financing based on expected US
>>distribution of a PG-13 movie.
>Right, they made a decision to make a PG-13 movie, and thus made the choice
>to edit the film to earn a PG-13 rating. The MPAA didn't force them to
>make any cuts, it simply provided the original rating. At worst, the notes
>the MPAA made regarding specific scenes they had problems with may have
>gotten in the hands of the producers, who then *themselves* chose to make
>cuts to earn the rating they wanted.
MPAA is the gatekeeper in this instance.
>>R ratings are specifically enforced to keep
>>children out of theaters and to keep movies out of certain communities in
>>America. Generally, R-rated movies are not as widely distributed.
>None of which changes the fact that it's a voluntary system.
There's nothing voluntary about complying with the requirements of an
outside party to receive the desired rating.
>And the distribution is a decision of the studio and distribution company,
>not the MPAA. The film 300 made it into more theaters than some PG-13
>fair.
You're the guy who keeps claiming it's a free market, despite there being
only one rating board.
How can there be a free market when the ratings determine whether
unaccompanied children may see movies, rather than their own parents?
>>How can you deny that even though MPAA claims the ratings are advisory, that
>>they are enforced by film exhibitors? That makes 'em mandatory.
>The film exhibitors *volunteer* to enforce the rules.
I've explained why they do this.
>The ratings may not end up be voluntary for the consumer, but that's
>because the consumer isn't in charge of the theater. It's like how a
>consumer doesn't have control over what films are in stock at their local
>video store. It doesn't make their reduced selection "mandatory" somehow.
No, it isn't, because stores that sell and rent movies are not subject to a
rating system and some will sell unrated versions of movies.
>An exhibitor could chose to ignore the movie ratings completely and let
>anyone into any movie. They'd most likely learn from local reaction though
>that it's better for their business to play along though.
Again, it's one thing for locals to refuse to see a movie. It's quite
another for them to prevent people from seeing a movie using extraordinary
legal means. You keep refusing to acknowledge exactly the harsh treatment
that theater owners who showed movies out of favor with the locals were
treated to.
>Just because the free market can be exploited to impose certain morals on
>businesses doesn't mean it's not the free market that's driving it though.
Again, when one group imposes its will on another group by preventing them
from doing something otherwise harmless, there's no free market. You really
don't understand. Choosing not to show a movie because one doesn't think it
will sell tickets (because people in town probably don't go for that sort of
thing) is entirely different from choosing not to show a movie because you
fear having the theater shut down or protestors blocking your door. Do you
yet see the difference? The former is an exercise in free markets. The
latter is not.
>>>>Movie censorship exists in the US because the movie studios are scared to
>>>>death that it would be imposed upon them by Congress.
>>>If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary censorship
>>>agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.
>>What free market is that? Is there a choice of classification, or is there
>>exactly one classification for the entire country?
>If someone wanted to create an alternative film classification, they're
>certainly free to do so.
That's not how monopolies work. There is no other rating system followed by
exhibitors, so that is why CARA is a monopoly.
>I've seen video releases with a distributor's own ratings and
>classifications on them. And of course the porn industry has been
>classifying their films without the MPAA for decades.
They have? Funny. They aren't trying to get their movies distributed into
theaters that belong to NATO. They aren't members of MPAA either.
>>>>There have been movies shut down in some places in the United States for
>>>>alleged obscenity and pornography and, at times, because local
>>>>authorities were trying to appease the Church.
>>>That didn't happen here though, and was highly unlikely to happen even if
>>>the film had be released uncut with an R rating.
>>Exactly such things happened in the past.....
>I really don't care about the past though.
Why is that, exactly? The movie rating system is there to PREVENT adverse
actions from still being taken against theater owners and to thwart Congress
and state legislatures from imposing one of their own. It is why it
continues to exist.
If you don't think that there are still public protests and sometimes
involvement of elected officials in attempts at regulation of popular
culture, then you have your blinders on.
>I was referring to Casino Royale's release in particular, which is the
>reference you challenged. If you want to point out that such things
>happened in the past, that's fine, I agree that it did, but it doesn't have
>any relevance on Casino Royale's rating and whether its rating and edits
>were voluntary.
Your position is that you are ignoring protests of movies (which still
happen) and since you are ignoring protests, it doesn't apply to CR.
>>Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie;
>No, a complete lack of rating from the MPAA meant an unrated movie.
Wrong. Each of the other ratings were trademarked by MPAA. An X rating was
self-applied to movies that couldn't qualify for R ratings. The official
history of the current rating system backs my memory of this:
http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp
In the initial system, M was similar to PG. Initially, R meant no children
under 16 admitted without parent or guardian.
I find this statement significant: "The original plan had been to use only
three rating categories. [Jack] Valenti [president of MPAA when this system
of ratings was set up] felt that parents ought to be able to accompany their
children to any movie the parents choose, without the movie industry,
government or self-appointed groups interfering with their rights. But NATO
urged the creation of an adult-only category, fearful of possible legal
redress under state or local law. Hence, the four-category system, including
the X rating, was installed."
This supports my contention that ratings exist out of fear of local or state
film censorship or other actions adverse to theater owners under law.
>X meant nobody under 17 could see the film, exactly the same as NC-17 when
>it first came into being. The reason why they changed the name was because
>they forgot to trademark the X rating, which meant anyone could use X as a
>rating for their film if they so chose.
They didn't forget to trademark X.
>>NC-17 isn't commercially viable as nearly no exhibitor will show such a
>>movie. It is the kiss of death.
>Right, so it's driven by market forces.
Because theater owners fear the same backlash resulting in local censorship
or action hostile to their business because such movies are assumed to be
pornographic.
>>>>Think it can't happen? Congress does censor television and radio, been
>>>>cracking down on obscenities uttered on radio for years. The fines have
>>>>gotten punitively high since the attack of the giant breast.
>>>Congress doesn't supervise broadcast TV and radio, the FCC does.
>>Let me be the first to inform you that FCC is carrying out federal law as
>>enacted by Congress.
>The FCC "carrying out federal law as enacted by Congress" isn't the same as
>Congress itself doing the action.
That is a statement profoundly ignorant of the American system of
government. Regulatory agencies aren't allowed to regulate capriciously.
They are carrying out or enforcing laws. During much of its existence, I'll
guess that if FCC were to express an opinion as a regulator, it would not
wish to be a censor of popular entertainment, but it's not optional.
>>>The FCC can do this because they control and license out the radio waves
>>>broadcast TV and radio use. Cable and Satellite TV and satellite ratio
>>>aren't under any such restrictions though.
>>What makes you think they couldn't be? Cable uses public rights-of-way,
>>sometimes along highways paid for with federal grants, so that's a way in
>>to censorship if Congress chooses. Satelite is licensed, I believe.
>You're correct, they could if they decided to. The main point was that
>they don't currently, contrary to your earlier blanket claims.
I didn't make that claim. I've stated repeatedly that movie ratings exist
because studios fear laws that would impose censorship. And I gave examples
of official censorship of popular entertainment, including the very same
movies that studios produce. They become subject to possible censorship when
sold to broadcast television.
>The FCC doesn't supervise satellite and cable because while broadcast is
>considered "public," free for anyone to receive, cable and satellite are
>"private" and require a person to subscribe to the service to receive it.
FCC doesn't due to lack of jurisdiction. You did admit that it might be
possible, someday, under the wrong political climate.
>>I suppose there may be examples of a producer making a movie that he is
>>aware would not qualify for an R rating forced to make cuts for NC-17.
>There are absolutely *zero* examples of a film having to make cuts to earn
>an NC-17. There is no maximum limit in terms of content to what an NC-17
>film can provide. A porno could get a NC-17 rating if submitted to the
>MPAA, but no porn producer is going to bother.
I honestly don't know if pornography would quality for NC-17. As far as I
know, a movie must still be submitted to receive NC-17 as, unlike X, it is
not self-applied.
>>>It's still a voluntary choice by the theater owners what they chose to
>>>show, and a voluntary choice by film producers to change the rating of
>>>their film in order to get it in more theaters.
>>What don't you understand about the difference between voluntary and
>>mandatory? If advice, it's volutary. If enforced, it's mandatory.
>It's voluntarily enforced by the theater owners. I recall that enforcement
>varying. Growing up, I remember that some theaters were ok with minors
>seeing an R rated film unaccompanied by an adult as long as they had a
>note. Some theaters were fine with it as long as the parent bought the
>actual tickets. Some theaters have been completely lax about it.
Since movie theaters themselves are run by children, it's hardly surprising.
What tends to happen is there's some scare about children imitating violent
actions in a movie, then suddenly there's pressure on theater owners to keep
children out of movies. "Basketball Diaries" inspired a huge crackdown on
children seeing R rated movies.
>>MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS.
>No, they say they created the system *for* parents.
No. Read the official history.
>Up to PG-13, the decision is completely up to the parent. For R and up,
>the theater enforces the rules as they see fit. For example, one theater
>chain I went to banned *all* children 6 and under from R rated films,
>accompanied by parents or not.
Good. I hope that theater increased its business. Nothing is more obnoxious
than a child unable to understand what he sees on screen constantly asking
for an explanation while you watch something, shaking your head wondering
what kind of foolish parent would take a child to see this movie.
I'd also like there to be a rating banning cell phones.
>>The typical theater owner, fearing adverse reaction by church groups and
>>others in his community who tell people how to raise their children, which
>>is exactly what happened until the present classification system was
>>adopted, does not allow unaccompanied teenagers under 17 to see R-rated
>>movies. If he belongs to NATO, he agrees to such enforcement.
>The "adverse reaction" is typically in terms of boycotts or bad publicity.
Depending on the nature of the protest, it could lead to blocking the
theater entrance or trying to get the municipality to shut down the theater.
All these things have happened, some in recent years.
>The theater owner typically decides it makes better business sense to
>conform. This is the free market in work, although for some of us probably
>not the way we *wished* it worked.
What is it you don't understand about a free market? In a free market, all
adults are free to enter into contracts, assuming the contract isn't for an
illegal action. Some protests are an attempt to interfere with other people
from freely entering into a contract.
>>In an actual free market, parents would be free to decide whether to allow
>>unaccompanies children to see R-rated movies.
>You're confusing free market with a much narrower focus of freedom over a
>theater's own rules.
No I am not. The theater owner enforces rules fearing outside pressure that
would make him do worse things. If there were a free market, a theater owner
might make his own recommendations to parents on age appropriateness or
decide that a particular rating was misapplied.
Do you remember the level of sex and violence in "Mystic Pizza"? Can you
explain why a romantic comedy would receive an R rating, and on television,
it has the M tag attached to it? There was no nudity, but then, certain
swear words would trigger R ratings while other movies with violence but
none of those swear words would get PG ratings. Nothing inappropriate for
children in that movie, although taking a pre-teen to see it would be
pointless. No reason a junior high or high school student couldn't have seen
it, especially since it would have made a good date flick.
>There really isn't a large enough demand for theaters that ignore MPAA
>guidelines though.
Someday, I'd like to test that theory, to see if bad elements in the
American public will stop attempting to put specific theater owners out of
business for showing movies to a general audience.
>>Do you recall that movies that featured black actors in other than
>>subservient positions couldn't be distributed nationwide? Was that an
>>example of a free market?
>Unfortunately, probably so, unless certain laws prohibited it.
What do you call enforcement of municipal authorities? You know that
nightclubs were shut down for refusal to enforce Jim Crow laws and sometimes
for featuring black entertainers. There may have been laws on the books
covering movies too, not just practical censorship by the local police chief
busting up the joint or the fire inspector suddenly discovering dangerous
conditions.
>The free market, since it's swayed by the whim of the masses, isn't always
>a pretty thing.
It's not the free market when it's censorship under these circumstances.
>>>And I don't see what any of this has to do with the cuts made to Casino
>>>Royale.
>>Just a bit of historical perspective.
>Historical perspective is fine, just be sure it's appropriate and needed. I
>never said that no censorship never happened nowhere, I said that cutting
>Casino Royale from an R to a PG-13 was a voluntary move on the studio's
>part.
Censorship is an official act. Ratings exist for fear of censorship. The
effect is pretty much the same.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|