|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 03/25/07 12:42
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:56:50 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> At 10:29pm -0400, 03/24/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>
> MPAA is the gatekeeper in this instance.
The MPAA did not restrict the exhibition of this film in any way. What
"gate" did the MPAA "keep" in this instance?
>>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.
Yes there is; the studios could chose to *not* to comply with the outside
party. That they do so is purely voluntary on their part because they
desire something from the outside party, namely the 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?
Because the exhibitors chose to restrict access to the films voluntarily.
Would you argue that it's not a free market when restaurants require their
customers to wear shirts and shoes for service, rather than letter the
customer decide for themselves?
If the customer doesn't like the policy of a given place, they can frequent
somewhere else. If everywhere else has the same policy, it's because the
free market has determined there isn't a place for an establishment that
*doesn't* follow that policy. A free market doesn't mean a consumer has a
right to anything they want.
>>>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.
So you agree that it's voluntary then.
>>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.
Some exhibitors will show unrated movies as well. So by your own logic for
video stores, the exhibitors' restrictions aren't mandatory either.
>>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.
What's the "extraordinary legal means"? The right of an establishment to
decide whom it serves? Stores and restaurants reserve that right all the
time. "No food or drink," "No pets," "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
Businesses are private enterprises, and as long as they're not breaking any
laws doing so, they can discriminate against whomever they want.
> You keep refusing to acknowledge exactly the harsh treatment
> that theater owners who showed movies out of favor with the locals were
> treated to.
I'm not saying they weren't treated harshly. I'm saying the treatment they
received, boycotts and bad publicity, was all within the bounds of the free
market.
>>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.
No, again you're really misunderstanding what the term free market means.
> 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.
You're correct that there is a significant difference between the two
situations. You're incorrect in thinking the latter isn't part of the free
market system, at least the protestor part.
>>>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.
How would the MPAA actually stop an alternative rating format? The MPAA
hasn't stopped exhibitors from showing films not rated by them, and it
couldn't stop an alternative rating system from being developed. Studios,
distributors, and exhibitors may not be inclined to use any alternative
system, but that's the free market in play. MPAA is a monopoly because the
free market has made it so.
>>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.
Both of which are voluntary associations. Unless you can name a theater or
studio that was forced to join either association.
>>>Exactly such things happened in the past.....
>
>>I really don't care about the past though.
>
> Why is that, exactly?
Because I wasn't talking about the past, I was talking about a very current
situation. As such, only current rules and guidelines really apply in
regards to discussing whether the editing of Casino Royale from an R to a
PG-13 was voluntary.
> 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.
Did that happen to Casino Royale?
>>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.
I'm ignoring things that don't apply to the situation with Casino Royale,
the situation you took objection to me calling voluntary. If protests did
break out over the studio initially having a cut of Casino Royale that was
rated R, then protests would be relevant to this situation.
>>>Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie;
>
>>No, a complete lack of rating from the MPAA meant an unrated movie.
>>X meant nobody under 17 could see the film, exactly the same as NC-17 when
>>it first came into being.
>
> 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
From that site:
"The initial design called for four rating categories:
* X for no one under 17 admitted"
X meant nobody under 17, just like I said.
Also from the site:
"Under the plan, anyone who did not submit his or her film for rating could
self-apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those
trademarked by the rating program."
So someone could rate their film an X without it actually being rated by
the MPAA. However, only an idiot would've applied the X rating to any film
that wouldn't have otherwise received the rating from the MPAA themselves,
and the MPAA also applied the X rating to films they reviewed. So X never
meant "unrated by the MPAA," since the film could most definitely had been.
> I find this statement significant:
> .....
> 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.
It doesn't change it being voluntary.
>>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.
Fine, they deliberately left the X untrademarked so filmmakers could
self-apply the rating if they so chose. They obviously regretting the
decision later on.
>>>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.
It's still voluntary. "Fear of local censorship" would mean there's not
actual censorship, and "action hostile to their business" would be free
market forces. Some exhibitors choose to risk it and show NC-17 or unrated
fare. That's their prerogative.
>>>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.
Well duh. That doesn't make the regulatory agency the exact same entity as
that which empowered the agency though. Again, the police give me a
speeding ticket, not the legislative body that enacted the speed limit.
>>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.
Yes you did. You said that "Congress does censor television and radio." I
pointed out the errors in that statement, namely that it's the FCC, not
Congress, that doesn't the actual censoring, and that said censoring only
applies to broadcast television and radio. Your initial statement covered
*all* television and radio, an incorrect blanket claim.
> I've stated repeatedly that movie ratings exist
> because studios fear laws that would impose censorship.
It's still a voluntary system. If I chose not to bungie jump because of
fear of heights, is my action not voluntary?
> 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.
Of course, selling it for broadcast television is a voluntary action the
studio takes with the knowledge of said censoring. In this case though
Casino Royale wasn't edited for TV, it was edited for theatrical
exhibition.
>>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 initially said that they didn't and you jumped down my throat with the
hypothetical "but they COULD!!" But fine, if you want me to clarify that
statement, amend the opening to read "The FCC doesn't *currently seek to*
supervise...."
>>>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.
That's what I said. "A porno could get a NC-17 rating if *submitted* to
the MPAA." There's no possible film that's so extreme that it wouldn't
merit an NC-17.
>>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.
None of what you wrote changes the fact that the ratings are voluntarily
enforced by the theaters.
>>>MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS.
>
>>No, they say they created the system *for* parents.
>
> No. Read the official history.
http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp
"The Classification and Ratings Board was created in response to a national
cry for some kind of regulation of film content."
"Valenti felt that parents ought to be able to *accompany their children*
to any movie the parents choose"
"NATO urged the creation of an adult-only category"
There's nothing on that page to suggest that MPAA CARA ever felt that
parents had the right to let their kid see *any* movie unaccompanied.
>>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.
This is contrary to your claims of wanting consumer freedoms. Shouldn't
the rating system allow the *parents* decide whether or not to bring their
2 year old, or even allow the 2 year old to watch unaccompanied? That's
what you were claiming a few lines before.
> I'd also like there to be a rating banning cell phones.
Most theaters do ban the use of cell phones. People can be removed from
the theater for excessive cell phone use, just like they can be for any
other behavior if the theater chooses to enforce its own rules it
voluntarily chose. Kicking out an obnoxious viewer is the exact same
restriction of customer "freedom" that the enforce age restrictions are.
>>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
This would be an attempt at persuasion via economic factors, and thus the
free market. I'm not saying it's right that people do this in order to
persuade the theater to enforce certain rules, but it is the free market.
> or trying to get the municipality to shut down the theater.
> All these things have happened, some in recent years.
Shutting down a theater would be a form of censorship on a local level. Of
course, it doesn't apply to Casino Royale, since no theater would be shut
down for showing Casino Royale with an R rating.
>>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.
A free market doesn't dictate that those contracts have to have terms
favorable to both sides. When you buy a ticket, you're agreeing to the
rules the theater enforces. If one of those rules is the age restrictions,
so be it. You can refuse the contract, which would mean not going to see
movies at that theater, but you can't dictate they change the contract.
> Some protests are an attempt to interfere with other people
> from freely entering into a contract.
So? Would you be in favor of breaking up labor protests because they
interfere with people getting business from the company in question? How
about human rights protests? Or animal rights protests? That they're
protesting about something you disagree with doesn't mean they don't have
the right to protest it.
>>>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.
Saying a theater should have the right to decide what rules to enforce is
different from what you originally wrote though: that the parents should
have the right regardless of what the theater decides.
> Do you remember the level of sex and violence in "Mystic Pizza"?
Please, this is veering far enough away from Casino Royale as it is. I'm
not going to nitpick every possible error the MPAA has made in the past.
All I want to argue is whether or not the studio's decision to cut Casino
Royale was voluntary. I say yes, you seem to disagree.
>>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.
Someday, fine. It's doubtful that we'll ever live in a society where the
majority of people would feel that it's fine for people of *all* ages to
see *any* movie.
>>>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?
Government censorship, and thus not free market. Did a municipal
authority tell MGM to cut Casino Royale to a PG-13?
>>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.
Under what circumstances? How does the editing of Casino Royale from R to
PG-13 constitute censorship that wasn't voluntary on the studio's part?
>>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.
So if you had a choice between the MPAA being dissolved and the government
taking over and it staying like it is, you'd have no problem with the
former?
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|