Posted by dgates on 05/12/07 21:50

On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:54:36 -0400, "Rich Clark"
<rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:

>I'm more concerned about historical fiction. Does the director of any movie
>set in the 50s, when everybody smoked all the time, have to choose between
>an automatic R and a loss of realism? Is the MPAA saying "historical
>accuracy is restricted to people over 17?"

Derek beat me to the idea of comparing this rule to giving an R rating
when someone eats unhealthy foods. So I'll say: I think the MPAA is
just concerned that the world doesn't already think America is crazy
enough.

I can't think of a scientific way to determine which is worse for a
kid -- say, ranking these from most to least dangerous:

- seeing someone shot and killed,
- hearing someone say certain "bad" words,
- seeing someone without their clothes on, and
- watching someone smoke a cigarette.

• Next in forum: Re: MPAA does something good? Adds smoking as a reason for an R rating.
• Prev in forum: Re: scratches
• Thread view: Re: MPAA does something good? Adds smoking as a reason for an R rating.

[Reply to this message]