Here’s the setup: in response to growing controversy over the US film ratings system as run by the MPAA, I’ve conquered the planet, suspended and reassigned the MPAA Ratings Board, and assigned you the task of designing a replacement system.
You can recruit anyone you wish to help in the project, and the system can be as byzantine or simplistic as you wish, but there has to be at least some kind of movie rating system as a result.
So…what do you do?
How about we make “Hard R” an actual rating, rather than just a marketing gimmick? And enough with this kiss of death on NC-17. Shame seemed to do okay despite the rating, but that was an EXTREME exception. If I were in charge, I would make an effort to let NC-17 films stand along side the other ratings (but still enforce it as the mandatory 17+ to view in a theater). On the other extreme, I would want G to stop being a kiss of death as well. 2001 was rated G. Star Trek 1 was rated G. These days even some Disney animated films are getting PG’s, and G seems to go only to “movies intended for babies”. G should continue to mean “appropriate for all ages”, and take the pressure off of the studio to throw in a couple of “goddammits” in order to get it up to PG so that adults will watch it.
G, PG, PG-13, R, Hard R, NC-17
Also, non-sexual nudity should not boost up the rating. Before this last decade (I blame it on Janet Jackson), a penis could show up in a film without it getting an NC-17. Titanic was PG-13 and it had boobies! But love or hate the film, the boobies were tastefully drawn by James Cameron himself, and weren’t there as part of a sex show.
Why not just let the studios assign their own ratings? I mean what’s the danger? Don’t tv studios and video game companies assign their own ratings? Are they (Could they be) any less useful than the MPAA’s ratings?
Video game companies don’t assign their own ratings
TV channels do though. That’s why every single episode of South Park is rated TV-MA, even though some episodes would get a PG or 14 if an actual ratings board reviewed each episode. And also why live shows like the Oscars can get a rating ahead of time.
No ratings. Whichever letter is at the adult end of the spectrum will be the new X, XXX, NC-17, or Hard R – resulting in no advertising budget and few theaters carrying the film.
Instead, just provide the very brief list of stuff that’s already out there and the parents make the call. Just general labels like: cartoonish violence, realistic murder, war violence, rape, nudity, artsy nudity, full frontal nudity, explicit sex, implied sex, gore, some cursing, fuckloads o cursing, etc. Theaters get to sell tickets to anyone. If your kid sneaks off in the mall to see a sexy European thriller with full frontal nudity, that’s on you.
I’m more familiar with the Australian classification board, but if I was in charge of that one, my first step would be a Stalin-esque purge of the prudes and the Bible thumpers. Anyone who thinks a game should be banned because your fictional, post-apocalyptic character can “use” an item called “morphine” is too stupid to be given that kind of power.
It wouldn’t be a single letter rating. It would be a list of multiple factors that can irritate or offend people. A relatively short list for things like advertisements in papers and posters (a none-to-extreme rating for sex, another for violence, another for language, etc); a much longer & more detailed version for use on websites. I’m not interested in censoring things, I’m interested in giving people the information they need to avoid being grossed out.
What they said. I don’t know how are computer games rated Over There, but Over Here they carry icons for things like “lots of violence” “low-cut dresses but no nudity or nipples” and “four-letter words”. Let people decide whether a movie is appropriate for them and their children based on the things that they find offensive.
what others have already said - a short list of hot topics PLUS a mandatory warning on the level of shaky cam used in the movie.
And bush!
Ahhh, what a joy that movie that was to my pre-internet, 15-year old self. 
Actually, some sites have done so already (reinvent the MPAA system). I use Kids-in-Mind, which quantifies every potential objectionable scene in a movie.
So I don’t use ratings (for movies) all that much anyway. Using KiM, we’ve taken our daughter to movies ranked above her because we were able to make our own subjective opinion based upon their tallying of potential “offensive” moments. It’s how we were able to take our 4 yo into a “PG-13” Revenge of the Sith - that movie deserved a PG-13 as much as Bambi.
I assume you mean “Stalin-esque” figuratively. Poor Bible-thumpers – forever fantasizing about being “persecuted”, and never having their dreams come true…
The MPAA already does this. If you fix the systematic problems in how ratings are awarded, how the MPAA lets people know about the ratings are pretty good.
Or in other words, I agree with fusoya X 1000.
I’d go for simplified system.
G- Green : The film contains nothing worse than what you would see on an average children’s channel like Nickelodeon. Cartoonish or comedic violence, limited language, mild themes.
GA- General Audiences: The film contains content seen on any given television channel and may contain full language, adult themes, mild or non sexual nudity, and realistic depictions of violence.
M- Mature: The film deals explicitly with gory, violent, or intense sexual themes. The film may contain a graphic depiction of rape. It may contain nudity in a violent or explicitly sexual context.
This cannot be overstated. The hell with profanity, sex, drugs and violence, shaky cam is the rating most needed.
It still can. Wanderlust, in theaters now, has a very prominent non-sexual penis and is R.
But still, I think the only really useful function that MPAA can perform is as a descriptive service rather than a judgmental one. In this age it is easy enough to find some niche service that will tell you exactly how a movie intersects with your specific concerns. But I could see use in a checklist (though what exactly goes on that would be politicized as well):
This movie contains:
__ Smoking
__ Implied sex
__ Implied sex involving minors
__ On screen sex
__ On screen sex involving minor
__ Implied illicit drug use
__ On Screen illicit drug use
__ Cars driven in an unsafe manner
__ A political message with which you might disagree
__ A not completely flattering portrayal of a group you may be a member of
__ Jokes that will piss off the humor-impaired
__ Immoral (as defined by a judeo-christian worldview) behavior that is not punished by the end of the movie.
__ Immoral (as defined by a satano-atheistic worldview) behavior that is not punished by the end of the movie.
__ Failure to explain every last detail resulting in some people complaining the movie is too complex.
__ Explanation of every last detail resulting in some people complaining the movie is meant for idiots.
__ Storytelling shortcuts that have good reason for being there but will then be labeled as stupid things that “shatter the illusion of reality” by people who apparently insist that the only purpose of movies is to accurately represent reality.
__ etc.
…
Though the studios could do this, having it be quasi-independent would avoid shading of interpretations.
So for Bully I would learn that there is swearing in the movie and could then go to APrudeReviewsMovies.com and learn that not only is it “fuck” that gets said but the movie also calls into question the god-given defense of “boys will be boys.”
Burn it to the ground, salt the earth that it was built on, and forbid anybody from approaching the site for 10,000 years. Also, guard zombies.
So what is the distinction between R, Hard R, and NC-17? Can we have a clear explanation, or are we left to the subjective whims of whomever sits on the ratings board?
With respect, how is this the fault of the MPAA ratings board? Can you elaborate? Also, 2001 and Star Trek were both created before the system that included PG-13, so the lines were a little shifted from what they are now. The comparison is not completely fair.
Agreed. The purpose should be an easy, informative system to aid the audience. Of course, once you start the system, you either have to make it mandatory, or else risk theaters/distributors not using it. If you do make it mandatory, then someone whines that you’re a prude.
Then you have to have some criteria for the evaluation, or else it turns into the whim of the reviewer. And we have that already - it’s called reviews.
The way the TV system works seems more informative. It has an overall rating level (TV MA, or TV 14 or whatever), then has a brief list of evaluation criteria - violence, language, sexual content.
I would have a somewhat detailed evaluation criteria listed on a central website, then have the ratings similar to the TV, with a scale for violence, language, sexual content, and maybe grossness.
The VLSG scale: 1-1-1-1 or 1-4-3-2 or whatever. Maybe a number scale of 0 to 4 for each.
More detailed summaries could be available on the main website.
I came in to say pretty much what drastic_quench already did. A single all inclusive rating is basically as artificial and arbitrary as political parties.
Just list the actual potentially offending content and let parents decide for themselves what types of things they want to limit at what ages.
Parents are also in charge of enforcing their policies and controlling their own kids. If you can’t trust them not to pick a movie you don’t want them to see, don’t let them go to the movies alone. The theater is not in charge of parenting your kids, and shouldn’t be involved in having to check for IDs.
I saw plenty of R rated films as a little kid and am no worse for the wear. But I know plenty of adults who can’t watch a movie if a child or pet gets killed. Really you can’t match these things to age. Every person, adult or child, has their own specific sensitivities.