A Plausible Alternative to Censorship?

[Einherjar86]

In the U.S. it is horrible. Sex scenes and nudity get films a more restricted rating than violence. It's completely backwards. This is also one of the lingering effects of religion and the Victorian sentiment upon this nation, I believe. It's so hard for America to accept sex as "not" taboo. We're getting there, but we still have a long ways to go.

It's been so bad, some schools actually refuse to teach sex education and instead teach purely "Abstinence," mainly because parents don't want their children learning about sex. That's pretty negligent, in my opinion.

Seditious, both you and Derek brought up the point about studios interfering with the filmmakers' artistic integrity in order to secure a greater profit for the film. This is something I hadn't considered when originally posting. I was merely thinking of the ratings system (because it's so damned frustrating). It's a very good point though, and I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that. Audience reaction to an abolition of the ratings system would certainly cause an uproar, and studios might even be more hesitant to release a film with questionable material than they already are, simply because they might fear a backlash from the public. Good point.

 

[razoredge]

I guess only those living outside of the US would believe through word of mouth that the US is religously represssed. From my view we are the most aggressive and progressive, isnt Hollywood in the US ? Isnt this the home of the birth off all the sick movies, sexual awareness, bra burnings, marches on Washington, ect, ect, ect.

I always used to feel movies should be rated for violence rather than sex. But more recently began to feel differently, due to the issues surrounding sex of premature pregnancy and diseases. This is not legitmate however because with the internet, word of mouth and natural comming of age in the first place, I dont feel youth is hidden from anything or even was 35 years ago, but the internets educational values are predominate.

Then I think this all evolves around whether parents are comfortable sitting around watching movies with sex or violent scenes with their children. In fact isnt all this rating business centered around families ?

Lastly is censorship and rating really the same thing ? Isnt censorship removeing of foul words or clipping of sexual or violent scenes for air on television ? Is that really the end of the world ? The movies are still intact for the theaters, video/DVD's or movie channels, with a rating on them for quick evaluation should there be need.

 

[Einherjar86]

I guess only those living outside of the US would believe through word of mouth that the US is religously represssed. From my view we are the most aggressive and progressive, isnt Hollywood in the US ? Isnt this the home of the birth off all the sick movies, sexual awareness, bra burnings, marches on Washington, ect, ect, ect.

Far from it, I fear. Hollywood is far from "progressive." Mostly shit comes out of Hollywood. We're fortunate to get the few good films we do.

Our country has certainly come a long way. But compared to other countries like England and Scotland, we're a baby. They've come much farther than we have. And those countries have had just as many radical movements as we have. You just don't learn about them in our schools.

I always used to feel movies should be rated for violence rather than sex. But more recently began to feel differently, due to the issues surrounding sex of premature pregnancy and diseases. This is not legitmate however because with the internet, word of mouth and natural comming of age in the first place, I dont feel youth is hidden from anything or even was 35 years ago, but the internets educational values are predominate.

The problem with restricting sex and sexual imagery from our youth is that it's such a natural drive (when puberty hits, it's sayonara abstinence) that most kids will begin to engage in sexual acts at a young age anyway, whether we educate them or not. What we need to do is allow pornography and sexuality, and teach safe sex in schools, not "no sex." Personally, I believe that pornography plays a prominent role in society

Lastly is censorship and rating really the same thing ? Isnt censorship removeing of foul words or clipping of sexual or violent scenes for air on television ? Is that really the end of the world ? The movies are still intact for the theaters, video/DVD's or movie channels, with a rating on them for quick evaluation should there be need.

They're not intact though. If a film receives an NC-17 rating (which many R-rated films begin as) its opportunities and marketing appeal are very limited. Therefore, the MPAA forces many films to cut out certain material in order to achieve an R rating. It's basically an ultimatum that says "Censor your film or it will tank."

 

[razoredge]

Sex scenes and nudity get films a more restricted rating than violence.

Are you sure about this ? Seems to me most all movies, depending on the extent of sexual activity, language or violence end up in the R rating. Unless you are refering to X rating... they would bum alot of people out if they changed that and began included gore movies

 

[razoredge]

I had no idea all these years that all those movies comming out of hollywood were shit and christian controlled, I guess Im a light weight and wouldnt know extreme if it bit me in the ass.

Whether we have really come along ways or regressed is a matter of personal consideration and goals.

Teenagers do not need to be taught sex, or shown porno, they already have access to all they want, via the internet. We had magazines and books 35 years ago, not to mention all "the talk" exchanged. I was well aware of everything perverted by the time I was 13/14. We are responsible to teach teenagers the possible end results of choices. Not promote free sex. So between the two, pornograghy and proper parenting and education we have the best possible means of checks and balances, as good as it can be that is. What is a parent supposed to do sit down and watch porno with their kids and say "look this is fun, but dont do it, you could get pregnant or a disease or have relationship issues down the road"

I continously edit my lyrics and poetry to make them sound better, express better or be the most tasteful, so myself I dont see any losses through editing for appeal. I'm not into shock however, so I may be missing something... or not

 

[Einherjar86]

I had no idea all these years that all those movies comming out of hollywood were shit and christian controlled, I guess Im a light weight and wouldnt know extreme if it bit me in the ass.

Responses like this are why you're disrespected on this forum.

Whether we have really come along ways or regressed is a matter of personal consideration and goals.

We have come a long way, but that doesn't mean we don't have any farther to go.

Teenagers do not need to be taught sex, or shown porno, they already have access to all they want, via the internet. We had magazines and books 35 years ago, not to mention all "the talk" exchanged. I was well aware of everything perverted by the time I was 13/14. We are responsible to teach teenagers the possible end results of choices. Not promote free sex. So between the two, pornograghy and proper parenting and education we have the best possible means of checks and balances, as good as it can be that is. What is a parent supposed to do sit down and watch porno with their kids and say "look this is fun, but dont do it, you could get pregnant or a disease or have relationship issues down the road"

Wait, wait... you mean you actually did used to read? But I guess it was only pornography... that explains a lot.

I really just couldn't resist.

I never said we should promote "free sex." I said earlier that we should teach safe sex, not no sex.

I continously edit my lyrics and poetry to make them sound better, express better or be the most tasteful, so myself I dont see any losses through editing for appeal. I'm not into shock however, so I may be missing something... or not

Way to go, you're just like Will Smith.

 

[10293847]

I don't think that there should be any kind of censorship, period. I even apply this to children who would happen to see pornography, or even violence, for example.

Children that are very young, do not understand what the above means until they are told by adults. What I am getting at is that anything can be rationalized, and it's in what we choose to rationalize and in how we value certain things that makes the difference.

I think it's the role of parents to be as truthful and real with their children as possible, regardless of age. I think that parents can and should instill values that are legal within their society and that will hopefully follow that of others around them. That, I think, is the largest issue here. Because there are so many different peoples living together and bringing their own values into a society, there is no longer a coming together of values and these people then can't meet eye to eye.

If all had the same goals and ideals in mind, we could all be truthful with eachother and as a collective know what is good for the group and what isn't.

 

[derek]

In an abstract way that seems reasonable, but pragmatically speaking it's way off.

Given how the discussion has went thus far, I'd settle for a rating system that was rationally and fairly used.

 

[10293847]

In an abstract way that seems reasonable, but pragmatically speaking it's way off.

Given how the discussion has went thus far, I'd settle for a rating system that was rationally and fairly used.

I agree with you that it doesn't work in a diversified world. Yet, I think that globalization is causing values to even out. (One look at the U.S. applying their values onto the Middle-East is one quick example.

In an environment where peoples are essentially on the same social level, and have the same cultural values, what I said can and has shown to work.

If you take the Scandinavian countries, for example, you see folks who are quite liberal when it comes to many, "X" rated subject matters. I would also include the Netherlands as well. These peoples, from what I have seen having visited these countries, are very much open to all these taboo subjects. Their children don't become sheltered by these things, and when they grow up, are better able to handle it.

It works there because they all approach it the same way. Everyone is on the same level and is in on what is going on, at the same time.

In a place like the United States though, what I stated couldn't work. At least it can't work now. I think that in time though, things will slowly even out and values will as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

In an abstract way that seems reasonable, but pragmatically speaking it's way off.

The eternal problem, it seems.

Given how the discussion has went thus far, I'd settle for a rating system that was rationally and fairly used.

The only problem I can see then would be who dictates what is fair and rational? The members on the ratings board for the MPAA certainly believe they're already acting fairly and rationally.

 

[derek]

Yes, that's what I mean. The current system is misguided, but that's not to say ratings systems altogether are. It's almost wishing for an ideal again to imagine them fairly and rationally run, though.

The eternal problem, it seems.

You can apply that to the majority of philosophy too.

 

[razoredge]

In the U.S. it is horrible.

Far from it, I fear. Hollywood is far from "progressive." Mostly shit comes out of Hollywood. We're fortunate to get the few good films we do.

Its comments like this which invoke such a responce. Respectfully.

I see no examples of ratings impeding the film industry what so ever. Unless you want to give examples I'm unaware of. Its agressive as hell and they have not backed off one bit, more extreme by the year. Anything you want to see you can find in the States and there is no lack of funding or wealth in the film industry. Any entertainment issues that currently exist evolve around the internet, satelite, and watching movies and concerts at home.

Fair and rational ? as it is today, one looks at subject content and categorizes as such. Parents that want to expose their children to extreme violence, sexual activity or gore can do so. In fact they can use the rating system to determine if something is extreme enough for them to show their children.

The current rating system really makes things easy for everyone.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, that's what I mean. The current system is misguided, but that's not to say ratings systems altogether are. It's almost wishing for an ideal again to imagine them fairly and rationally run, though.

Well, the main reason I dislike the ratings system is because it hinders a film's marketing and advertising capabilities. Artistic integrity can be maintained only at the expense of profit and audience turnout.

The studios are another matter that require another discussion. We can discuss them here if everyone wishes. I originally intended this thread to be about the MPAA, but censorship from the studios is just as good, and a problem that needs solving.

You can apply that to the majority of philosophy too.

I believe that no matter how many problems we encounter, there will always be one more to impede out progress. No matter how far our species advances, there will always be something to gripe about.

 

[derek]

I can't see that problem ever being solved. If it is fiscally sound to edit a movie against the directors wishes then it will happen.

They could possibly release two versions, but I have no idea how cost effective or sensible that really is. The intended version is often included on the DVD release, especially if the movie underwent severe changes, because it is not a financial risk.

 

[Seditious]

Way to go, you're just like Will Smith.

on a random note: d'you know he's a Scientologist?

 

[razoredge]

on another random note - Do I have a reason to dislike Will Smith ?

and what is a quick summary of scientology ? I could look it up but being as Im somehow indicated here I figured I'd ask for help in sharing the burdon.
------------------------------

I agree with Derek, studios and in most situations editors have always had their final say, be it books, movies or producers when it comes to music. Ratings are little more than a guide after the fact.

 

[Blowtus]

Well, the main reason I dislike the ratings system is because it hinders a film's marketing and advertising capabilities. Artistic integrity can be maintained only at the expense of profit and audience turnout.

I don't see that the rating system has much of a bearing on artistic integrity... if profit and audience are a concern then isn't it already compromised? The ratings system can just be seen as a modification of the audience trying to be pleased - the compromise is generally said to lie in the mere intent to please others at all.

 

[Einherjar86]

Plenty of films that began as NC-17 films enjoyed success at the box office after being cut to achieve the R rating. There's no reason to suspect (in my opinion) that any of them would have done worse had they been left in their original form. However, simply a rating of NC-17 limits the amount of marketing appeal and advertising capabilities that a film has. Therefore the studio usually encourages their filmmakers to make the cuts.

As I see it, there's no purpose or reason to some of the censorship performed on certain films. They would be just as profitable without the censorship.

 

[razoredge]

Or they could learn how to be truely creative and write and produce without the need to be told to clean it.

 

[Blowtus]

Because the measure of true creativity has always been how well it conforms to preconceived ideals...



Einharjar - surely you see that the very fact that a studio is required, that money is a primary goal, limits the 'artistic integrity'? It's not as if without ratings there would suddenly be a burgeoning of creativity in film industries... they are still manufacturing stuff with the audiences money in mind, ratings or no.