Planet Descent

From the Front Page => Soupe Du Jour => Topic started by: TechPro on July 08, 2012, 09:51:41 PM

Title: Rating Soupe
Post by: TechPro on July 08, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
I admit it, I’m a bit of a sucker for good movies that stars John Wayne (http://www.johnwayne.com/) (not all movies that star John Wayne are good) and when we came across a good copy of “Big Jake” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066831/) on DVD at a yard sale, it was a “must have” for our personal collection.  I’ve watched “Big Jake” multiple times and I’m very familiar with it but didn’t have it on DVD.  So when I sat down all set to enjoy nearly two hours of the Duke, I was suddenly surprised when the video flashed a rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (http://www.mpaa.org/).  I couldn’t remember ever having seen a rating for “Big Jake” and I wasn’t surprised to see the “PG-13” (http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means) rating for a movie that I consider to be one of the more violent westerns that John Wayne ever did.  What surprised me and got me to pause the playback so that I could verify what I thought I’d just seen, was the explanation for the “PG-13” rating which I’d expected it to say for violence.  No, instead the rating stated “Western Violence” … as if there is something different with “Western Violence” than say… “Eastern Violence” or perhaps “South Seas Violence” (Pirates, anyone?). 

What the heck.  “Western Violence”?  If the same movie had been filmed on the streets of New York, London, Paris, or Tokyo and had used cars instead of horses, it wouldn’t have been described as “Western Violence” but probably would have been described more generically as “violence and language”.  Granted it’s all acting, but it’s acting attempting to appear real, so… Let’s compare.  An undercover agent brutally shoots a filthy kidnapper and crook in the streets of New York.  Compare that to a tough old cowboy who brutally shoots a filthy kidnapper and crook in some south of the border village … what’s the difference?  That they wore big hats and spurs?  Oh, maybe it was the accent used by the guns when fired (western accent as opposed to New York accent guns).

Really, this ratings thing is … silly in it’s attempt to explain sometimes.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing most of the time.  Like when trying to decide what movie to watch and the rating explanation states the rating is for “sexual content and language” or “violence and drug use” or various combinations of such.  That’s useful and (in my opinion) done correctly.  Especially when looking for movies to enjoy with the kids, or with the wife.   All the ratings really need to do is rate the content, not the region or ethnicity of the movie.

I feel like my cherished copy of “Big Jake” has been discriminated.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: -<WillyP>- on July 09, 2012, 06:55:53 AM
It's all politics.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Foil on July 09, 2012, 09:03:09 AM
Yeah, I've actually noticed a number of ratings giving more detailed info lately. We've watched a couple of Disney flicks with our son which are rated for "animated violence".  I've also seen a couple of movies recently with ratings for things like "intense science-fiction action".

There are some funny/odd ones from the MPAA as well:

Alice in Wonderland (2010): "Rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar"

G.I.Joe (2009): "Rated PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout"

I think some people just have a sense of humor when they write these up.  :)
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Scyphi on July 09, 2012, 09:17:02 AM
Either that, or some clerk got bored of writing the same sort of thing all the time and was looking for new ways to say it. :P

I think I've seen a "sci-fi violence" description, now that you mention it. But I get sci-fi violence, because the kind of violence you'd see in a sci-fi film isn't always the same as in other films. So by calling it "sci-fi violence," it gives the viewer some loose expectation of what sort of violence to expect. I imagine that's the same kind of reasoning that's behind "western violence," though I agree that such labeling for westerns is kind of a "go-figure" sort of move.

But hey, as WillyP said, politics.

Generally, I've found these descriptions for ratings to be pretty useful, even if you might not agree with the wording of said description.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: VANGUARD on July 09, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
Saying G, PG, PG13, R, X, NC-17, whatever doesn't always help a great deal.
Some yes. G is pretty safe. Anything X, or NC-17, yeah, that will have a bit of you know what.
But I have seen some older movies that in my opinion, isn't much. it's R. Star Wars, which has violence, language? I don't think it has that, but IMO, worse than the other. It's PG. This other movie, R. Star Wars, PG.
okay....

What I like are the old style PC game ratings. like from Doom, Descent, Hexen, old Star Wars games.

Violence level 2- (description)
language level 1 (description)

that's fine. but PG or R, or PG13, isn't the same. And a cold cut description is sort of pointless. if you say due to language, violence, nudity, etc, you're expecting a lot, and it may be very mild.
that's why I like the old PC game ratings. it shows the level and a description.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Matthew on July 10, 2012, 07:08:04 AM
It's not as if people pay attention to ratings anymore anyway. Literally every time I go see a movie, even if it's barely PG-13, there are people bringing their 6-year-old to see it.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Foil on July 10, 2012, 07:14:28 AM
...even if it's barely PG-13, there are people bringing their 6-year-old to see it.

Yep.  One of the last times my wife and I went out to a movie, there was a 6 or 7 year old girl, pleading with her Dad to let her leave ("Daddy, I need to go potty", "Daddy, you said this wasn't going to be violent", etc.), but he kept her there.  Absolutely crazy.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: VANGUARD on July 10, 2012, 07:16:23 AM
What channel something is on could do more damage. I don't think one show it too horrible. Yeah, it is a bit, but I think I have seen worse. I mentioned what channel its on and my mom immediately said it must be bad.

I don't mind ratings, but I suppose I don't look at them too often. They may benefit religious people though
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Matthew on July 10, 2012, 11:25:02 PM
They may benefit religious people though
A) Wut? B) Aren't you rather religious, IIRC?
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: VANGUARD on July 11, 2012, 02:56:39 AM
Spiritually yes, religious, no.

some religious people may easily frown from nudity, sexuality, violence, drug use, etc.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: -<WillyP>- on July 11, 2012, 07:52:19 AM
I understand what you're sayin' Van.

Personally, I frown on frowning.  :o
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Matthew on July 11, 2012, 08:09:32 AM
Prudishness and religion aren't the same thing, imo.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Scyphi on July 11, 2012, 09:06:53 AM
[Redacted]
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: VANGUARD on July 11, 2012, 07:01:02 PM
did I say something wrong? I just said some may. And others are not religious that just don't like that stuff. Ratings tend to be more for the kids, and if some steer away from violence, gore, nudity, etc.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: TechPro on July 11, 2012, 10:36:16 PM
I've found that the content I surround myself with, has a major effect on my temperament, spirituality, and overall quality of well-being.  Going to movies with a lot of gore, nudity, foul language, etc. tends to 'dirty' and clutter the thoughts and actions of the viewer/listener.  Therefore, I avoid all materials and most movies with a lot of foul language (and wish the rest used foul language less), avoid movies with nudity and sexual themes/scenes, and I avoid violent and gory movies.

Does that make me a prude?  No, certainly not.  It simply means I like to avoid filling my mind with what I consider filth and trash, thus making it easier to keep my thoughts clean, fresh, and... (drumroll) ... happy. 

One cannot reach greatness while in the garbage. (personal opinion)
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Scyphi on July 12, 2012, 07:09:16 AM
I can vouch for Techpro's comments via personal experience.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Matthew on July 12, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
Which implies that there's something fundamentally dirty and wrong about "foul language". It's just words, that have had the "foul" tag applied to them by society. It's not going to keep you from reaching greatness.

As far as I can tell, your list of avoidances leaves you with Disney movies and not much else. I take it you don't go to the movies very often? I guess it all depends on what you consider to be "too much". But, looking at the recent box office hits... You have Avengers (violent), spiderman (violent), the hunger games (violent), the list goes on. Looking at all time records, even fewer of them would pass. You have to go all the way down to Toy Story 3 at #8 to find something without sexual scenes or violence playing a major role. (I suppose Harry Potter could also count, at #4.)

I watch plenty of violent movies, plenty of movies with lots of language, some sexual content, etc. Am I in the garbage? I mean, I still enjoy feel-good Disney movies, but I think it's going a bit far to say that what movies one watches prevent one from being great. At the end of the day, it's just stuff on on a screen.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: VANGUARD on July 12, 2012, 06:12:41 PM
You must be talking with someone else, because I don't have movie listings in my profile.

It's really quite simple. Some people are fine with violence. Some are fine with language, blood, sex, nudity, all sorts of stuff.
But there are some who don't like it. This may be because of their religion. It may be because they just don't like to see blood, nudity or strong language, or whatever else.

Me personally, here I am. Certain common violence, okay. You got most action films that are roughly the same. People fighting each other, ships blowing up ships, planes, whatever.
Action typically doesn't get to me. Some maybe, but, some might just be boring.

Language. It really depends. I mean, really really really depends. Only one movie, and one TV show so far, do I not mind language. It has to be fitting. Harry Brown is the movie. It fits. To not have strong language, it would defeat the movie. It also has to be a good movie or show as well.
Shows like Chapelle, Mind of Mencia, most other comedians that use the F word, sh, etc etc, talk about sex, um...gross and a total turn off.
I can only take a few minutes before I am just turned off by all of the F words, etc, and the sex talk, and the sexual stuff they put into their jokes. It just gets to be too much.

Blood. I hate seeing it, mostly because it sort of grosses me out. It just does.

I think you get the point.

On the other hand, I can see why ratings may not work. Like I said, not a fan of language, but the "Harry Brown" movie had a lot, and I found it fitting.

It's one of those things where you just have to look at the rating and see if it's something you even want to try out.

"hmm. strong language. I'll play it, and see how it goes. turn it off if I think it's just too much and the movie is stupid.

"strong amount of blood and gore. - um...yeah...........I don't think so. had a hard enough time with "zombieland." funny movie, but yeah, it gets gross."




Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Matthew on July 12, 2012, 11:34:33 PM
You must be talking with someone else, because I don't have movie listings in my profile.

Sorry, I should've clarified, I was responding to TechPro.
Title: Re: Rating Soupe
Post by: Scyphi on July 13, 2012, 09:10:47 AM
In that case, Techpro wasn't necessarily referring to foul language or violence specifically, and more importantly, he wasn't speaking of them to the extremes you've implied IHateHackers. For example, he HAS seen Avengers, and as I understand it, he enjoyed it, but I'll let him get more specific if he so desires on that point.

He has also seen a lot of other movies that fit similar categories of "foulness" (if you will), like the first three Spiderman movies, Men In Black, Tron Legacy, Indiana Jones, more than one Trek movie (and consequently, series), Avatar, and probably other, even better, examples, so it's not as if he avoids it entirely. A better word for it is that he strives to keep it a minimum, as do I.

And as for how often we both visit the theaters, part of it is due to "foulness," but a greater part of it is due to expense and practicality reasons and so on. Sometimes it's just easier and more cost-effective to wait for it to go to video, get it on Netflix, and THEN watch it.

But yes, there are a lot of Disney movies in the house. No shame in that.

As for whether or not one can achieve greatness due to exposure to garbage, it depends on a variety of factors, mostly on the type of person, and the extent of garbage they are exposed to. Again, through personal experiences I will not go into detail on here, I know one can be exposed to a certain degree of garbage and still succeed in life. This is fact no matter how you look at it, and it cannot be denied. The issue, though, is that the garbage can build up and lead you to bury yourself even more garbage that I can see appalling even the non-religious, or those with, shall we say, a higher tolerance for "foulness" than others might such as yourself, IHateHackers, and THEN you're in trouble, if not SERIOUS trouble (it depends).

So it's my opinion that so long as you can keep yourself from reaching those extremes, you can get by if not more (again, it depends on the situation), although it is also my opinion that it is safer to keep a distance from "foulness" rather than to constantly toe the line, and test your limits.

That's my insights on the matter.