This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I know there was a blatant porn film in the 1960s that was a box-office hit, and it sparked the wave of porn films that continues to this day. I thought it was Debbie Does Dallas, but I guess I was wrong about that. Was it Deep Throat? Modemac

Deep Throat is probably the movie you are thinking of in the sense that it was the one that sparked the modern wave of porn films, but it came out in the early 70s, which was also after the MPAA implemented its rating system. soulpatch

Can this post please be posted elsewhere? The topic is MPAA ratings, not pornography. Further, the discussion page is not for rumination. Please check your facts and then post them. Don't use Wikipedia discussion for fact-finding.--Davmpls 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the MPAA rating system is enforced by law in the United States? For example, is it illegal for theatres to admit children under 17 into an R-rated film?

No. Unlike most other nations, our ratings system in the U.S. is not enforced by the law. It is voluntary (at least in theory), and films don't have be submitted for a rating in order to play in theaters here. The U.S. doesn't have any formal censorship board and doesn't censor or ban films based on content. The MPAA is part of the film industry, not part of the government, it serves only to give guidelines. Therefore, it is perfectly legal (but not advisable) to sneak into an R-rated film if you are under 17 and unaccompanied by an adult. 141.224.232.144 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: it is not "perfectly legal" to sneak into a movie. It's illegal.--Davmpls 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)

This is very important, and I think it should be included in the introduction 219.78.185.51 ( talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ohio once attempted to codify the MPAA ratings into law. See this memo for a statement of opposition by the MPAA itself. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In Massachusetts (I can't find the actual entry in the Mass General Laws, but this has been confirmed by several theater managers) the ratings system does carry force of law, and theaters can be fined or shut-down for admitting minors to R rated features. ID checking for R rated films in Mass is almost as strict as ID checking for tobacco or alcohol purchases, with signs saying "if you look under 30, you must show ID, no exceptions" being the norm in almost every cinema. Police officers are regularly posted at auditorium doors to double check IDs and I've witnessed 15 and 16 year old kids being detained by the cops for attempting to sneak into an R rated movie on several occasions.

(I'm 21 years old and look my age and I am carded every single time I go to an R rated film in MA, I'm rarely carded when I buy alcohol and never carded when attending an R film when I'm at school in New York) Mr Senseless ( talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In which countries is this system used?

The US uses it, but a few more may also. I know most countries have their own system. If you look up a film on the IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com) and look up a movie, down near the bottom it will give its ratings in various different countries. Most have their own. Some roughly correspond to the MPAA ratings, some have no likeness at all.

It'd be nice to list which other countries, if any, also use the exact MPAA rating though. — Frecklefoot 13:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is one of the best links pages available: http://rcq.qc.ca/sites.asp and I apparently know more about this subject than anyone else...

How about articles on those other rating systems and links to them from this article? Who's up for it? Not it! Kent Wang 19:15, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, we'll link to it once it exists. If you want to create it, go ahead and create the link here and write it. — Frecklefoot 19:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Certainly worth noting what happens in other countries. This page, however, is about the US MPAA system.--Davmpls 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

True or false: A common assumption is that you should stop watching G-rated movies after the age of about 10-12 years. (Please do not mis-interpret this; this is the problem about a common assumption, not about what the rules of the rating system say.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That statement isn't made anywhere in the article (unless I missed it). I've never heard that assumption. Why do you say it's a "common assumption?" Please clarify. Personally, I don't watch too many G-rated films anymore, but that's because not too many are made anymore, not because none of them are worth watching. — Frecklefoot 21:29, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The answer is a rule that people make for themselves although not made by a company such as MPAA.

I agree. People decide for themselves, although consider also the recent studies about marketing violence,etc. to children. There is a gender issue here as well. Girls tend not to have any complaints seeing a G film, at ages when boys (eager to achieve adult masculinity) want to constantly challenge limits and eat "forbidden fruit." That problem is part of why classification systems have been criticized. If offensive or controversial content is called "adult" then it suggests that if kids want to prove their maturity, that content provides a means by which to do so.

Um, okay. I still had never heard the assumption before. However, most G-rated films do seem to be geared towards children, while PG and higher are geared towards older people. Some filmmakers are able to make G-rated films that people of all ages are able to enjoy, however. For example, Disney used to be good at doing this (and Pixar still does).

Also, you should sign your posts. Since you don't have an account (or aren't logged-in), I assume you're new to Wikipedia. We can still see who made the edits, but signing your posts saves everyone the trouble of going to the Page History to see who said what. You can sign your posts by entering three or four tildes, like this ~~~~. Three tildes enters your username (or IP address if you're not logged-in) and four does the same, but also adds a timestamp. Cheers! — Frecklefoot 14:17, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what the value of this discussion is.--Davmpls 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)

---

The article currently asserts that any display of male genitalia will (usually) result in an NC17 rating. I believe this is incorrect. Never Cry Wolf (film) is rated PG, and shows brief full-frontal male nudity. Does anyone have any source for the claim? Otherwise I'll remove it. Quadell (talk) 20:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wish I could post my contact info and have everyone send questions to me. I have extensive information, researched firsthand, on these sorts of matters. Unfortunately, I haven't yet earned a PhD and therefore have difficulty getting my work known. This is just one topic among many in which lots of rumors fly. Mature male genitalia, so long as not in an aroused state, is NOT NC-17 material - it is typically R (Watch the film "Prospero's Books") but under certain conditions (outside of a sexual context and with brief, non-graphic portrayals) it has been allowed in PG-13 films. Pre-pubescent nudity is legally not considered to be indecent, and has hardly registered on the ratings so long as it isn't connected with other content. (For example, "My Father's Glory" received a G rating although it contained child nudity and a brief close-up of a mother nursing her infant.) The MPAA is trying to give a fair treatment to both male and female nudity. There are many, many cases where "full frontal" female nudity has appeared in films that are below an R rating, however it is significant that with females this usually amounts to having the pubic area unclothed but NOT necessarily the actual exposure of genitalia. Therefore, the dilemma facing the ratings board is how to be gender fair. Brief public hair in a non-sexual, non exhibitionist context can receive a PG-13 for either sex. But if actual genitalia are seen on either sex, an R is the normal classification to be considered unless the board can fairly assess a reason why the content is mitigated. So, just as "Passion in the Desert" allowed full male nudity (although it must be noted that the dust and such in the desert provided a form of makeup that, for example, did not render visible details such as skin tone/hues) there are a very limited number of circumstances where the board could consider that female genitalia could be exposed in a manner that could NOT be considered deliberately indecent. (Pascali's Island is a noteworthy case where, in separate scenes, brief full nudity was allowed for each sex (one scene a man in a sauna, and another scene allowing a nude woman swimming.) One case in which female genitalia might possibly be allowed in a PG-13 film would be in documentary-like circumstances involving childbirth. Although I haven't yet been able to verify this, I have heard that the precedent for that form of nudity can be found in the 1985 Sting film "Bring on the Night." (Although the board was more lenient with the ratings at that time.) 136.181.195.29 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mike S

Hold it right there. Never Cry Wolf does NOT have frontal male nudity. It shows his ass and that's it. -- Nqnpipnr

In a Sunday edition of the New York Times sometime in the winter of 1970- 1971, there was an article about the MPAA rating system which included the fact that while total female nudity is (or was at that time) sometimes allowed in R films, "the male genitalia, more sacred, remains X material - out of bounds even for teenagers" (a verbatim quote from the article as best as I can recall it) -- TOttenville8 02:20, Sep 01 2004 (PDT)

I think Superman (rated PG) showed male genitalia, but it was a child's (immediately after he crash-lands on Earth). But I think usually mg does result in an NC17 rating. Kind of a double-standard, but one of the criteria they use. I don't have any resources to back up this assertion, though. I know that a Bruce Willis movie had to be re-edited with full-frontal nude scenes of him edited out because the MPAA gave it an NC-17 rating. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's male genitalia in a sexual context that will lead to an NC-17. Though I wonder what Never Cry Wolf would be rated today... Tregoweth 22:26, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right about that. The nudity in Superman wasn't sexual, neither was it (I assume) in NCW. There was also some non-sexual (though violent) male gonad nudity in Little Drummer Girl, but I think it was just an R. MG + sex must be the key. The Bruce Willis nudity was--I assume--sexual. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

"Passion in the Desert" has male frontal and rear nudity and was only rated PG-13! The MPAA is more lenient towards male nudity than it is towards female nudity. You'll notice that more PGs and PG-13s (and some Gs) have male nudity than female nudity. (10 January 2006)

What exactly is a sexual vs. non-sexual context for nudity, anyway? The film Manon des Sources (sequel to Jean de Florette-- both are obviously French, but big budget and still pretty wide release in America I think) received a PG rating, in the late '80s, after PG-13 existed.

It has a very graphic scene of full female nudity, a young woman strutting in a clearing by a river after having bathed. You may say non-sexual and acceptable in PG, except that 1. she directly faces the camera, 2. she is being watched at the time by a peeping tom middle aged man who just happens to have killed her father a few years earlier, 3. her character is only 16 or 17, and the actress (Emanuelle Beart) may have been quite young as well, maybe under 18. Also, landing-strip pubic hair is clearly visible. The scene is quite brief, but not just a matter of milliseconds.

"Total Eclipse" features a full-frontal nude Leonardo DiCaprio and it's only rated R. It's a very brief shot, but he's tossing his clothes out a window, so it could be perceived as sexual.

136.181.195.29 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)That kind of thing would require a PG-13 just a year or two later, as the board tightened its criteria. The difference between sexual and nonsexual is the following: 1. Are characters actively engaged with each other (caresses, kissing, passion, genital contact or some other form of mutual stimulation)? 2. Is the exposed character deliberately flaunting herself for the explicit purpose of arousing an audience? The latter point can be debated, obviously; but the board will declare topless bar dancers to be sex-related nudity, although natural bathing contexts tend not to be (despite hints in the context) because there is still a reasonable doubt as to whether the nudity was intended as a "come on." Example: "King David" (PG-13) - although there is an element of sensual effects and awareness, because it is in the context of natural bathing, the female nudity is allowable in PG-13. In the bed scene, although toplessness is allowed, no sexual activity is going on at that time. Another example: "The Inner Circle" (1991) - after audible sexuality and brief rhythm visible in bedcovers, Tom Hulce's buttocks are briefly seen. This case is one of the most permissive ever to be allowed in the PG-13 category, but it can technically be argued that the intercourse had stopped by the time the buttocks were visible; and we also cannot really see the woman in that shot's composition. 136.181.195.29 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

Another good one was Once Upon a Time in the West. rated G. hah! I love that movie. one of the most beautiful/disturbing things ever.

It was NOT rated G. It was rated M. Go check the MPAA ratings site please.... The problem is that too many people spout information on this topic without references, from flawed memories. As a result, it is a nightmare to try to keep the content on the Wiki site in line and half-consistent. 136.181.195.29 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

Mrs. Brown has male frontal and rear and it got a "PG"!

• Three words: ' Jackass Number Two. — tregoweth ( talk) 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says: "While many films show female full-frontal nudity, in nearly every case, only the pubic hair is seen and the actual genitalia (the labia, clitoris, and vagina) are not seen. The end result is that male genitals are far more prevalent than female genitals in R-rated films."... I can't think of ANY movie that has shown more than female pubic hair which was rated R... are there any? -- Bobbozzo ( talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dreamers (the edited version), Dr. T and the Women... 156.34.213.234 ( talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a fairly obvious example: Schindler's List. Features full frontal of both genders, has an "R" rating. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/parentalguide So no, exposure of male genitals doesn't automaticly earn a movie an "R" rating. 148.137.186.188 ( talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting even vaguely relevant here? No. Moving to own article. -- The Anome 20:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is relevant because this organization is a direct descendant of the National Legion of Decency, which once wielded great power in the American film industry, from the 1930s to at least the 1950s (I have since added this info to the article that was spun off from this one). Still, I restored only a fleeting reference to it in this article. -- TOttenville8 2:15, 01 Sep 2004 (PDT)

But, dude, it has its own article. The link is more appropriate there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mild drug references do not have to result in a movie being rated PG-13. Movies rated PG for drug references include Shrek 2, Love's Labour's Lost, Trekkies, Freebird...The Movie and Cop And A Half. - Mike Rosoft 16:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sneakers and Mystery Science Theater 3000 are listed in this article as films which added profanity to avoid a G rating -- except that both of them wound up with a PG-13 rating. If they wound up with PG-13 ratings -- two levels away from a G rating -- it would seem unlikely that they were really at risk for being rated G. Maybe they added the profanity to move from PG to PG-13; I don't know. But I think we could probably find a better example to use here, that is, a movie that added profanity to move from G to PG, not a PG-13 movie. -- Metropolitan90 06:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Question: I heard that Star Wars avoided a G Raing by the addition of the scene in the bar involving the severed alien arm (Ben cuts the arm off with his light saber). My film professor in college told us this story. Does anyone know if it is true? Do movie companies try to achieve certain ratings for marketing reasons? (i.e. often higher ratings than they would naturally be?)

A couple of other notes: I can't find evidence of a United States v. Playboy Inc. decision in 1951 that ruled that movies were protected by the First Amendment. (Note that Hugh Hefner's Playboy magazine did not even exist in 1951.) I'm not sure that "postmodernism" is the accurate term to describe the increase in sex and profanity in movies, and Requiem for a Dream was released unrated rather than with the NC-17 it had originally earned. -- Metropolitan90 04:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) is the SCOTUS decision that extended FA protection to films. I know of no court case known as "US v. Playboy Inc."

"UNITED STATES et al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC." was a 1999/2000 case challenging a federal law that required complete scrambling or blocking of adult channels such as the Playboy Channel for non-subscribers. See [1]. -- Cab88 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, a sexist double-standard can be seen in this pattern: it is considered acceptable for high-status white middle aged men to use such language during important discussions, and yet the same year's milder film "Class Action" was given an R rating either because it was considered less politically important (i.e. more fictionalized) or because of the presence of a woman in one of these uses. Such inconsistencies date back even to Farber's original involvement on the board in 1970, as described in his book "The Movie Ratings Game" and tend to vary from time to time. Apparently, a re-evaluation of rating applications are made approximately every 5 years, or as critical issues arise.

This is a rather POV statement, which, even if true, cites a dubious source which is not stated clearly. Pending discussion, I have commented it out in the page's source code. Andrew pmk 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Although my original reference did not claim sexism, and has been seriously warped by later revisions, I was the one to point out the example of "Class Action" originally. Now, the problem here is that it is improper to cite my own original research on Wikipedia, and yet this subject has NO good research yet published on it. I will publish mine when I get the chance (and complete a PhD) but in lieu of citing a study, my idea for a citation would be the films themselves, as follows: Watch "Class Action" (and some other films I could name, but "Class Action" is the clearest instance where the R rating was clearly attributable ONLY to profanity) and then compare it with PG-13 films of the same year. "Guilty By Suspicion" allowed 9 uses of the f-word in the context of the Red Scare/Blacklist scenario (an "important" political context for which "All the President's Men" was clearly the precedent, PG in 1976). "The Inner Circle" allows 5 uses, "Eminent Domain" also had multiple uses in PG-13, among other content. Given the history of film board operation (the use of clear criteria) the question must be asked: what distinguishes the R rated "Class Action" from the many cases in the same year where language content was comparable or greater and yet was allowed a PG-13. My analysis suggested that the only candidate explanation (if we assume consistency by the board) is that one of the uses was in a forceful manner with a woman as listener. A contrasting case, the film "Impromptu" (1991 PG-13) had three uses, one of which was with sexual meaning in the presence of a woman, and yet that fit the case where the board could agree upon mitigating factors because Impromptu included scenes with child characters, had a clearer historical background (thus educational context, as with All the President's Men), and a British "talkie" setting in which one of those uses was likely not even to be noticed at all by the average American youth under 13 (with accent, arguable sounding more like "fox" than something profane) and thus likely making the profanity count more like 2 rather than 3 (2 uses of f-word accounting for something like 25% of all PG-13 films of that year; thus the MPAA wording that more than one use must LEAD the board to consider an R - LEAD but not REQUIRE). 136.181.195.29 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS.

There needs to be some section or subsection, like in the rating guidelines, on how much nudity is allowed in a PG-13 feature. What brought this to mind was, of course, Titanic. -- 24.172.77.138 02:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ([[User:Golbez from another PC)

It depends on what year the movie was rated, the context and the standards at the time. Take a look at "M", "GP" and "PG" movies from the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. (January 23, 2006)

The nude scene in titanic was not in a sexual matter. The subject matter is that it was art and therefor did not get an R rating. Besides, if Full female nudity is allowed in a sexual way for an R rated movie, than full female nudity in a non-sexual way must be lower than R.

It's more complicated than that. In the film "Nobody's Fool" nonsexual female toplessness was marked as a partial reason for the R rating. Although nonsexual, the nudity did not have a naturalistic context (since it occurred in the context of a backroom card game) and one of the boards concerns would be the "normalization" of deviant nudity if it is portrayed as completely acceptable. It's one thing for a woman to accidentally be seen, but another for her to go topless around men in an ordinary American setting as if there were nothing at all controversial about it. This also makes for a contextual different important in many European films, where nudity actually is normalized in many ordinary conditions of life and thus (like scenes of indigenous traditional tribal lifestyles) is simply giving an accurate cultural presentation of the standards of a different culture. Anyway, full nudity is not automatically lower than R if nonsexual. In fact, after Titanic there was a marked decrease in the percentage of PG-13 films (as the R percentage continued to decrease) and a simultaneous reduction in the amount of nudity needed to earn an R (and similarly a reduction in what was permitted in PG-13) - what appeared to be a tightening of the standards on nudity. Other point - visible pubic regions during sexual scenes usually earns an NC-17 (example: Dark Obsession, in which the only distinction between its sex scene and those of innumerable R-rated films was the fact that the female public area could be briefly discerned.) This is an envelope that is being pushed, however, by lots of softcore (R-rated/late-night Cinemax) filmmakers.

It may not have been overt, but it was definitely sexual. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"...visible pubic regions during sexual scenes usually earns an NC-17." Atanarjuat had exactly what you mentioned and it's rated R. 131.202.140.200 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not indisputably sexual, no. (See my above comments Re: bathing) Like bathing, artistic poses are a recognized context mitigating the appearance of nudity. 136.181.195.29 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS.

This section needs to be rewritten and fact-checked. Some items are incorrect/misleading/iffy, including:

"It is extremely rare for an NC-17 rating to be given for violence/profanity alone."

Wes Craven has discussed the many times he had to edit the violence in his films to get R Ratings. Also, the makers of South Park went public with their battle with the MPAA over the movie's language. Kevin Smith's Clerks was originally given an NC-17 for language. " The Hills Have Eyes" remake was originally given an NC-17 for violence.

"While total female nudity is permitted in an R-rated movie, any display of naked male genitalia will (usually) result in an NC-17 rating unless it's non-sexual, such as the concentration camp scenes in the R-rated film Schindler's List."

A little misleading? In most R movies, frontal nudity, male or female, is not shown during the actual sex. It would probably be NC-17 anyway. And I don't know if these count as "sexual" or not, but a couple examples of R movies with male frontal nudity include Sideways, Trainspotting, Scary Movie, and Boogie Nights. These didn't happen during actual sex scenes, but they certainly didn't have the artistic context of a Holocaust reenactment.

Other bullets, like the "legitimate historical or educational value" claim and the PG-13 drug reference claim, should have examples to strengthen the point. Crumbsucker 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the author of the NC-17 point. The main source I relied on for that was movie critic Roger Ebert, who quoted in his review of "The Passion of The Christ", that it was the "most violent movie he had ever seen, and it proved that the MPAA would either 1. Not give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or 2. Were intimidated by the subject matter. Believe me, if it were anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I think an NC-17 rating would be automatic." This and other points in this section are extremely subjective, and perhaps they should be removed unless there can be more actual proof. The problem however, lies in the fact that the MPAA keeps their criteria secret. I guess it is a judgment call on whether this section should go entirely, or would do more good to remain as an intelligent guess. I don't care either way. The "legitimate historical or educational value" claim is another subjective point. I think it is apparent through common sense that the MPAA treats movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List", and even "The Passion of the Christ" with a lighter touch then say, "South Park", or "Friday the 13th". Whether they should or not is open to debate, but again, it is a judgment call we need to make between going with what would be our best guess, or removing it entirely. Seems to be it will be tough to prove either way.

I have to agree here. "Saving Private Ryan" should have been given an NC-17 rating for it's D-Day scenes. As far as "The Passion of the Christ" goes, I would agree that an NC-17 rating for that could be defended as well as an un-edited "Schindler's List". The final two were at the borderline but I think MPAA gave Spielberg a complete pass for "Saving Private Ryan" Autkm ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I only authored the short paragraph I signed)

Agree that the entire section needs to be re-written and citations added. It looks like original research.--Davmpls 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)

The "interesting" factoid about how Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the last "mega-marketed, non-animated big studio film with a G rating" seems a little thin. What are the criteria? What does "mega-marketed" mean? What comprises a "big studio"? There have been plenty of other G-rated live-action movies since then. With all those stipulations, it seems like a pretty weak statistic. Kafziel 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"non-animated" excludes the thirteenth highest grossing box office smash in the USA, Finding Nemo (2003, gross: $339,714,367)

The factoid also (for apparent reason) excludes live-action movies such as The Princess Diaries (2001; gross: $108,244,774), The Princess Diaries 2 (2004; gross: $95,149,435), The Santa Clause 2 (2002; gross: $139,225,854, the first one was rated PG) and Babe (1995; gross: $66,600,000).

These movies were released by Disney or Universal, both " big studios" Tskoge 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In many films from 1984 to 1986 rated PG-13, sexual content was abundant. One of this films was "The Woman in Red". Anyone remembers the Kelly LeBrock's genitals?

Distinction: her pubic area. The shot was not graphic enough to actually show genitalia. However, you are correct that more nudity was permitted at that time, under the PG-13 rating, than throughout most of the 1990s. There may be a very recent shift in the last couple of years, though... it's too soon for me to evaluate the most recent trends yet. 136.181.195.29 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS.

Spaceballs got a PG in 1987, despite including the "F" word. The mysteries of the ratings gods are inscrutable. AnonMoos 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose if it was nonsexual, it was okay. Though it would, of course, guarantee a PG-13 today. tregoweth 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Beetlejuice did, too. The line - "Nice fuckin' model!" - is one of my favorites. Kafziel 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the mention of Dreamscape from the PG-13 discussion; it's generally agreed that the Spielberg films were the specific impetus. tregoweth 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The TWO Spielberg films were of course the impetus, but they NEVER ACTUALLY received PG-13 ratings. To this day they remain PG. Regarding the question of what the first film was actually to be granted the rating, I remember clearly that "Dreamscape" was announced as the first, by the MPAA. "Red Dawn" actually got to the theaters first, however. I have no clue why someone keeps putting up there that "The Flamingo Kid" was the first. There's never a citation for that. Given more time, I'll assemble citations for the news announcement from July 1984 that would document (or deny) my memory of Dreamscape being specifically announced, but my memory is vivid. The news release even included the number of seconds that were required to edit the film down from an R to a PG-13. Interestingly, some of the reframed footage was placed back onto the videotape in its original R format, although the tape continued to (then falsely) carry the PG-13 rating. Not supposed to be allowed - changing the films but then claiming the same rating - but that's another topic entirely. 136.181.195.29 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS.

""Rating creep" is a concern of parents and watchdog agencies, but is actually an oversimplification or outright myth."

This seems unencyclopedic. I don't believe that there is any substantial ratings creep, but I'm not sure starting the article by saying it's a myth is better than saying it exists. It ought to discuss whether it exists, not say whehter it does. Nedlum 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Med Journal editor (where the ratings creep study appeared) agreed that I should submit an article critiquing that extremely flawed and misleading study; but I have had so many things going on, including moving, and I have to re-locate and pull out all my notes and documentation. The problem is that the claims of ratings creep are misleading, seeming to come from activist organizations that want to believe such an idea in order to help rally their troops. Yet, all evidence shows that in the vast majority of criteria, the trend during the 1990s was exactly the opposite of what the Thompson study claimed. I've revised the text and included more referenced to the films themselves (such as the early G films) that anyone can verify by renting and comparing. 136.181.195.29 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

The article previously suggested that an explicit or graphic scene of alcohol or tobacco use would earn a film an R rating. I have no reason to believe this is correct. Note, for example, that The Straight Story [2] and Buena Vista Social Club [3] both depicted alcohol and/or tobacco use, and were given G ratings. I don't know how much more "explicit" or "graphic" they would have had to be in terms of alcohol and tobacco to be bumped up three ratings categories to an R. By the same token, last year Good Night, and Good Luck was noted for its extensive depiction of smoking by the characters [4] and still received a PG rating.

On a separate note, the opening of the article referred to the MPAA rating system as a method of classifying "obscene" content. Obscenity is a legal term in the USA, and obscene movies can be banned depending on local law. Hardly any films that the MPAA rates contain "obscene" content as defined by American law. I changed this to refer to "potentially offensive" content. -- Metropolitan90 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I should note that the above was written over a year before the MPAA announced that it would begin to factor smoking into the ratings. -- Metropolitan90 07:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that this section is disputed, and even though I can't find any real discussion here on the talk page, I agree that it could be improved; There seems to be too much focus on fixed "rules", although they are prefixed with words like "usually" or "typically", which is good. According to this interview with The Business, there are no such rules, and I think this is credible - everything else doesn't make sense anyway. Elsdoerfer 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are rules, but most of them are not described publicly (an exception being the f-word treatment described in the MPAA's own booklet written by Jack Valenti). For citations, "The Movie Ratings Game" by Stephen Farber, is a good one. He clearly describes the manner in which board members were instructed by the chair. A brand new citation which is an excellent new source not previously available, is "Freedom and Entertainment" by Stephen Vaughan, which is based upon extensive taped interviews (I believe in official LOC archive), with Richard Heffner, who headed the CARA from the mid 70s for something like the following 20 years. In those interviews, he confirms the establishment of rating guidelines, describes some of them and how and why they changed (or were bent by people playing the system in various ways... for example, the unauthorized distribution of the X-rated version of "Cruising" (1980) instead of the version that was authorized as an R.) 136.181.195.29 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

About this recent addition:

On the other hand, the R rating also has a negative effect on the box office performance, due to common controversies. [5]

Given that Michael Medved has a known bias towards family-friendlier stuff, I don't know if he is a good source. It seems more likely that R-rated movies make less money because fewer people can see them. tregoweth 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with the, if it is accurately quoted, is that there is a much larger percentage of R rated films than any other category. Foreign films, small independent films, cheap horror and "exploitation" films, skin flicks, etc. tend to fall into the R category. The question should be "To what degree does the rating affect the marketability of a film." The industry does its own analysis of this all the time. When it throws in an f-word for no reason to get a PG-13, it is from a deliberate calculation that their targeted audiences are more likely to see their film with that rating. So long as some people think that a PG-13 will signify greater dramatic impact than a PG, or greater breadth of thematic content, or better action scenes or horror scenes or whatever, then the rating of the film will have marketing significance and we can look at the distributor decisions to reach good inferences about what films are actually MORE marketable as R-films, and which are more marketable under another rating. As for Medved, I think his group did that study BEFORE the 2000 Congressional inquiries into the marketing of these things to children. Some reforms did come out of that. It may be part of why the proportion of R films has very recently started to shrink slightly for the first time in decades! Also, though, Medved is a spokesperson and not a researcher. I saw an absurd claim he made once that every film before 1968 was the equivalent of a G rating. Given that such films (including some Shirley Temple classics) were at the very time he said that being re-rated as PG for various reasons (including, let us not forget, the presence of racial stereotyping), the gall of his making such a ridiculous and easily refuted claim should reveal clearly that, although he has raised some good points, his purpose is not to give a fair picture of how things actually are. He's a critic, not a scientist. 136.181.195.29 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

I've heard (and the page mentions a few times) that sometimes NC-17 ratings (or any rating?) are "surrendered" and the movie is then released unrated, presumably because of the fear that the NC-17 is the box-office kiss of death. I'd like the article to have more info on how this works--can an filmmaker/producer/studio just request a rating be surrendered, and if so, what does that mean as far as the MPAA is concerned? After all, on filmratings.com all movies' original ratings are listed, and appended with "Surrendered" if applicable, so if the MPAA still technically says a movie is NC-17, I don't really understand how the restrictions limiting NC-17 marketing don't still apply. And I'd think that the ratings board might get a little miffed (even though the system is voluntary) if directors could declare their ratings inapplicable so easily and think that releasing a film unrated is preferable to releasing it rated. Faceless007 06:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why their system can technically be described as "the voluntary movie ratings systems." Read the pamphlet by Jack Valenti at their site. A surrendered rating is, for purposes of the MPAA, treated as if it had not been rated. That is, the NC-17 no longer needs to be attached to the film and its marketing materials. From there, some other agencies (like Blockbuster Video) may choose to do their own boycott, but that is independent of any movie industry policy or requirements. (And Blockbuster even boycotted Woody Allen's Shadows and Fog for reasons totally unrelated to the film's PG-13 content, so their choices are far from consistent or defensible!) 136.181.195.29 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

It would be nice if someone found images of the old GP, M, and X ratings boxes to add to the "History" section of this article. I'm not sure where one could find these images, but possibly on old posters of films with those ratings (an IMDb search of ratings classifications would help). In addition, an image of the "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" box would be nice. PBP 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally placed references to those on the site, based on my research. Old newspapers and movie posters are the best source. If someone can find graphics of old movie posters on the web, it should be possible to fill in images of all those historic categories. This would be especially appropriate because without such documentation, I keep noticing that someone has changed my quotations and distorted the exact wording to something that sometimes I honestly cannot imagine where they dreamed up. Appropriate to find would be the SMA label (next to the MPAA logo) in film posters from 1966 to 1968, the original labels for G, M, R, X (some examples might also be shown of the age adjustments made in some newspapers), the label for GP and the GP* special warning message (the most standard form of that read "Contains Material Not Generally Suited For Pre-Teenagers" but the wording on that was never totally standardized since within a year it was dropped), the original PG rating with "Pre-Teenagers" in the wording, the standardized formatting of the ratings in the early 1970s and revisions to the number of rows used in the text of the R rating, the original PG-13 wording, and as revised in 1985, etc. All it takes is accessing any old newspapers in a library archive. Any big city paper (with big Friday ads) will do. 136.181.195.29 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

Please see my question on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#MPAA approval numbers. -- Mathew5000 09:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find your question in the long list, but the subject sounds like a worthy one. It is also useful because the numbers (they're not actually serial numbers, but "certificate numbers") are applied to every film that was granted the MPAA certificate - that is, authorization to distribute and show it in all of its member theaters. Thus, in the pre-rating days, the most rudimentary film classification could be considered whether or not a film earned a cerificate (or what needed to be removed in order to procure the certificate) - that was then the fundamental topic of study under the self-censorship system of the Hays Code. The certificates start their numbering with the start of the Code in 1930. Unfortunately, the MPAA CARA for some reason states that they have no records of the certificates. It seems absurd, but that's what I was told when I inquired with CARA about pre-ratings information - their office only deals with Nov. 1, 1968 onward. I found some references to libraries (far from where I live) but I eventually also found a website with the goal of documenting all available information about the certificate numbers (connecting the numbers with a film title and year). Many early films have been lost, so the site is not likely to build a complete record using their methods, but it's the best I've seen on the topic to date. The site is at http://members.chello.nl/~a.degreef/Filmnummers.html

136.181.195.29 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS.

By the way, I've also not been able to track down comprehensive information about the Green Sheet classifications. My source on those has been old issues of The Hollywood Reporter from the 1960s - the Green Sheets used to be reprinted there. Green Sheets classified only a fraction of available films, though - usually the most widely distributed ones. But someone else may have access to a more complete source than I could find. Hollywood Reporter was my main source for that subject. 136.181.195.29 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

Thanks! My original question on the reference desk was archived here: Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 July 25#MPAA approval numbers. -- Mathew5000 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In brief, it seems weird to me that the certificate number appears in the end credit, but not the actual rating associated with the certificate. Also, why does the certificate number and MPAA logo appear in unrated movies (or at least the unrated version of a movie released on DVD)? -- Mathew5000 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The certificates seem to have become dissociated from the ratings trailers. The certificates are on the film itself, while the rating trails afterward and is usually removed from pay-cable (and most video) screenings. I have seen some VHS videos retain it after the film, but that's pretty rare. And some videos are notorious for completely messing up what they've placed on their boxes. 136.181.195.29 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)MikeS

The article mentions that the NC-17 ratings as "box office poison", but beyond the prior association with the X ratings and porn, and a couple of video stores not stocking NC-17 films, it doesn't explain how that came to be. The equivalent British rating of 18, though it's used for mainstream films and (soft) porn, doesn't have a similar effect. -- 172.214.147.144

I think it came to be because when it was first introduced, it was used for several pretty crappy softporn films (e.g. Showgirls). I don't know why the equiv rating doesn't have the same effect in the UK. It's pretty much assumed, that with such a rating, it's all about sex, and most theaters (a.k.a. cinemas) don't want to be known as sex peddlers. The worst rating a blood-soaked splatter-fest can get in "R", so no matter how violent a movie is, most theaters don't have too many qualms about showing them, because they are never NC-17.

In short, NC-17 = sex, R usually = violence (and/or soft sex). In the US sex is bad, violence is not (perceived as). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The original cut of RoboCop was rated NC-17 based on its violence. LamontCranston ( talk) 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be because the 18 rating is binding, as is the 15 rating, and so 17-year-olds technically can't go to 18 films and 14-year-olds can't go to 15 films. However, NC-17 is the only cinema rating in America which prohibits people under 18 seeing the film - you can take a baby to an R film if you're over 18, so it's quite a strong statement to make, and the film is probably too graphically sexual for a mainstream audience. Plus lazy parents who bring children to unsuitable movies can't do that with NC-17 films.

Can you cite your source for the NC-17 rating being legally binding? Most Cinema's I know don't allow children under 17 to R films because they don't want to be sued from parents, not because it's illegal. 147.124.40.228 ( talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article states, "Attendance at films with strong enough content to merit an NC-17 rating could be restricted by law due to the possibility of being considered obscene." This is slightly inaccurate. Explicit speech can be categorized in one of two ways: obscene or indecent. Obscene speech is completely unprotected, and it reaches a level of offensiveness that is beyond what society will allow. An example of obscene speech would be child-pornography. Child-pornography is "speech" but can (and is) completely banned. The test to determine if speech is obscene is found in the United States Supreme Court decision Miller v. California. Indecent speech, on the other-hand, can be regulated (i.e. no adult-film theaters near a school) but it is still protected and cannot be banned. In short, the article shold say "being considered indecent."

I have removed the link to the Wolfenstein 3-D PC-13 warning screen, as the site does not allow off-site deeplinking. Can someone replace it with a better link? Thanks -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info), Tue Sep 12 11:06:09 UTC 2006

I'm not sure what you mean. I clicked on the link and it worked just fine. Do you mean they don't like offsite deeplinking? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nope, my bad. I actually just copied and pasted the URL into my browser. That works, but is a little too much to expect of our users. So, yeah, what De Zeurkous said. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good coverage of the subject, but not good from the point of view of documentation. Any chance some actual studies could be cited?

RESPONSE: There are practically no studies to cite, and the "Ratings Creep" study is so flawed that it merely misleads about its main subject. Not all citations are worthy or illuminating about a given topic. Especially in subjects that are too new to have much high-level scholarship performed. That's why I've had to resort to this talk page to answer questions on the subject. ~~ MikeS

I distinctly remember the 1975 TV commercials for "Jaws" having the phrase May Be Too Intense For Younger Children as part of its PG rating. Has anyone seen/heard this phrase with any other movie, and does it appear on any of the VCR/DVD packagings of the film? As only a passive fan of the movie, I don't own it and haven't looked. I'm content to watch it when it's on TV.-- MarshallStack 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to appear on lots of movie print ads back in the 70s and 80s. It seemed to be part of the promotional aspect only, for I've never found any evidence that it was something connected formally with the rating or required by the MPAA, in that form. The only thing I was able to confirm was before the PG rating (when it was called GP) and I wrote that up under the GP* classification. I believe that Stephen Farber also mentions that in his book The Movie Ratings Game. I read about it in issues of the Hollywood Reporter, and copied down all films so-classified in that magazine as part of my research.

How do you think this nearly-a-year-old piece of news in an external link below will effect the future of girls watching films?? Please answer with detail. Georgia guy 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to list the names of raters and the names and titles of the board members of the appeals process? These names are listed in the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated. CoolGuy 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

After searching the MPAA website, I found this in the FAQ [6] in response to the question "How do I know specifically what kind of material is in a movie?":

"Every motion picture rated PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 will be assigned “rating reasons” by CARA at the time that the motion picture is rated. These rating reasons provide additional guidance concerning the specific content of the motion picture and also give a further explanation of why the motion picture has been rated in the category to which it is assigned. The rating reasons also include modifiers to give parents an indication of the strength of specific elements in the movie. These rating reasons can be found in certain advertising of the motion picture in the rating box under the rating description... Some examples of rating reasons may include: “Rated R for strong violent images and some sensuality” (because language is not included in this rating reason, it means that the language contained in the movie was not at an “R” level); “Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action/violence, some sexuality and brief language” (modifiers such as “some” and “brief” guide parents as to the level of those elements in the film)."

Can anyone shed any light on when these ratings reasons were introduced? I can't remember seeing them before about 10 years ago and maybe more recently than that. Also, it would be good to know the criteria by which the MPAA might use e.g. "brief" instead of "some"...

Senpai71 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My notes are at home, but from memory, it would be 1990 (about August, if I remember correctly) was when reasons started being given for R-rated films. I believe that about July-Aug 1992 was the start of reasons being added to PG and PG-13 films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of these (their introduction, etc.) in the article would be nice. Also, it might be nice to note that they are sometimes comically precise, such as in American Werewolf in Paris, which included "werewolf violence" in its rating reasons. -- 8.11.254.188 ( talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the history, written by Jack Valenti ( [7]):

In September of 1990 [two revisions] were announced. First, the board began giving brief explanations of why a particular film received R ratings. Since, in the opinion of the Ratings Board, R rated films contain adult material, they believed it would be useful for parents to know a little more about that film’s content before they allowed their children to accompany them. Sometime later the board began applying the same explanations in the PG, PG-13 and NC-17 categories as well.

I can't seem to find any G, PG, or PG-13 movie with a rating reason before 1992. Linalool ( talk) 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First, when the US motion picture industry began to show movies they stated: "12 and under pay children's prices, while 13 and above pay adult prices". Then in 1968 the Rating Sytem was introduced which includes G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. R states: "That no one under 17 will be admitted without parent or guardian". This means that the 13 to 16 year will have to pay adult prices at the same time being told if they want to see a R movie they need a parent or guardian to see it with them. This double standard is in violation of the Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal", which was later modified to state "all men and women are created equal, execpt for the military draft". The US motion picture industry is probably the only business in the country that is allowed to get away with a double standard practice. The theaters make most of their money from the concession stand, as well as advertisements. Ticket sales are an significant source of revenue, but, not as important as concession stand sales. They could, (and should), state: "17 and above pay adult prices while 16 and under pay children's prices", but of course they are not going to. It is very unlikely that the people who make the movies have a problem when the people who show the movies apply the double standard, as long as they get their share of the money from it I doubt if there is another country on the planet that shows movies that has the same double standard for the 13 to 16 year old that the US motion picture industry does. I am glad that that many movie theaters in the US will allow 13 to 16 who pay adult prices to see R rated movies without a parent or guardian. As long as there is a double standard for the 13 to 16 year old and the R rating, I am thankful some theaters are ignoring the guidelines. 204.80.61.110 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

That's wonderful. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your ranting about the movie industry. Go to a forum. Write your Congressional representatives. Do something constructive about it other than rant on a Wikipedia talk page. Nothing will change unless you do something about it. -- 12.116.162.162 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See [8] 68.36.214.143 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The MPAA has issued a press release about this. — tregoweth ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the MPAA has posted their Classification and Ratings Rules, if anyone's up for giving this article a long overdue cleanup. — tregoweth ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The rules don't add many specifics; mostly administrative matters and a little bit of expanded rating description for the current period. Not necessarily consistent with 5, 15, 25 years ago, certainly not consistent with 35 years ago. I recently crunched some numbers... I looked at how many films from the early, liberal phase of the ratings (pre-Star Wars) were re-rated after the start of the PG-13 rating. The vast majority of these re-ratings were of films that were originally rated M, GP, GP*, since those categories are practically forgotten and unrecognized today (and also by the 1990s no longer considered to be official categories), and were re-rated without editing so as to be released in some video format. The numbers are quite telling. The one early G-rated film was re-rated PG-13. Nearly 70 films in the M/GP category were re-rated, and about a quarter of those were re-rated R. About the same proportion were assigned a current PG rating (although quite a few of those were James Bond films that may have been exempted from the full review process, as no rating reasons were given with the new ratings, and there was an old 1970s allowance that any M/GP films could automatically be re-classified as PG at the time), and the remaining 50% or so were PG-13, which matches the nature of the original classification. Thus, about a quarter of such films were officially given harsher R ratings under the newer standards of the board, which cracks down harder on drugs and bloodshed and even on certain kinds of casual nudity). I saw not a single case - not ONE - of an old R film being re-rated with a modern PG-13, nor an old PG film given a modern G rating. I hope that helps to illuminate some things about the long-term trends I've discussed elsewhere (including some perspective around so-called "ratings creep" which is not at all what it's been characterized as in so much media jabbering.) ~~ MikeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which movie was re-rated PG-13 from a G? That's a huge jump. Then again, if The Green Berets was re-rated today, it most likely would get an R rating... Wrongcloth3333 ( talk) 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Salt and Pepper" was officially rerated PG-13, and was originally rated G. You can verify this at the official MPAA CARA website, on their database there... ~~ MikeS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 14:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know this rating ever existed until today. What films were rated GP*(with asterisk)? - Crooow 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to go back to sources of the time (the brief period of mid-late 1971 and the very beginning of 1972) and see the weekly listings given in "The Hollywood Reporter" or in large newspaper ads of the time. I remember a couple films such as J.W. Coop received the additional warning message. In the end (like today's PG-13/PG ratio) far more films started getting the warning message than not, and so finally the MPAA just made the rating into PG with the message "SOME MATERIAL MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR PRE-TEENAGERS." That endured through most of the 70s, when some labels started saying "CHILDREN" instead of "PRE-TEENAGERS."

Quote from the "Rating Process" section:

"Violence which includes bloodshed will usually receive an R rating, while bloodless violence will be rated PG-13 (eg. Alien vs. Predator, the "unrated version" contains the same content as the PG-13 version in terms of violence however, every violent scene includes bloodshed; the same thing happened with Pearl Harbor in which explicit gunshot wounds and violence were added to get an R-rating on the DVD director's cut.) This is why The Matrix got an R-rating instead of PG-13. The rest of the film had PG-13 level content but the scenes of violence were frequent, thus an R-rating."

That last bit about The Matrix seems like pure speculation to me. But beyond that, this just seems untrue. I can think of tons of action movies that are rated PG or PG-13 yet contain bloodshed (Indiana Jones, Star Trek, etc.). Certainly a LOT of bloodshed ups the rating, but the way it's stated here is much too simplistic.

Actually, maybe it's not simplistic enough. I think it really just boils down to "a lot of violence = R rating."

Sir Lemming 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Klingon blood in the zero-g sequence in Star Trek 6 was pink-ish in order to avoid an R rating. LamontCranston ( talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the DVD commentary points out that the shots used on the current DVD release are ones that were not used in the original. The amount of blood on the DVD version has been increased, and it isn't clear to me that the MPAA re-rated that new edit, as they are supposed to. Part of the issue is to try to verify whether one is seeing the version of the film that was originally rated, and this adds a layer of complexity to the research, sometimes with no way to be sure. In some cases, though, I've found extra information as a result of having paid attention to these things for most of my life. I saw the theatrical version of "Dreamscape" more than once in the theater, and then found that a scene of topless nudity had been included in the VHS version without any sign that that altered version had been approved by the MPAA as also being PG-13. Then, when I saw the film on Cinemax in the 1990s, I noted that Cinemax was showing the theatrical version in which the woman on the bed is seen only from the shoulders up, not from the waist up. The new book "Freedom and Entertainment" is helpful to researchers in dealing with this problem, as it describes cases in which the MPAA caught the unauthorized distribution of films in a version different from the one they rated. The most notorious case was that of the film "Cruising." It is difficult to tell what other films may have actually been rated differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Rating Process" section needs to be cleaned up as the MPAA has actually released their rating rules on their website. http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_Rules.pdf 156.34.212.67 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. The "rules" include barely more detail than the previously available descriptive pamphlets.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification, is M the same as MPAA's PG-13, or does it depend on the content? 203.35.25.141 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's neat seeing how the rating system developed in the US. But, does anyone know when the MPAA began to approve trailers for all audiences and for restricted audiences? And what the standards actually are? In the trailer for MASH (which has no approval notice), you hear words like "bitch" and "tits", you see Hotlips surprised in the shower, a sex scene and even surgery. In the trailer for Bonnie and Clyde you see a man shot in the head. The Wild Bunch's trailer also has bloody violence. SamShear7 ( talk) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The MPAA has just placed newly revised advertising standards onto their CARA website, effective January 1 of 2009!!! (Now that's new!) I see nothing about the "yellow" trailers that someone put on the website, but the new standards do suggest three categories of trailer now, so it's possible that yellow may be a new addition to the traditional "Green trailer" and "Red trailers," so I gave that info the benefit of the doubt and left it there. Of course, that doesn't mean I scrutinize and approve all content on this entry. I only get on here occasionally, and check to see whether any gross errors have appeared. I corrected the 1984-1985 dates and wording for the PG-13 rating, and added some other explanatory and documentary information, but don't bother to correct all the trivia that finds its way onto the site. The amount of content is very very much improved since I started expanding it a couple years back, and this Wiki entry now seems to be one of the best sources of information on the subject. Thus, it'd be a shame if the "original research" prohibition causes large chunks to be disqualified, because I have surveyed the academic literature and can tell you that there is very little that has been published about the subject...especially in peer-reviewed journals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting "The Flamingo Kid" on there as the first PG-13 film, without any citation whatsoever. Now, I distinctly remember reading in a 1984 newspaper that "Dreamscape" was officially the first PG-13 film so-rated, and I've kept changing it back whenever I look at the site. The new book "The Naked Truth" by Kevin S. Sandler, names three of the earliest PG-13 films as "Dreamscape," "Woman in Red" and "Red Dawn" and properly does not mention "Flamingo Kid" and so I've added that as a "citation" for this information.

Whoever keeps stubbornly changing this section to "The Flamingo Kid" should either provide a valid reference or have such changes automatically reversed! If I knew what date and issue of newspaper I saw the article in more than 23 years ago, I'd put it down. When I get a chance to look it up in the library archives, I will put it down or else admit my error. For now, the Sandler reference should serve to put a stop to this edit war. Thank you...

16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)MikeS—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk • contribs)

Your objections might carry more weight if you actually created an account, rather than submitting from an anonymous IP. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the wording in The Naked Truth is only that three of the earliest films were Dreamscape, Woman in Red, and Red Dawn, that does not specifically exclude The Flamingo Kid as being the first. If he says "The three very first films were..." then I would agree that you have made your point. (I would also suggest that you include the relevant quote from the book in the reference.) Until then, I have found several references to Red Dawn being the first released, Dreamscape being released after it, but The Flamingo Kid being the first rated but 3rd released, and I have made that change in the article, along with references. I have found zero sites that state that Dreamscape was the first rated.

I would also add that, however vivid your memory is, I would not, as a general rule, get into an edit war based on your recollection of a newspaper article that you read 14 years ago. In the future, before you start reverting other editors, please get the source FIRST.-- Aervanath ( talk) 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars are a bad idea, yes. But it's good protocol to revert edits (once!) if claims made in the edit are not only unsourced, but dubious. In fact, WP:BLP (which isn't applicable here) demands it in the case of biographies of living persons. No need to get the source first. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept that.-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. No edit wars.  :-) But it seems to me that your only source is IMDB, or a derivation from information originally placed on IMDB. It's not so important. For various reasons, it's not appropriate for me to register myself (I don't have a web-accessible computer of my own), but I believe that the bulk of my contributions to the site are consistent with the spirit of Wiki, given that this is a subject in which there is very very little published research (and lots of opinion and faulty memories). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue resolved!  :-) I went to the library and found the original 1984 news article from the Detroit Free Press, which I had remembered. It refers only to Dreamscape being the first PG-13 film expected for release, but Red Dawn beat it to screens by a week. Furthermore, the quote from "The Naked Truth" does not rule out "Flamingo Kid" as the first rated, but can be interpreted as referring to the first three PG-13 films in widespread release as "Red Dawn," "Dreamscape," and "Woman In Red" which were also early-rated PG-13 films, when Heffner was under the impression that Valenti was authorizing the rating to be restrictive rather than merely advisory. Finally, I sent an email to the MPAA CARA itself, which stated that "The Flamingo Kid" was the first PG-13 rated film, although it (shockingly!) has not kept on file (or refuses to use/disclose) its bulletins from that time. The CARA computer database, when I inquired, did not record the date of the bulletins for films from each year, thus making it impossible to confirm officially. If anyone has the 1984 weekly CARA bulletins then that would seem to be definitive, unless multiple PG-13s were granted in the first week. So anyway, I will concede that the bulk of evidence favors "The Flamingo Kid" as the first, although it must be noted that its release was delayed for months. (so it's not the third release, as another person proposed was possible) Even in early 1985 there were films finally being released that had been rated PG before the creation of PG-13 on July 1, 1984, such as PG-rated "Sylvester" (which includes a scene of sexual assault that includes topless nudity) whose release was in 1985 and surely must have vexed cinema patrons about the (in)consistency of the ratings!

136.181.195.29 ( talk)MikeS —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Does this article have any info about the accuracy of NC-17's description?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Directly from their website:

“

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

”

HTH. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That web text was adapted from a booklet produced by the MPAA when Jack Valenti was still alive and in charge. The text was revised every now and then to reflect changes. I have an earlier copy of the booklet from ~1993 (before the NC-17 age change) that shows the wording explicitly. One can also look up in any old newspaper to see what the ads looked like for earlier NC-17 theatrical films, such as "Henry and June" and "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the title be changed to just MPAA film rating systems? Motion Picture Association of America seems a little bit too long for a title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naidevinci ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

from my own "research," all of these films are rated PG and have female breasts: Swamp Thing, The Manitou, Clash of the Titans, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, Romeo & Juliet, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Monster in the Closet, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Dragonslayer, Airplane II: The Sequel, Airplane!

this goes against the quote on the main page that states "while topless women earn PG-13 automatically" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.149.188 ( talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of those movies (maybe all) came out before there was a PG-13 rating. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

good point

nonetheless those which are not already should be added to the list preceded by the quote, "However, at least thirteen films including breast nudity were rated PG-13 or less" in which I believe Bean should be removed as the fact that the nipple is NOT showing proculdes (sp?) it, from in fact, being defined as "nudity"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.149.188 ( talk) 14:88, 20 Apr 1889 (FTW)

Well, be bold. You can make those changes without any sort of permission. Just make sure you exercise due diligence and only list those that were rated after PG-13 was created. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I just wikified those movies so people can see their articles. 142.166.132.238 ( talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Baron Munchausen was post-PG-13, but then the PG rating was really only liberal enough to accommodate that sort of thing for a couple of years before the MPAA cracked down. The Living Daylights allowed a similar sort of shot. But by the 1990s we don't see that sort of nudity (which included the nipple) anymore unless it's in some way mitigated by some sort of naturalistic/tribal lifestyle context, or incidentally visible in a still photo, etc. "King Ralph" allowed the use of "pasties" but soon even that was considered too much for PG to accommodate. The dance scene in Oceans Eleven was not so prominent but was still judged as PG-13 level. This conservative has started to reverse in the last several years, however, so that it's more common to be able to see blatant nudity in PG-13 films, and partial nudity in PG films (2008's "The Year My Parents Went on Vacation" includes a view of nude photos but was allowed a PG.) But 10 years ago, many viewers were surprised to see brief artistic posing in "Titanic" under a PG-13. The 1990s were very conservative, compared to the 40 years of the film rating system. Compare with the casual toplessness of the original PG theatrical version of 1981's "Ragtime," or 1971's PG-rated "Vanishing Point" (the latter of which was re-rated R for its DVD release, without editing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had some information removed with a note to the effect that it was unnecessary, though it was pertinent to the subject as it refuted some general statements - earlier I was told to be bold; to add the information: Swamp Thing, The Manitou, Vanishing Point, Clash of the Titans, Sixteen Candles (re-rated to PG from an R), The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, Romeo & Juliet from 1968 (which was originally rated G), the G-rated The Andromeda Strain, 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Ragtime, Dragonslayer, and both Airplane! and its sequel Airplane II: The Sequel. Even after the PG-13 rating had been implemented topless women have been featured in PG-rated films such as 1986's Monster in the Closet and the aforementioned The Adventures of Baron Munchausen from 1988. I think a complete(? - need help finishing) list such as this is beneficial, rather than the list of examples given on the page. Because those examples given on the page also include PG-13, they do not support the point I was attempting to make (that is, female nudity outside of a tribal setting does not necessitate a PG-13 or greater rating). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.182.21 ( talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a law, but merely a trend that breast exposure tends to be at least PG-13. Your list will confuse rather than help the issue unless each example includes the year in which the film was rated (and in years with a ratings change, such as 1984, whether the rating preceded the change). So here's the general pattern... Up through the late 1970s, selected of today's PG-13 sorts of content was allowable in G films, although more often would have been classified as M, and sometimes R. But this is to reverse the issue, more properly stated as content that used to be acceptable in G films now tends to demand a PG or even a PG-13. The first few years of the rating system were especially liberal with regard to allowing a G rating. In the late 70s, corresponding with the rapid decline in the proportion of G films, brief breast exposure was common in PG films (and common in early-mid 70s PG films as well), up through the formation of PG-13 in 1984, whereupon most films with such nudity would receive a PG-13, although some with more distant and brief and naturalistic views, such as "Munchausen" or Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice" or "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" would still be allowed a PG. Throughout this whole time, certain types of seemingly similar portrayals might receive an R if the context was erotic or sexual or more questionable in nature (e.g. casual toplessness briefly seen in the Paul Newman film "Nobody's Fool" received an R). Throughout the 1990s conservatism increased, such that even the scene in Titanic apparently caused parental reactions, and the nudity in that scene was certainly not as much as PG-rated "Ragtime" 15 years before (reportedly re-edited on DVD to remove the nudity and retain a PG rating, despite no record of official re-rating by the MPAA, which seems to be a clear violation in the letter, though probably not the spirit, of the MPAA policies). Even today, overt breast nudity is fairly rare in PG-13 films; many of which have resorted to the old PG-styles of the late 1980s - what I have called "The Swaying Trick" as used in films like "Places in the Heart" or "Contact" in which nipple exposure is as "barely" avoided as possible (puns intended!) Only in the last few years, in which the overall percentage of R rated films has declined toward 60% (perhaps slightly less, in 2009) have the standards probably shifted back to the point where they were in the early to mid-1980s. Will you see breast exposure in any PG-rated film in 2009? Generally only in a naturalistic context such as the forthcoming film "Babies" - which may actually be comparable to films that had been rated G in the early 1990s (such as "It's All True" and "My Father's Glory"). 'nuff said.

136.181.195.29 ( talk) MikeS

By the way, this "Monster in the Closet" example you keep citing is not a good one, because there is an unrated European edition of the film available on DVD today that is substantially different (and much better!) than the original edition that was officially rated PG. I don't remember the presence of a visible areola in the PG version. 136.181.195.29 ( talk) MikeS

I was under the impression that full male nudity was acceptable in R movies provided the penis is flaccid. It basically works because erect/flaccid puts the nudity in a clear sexual or nonsexual context. Anyone else hear of this?-- Loodog ( talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this before, I think right here. There are some films with frontal male nudity that didn't get R when the nudity was fleeting and non-sexual. But I think we really need a ref for something like this. Otherwise it is original research. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that nonsexual nudist films receive an R, thus proving that male genitalia are no problem to include in R-rated films, even throughout pretty much the whole film (e.g. "Prospero's Books"). Although nudist films were most in fashion in the late 1960s, there happens to be a very recent example in which one was rated R: the MPAA just classified the film "Naked U.S.A. Volume III: Texas" as "Rated R for graphic nudity throughout."

Given the nature of the subject, that seems to provide quite a clear and verifiable citation and thus should not be ruled out on the basis of "original research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a list of PG-13 movies with breast nudity? It's a rather long, disorganized, and likely incomplete list list that adds little to the article. Can't we just list that breast nudity is acceptable and be done with it, we might as well be listing the few hundred PG-13 movies with F-bombs in them or with blood in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 ( talk) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it started with a couple of movies, but then other (amateur) editors added more, until it was what we have today. It should be trimmed to a sentence or two.

Another problem I see is the "Stephen Farber's internal critique" section. Why spend so much time on this single person's opinion? Can't some of this material be merged into the article instead of giving him a whole section? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, this article is so full of original research it isn't even funny, it needs major work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Farber book is one of the FEW actual sources of information to turn to. There are practically no citable academic studies on the subject. I am one of the few persons who seems to have actually done the work of doing research based on large samples and a content analysis. It's either using what's available, with enough documentation for people to be able to verify the information, or having very little at all. Fortunately, there are now finally a couple of additional books that are pretty decent and that do tap into new sources of information. One is "Freedom and Entertainment" which makes use of the Richard Heffner reminiscences to give lots of inside info about the system that was never available before. And another is the surprisingly great research about the line between the NC-17 and R ratings, in the recent book "The Naked Truth."

If we want actual citations and documentation, Farber's book is one of the most important sources in print. Most of the other material would need to cite old newspaper and magazine articles. The MPAA itself provides some info, but it's limited in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Harvard study is very junky. They didn't watch a single film, they made a horrible blunder in assuming that the "Kids in Mind" assessments never changed and that the MPAA must therefore account for a difference in time, and they failed to use the full secondary information available. It was truly embarrassing work to be connected with Harvard. Their main conclusion about "ratings creep" is thus backwards for most of their period of study - they were actually measuring the increasing conservativeness of the "Kids in Mind" evaluations (that site has even put recent disclaimers up about how their criteria was not constant) and when they found the difference between that website and the MPAA had widened, they claimed the MPAA had gone soooo liberal and permissive. It's a totally unwarranted conclusion although lucky for them, in the tail end of their period of study, there was actually a more liberal shift starting to take place...as evidence by actual viewing and comparison of film content and by tracking of the percentages of films to fall into different rating categories.

This is one of those cutting-edge subjects with insufficient published research, but that doesn't mean that the Wiki method hasn't allowed it to slowly be shaped into one of the most informative sources of information currently available on the subject. Much of that shaping has actually been my own contribution and that it involves original research doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. There are no designated experts on the subject.... if there were then I dare say that the Harvard study wouldn't have been able to pass a peer review process. The Harvard researchers didn't even consider the process that the ratings board goes through, and Kim Thompson admitted to me when I mentioned the Farber book that she hadn't even been aware of its existence. The Harvard conclusions also just happen to conveniently support the activist efforts of the youth-organization connected with it, and although I generally support their anti-violence goals, for me as a researcher, the truth must come first. It's only in the last few years that I see evidence of "ratings creep" and not during most of their period of study. And the name "ratings creep" itself suggests some sort of conspiracy, the board pulling a fast one, that betrays an ignorance of the history of the board and the historical standards that were used. To their credit, they stated that their work was only meant to cover the 10 year period they studied, but on the flip side, the connotations of their rhetoric around the "ratings creep" concept has contradicted the intention of that statement. Nor did they consider whether certain kinds of changes might be warranted (e.g. with all the drug education in schools, even at the young elementary level, does it really make any sense that a brief drug reference should necessitate a PG-13 rating? Surely the board is reasonable to reverse such a silly policy and that's not automatically a bad thing, as the "ratings creep" element would imply). I have no problem with their conclusions about increasing violence in animated films during the study period, but that aspect of their study has practically been forgotten in light of the more sensational implications of their "ratings creep" premise. Actually there had been substantial ratings tightening during the period from 1988 to 1990, and so one might expect some slackening of that to result over time, to get back in line with the rather liberal standards that had predominated through much of the CARA's history. Yet, it actually took more than 10 years for those conservative standards to start reversing themselves. People were actually surprised to see simple topless nudity in Titanic - that's how conservative the ratings had become, and yet there were dozens of PG films per year that included gratuitous topless nudity, and often in the contexts of action/thrillers in which the woman's top had been forcibly removed! The "ratings creep" of the mid-2000s can be seen as simply getting back to a more historic set of ratings standards, following the Congressional crackdown concerning the deliberate mis-marketing of strictly rated fare to younger children. Yet, much of that Matrix-like action would not have been rated R in the 1970s. Films like "Westworld" and "Looker" and "Bullitt" often included bloody shootings. People just have short and flawed memories unless they're deliberately keeping track. People even seem to forget just how much violence and blood there was in the film "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and yet that kind of explicit head-shooting and "squib" bullet spray became very difficult to include in a PG-13 rated film in the 1990s. Let alone one in which a policeman or law-enforcement agent was shot (e.g. "McQ," "Bullitt," "Brannigan," and countless other 1970s era films). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You might find this interesting [9] it's the 1981 Variety review of Raiders of the Lost Ark. In it, the critic mentions that he found the film quite violent for a PG or, even an R rating. Wrongcloth3333 ( talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising to me at all. Most people's memories of that film seem to be clouded, and they've forgotten the graphic head shootings, melting faces, etc. Raiders and its sequel were the first instances I can remember where the term "graphic violence" was put into widespread adoption by critics... even though it's technically a poor choice of words. "Explicit violent portrayals" would be more technically correct, although it obviously wouldn't have been an issue at all if the film had been rated R. It seemed like a ton of reviewers used "graphic violence" in reviewing Temple of Doom, as if it had been suggested as part of a marketing campaign. Graphic should refer to illustration, though... Explicit or frank portrayals seem more appropriately descriptive for live-action films. But the average audience accepts without question titles like "Krakatoa East of Java" or "Jurassic Park" (instead of West of Java or "Cretaceous Park") 136.181.195.29 ( talk) MikeS —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

In late 2003 or early 2004, I heard a radio commercial more than once for a certain movie; naturally I forget which one. The movie was "rated PG-13"; however, the obviously taped commercial added the caveat "Under 13 not admitted without parent". (For some reason, R-rated movies promoted on radio leave out "or guardian", which would seem to mean orphaned children under 17 cannot see an R-rated movie in a theater.) 216.179.123.145 ( talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Too hard to track down. There are many cases where the rating placed on a videotape was incorrect. "The Miracle" VHS package even had an R on one side and PG on the other! R was correct, but who would know! "In the Cold of the Night" simultaneously claimed to be both "unrated" and NC-17. "Bless the Beasts and the Children" had an R slapped on its box instead of an M. I suppose the MPAA didn't have any monitoring of such things. Sometimes, I view PG-rated 1970s films on videotape that look instead like edited (not rated) tv versions, rather than the original (rated) theatrical versions. 136.181.195.29 ( talk) MikeS —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Whoever wrote the imformation that Pans Labyrinth was only rated R due to strong language and that it contained PG-13 level violence is wrong, as the strong graphic violence in the film made it qualify for a very strong R rating. I have deleted the false claims, and I wonder if whoever wrote them has actually seen the film. The Editor 155 ( talk) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So many memories people have are false and seriously deluded. For example, there are still a ton of people who think that Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were rated PG-13!! Good call on your part! The MPAA listed violence specifically in their rating reason for "Pan's Labyrinth."

136.181.195.29 ( talk) MikeS —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

The images in the first column of the table are appearing over the top of the text in the second column. I don't know how to fix this.-- 92.11.141.77 ( talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now fixed.--Davmpls 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is still plagued by the issues that these previously removed tags suggested, so I restored them.
History section; Origins subsection

• Entire first paragraph is unreferenced.
• Middle sentences about "cultural erosion..." is unref'ed, can be perceived as original research, and violates WP:NPOV.

Original ratings subsection is unreferenced.
Age problems with the R and X ratings subsection has an unreferenced claims.
The GP rating is replaced subsection...holy cow! Original research, excessive examples, and lack of references galore!
The addition of the PG-13 rating subsection is loaded with with original research and unreferenced material.
The first 10 paragraphs of the NC-17 replaces X subsection are unreferenced.
The paragraph about the call for a "Hard R" rating is unref'ed.
Trailer section is unref'ed.
Ratings process section? Excessive examples! Tons or original research. Severely lacking refs.
MPAA Ratings board opening paragraph has no refs.
Yikes...I'm just going to stop here. Obvious problems still run rampant in this article. - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 02:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed most of these problems. I agree that there was entirely too much original research and POV was a big problem. I removed as much original research as possible as well as the excessive examples. As noted in my section on tone, the examples seemed to be a catalog of lurid material and entirely too subjective and detailed for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a Film History book.--Davmpls 04:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)

I did some editing to remove what I found to be prurient and/or prudish rundowns on sex and violence throughout. The MPAA does not set criteria at this level of minutiae and it should not be delineated in this way in the article. I found it to be a unnecessarily lurid and presumptuous. Ratings are not always the result of quantifying the amounts of nudity or violence. Further, some sections (to say nothing of the discussion page) seem to be cataloging lewd content. This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.--Davmpls 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)