hide the kiddies everyone, he's holding a CIGARETTE!

[acroyear]

get this...

ok, so I can say "damn" 5 times, have some cloud destroy a space station of several hundred people, and some electric alien come in and zap away a main character and get a G rating... (Star Trek 1)

and I can have a teenager shoot his own dog after you've spent 75 minutes getting us to love it and get a G rating... (Old Yeller)...

and I can basically have the main bad guy die by falling a hundred feet to his doom and get a G rating... (basically about 1/3rd of the disney animated films, including Rescuers 2, Tarzan, Beauty, Hunchback, ...)

...but if one person lights up who doesn't really need to smoke (by some other persons standards, of course, not their own), then i have to give it an R??????

some people have some really fucked up ideas of what they think kids should be allowed to see...that's fine, but they shouldn't be the judge of my kids. Hide their own children in a closet.

My children will know the world with my attention and my guidance, not in spite of my ignorance or negligence.

Comments

[kiltboy]

My God Man! What are you saying? Not allow someone else to set the standards that your child will be held to, not allow someone else to control what they see and hear, not allow someone else to tell you how to shield them from the world? What the hell are you?

A responsible parent? (in the making, anyways)

Bravo you. As I've always said, the people who should be breeding, aren't doing enough of it, and those who shouldn't be are doing it way too much.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Because, as my friend Jamy Swiss is wont to say, "we all know young people tend to explode when exposed to pornography."

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a real issue. The article suggests that smoking be treated like profanity. Even if the recommendation was accepted by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), this wouldn't automatically stamp films portraying smoking with an "R" rating. From the MPAA ratings web site:

"The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the filmmaker. In making their evaluation, the members of the Ratings Board do not look at snippets of film in isolation but consider the film in its entirety."

Also, except for NC-17, your kids could still see any movie out there (even the NC-17 if you rent it for them). The ratings are a general guide for parents, not an absolute code. If the movie is rated R for nudity, sexual content, and violence, then you can decide whether such topics are within the bounds that you set.

ok, try this.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

what I lose is the ability to show my child trust.

when the child is 6-13, then yeah, I'll be there to make sure that he sees things worth seeing, regardless of the rating.

what I lose when the movies that I think he should be allowed to see, but I personally have no interest in seeing, are rated R for *stupid stuff* like "smoking" or "drinking" because Hollywood "glamorizes"* it, I don't get to show my child the trust as an adolescent that they need to grow.

My ability to trust my child's judgement that they won't immitate what they see (and yes, they'll make mistakes, all teenagers do) is hampered by the handful of jerks who can't trust anybody and have no intention of letting their kids have any freedom whatsoever. and its THEIR kids who will do the drugs and binge drinking when the leave the house for college.

I should be allowed to eventually show my child that I trust thier judgements in some cases. The government and these other self-governing bodies seem intent on not giving me that freedom.

*(an accusation that goes back to prohibition days and has NEVER been anything more than a conservative's opinion, not a fact proven by anybody)

[dawntreader]

this actually made me laugh because it was so stupid.

He'd like to see more PG-13 movies that feature smoking — like "Matchstick Men," "Seabiscuit" and the Oscar-winning "Chicago" — get slapped with an R rating.

a. i didn't realize Matchstick Men 'featured' smoking. i saw it, and i didn't notice that smoking was a major plot point. i can't even recall who was smoking in the movie. hm. must have missed the entire purpose for the movie of MATCHSTICK (irony there?) Men.

b. Seabiscuit and Chicago take place during a time when EVERYONE ON EARTH INCLUING THE DOGS were smoking. they didn't know about lung cancer yet, probably because people weren't living long enough to catch it. [sarcasm] of course, they also had children back then who weren't so delicate and simpleminded and needed to be sheltered from everything. [/sarcasm]

[dawntreader]

rated R for Random cigarette smoker.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Besides which I would have considered giving Chicago an R rating for completely different reasons. The plot is creative ways for a murderer to not be convicted. The bits about adultery and other killings are also a part of it.

Seabiscuit had some smoking (but I don't remember it standing out). The violence of the movie was more of an issue (to me) than smoking.

I don't like smoking, I don't like being around smoking. However, I don't think that smoking is so horrible that it should count significantly in the ratings of movies. There are a lot of PG-13 movies that I am surprised got that rating (instead of R) and some R movies that I am a little surprised that they didn't get NC-17.

I wonder if someone will suggest that movies that show other behaviors (sex outside of marriage, transsexualism, homosexuality, questioning the government, religious fervor, etc.) be sanctioned the same way.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Side note: though the original rating on Star Trek 1 was G, the current rating is PG for sci-fi action and mild language.

While I admit that "smoking = R" sounds a little silly, it would be tough to argue that movies don't sometimes glamorize it, and it would be tough to argue that smoking isn't a national health issue (if I'm not mistaken, it is the #1 cause of death in the US).

So while I understand your point, I have to wonder what your solution would be. Get rid of ratings altogether? Even if a parent trusts their kids, shouldn't the parent have some idea of the kids' actions? Shouldn't the parent have some idea of what kinds of games the kids are playing, what kind of movies the kids are watching?

And why is 13 your magical "trust the kid age" -- why not 9, or 17? And what about porn flicks or snuff films? Should they be open for 13 year olds to see?

chicago violence = rated R

[dawntreader]

i would agree with an R rating if movies were rated for topic matter. but the way it was portrayed didn't appear to be overly violent. so even though it talked about violence, it didn't seem to be violent (one gunfight sequence being the exception.)

i felt PG-13 was accurate.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

13 is arbitrary. If my kid isn't ready at 13, then it doesn't happen. if my kid is ready at 11, then it happens. there are some things that aren't going to happen until there's been exposure with me, or through school, and it all depends...maturity in one thing isn't maturity in all.

so yes, 13 is arbitrary. of course, so is 16 (driving), 17 (r/nc17 movies), 18 (smoking, voting, military service), and 21 (drinking)...and for that matter, 25 (cheap car insurance and ability to rent a car)...

...but those aren't decisions I'm *allowed* to make for my child anymore.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

"maturity in one thing isn't maturity in all."

Very good point.

Here's another way to look at the issue: At 16 you cannot be prevented from driving based on age. At 18, you can't be prevented from voting based on age. At 21, you can't be prevented from drinking based on age. etc.

Here's a problem with getting rid of age-based discrimination: how does the provider of a service know the parents' feelings? And can the provider of a service be held responsible for providing the service? In some areas, a bartender can be held responsible for providing alcohol to a patron who is clearly drunk. The age limits help protect kids from not getting certain rights at certain ages, and help protect service providers from liabilities.

Yes, it would be better if such things were based on maturity level, not age, but there is no consistent measure of maturity. And if it comes down to parental permissions, there are some very stringent parents who would prevent their kids from doing anything. At what point would the kids gain the ability to go against their parents wishes? Age-based "prohibitions" provide this, to some extent.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

And if it comes down to parental permissions, there are some very stringent parents who would prevent their kids from doing anything. At what point would the kids gain the ability to go against their parents wishes? Age-based "prohibitions" provide this, to some extent.

I never said I really wanted to change the system, although I'm against making it any more restrictive, and what's on a movie screen is a bit different from drinking or driving, where education in doing something is a bit more important.

as for "overly strict", that's fine for them, but i don't want them to be the ones to make the decisions for MY kids.

however, there's also the side that's the opposite of "overly strict", which are the ones who basically believe "society is right" and defer ALL decisions on this or that to "the government standards". the ultimate in sheep breeding sheep.

and its for THOSE parents who show no supervision or mentoring of their childrens experience or education at all, that the gov has to have such age-specific mandates.

warning: cheap shot follows:

and of course, there's the ones making the decisions who themselves have their own problems as parents...going straight to the top, consider the supportive Clintons and the successful and responsible Chelsea, vs. the restrictive, repressive Bush Jr. family and the trouble their daughters keep getting into...

I don't recall Clinton EVER saying or supporting any legislature that reflected a national age limit for seeing/doing/experiencing something. Bush Jr., on the other hand, would sign such legislation in a heartbeat without even thinking about it (like he "thinks" at all...)

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Though you may have seen this, I thought I'd pass it along just the same. Today's news features an article about obesity, and how overeating may soon overtake smoking as the number one killer in the US. Maybe they should start a campaign to get movies featuring Big Macs to receive an R rating...

MSN article on obesity