DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Penny Can
HTML https://pennycan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Drive-In Theater
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11954--------------------------------------------------
MPAA
By: Mac Date: September 3, 2012, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Pretty good article... I hope this carries steam.
[glow=red,2,300]We Need To Reboot The MPAA [/glow]
[quote]
[size=12pt]The MPAA rating system is broken, and it needs to be
fixed. But it also needs to exist. Here's a three-part
examination of the history of American film censorship, the MPAA
and a recommendation for a future ratings system.
This September sees the 22nd anniversary of the MPAA’s adoption
of the NC-17 rating, a failed effort to replace the maligned X
rating. That number is meaningful because the MPAA finally
scrapped the X 22 years after it was introduced in 1968. 22
years feels like a good cycle, and it’s time for the MPAA to not
only get rid of the NC-17, it must overhaul every single element
of the ratings system.
I believe the ratings system should remain. I believe it’s an
important prophylactic measure that keeps non-industry
censorship away from our movies. And I believe that we are
living in a time of dangerous conservatism, where we’re only one
bad poll number away from the **** right declaring jihad on
Hollywood once more. As the fundamentalist grip continues to
choke progressivism in America, our arts remain in danger from
outside forces.
But I also think that the system as it exists today is
extraordinarily flawed and that reform is the only way to save
it - and most importantly to create an environment where truly
adult cinema can flourish.
A Kind Of Brief History of Censorship in American Movies
The first movie censors arose at almost the exact same time as
the first movies. Thomas Edison’s The Kiss (1896) angered
conservatives with its 20 second on-screen smooch. The Victorian
prudes saw the new technology of cinema as inherently
corrupting, made all the worse by the fact that the men who made
films for nickelodeons and arcades were seemingly obsessed with
sex and violence.
Edison may have been the producer of the first movies to be
censored and banned; the 1896 short Fatima: Muscle Dancer (also
known as Fatima’s Coochee-Coochee Dance) was considered so
risque that the dancer’s offending bosom and hips were covered
with what looks like a hand-drawn fence.
HTML http://cf.badassdigest.com/_uploads/images/fatima.jpg
A Fatima knock-off, The Dolorita Passion Dance of 1897, was
actually banned in Atlantic City, New Jersey, making it the
first film to be banned in the United States. The coming years
would see the growth of the movies as they expanded out of
arcade machines and became theatrical presentations, as well as
the growth of censorship. Many municipalities and states began
creating censorship boards; at the time the dominant legal
theory held that the First Amendment only applied to federal
regulation of speech.
The young motion picture industry proved to be quick on its
feet. When New York City sought to outlaw all movies in 1908 the
owners of the city’s theaters got an injunction, but the censors
still tried, and using the Blue Laws of the time banned all
non-educational movies from playing on Sunday. In his excellent
book Sex and Violence: The Hollywood Censorship Wars (a source
for much of the pre-MPAA information in this article), Tom
Pollard explains how they got around it:
The resilient owners then staffed theaters with announcers to
highlight the educational aspect of each film shown on Sunday
by, for example, pointing out, “these are railroad tracks” and
“we are passing a mountain.”
At the time the courts were generally against the movie
business. When Chicago banned two Westerns in 1908 (The James
Boys in Illinois and Night Riders) the case made it all the way
to the Supreme Court who ruled, in 1909, that the city could ban
films that were indecent or obscene. These two films, which
lionized Western criminals, were found to “represent nothing but
malicious mischief.”
In response the National Board of Motion Picture Censorship (The
NBC) was founded in New York City in 1909. One of the founders
of the board was Marcus Loew, who was the founder of Loew’s
Theaters and MGM, and it was in his best interest to head off
the willy-nilly municipal bannings of films. The idea was to
create a centralized industry body that could bring uniformity
to the censorship of movies. The National Board of Motion
Picture Censorship, by the way, still exists. They’re now called
The National Board of Review and they hand out what is
considered the first awards of Awards Season.
The NBC was the model for industry censorship that still stands
today with the MPAA. It also has informed how comic books
censored themselves (the Comics Code Authority) as well as how
the music and video game industry would self-police their
content.
Things remained dark for the movies, though. In 1915 the Supreme
Court handed down another ruling, this time saying that movies
were not art but only commerce and as such were not protected
under Ohio’s freedom of speech laws (which were pretty similar
to the First Amendment. Again, at the time the legal theory was
that the Bill of Rights only applied to federal law).
With the constant threat of legal harassment hanging over them,
the Hollywood moguls decided they had to take stronger action.
They were spurred on by an escalating series of Hollywood star
scandals - the Fatty Arbuckle murder trial and the unsolved
murder of director William Desmond Taylor - that created the
sense of Hollywood being a place where all morals were out the
window. The corrupting influence of the movies had always been
assumed, but now it was being acted out by the people who made
the movies themselves.
Thus was born the MPPDA - the Motion Picture Producers and
Distributors of America - an entity that took over where the
National Board of Review had left off. By 1922 there were 37
states proposing legislation to create censorship boards, so the
producers knew they had to take matters into their own hands
before it was too late.
Knowing that anti-Hollywood sentiment was running high, the
MPPDA hired an outsider to be their head censor*. William Hays,
former US postmaster general under Warren G Harding, a
Republican and very serious-minded Presbyterian, was the man
they found. He established a code of conduct that became known
as The Hays Code, even long after he was out of the job. The
Code was introduced in 1930, but it was so wantonly ignored that
the years from 1930-1934 are popularly known as “Pre-Code
Hollywood.” There was no enforcement method available, and while
Hays worked with the heads of the studios to create a list of
“Don’ts and Be Carefuls,” filmmakers cheerfully ignored them.
By 1934 discontent was rising in the heartland again. A Catholic
bishop was trying to get Catholics to boycott ALL movies, and
there was a bipartisan bill being prepared that would give
Congress oversight of motion pictures. It was time for the Code
to grow some teeth, and so a $25,000 fine was attached to all
infractions.
The Code, it’s worth noting, didn’t just censor imagery, it also
censored politics and themes. Crime could only be shown in a way
that aggrandized the law. Religion was to always be respected.
Miscegenation was not to be shown. Homosexuality was right out
the window. Any depiction of a lifestyle that flaunted ‘decent’
standards of the time was heavily frowned upon.
Joseph Breen was now head censor. A severe man, Breen had been
Hays’ assistant and had secretly fomented agitation among
Catholics to get himself a promotion to head censor. Gone were
the freewheeling days of the Pre-Code era, where risque double
entendres and careful sidestepping of the “Don’ts and Be
Carefuls” created one of the golden eras of Hollywood
filmmaking. The Breen Office was taking no **** from filmmakers,
and he had the power to punish them for their transgressions.
HTML http://cf.badassdigest.com/_uploads/images/joseph-breen.jpg
Sourpuss Joseph Breen.
As was always the case since the beginning of motion picture
censorship, it was sex that truly agitated Breen. Violence had
always gotten a free pass, even from the reformers who hated
movies on moral grounds. The Code prohibited certain explicit
displays of death - hanging, electrocution - and banned revenge
killing, but it was sex and nudity and lust that always caused
trouble for the movies.
There was still some back and forth, and some movies were
created and released outside of the system. Howard Hughes
released The Outlaw without Code approval, and the Betty Boop
cartoons were outside of Breen’s reach. There were other films
that skirted the edges of decency, like 1938’s Child Bride,
which has a naked 12 year old girl in it. That film was produced
outside of the Hollywood system and claimed to be educational,
allowing it to exist in the nascent exploitation circuit.
The MPPDA became the MPAA - Motion Picture Association of
America - in the 1940s. As WWII ended and the GIs began coming
home, American culture slowly changed. The soldiers had seen and
experienced things that changed them, and the progressive
aspects of European culture had impacted them as well. While the
1950s are remembered as the most whitebread of decades, a slow
erosion of conservative moral values had begun.
Alongside the slow change in morals was a sea change in social
attitudes. The Civil Rights movement began, and pushback against
the Communist witch hunts brought liberals out of the closet.
Many aspects of the Code were beginning to look increasingly
archaic.
At almost the exact right moment the Supreme Court weighed in
again. In 1952 the “Miracle Decision” came in; the Court struck
down an effort to ban Roberto Rosselini’s The Miracle, a short
film that made up half the feature L’Amore. The Miracle was
seriously controversial stuff - a jerk impregnates a delusional
woman who thinks she’s the Virgin Mary carrying the Christ fetus
- that caused protests even in Paris. The film was seen as
sacrilegious and New York attempted to ban it. The Supreme
Court’s decision was momentous on two levels: one, it struck
down all blasphemy laws and two, it acknowledged cinema as an
art form covered by the First Amendment.
In the aftermath of the ruling the Code began to crumble. Some
Like It Hot couldn’t get Code-approved but was a box office
smash. By now it seems that the conservative witch hunters had
turned their attention to the new kid on the block, comic books.
Movies had been established as an American form, and in the
waning days of the Code they began pursuing topics like drug
addiction (The Man With The Golden Arm) and rape (Anatomy of a
Murder).
It wasn’t until 1964 that the Code received its fatal blow. That
came in the form of The Pawnbroker, a Holocaust drama that
featured two sets of bare breasts and a sex scene. The
Pawnbroker signalled a lot of firsts - it was the first film to
deal with the Holocaust from the point of view of a Jewish
survivor, it was the film that made Rod Steiger a star (he was
nominated for an Oscar, losing to Lee Marvin role in the silly
Cat Ballou) - but it was the fact that, after a lot of back and
forth, the Code approved the movie with nudity that truly
reverberated. At the time the film was considered a special
exemption, but with the way American culture was rapidly
transforming in the 1960s there was no chance The Pawnbroker
would stand alone.
Four years later the Code would be done. The first crack was The
Pawnbroker. Then in 1966 it was Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,
which was approved with language like ‘up yours,’ ‘hump the
hostess’ and ‘goddamn’ (‘screw you’ had to be removed, though).
That same year Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow Up was released by
MGM without Code Approval and it was pretty obvious that nobody
gave a **** about the Code at all anymore. The Catholic groups
had seen their power wane, the Supreme Court had given movies
the protection of the law, and the American people had bigger
problems on their minds than some **** in a movie.
Jack Valenti became the president of the MPAA in 1966, and he
was the guy who negotiated the language in Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf?. Two years later he tore down the Code and
replaced it with a ratings system - the earliest version of the
ratings system we have today.
But that has not guaranteed freedom from governmental
interference. While the Supreme Court has struck down attempts
to ban films (in 1969 they allowed I Am Curious (Yellow) to be
shown, despite a shot of a woman kissing a ****), the case of
Miller v California establishes troubling precedent for
declaring something obscene, while reiterating obscenity is not
protected by the First Amendment.
The problem of obscenity has been plaguing the justice system
for a while. In 1964 Louis Malle’s The Lovers became the center
of an obscenity case in Ohio; while the Court upheld the theater
owner’s right to show the film as it was not obscene, the ruling
of Judge Potter Stewart became famous for how it codified a
wishy-washy approach to obscenity:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of
material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand
description [of ****ography]; and perhaps I could never succeed
in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the
motion picture involved in this case is not that."
"I know it when I see it" has become something of a joke, even
as the Miller Test, arising out of Miller v California, makes it
clearer just what obscenity is. At least a tiny bit clearer.
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community
standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state
law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.
If a work violates ALL THREE of those, it’s obscene. But those
guidelines remain vague, and they return the motion picture
industry back to where it was in 1908, as it battled various
municipal and state censorship boards. What will fly for
audiences in New York may be utterly inappropriate for Ames,
Iowa. And in the age of the internet the idea of parts of the
country as discrete, separate areas becomes less and less
realistic.
The Ratings System, And Why It’s A Mess
Which brings us more or less to today. The MPAA ratings system
was established in 1968 as Jack Valenti - who lived long enough
to become the villain - understood the old order was done and
that the time-consuming process he had undergone on Who’s Afraid
of Virginia Woolf? couldn’t be repeated again and again. From
1966 to 1968 the MPAA added an SMA (Suggested for Mature
Audiences) tag to some pictures, and then in 68 debuted the
rating system:
G: General Audiences – Suggested for General Audiences – (all
ages)
M: Mature Audiences – Suggested for Mature Audiences – Parental
Discretion Advised
R: Restricted – People Under 16 Not Admitted Unless Accompanying
Parent or Adult Guardian
X: Adults Only – People Under 18 will not be Admitted (changed
to 17 later that year)
The G, M and R ratings were trademarked, but the X was left
wide open. The reason was that the MPAA didn’t want to get into
tussles with localities where adult-oriented films might yet be
legally challenged. The X could be assigned by the MPAA or self
applied by the producer. And with that cowardly decision the
rating intended to denote films that were for grown-ups became
used to denote **** **** (XXX, for the record, isn’t even a real
MPAA thing).
Over the years the MPAA slapped a couple of movies with Xs -
Midnight Cowboy, for instance, which is the only X-rated movie
to win the Best Picture Oscar (although it was rerated to R in
1971 without any edits) - but it was mostly the province of
****ography. Once the **** producers jumped on the rating it was
completely, infinitely tainted.
For 22 years the X continued to be the bastard stepchild of the
ratings system. MPAA signatories (ie, the major studios) could
not release films unrated, and an X rating was a kiss of instant
death, so all films had to be edited to fit within the R rating.
During that time the MPAA did play with the ratings some. They
made GP PG for some reason. Then in 1984 they added a rating -
the PG-13. This came on the heels of a couple of films that
pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in a PG movie;
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Gremlins and Poltergeist
all went farther than many felt acceptable for the PG. Steven
Spielberg himself - the man behind all three of those films -
recommended the PG-13, and the first film to get that rating was
Red Dawn. The Woman in Red followed soon after, and to give you
an idea of how the ratings system changes over time, that film
features a shot of Kelly LeBrock’s bush, a guaranteed R-rating
today.
The PG-13 is an object lesson in how the MPAA works. It’s a
studio backed organization, and when the studios decide they
need leniency, they get it. If we were watching a movie and in
it the biggest, most commercial director in the world demanded a
new rating category and got it you would think it was a touch on
the nose. But that’s how it really happened.
The other object lesson here is that the PG-13 mostly covers
violence. Again, the history of movie censorship in America is
really a history of people getting upset about sex. I think it’s
interesting that LeBrock’s pubes could get through in 1984, but
that was just because everybody was figuring out how this new
system worked. Language and sex are way worse than violence in
the eyes of the MPAA. Look at Lord of the Rings: Return of the
King for an example of a clearly R-rated movie getting a PG-13;
the fact that there’s no sex and only violence helps, as does
the fact that it’s a major studio release.
As the MPAA is a servant of the studios its ratings assignments
often have the feeling of unfairness. The signatories get winked
at but the indies get a harder time. Of course some of this,
again, comes down to sex - the major studios rarely release
sexually explicit films at all anymore. Violence and action are
the hallmarks of modern R-rated big studio films, while it’s the
indies and ‘dependents’ (Fox Searchlight, Miramax, etc) who
tackle the sexually oriented stuff.
In 1990 the MPAA finally realized the whole X rating situation
was a cluster****, and so the NC-17 was born. The idea here was
to have a rating that would not be left open to the
****ographers and which could denote adult-oriented material.
Whatever that means, right? Except that the conventional wisdom
immediately was ‘New Name For X.’ And so many newspapers would
not carry ads for NC-17 movies, TV stations wouldn’t run
commercials, and major retailers wouldn’t stock the home videos.
To be fair, the landscape of movie distribution has changed
drastically since 1990. The NC-17 is still rarely applied, but
more cities have arthouses that will play such fare, and with
Wal-Mart and Blockbuster no longer having a stranglehold on home
video, it’s more likely that a movie like Shame will be seen by
a wider audience over the course of its extended life. Which is
not a joke about how big Michael Fassbender’s **** is, I swear.
Still, the NC-17 is a stupid rating, made all the stupider by
the broadness of the R rating. Consider this: The King’s Speech,
Billy Elliot, Saw and Hostel are all rated R. As part of the
1990 changes the MPAA added text advisories to the ratings -
explaining if films have violence, nudity, intense depictions of
very bad weather, etc - but what’s the point of having a rating
as massively vague as that?
[/size][/quote]
Cont....
#Post#: 11955--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Mac Date: September 3, 2012, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Continued...
[quote] Whoever wins this election, we’re in the middle of a
changeover from conservative to liberal values. While right-wing
politicians battle to ban gay marriage, most Americans are
perfectly okay with gays getting married. The social pendulum
has swung back to progressive and permissive; there are shows on
television today that push the boundaries of what could even be
shown in R-rated films. I’d love to see what an episode of The
Walking Dead gets rated by the MPAA, to be honest, or Game of
Thrones. The internet has also impacted our cultural
permissiveness. It’s hard to keep kids away from risque or
pornographic material. When I was 12 getting a porn movie was a
major accomplishment; in 2012 it just means getting on a
computer without web filtering software.
But while the cultural mores change, the small-minded censors
remain, and they will only get louder in the coming years. They
take turns going after music and video games and comic books and
movies, and with the Aurora shooting and more films butting
against the NC-17 - Blue Valentine had to fight an NC-17 for an
oral sex scene - it seems likely that movies could be getting
their turn back on the front lines of the culture wars.
Which is why I don’t want to destroy the MPAA’s ratings system.
As stupid as the ratings are, and as stupid as the Code was, it
has successfully kept the movie industry free of government
censorship. Call me paranoid, but I do not believe that we’re
out of those woods yet, and I like the idea of industry
self-regulation.
But the system as it stands is so broken that it will only
invite anger from conservatives and religious groups (side note:
until 2007 any movie that espoused a religious doctrine
automatically got a PG rating. That seems pretty reasonable to
me - I’m more worried about kids being exposed to religious
dogma at a young age than a tit. But after the film Facing The
Giants earned a PG rating evangelical groups complained and
started a letter-writing campaign. The MPAA has said they would
no longer take religious doctrine into mind when assigning
ratings - a huge mistake on their part). And it’s broken in a
fundamental artistic way, where films are funneled towards the
childish PG-13 and more mature ideas get left behind.
The NC-17 proved that trying to fix one part of the system
doesn’t work. The world simply sees NC-17 as an artier X. Any
replacement rating - be it A for Adult or M for Mature or
whatever - will be seen the same way. So the entire ratings
system has to be overhauled from the bottom - rebooted, if you
will.
Here’s how I would recreate the ratings system:
E - Everyone. This would replace the G rating. It’s not much of
a rating, as G movies are essentially death (even animated films
try to get PGs so as to not seem too much like movies for
babies), but changing the lowest rating signifies a shake-up of
the whole system.
PG - Parental Guidance Suggested. Let’s keep this old standby.
T - Teen. Replace the PG-13 with this rating, lifted from comics
and video games.
R-15 - Restricted - No one under 15 without parent or guardian.
Here’s where we make the big changes. This rating applies to the
softer R movies, the movies like last year’s documentary Bully
or this year’s The Dark Knight Rises. These are films with some
violence and sex and language, but not terribly much more than
you would see in an evening’s AMC TV viewing. I think the MPAA
needs to give up on the language stuff, so this rating would
have all your fucks and everything.
R - Restricted- No one under 17. And now we have a top of the
line adults rating that still has the same name as the old
rating. Shame would be R. 300 would be R. Saw would be R. NC-17
goes away, we’ve created a middle ground for less explicit, less
heavy movies, and now movie studios can make films for adults
without worrying about stigma.
The actual ratings aren’t the only problems in the MPAA ratings
system; there’s the secrecy, which doesn’t help filmmakers
understand what it is about their movie that gets a certain
rating. There’s also the big studios’ desire to homogenize
everything down to the most box office friendly rating. But I
think a top-to-bottom overhaul is overdue, and it could only
improve things for the MPAA and Hollywood.
Looking back at the Pre-Code era you see some of the best movies
ever made. The reason is simple: restrictions enhance
creativity. The filmmakers of the time were playfully dancing
around the Hays Code and coming up with great films, as well as
new genres. Screwball comedies and the gangster film both grew
up out of that. Noir was shaped by the restrictions of the Breen
Office. I’m against censorship, but I do like the idea of
filmmakers having to consider the best way to present their
material within a structure - it leads to creativity.
But I also like filmmakers being able to make whatever movies
they want, and to present whatever material they want. I think
that my revised ratings system allows for both - a more nuanced
teen-oriented set of ratings gives the right kinds of
restrictions while the adult-oriented R rating allows for
exploration of headier, sexier, deeper themes without worrying
about the morality police pissing their pants.
* They got the idea from Major League Baseball, who was dealing
with the fallout of the 1919 White Sox scandal by hiring an
outside to be ‘League Commissioner.’
[/quote]
#Post#: 12633--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Neumatic Date: October 1, 2012, 10:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wish there were more categorizations, you know? I used to
work in a video store and we... well, actually we weren't
allowed to watch ANY movies on that giant flat screen that was
facing us all day, but we tried to make sure they were PG-13 at
the worst but PG-13 is so permissive these days that did little
for us in terms of making decisions. Of course, now video
stores don't really exist so it's a moot point but in my
opinion, PG-13 is the death knell of cinema because everyone
seems to be shooting for it, so old R-rated properties
(Terminator and Total Recall) and what should be R-rated new
properties are being diluted into PG-13. And you combine that
with the fact that SO many movies are telling the same lousy
3-act stories, movies feel more boring. I just feel like if
there were more rating categories, there'd be more holes for
moviemakers to try to fill, you know?
#Post#: 12640--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Chiprocks1 Date: October 1, 2012, 10:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I just want it to go back to the way it was. R and PG. Do away
with G rated stuff since I'm never gonna watch 'em. S h i t
man, I can't remember the last time I actually saw a G rated
flick. Are Pixar movies G rated or what?
#Post#: 12642--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Neumatic Date: October 1, 2012, 10:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know. A lot of old movies are G but I don't know if
they qualify as that or not. And I wouldn't want to be
revisionist because that'll make old movies subject to the
standards of the present instead of their own.
We kinda need a G-rating (or a K-friendly rating) and content
that kids can see without their parents, so their parents can
see something else. It's probably why there's less R-rated
movies, there's nothing you can drop the kids to see while you
watch whores and murdering. It's really not the rating so much
that's a problem as quality, I don't think anyone out there is
really trying to do a high quality G movie... cause no one would
see it. But honestly, I think quality knows no true rating.
#Post#: 12644--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Chiprocks1 Date: October 1, 2012, 10:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I only brought up the G rating because it just dawned on me that
I haven't noticed it since probably the late 70's / early 80's.
So, I was just curious if it still existed because in my mind I
have transferred all the recent movies to that of PG = G by
today's standards.
#Post#: 12646--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Neumatic Date: October 1, 2012, 10:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good point. There was some forgettable piece of dreck that just
came out of candy coloured puppets or something that I think was
rated G. It was also complete trash, I suspect. The G-rating
seems to be a dumping ground, which is a good reason to get rid
of it.
#Post#: 12648--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Chiprocks1 Date: October 1, 2012, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's the rub with today's standard. Back when it was just G /
PG / R ( X X X for you completest out there), more care went
into each movie. Compare the G Rated crap you get now with the
classic G Rated stuff from yesteryear like Bedknobs and
Broomsticks, Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon. Today it's the
stuff you just mentioned. Weak film making and studio mentality.
#Post#: 12650--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Neumatic Date: October 1, 2012, 10:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I can't imagine a boy singing to a cartoon dragon being
made today (and I love Pete's Dragon). I would LOVE a return to
those, but everything you mentioned was Disney, they were the
kings of G-rated material. I feel like there's a fear of
wholesomeness these days, that things can't be pure and sweet
and good and I think that's bullshit. Look, I love Battlestar
Galactica and Sin City and vulgar dialogue, but I also like the
absence of that as well. I think you can be enjoyable for all
ages without putting in under-the-radar elements for the
parents.
#Post#: 12652--------------------------------------------------
Re: MPAA
By: Chiprocks1 Date: October 1, 2012, 10:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All true.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page