Quote:
Originally Posted by platostotal  The problem is it's not a ratings board but a censorship one, in the U.S. if film makers don't like the ratings or required cuts they can go unrated as a last resort, in the U.K. that's not an option it's "Do as we demand or get prosecuted , or if we really don't like it we ban it and tell film makers who maybe took years to get it made to just f*@k off" although nowhere near as bad as 1984-2000 the BBFC still hold far too much power over entertainment media. |
The ratings board sole purpose is to keep parents informed about making choices about what their kids can see in the theater or buy on DVD. Since its being reworked it obviously failed in its purpose since a large percentage of the British population can't recite the differences between 12 and 12A ratings.
As far as the censorship thing, yeah that does suck, but in all honesty, living in a town that has several theaters mainstream and inde based, I have never once seen a movie released as "unrated" in my country. I'm not saying that our rating system is better, because its not. Look at our R rating that covers such a broad audience (anyone under 17 must have a parent, ANYONE can see it if they have a parent or guardian!!) and NC-17 (no one 17 and under is permitted). You almost never see the later even though it should be the most common rating, imo. NC-17 is often confused here (probably because its used the least, since it replaced the older 'X' rating) as a porn movie, which its not.
The whole Unrated thing came about as a selling tactic for DVD releases. Similarly to Directors Cut versions people are attracted to anything more than what was offered in the theaters, which in some cases is minimal. Reports on test consumers showed that people were 87% more likely to purchase an "unrated" cut of a movie than the theatrical one.
In the U.S. "R" rating covers a hell of a lot of things from mild explicit language to borderline pornography. How are movies like The Matrix and Prometheus rated the same as A Serbian Film? How is Evil Dead (1981) rated more harshly than I Spit on Your Grave (2010)? There needs to be a more complex system on rating levels since it obviously sends a pretty vague message about actual movie content.
I think both movie-goers and production companies would benefit a lot more from a more complex rating system since so many companies fight to get a lower rating for a larger demographic (look at the fuss the new RoboCop movie rating is making), but there are worlds of difference between ratings that movies suffer the most when its never meant to be a child-friendly experience in the first place. We end up with butchered content in the theater so DVD releases can "double-dip" consumers later who buy both theatrical version and extended or uncut versions. All movies should be "Directors Cut" all the time, dont change a vision to pocket more money at the expense of the consumer, its lame.
/end rant