Slashdot Mirror

I don't know what self-respecting geek would listen to FFA, since they couldn't possibly have seen Return of the Jedi and Princess Leia's bikini scene:

The films contained no profanity, no nudity and no sexual situations.

Hell, there's two hell's and two damn's in A New Hope. Best to ignore them.

I'm not totally sure, but there are some pretty straight forward reviews that give you all the facts to make your decision for your family. http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/captainamericathefirstavenger.aspx http://www.screenit.com/movies/2011/captain_america_the_first_avenger.html Hope this helped.

I can understand if you want some website to give you the rundown on what is in a movie so that you as a parent can make an educated decision about whether you child should see it or not.

I think the OP's point is that this may be used in such a way that the parents don't bother devising their own system for raising their child based on their own child's needs/interests/wants...basically, using someone elses "system" for raising their own child. ...
However, I wouldn't (and don't) agree with a service that tells you what is or isn't objectional in a movie/tv show/album. What you find to be objectional for YOUR children is not neccessarily what I find to be objectional for MY children.

The simple categories don't work, you're right. With movies, the MPAA's ratings are sometimes nuts. "Whale Rider" got a PG-13 despite being a fantastic family movie because of some sort of bong in the background in one scene. A few F-enheimers earn an R rating, still, bizarrely. (The MPAA is seemingly forever going to be living out the legacy of the old Hays/Breen code. The tinge of Catholic influence is a curious thing, and one we have to think around every time.)

But a "scorecard" with too much detail loses me just as much. For movies http://www.screenit.com/ is pretty much what you describe -- it gives you access to a highly detailed "scorecard" for each movie. As a parent, I love the idea but think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. There's just too much information, the detailed descriptions get sort of silly with repetition, and in the effort to categorize elements of a movie things get pretty hazy pretty fast. "Imitative behavior" is a category, for example, into which almost anything might fit.

I would generally prefer a personalized reaction from someone I'm familiar with. For video games, that's what I use. The kids had decided "Gun" was off-limits based on its M rating, but I was curious and went to read reviews on Gamespot. (Yep, too violent -- by a lot.)

really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.

As a single parent of 12-year-old twins I can tell you that the current system is at least coherent enough to provide me with what I need. My kids probably understand the ratings better than I do, and I'm passingly familiar with them. The categories act as rough guidelines for me to think about in allowing or preventing any particular title, and the kids if anything tend to rule out M-rated games themselves before they get to me.

What more is it that you want? Coherency is that pivotal for you? The ratings are consistent across stores, whether the store policies toe the line or not. If anything the criteria for the different levels are more sensible (from what I see) than ratings for movies, which still carry with them the genetic history of the old Hays/Breen code and its Catholic origins.

As far as coherency goes, there's never going to be an absolutely clear code. Censorship becomes arbitrary at some point. It's the nature of the beast. The movie "The Whale Rider" was a great family film, but it got a PG-13 because of (apparently) some drug-related paraphernalia and a bunch of giggly, pot smoking people in one scene. The plot barely touched on those people, and if anything it redeemed the characters involved by bring them away from their dissolute lives a little bit by the end -- but the good ol' MPAA has its rules, you know. Say a four-letter word beginning with "F" a certain number of times and you get an R, period. 'Cause, you know, 13-year-olds have never heard that one.

ScreenIt.com goes to enormous lengths to catalog the various traits of different movies, to the point where the level of detail is almost laughable -- and it's still hard to be sure what categories they're putting things in and why. What does "bad/disrespectful attitude" mean in a movie about the X-Men? Which behavior is imitative? Would that be coherent, or incoherent, in your book? I'm a little lost in it, usually.

one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability.

Game stores do have policies to do with the ratings boards. People who sell the wrong stuff to minors face some pretty stiff financial risks in so doing. The idea of jail time for selling a video game is ludicrous; it's if anything even more disproportionate than enormous sentences for minor drug offenses.

Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors.

How much documentation do we actually have about the way games like GTA III wind up played by younger kids? If someone showed me that stores completely disregard the ratings, that would be one thing. I'm not convinced of that at all. Unless the demogogues behind this bill show me that they truly understand the whole ecosystem of this problem, I'm not voting for them. At this point it sure seems like they're scaring up a contrived social issue to scare people, not seriously caring about whatever problem's really out there.

I think that the main problem is a rating system can never convey what a reviewer can in terms of exactly WHY a movie is rated "R" or why a game is rated "M". That's why I usually check out a site like Screen It before I see a movie...because even as an adult, there are some things in movies that I frankly just don't care to see. I've seen stuff in PG-13 movies that I could have done without and I've seen R movies that I had no problem with, so the rating system is definitely not "one size fits all".

So is there an gaming equivalent to Screen It for your "wigging parents"?

Hey, Event Horizon was a pretty scary movie.

You must not be an American?

I don't think revamping the ratings system will will fix the problem per se. My reason for promoting a ratings revamp that would span across all media is based on the fact of being able to make good decision based on strict rules. If you are looking for smut, then you may or may not bea able to find it in an R rating. The same goes for games -- if you are looking to avoid violence, then you know to avoid an M rated game; the game also includes the reason on the box, but not always on movies. It would be easier for parents and those wanting to avoid certain content material if the rating system was uniform and consistant. But as it stands now you have to do research like http://www.screenit.com/ in order to find out if there is potentially objectionable material in a movie.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on blaming the ratings system. I don't think that we should blame anything on the ratings system. The reason that objectionable material is being produced is based on the fact that it is supported by the almighty dollar. If money wasn't flowing into the coffers of the smut peddler, then porn wouldn't be an issue. If people weren't buying video games it wouldn't be an issue. The problems that society is seeking to shield children from are the very things that have been created by some of those people themselves; by voting for the content on TV and movies and music via the almighty dollar they have made that content avaliable. The fact is that we live in a society that seeks freedom in choice and then to seeks protection from the consquences (few people realize that chosing A or B is not that simple, you actually choose conquences -- if you chose to touch the burner, then you will be burned, you chose to be burned). If parents would be actual parents and parent, then I doubt that we would have half of the problems society is facing. But when you seek to fix the symptom with out solving the root problem, then the problem will find another way to express itself. So no, I don't think that "it takes a villege to raise a child" but the standards of that villege will affect that child one way or the other. But then again, America has grown so materialistic that parenting has become a chore.

Your post reminded me of the Screen It! site, for the discerning movie goer.
It lists anything which could be considered bad in a movie.
I find it highly useful.

Sorry about the screaming kids. We have our first on the way and I swear none of our kids will scream at the movies (to the best of my ability; that's the best I can do).

I've had to sit back and think about this for a while. There is a curious intersection of the "religious" and secular here; /.ers are speaking two different languages. I've caught this flavor a couple of times on Slashdot today (for instance, also in the thread on Bozell's sexy games editorial). This secular argument goes, these kids are biologically ready for sex, it's the most natural thing in the world, your mom had sex, everybody's doing it, it doesn't hurt anything.

I hear this and I go, these guys just don't see sex the way I do. As a grown-up married guy, of course I know sex is all those things they say it is. I see this as a major cheapening of what sex means (because it doesn't mean anything; if sex does mean something, then the secular attitude is a dangerous one). Put it another way: I am going to keep guys trained in this viewpoint of sex away from my daughter (switch the genders and the same is true again).

Sexy adult jokes in kids' cartoon movies cheapen sex again, shoot another "it's ok, it's natural" across the bow of my parenting. That's what the grandparent post was talking about. Because he cares about stuff like this, in the future that guy would be wise to preview the movies his kids are going to see, or at least check a parent-friendly movie review site like ScreenIt. Here's the Shrek 2 review. The specific content is at the bottom of the page.

But I agree with you too, that the thong was not the most sensitive thing in that movie.

Sorry about the screaming kids. We have our first on the way and I swear none of our kids will scream at the movies (to the best of my ability; that's the best I can do).

I've had to sit back and think about this for a while. There is a curious intersection of the "religious" and secular here; /.ers are speaking two different languages. I've caught this flavor a couple of times on Slashdot today (for instance, also in the thread on Bozell's sexy games editorial). This secular argument goes, these kids are biologically ready for sex, it's the most natural thing in the world, your mom had sex, everybody's doing it, it doesn't hurt anything.

I hear this and I go, these guys just don't see sex the way I do. As a grown-up married guy, of course I know sex is all those things they say it is. I see this as a major cheapening of what sex means (because it doesn't mean anything; if sex does mean something, then the secular attitude is a dangerous one). Put it another way: I am going to keep guys trained in this viewpoint of sex away from my daughter (switch the genders and the same is true again).

Sexy adult jokes in kids' cartoon movies cheapen sex again, shoot another "it's ok, it's natural" across the bow of my parenting. That's what the grandparent post was talking about. Because he cares about stuff like this, in the future that guy would be wise to preview the movies his kids are going to see, or at least check a parent-friendly movie review site like ScreenIt. Here's the Shrek 2 review. The specific content is at the bottom of the page.

But I agree with you too, that the thong was not the most sensitive thing in that movie.

OK, I'll admit it. I'm a hypocritical parent who carefully screens what my kids watch, read, and play. I'm a hypocrite because, when I was growing up, my parents did none of these things and I turned out (IMO) just fine. I guess the difference is that my parents were just ignorant of what I was reading, watching, and playing, but I'm not, since I tend to watch, read, and play much of the same things as my kids. I feel like I'm actively pimping smut to my kids if I don't control their media access to some extent.

I am a realist in that I *know* my kids are exposed to just about anything imaginable when they are outside the house and I can live with that, I just don't feel comfortable being an "enabler".

When my kids want to see a movie that I haven't seen yet, I usually use Screen-It. My only gripe with Screen-it is that is can spoil certain scenes because they list *every* thing that might be objectionable to just about anyone, but at least they do it objectively.

I prefer this (even with the chance of spoilers) to any rating system (and much prefer it to outright censorship). If I don't mind nudity without explicit sex, or don't mind sexual innuendo, but don't like violence, or if I don't mind wanton sex and violence as long as no one drinks a beer, I can screen my films using this service. :-)

I would love to have a similar service for videogames, but I just don't see it happening, because, as other posters have noted, you would have to play through every scene in a game (and all branching paths) to identify objectionable material.

Opening this to the user community probably wouldn't work either, because people would be posting Photoshopped screen images and bogus "secret" areas.

>Bowdlerizing

>[...]

But have they actually done this? [...]Can you give me an actual example where WalMart.. not the studio but WalMart.. ordered the editing of the movie?

Pardon, I misspoke. What I intended to convey was that I do not like bowdlerizing movies, and by extension the carrying of those movies as the selection in a store. It does not matter to me who is doing it. Again, I don't think that movies should be edited until they are appropriate, they should be appropriate to begin with, or not.

However, I'm making it sound like I wish for this to be forbidden, and nothing could be further from the truth. I am merely stating why I do not buy movies from Wal-Mart. That's all.

My earlier post was an attempt to summarize the problems people have with Wal-Mart in order to show that it is not the censorship that's the issue at heart (witness my statement "You might as well complain at the smaller stores for not experimenting a bit (they don't have much to lose if Wal-Mart is in town), or the locals for not supporting alternatives.").

This leads me to your next point:

Censorship means it is removed from you.. you cannot get it. you most certainly can still get that version of the movie (if it exists) somewhere else. Walmart just chooses not to carry it. there is a huge difference from one to the other.[split for comment -ed]

Fine by me. I very much support stores being more than just warehouses --- Wal-Mart has an identity: people know that if they buy movies there that it won't be porn. That's great. I still wish they wouldn't sell or request the making of a censored version, not because I think it's wrong, but because I think it makes the point less "Family Friendly" and more "Family Friendly Because We've Cut Out Everything You Might Not Like" (much like when USA showed Animal House a few years ago. The movie was much shorter and there were a lot of lips moving where different voices were coming out. It didn't stop it from being a raunchy film, it just made it a superficially clean one. Bleaching, if you will). But I will by no means try to get a law passed keeping Wal-Mart from doing it.

[resume -ed]After all, it is the studio that is making the changes to the film.. not walmart.. and they might well be doing it at walmarts request.. but it is still the person making the product that is making the changes.

Yes, ultimately we must take responsibility for what we do; However, it is still Wal-Mart's decision that a recut movie is acceptable while the original is not.

And as much hyperbole as you want to call it, I have a 10 year old, and another child on the way. I try to listen to what my son listens to, and pay attention to it and discuss it with him.

I am sorry, it seems to be my day for giving the wrong impression. I'll make another attempt: what I want is for you to have good and accurate information on the media out there and the ability to permit your child to see what you think is ok.

For the first, I think the current rating systems are just plain awful. They convey next to nothing. I gave the example of ScreenIt as a good (and free, no less) service that does this, and I hope that it catches on and similar things come out. My problem with most family rating systems --- that I have seen --- is that they do not give you the information to make your own decision. Rather, they give age ranges or pulpit pounding. That's okay if that's what you want, but I really don't think there's enough good information out there right now.

Of course, the best thing is to keep track of what's going on yourself, as you are, so that's great. But it's not always possible.

Secondly, I dislike laws and regulations that set blanket denials on minors without regard to what the parents think is ok. Again, my problem is with the lack

I remember it being from the movie Vacation (the above link) but there's a reference to a similar scene from the movie Rat Race (scroll down to the section titled "Blood/Gore", second bullet item).

Can't find a reference to it from Vacation, so perhaps my memory's faulty?

I've found a couple of sites (this one in particular) that manage to sneak pop-ups past Mozilla's built in pop-up killer.

It's not a pr0n site - it does movie reviews - and the pop-ups don't always make it through. That is, there's not a specific way that I can tell you to make it happen. Sometimes I see it on the front page, other times it happens while browsing through the reviews. When I get home from work I'll post a screenshot as evidence.

I'm wondering what makes their method work-around unchecking "open unrequested windows."

Has anyone else seen something like this?

-r

As an adult, who is competent to choose what things I want to put in my head, I appreciate a ratings system which helps me make an informed decision about what movies are possibles, which ones are likely viewable, and which ones are completely off the radar screen.

All of the things that we watch and listen to shape us, even if that shaping is in a very very minor way. They affect the way that we perceive the world around us, and the way that we make decisions. This is the origin of the idea of the "important film."

I choose not to be shaped by violence, drugs and rampant sexual permissiveness. This is part of my freedom. The movie makers are free to make whatever films they want, and we are free to patronize them or not. I respect your right in the US to make and watch films which are focused on ideas and world views that are in conflict with my world view. I'm glad you have that right.

WRT to the issue of movies being edited so that they meet some criteria in a raings system, I believe that the digitization of movies will allow much greater freedom in the area of "director's releases." This should do a great deal to alleviate your concerns about having someone else's world view shape your choices.

On the topic of the financial death sentence of the NC-17 rating - it boils down to what the customer wants.

Interestingly, the American public is apparently less interested in movies with "R" content than those with "G" content. This report shows that "G" rated movies make a 78% better ROI than "R" movies.

Hollywood is more interested in doing a poor job of telling a story and livening up the movie with explosions, guns, and of course, bare breasts in sexual settings, than it is in making money. These things lead to pats on the back from their "artistic peers" and statistically this must be more important than making $$

After using the ratings system to assist with the triage process, I then choose to refer to information-based websites like Screenit which give me a tremendous amount of information about the movie's contents and lets me make an informed decision about whether I want to see what the director wanted to say.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Regards,
Anomaly

PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.

For a more sober take on this movie, check out ScreenIT's review. Warning: Not for the easily offended.

Toy Story 2 got a 9 out of 10 there. Hurrah!

Sreeram

I may not be as eloquent as Jon, but as a parent, it is *I* or my wife that makes the decision as to which movies my daughters (ages 10 and 11) can see. Right now, they'd love to see South Park, but my wife dislikes the show, so we'll wait for it to come out on video. They have shown no interest in American Pie, and they laughed at Something About Mary last year (they didn't understand some of the scenes).

Right now, we are kind of lucky in that whatever intrigues the girls is something that either my wife or I would like to see. Otherwise, we try to convince the kids to wait until it comes out on video... this is usually a short wait.

Will I take them to see Eyes Wide Shut? Perhaps not. We made a similar decision years ago with Sliver.

But in each and every one of these cases, it was my wife and I that made the decisions as to the suitability of a movie for our children. We don't necessarily trust an MPAA rating; they are inconsistantly applied. There are other services right here on the web such as Screen It which gives a lot more information about a particular movie than any single R or PG13 could do.

Perhaps Clinton and Congress are bemoaning the lack of parental responsibility in this country. I may be the exception rather than the rule in how I make my judgments; I cannot talk for other parents.

Having the MPAA's rating system "enforced" by theatre managers is silly, and is deserving of all the contempt you can give it.

However, Jon's suggestion that adults hang out and pick up minors to "escort" them to see a movie sends chills up and down my spine. If I were to see that, I'd probably alert the authorities.

That's just my opinion.
--

As a matter of fact there were 5 asses (1 used as "a-hole"), 4 damns, 4 craps, 2 uses of "bugger," 2 hells, 1 incomplete "What the..." (from Scr eenIt)