The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

Thank you for accepting._____________________What is appropriate for a 13-year-old? What is inappropriate for a 16-year-old?These are the questions the MPAA have to answer. And for some parents, I'm sure that the MPAA is a perfect model for what is appropriate for their child. For a majority, though, these guidelines are not representative of their values.At 11-years-old, I was allowed to watch Terminator (Rated R).I have not spoke directly to other people, but from what I've heard from across forums, several children watched Terminator alone before they were 17.So, obviously, the ratings are debatable as to how well they categorize movies by age.My parents allowed me to watch it alone, which I couldn't do in theaters. Many people have done similar.______How should we change the system?Among those wanting to change what constitutes as an R, PG-13, PG, etc., there is a debate on how this should be changed.Some say that violence is way too common, while nudity, sex and profanity are too condemned. Others say that there is too much of everything in movies, and that the Hays Code should be ressurected. Still, some say that the MPAA is a worthless system.I have considered the alternatives, and have found what I believe to be the best way of alteration:1. Have objective, exact standards to what constitutes a specific rating. (I will expand on this later)2. Get rid of the NC-17 rating. (I will expand on this later)3. Add accountability._________________________________________________1. No acceptions, even for James CameronThe film ratings have been inconsistant at best, and lackadaisical at worst.What is PG-13 violence? How far does that go until it becomes worthy of R?Seemingly, it is the inclusion of blood that decides that a 16-year-old cannot handle it without an adult. Even then, it is inconsistent.Let us contrast the violence of two movies: the Matrix and the Dark Knight RisesIn the Matrix, there is intense Kung Fu style action, with triple-spin-kicks and super-strength, there are gun fights where time slows down, and the deaths are quick. The Matrix is rated R, mainly for its violence.Let us now take The Dark Knight Rises. Without spoiling the movie, there is shooting, stabbing, punching people until they die. The Dark Knight Rises is rated PG-13, mostly for its violence. What is the difference? The Dark Knight Rises is portrayed as the "Real World". The violence is more realistic; in order to fight 6 guys, you need to cheat with gadgets. Fist fights end with people having concussions or worse. Armor is not completely bullet-proof.The Matrix's violence, however, is obviously fantasy. People get hurt, sure, but the violence is in no way similar to the real world. You can dodge bullets. You can beat Bruce Lee because you downloaded knowledge. Not only do you instantly know Kung Fu (which you will happily show me), you know centuries worth of martial arts knowledge.The Matrix, however, got the higher rating. Why? Umm... I dunno. There was some blood at the end... Umm... A few f-bombs... Wait, you can have one f-bomb in a PG-13, or is it two? Four?... Why was the Matrix an R?Don't get me wrong; the Dark Knight Rises was not unreasonably violent, but its PG-13 rating seems inconsistant.This is just one example of inconsistancy.And don't get me started on Titanic!_______________________________2. NC-U-L8TRNow, the most important reason why the MPAA needs altered: the NC-17 is the kiss of death.Did you hear about that new NC-17 movie? No? Neither did I! You see, you can't advertise for NC-17 movies on normal TV. Because of this, the profits take a huge plunge.Even if you do hear of the NC-17 movie, you likely cannot see it because of most theaters' refusal to carry the movie.So it's safe to say that any movie given the NC-17 movie rating is dead._____________________________________________________________3. Who are you!?Who is prescribing the poison? I dunno. We aren't told!Who are these people that rate our entertainment? We are told that they are a group of parents. How do we verify this? How do we know that this group has no alterior motives? Some have accused them of being biased against indie studios. Whether or not this theory is true is irrelevant; what the point is is that these people are not held accountable.With their lack of accountability, they can be biased, like many claim they are.__________________________________________________________________