If you have "no place to go," come here!

Simple solution - rate violent films X.

lizpolaris's picture

Why not? Ok, I get the huge argument about free speech. We can't be stifling 'creativity' by limiting the gore and gratuitous violence we allow to be shown on the screen. The board of censors is gone.

But penises? Oh my god we can't have that on the screen! Boobs are fine though. As long as there's no babies nursing shown. Is there any logic to this? Whatever that logic is, somebody somewhere slaps an R or X rating on a film. Too pornographic, it's all about sex.

And words. Sticks and stones no one cares about but in Hollywood, words can hurt you. Too many bad words gets a film PG 13 or R rating. Is it M these days? I forget.

But violence? No problem at all. Show any amount of murders, mutilations, blood, implied rape. And I think nearly all male characters are considered wimpy unless they punch someone. Physical fighting is de rigeur at the movies. (But boys don't try anything you see on screen at home because your school has a zero tolerance policy - as in, zero tolerance for your gender.)

A simple remedy for hyper-violent films - apply an X rating. Sure go see it but you acknowledge that you know you're going to see gratuitous gore. Wonder why the studios have been fighting this idea for so long?

No votes yet


Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The X rating used to be quite common, before it was appropriated by the porn industry. The MPAA tried again with NC-17, but they still don't make money.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

they are seeing. So just maybe the violence would be toned down to escape the nasty X rating, just like language is toned down in kids movies to get G or PG ratings. What a concept.

So Hollywood can go right ahead and make those 'artistic' Peckinpaw/Tarantino/Craven films but they will have to use truth in labeling. And they won't make as much money? I find that hard to believe when there's so much talent on display. /snark off

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Because that dude could have just as easily chosen a theater of kids watching Brave.

I'm not a fan of violent movies but it was Batman, which does have *some* redeeming qualities. It's not all gratuitous violence. And oddly enough, it doesn't make me want to kill people or even irritate them.

The guy was sick. It sounds like his personality and mind started to fall apart in the last year and rapidly decelerated. The movies didn't push him over the edge. His comprehensives and workload did. I'd rather catch the bad guys in the buying stage when there's still a chance to save people.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

Simpler solution -- get rid of the MPAA (and its monopolistic and arbitrary ratings system) entirely.

Sure, Chris Dodd would have to find an overpaid hack job with some other mega-corporate entity, but we must all make sacrifices in this era of austerity, as Democratic leaders like Dodd so often remind us.

twig's picture
Submitted by twig on

cable television can do anything -- talk like sailors, blow people away, slit throats, show full frontal nudity (men and women -- imagine!) and who knows what else with only a barely readable 'warning' in the beginning of each show about language or violence or (dog forbid!) nekkid peoples!

There must be blocking software from the cable services, but still it's crazy!! It probably takes an eight-year-old about 15 minutes to figure out how to get around the block to enjoy all sorts of mayhem. Even the more heavily censored network tv would make a lot of grown-ups blush -- so much titillation and blatant sex jokes. Not to mention the two tons of cop shows with endless violence that kids can turn on anytime.