Go Back   Shreveport.com > Public Forums > World News

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2007, 08:51 PM   #1
Santabot
Advanced Member
 
Santabot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Shreveport, LA
Age: 34
Posts: 297
Rep Power: 0 Santabot is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Santabot
Jack Valenti, 85, dead.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...home-headlines

If you're not familiar with him, read the article, he's the founder of the MPAA and the ratings system for films in America. I don't necessarily agree with the way the program works, because I don't believe age is a clear indicator of maturity level, and is simply "the most effective" yet still not appropriate manner of handling the issue of censorship.

Personally, I don't believe in censorship at all, it's the foundation of government. If there were no censorship, there would be no source of government, because that is the source of the foundation of it. I'm not an anarchist, but adding these little restrictions on our culture has shaped it without the citizens' main consent, and rather a government agency, not something that usually mixes well for the interest of people and their freedoms overall.
__________________
"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedoms for security desire neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Santabot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2007, 09:26 AM   #2
MattyMattyChooChoo
Member
 
MattyMattyChooChoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Shreveport
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 0 MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice
I'm not against the concept of putting ratings on movies. I actually care about the ratings and why the movie has such a rating. It's not censorship at all. Censorship would mean that the government has banned movies from being shown.

Movie theaters may prevent minors from seeing movies rated "R" because apparently the movie industry is one of the only that seemto recognize that parents are still the authority in the family.

I think it is irresponsible and unethical to have movies released and not let anybody know what's in them. Many people would probably stop going after they end up at Brokeback Mountain, not knowing there's gay sex in the movie.

The problem I have with the ratings system is that our culture has become more comfortable with ideas and issues to which I don't want to expose my 8 year-old. I am a rather religious person, and there are things, even in PG and G rated movies that I don't want my kids (future) watching.

The system is not perfect, but it helps.
MattyMattyChooChoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2007, 09:28 AM   #3
Isaac-Saxxon
SBLive! Veteran
 
Isaac-Saxxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,421
Rep Power: 316 Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future Isaac-Saxxon has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyMattyChooChoo
I'm not against the concept of putting ratings on movies. I actually care about the ratings and why the movie has such a rating. It's not censorship at all. Censorship would mean that the government has banned movies from being shown.

Movie theaters may prevent minors from seeing movies rated "R" because apparently the movie industry is one of the only that seemto recognize that parents are still the authority in the family.

I think it is irresponsible and unethical to have movies released and not let anybody know what's in them. Many people would probably stop going after they end up at Brokeback Mountain, not knowing there's gay sex in the movie.

The problem I have with the ratings system is that our culture has become more comfortable with ideas and issues to which I don't want to expose my 8 year-old. I am a rather religious person, and there are things, even in PG and G rated movies that I don't want my kids (future) watching.

The system is not perfect, but it helps.
Could not have said it better myself ! Good post !
Isaac-Saxxon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2007, 04:45 PM   #4
Santabot
Advanced Member
 
Santabot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Shreveport, LA
Age: 34
Posts: 297
Rep Power: 0 Santabot is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Santabot
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyMattyChooChoo
I'm not against the concept of putting ratings on movies. I actually care about the ratings and why the movie has such a rating. It's not censorship at all. Censorship would mean that the government has banned movies from being shown.

Movie theaters may prevent minors from seeing movies rated "R" because apparently the movie industry is one of the only that seemto recognize that parents are still the authority in the family.

I think it is irresponsible and unethical to have movies released and not let anybody know what's in them. Many people would probably stop going after they end up at Brokeback Mountain, not knowing there's gay sex in the movie.

The problem I have with the ratings system is that our culture has become more comfortable with ideas and issues to which I don't want to expose my 8 year-old. I am a rather religious person, and there are things, even in PG and G rated movies that I don't want my kids (future) watching.

The system is not perfect, but it helps.
It helps, but in a way that is so general and not really specific. I was watching movies like Silence Of The Lambs, etc when I was 5. Just because you are a certain age, or even scaled by puberty or whatever their rating system is based on, I always felt I've been more than enough "mature" to handle content of even R movies at a younger age. This doesn't mean I didn't sneak in anyway, there really is no good sense of security anywhere, but the fact is that if you believe there is a security and a system is operating 100%, then you won't notice anybody that's breaking the rules, and you feel safe when you're not. When the government tells you that you're not safe, you start to believe them to, but there has only been ONE attack in America in this millennium: September 11, 2001. Our security hasn't gone down, it's gone up so dramatically it's almost out of control (personally, I think it already is) to the point where all they have to do is say the word "terrorist" and in your mind, you will convey some sort of threat to your personal welfare, even if you were entirely disconnected and unaffected by the September 11 attacks.

Our country is as safe as it's going to get, and increasing security won't help, it will just give people more consideration into how they're going to get around barriers, that's why our thinking minds engineer so many new ideas every day, we will always look for a way out, or entirely stop and follow the law, meh.

EDIT: but good post though, not disagreeing with you.
__________________
"Those who are willing to sacrifice freedoms for security desire neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Santabot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2007, 03:47 PM   #5
MattyMattyChooChoo
Member
 
MattyMattyChooChoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Shreveport
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 0 MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santabot
It helps, but in a way that is so general and not really specific. I was watching movies like Silence Of The Lambs, etc when I was 5. Just because you are a certain age, or even scaled by puberty or whatever their rating system is based on, I always felt I've been more than enough "mature" to handle content of even R movies at a younger age. This doesn't mean I didn't sneak in anyway, there really is no good sense of security anywhere, but the fact is that if you believe there is a security and a system is operating 100%, then you won't notice anybody that's breaking the rules, and you feel safe when you're not. When the government tells you that you're not safe, you start to believe them to, but there has only been ONE attack in America in this millennium: September 11, 2001. Our security hasn't gone down, it's gone up so dramatically it's almost out of control (personally, I think it already is) to the point where all they have to do is say the word "terrorist" and in your mind, you will convey some sort of threat to your personal welfare, even if you were entirely disconnected and unaffected by the September 11 attacks.

Our country is as safe as it's going to get, and increasing security won't help, it will just give people more consideration into how they're going to get around barriers, that's why our thinking minds engineer so many new ideas every day, we will always look for a way out, or entirely stop and follow the law, meh.

EDIT: but good post though, not disagreeing with you.
your statistic of "Only one attack on America this millennium is not really very shocking seeing as how we're not even 1% through the millennium. If you said "last century" or something more representative, it wouldn't sound so skewed. Also, why do you think we haven't had any more successful attacks? Oh, right! It's because we have increased our efforts to prevent them.
MattyMattyChooChoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com