1. Aren't these all exactly the same arguments made for creating the NC-17 rating in the first place to replace the X rating? Why do they think that a "Hard R" rating won't suffer the same fate of NC-17?

Posted at 10:19AM on Mar 11th 2007 by Gene

2. I dare say the R rated films of today are actually 'less' graphic than they were just 15 years ago. It takes a lot less nowadays to garner an R rating than it once used to. As a lad who watched countless films in the 70's, I can name a ton of films that had a PG rating and topless women. But with the surge of a more gay Hollywood comes a shift in nudity preferences so more male nudity is actually on the screen today. Maybe that is the real reason behind this battle cry.

Posted at 11:40AM on Mar 11th 2007 by jim

3. An otherwise PG-13 movie that has the F-word in it more than once gets an R rating, which is ridiculous considering that most school yards would be rated R if they were filmed.

Having a split between the R rating would definitely help me with my 13 year old daughter. I let her see Little Miss Sunshine because I considered it a "soft" R. But I had to see the film before I let see it.

If films had a "soft" or "hard" rating, then I'd let her see most "soft" and no "hard" (within reason).

Posted at 2:41PM on Mar 11th 2007 by cscalfani

4. The MPAA website articulates on what basis the rating was given, so any parent can look it up. Any parent who's not too lazy, that is. They're your kids, not mine. "Hard" R's are really studio films that the MPAA doesn't have the balls to rate NC-17, because that's only for "dirty" movies, not torture porn. Which is more healthy for adolescents to be turned on by, people making love, or people killing and dismembering other human beings?

Posted at 3:18PM on Mar 11th 2007 by Kate McMains

5. I agree with cscalfani. This kind of thing would be helpful with kids. There's too much of a difference between R rated films that are only rated so because of stong language and Hard R films like Saw or Hostel that have some seriously disturbing violence and images going on. But maybe the solution would be to just relax the PG 13 rating to let some movies with strong language or mild sexual content to slip through. Or maybe another PG rating like PG 15?

Posted at 4:12PM on Mar 11th 2007 by Kate

6. why dont they just have the system we use in canada/ontario
G
PG
14A
18A
R

Posted at 5:16PM on Mar 11th 2007 by scottie

7. Maybe you could look under the big R to see why it is rated R. Also, you could just try to do some parenting.

Posted at 9:01PM on Mar 11th 2007 by Reasonable

8. To all those whining parents who complain to the MPAA. Here is an idea. What about actually taking responsibility as a parent in the upbringing of your children rather than plonking them in front of a TV while you are out playing mah-jong with the women from Wisteria Lane!!!

Posted at 9:28PM on Mar 11th 2007 by marty

9. If parents are so concerned with sex, violence, nudity, and language, why are they letting their underage kids see R rated movies in the first place? There is already a rating for "hard R" movies. It's called the R rating. You either let your kids see them or you don't. If you're so concerned about a movie's content, go online and learn why it's rated R or go see the movie yourself first or any other number of options, then make your decision. It's that simple, folks. There is absolutly no need for a new rating.

Posted at 3:36AM on Mar 12th 2007 by TequilaBob

10. Parenting is difficult enough without the ratings system being messed with. Parents use ratings for a quick "maybe" or "Not a chance" answer to kids' requests to see a movie - movies that are rated more restrictive mean that the parent either sees it before making the decision whether the child is allowed to, or just says No. When the ratings can't be trusted, it makes parenting more difficult.

The movie industry should try making more movies that everyone can see without controversy. There are barely any G rated movies anymore, that rating seems to be given over to preschoolers' movies. Most movies could be written without any F-words in them at all, but I guess then they wouldn't be "edgy"? What's edgy about writing the same thing that everyone else is?!?

Instead of trying to put more sex and more violence and more obscenities into movies that have ratings that parents will think are ok for their children to see, why not actually MAKE movies that parents will allow their children to see, that they will also want to see?

It is possible to make movies that make money that don't need an R (or even more restricted) rating. All 3 of the original Star Wars were rated PG. Raiders of the Lost Ark was PG. Of the top 10 highest-grossing movies in the US, according to http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php:
Titanic: PG-13Star Wars IV (A New Hope): PGShrek 2: PGE.T.: PGStar Wars I (Phantom Menace): PGPirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: PG-13Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl: PG-13

The industry wants to make money. Teens and kids spend a disproportionate amount of money on movies. That's why they want ratings that will bring in the teens - and tweens, and kids. But the way to get those bodies into seats is to make movies that their parents will allow them to watch, not change the ratings to sneak in more stuff that parents don't want their kids exposed to.

There's always another way to express whatever they're using F for.

Posted at 10:14AM on Mar 13th 2007 by Alison

11. this is just stupid, if your a parent you should take the 30 sec to find out about the movie your child is going to see. The rating system isnt ironclad, people need to step up and stop being so reliant on mysterious ratings to raise thier childern for them. WHy dont they just look at Canada if they want a differnt rating system G PG PG13 14A 18A instead of G PG PG13 R. Hard R and soft R need a differnt take.

Posted at 12:11AM on Mar 15th 2007 by Mil1er

12. This is stupid. They will remove NC-17 and have two R ratings. So they will ban R hard from stores as it may offend and so everyone will try to get their movies into the R soft. R soft will become nothing more than what R is now (because that is how things work in the industry) and everyone will again complain. So PG 15 will be made so that the softer R ratings (in the softer R rating) can be watched by younger viewers. And the cycle repeats. Is this really what we want to be doing year after year? Talking about how we agree or disagree with what something is rated?

Posted at 10:44AM on Mar 19th 2007 by shane

13. maybe we should start rating books, too. no wait lets just burn all the bad books.

please big brother help me live my life!!!!!

Posted at 2:40AM on Mar 30th 2007 by Josh