Rated ‘R’ for “Reaching.”

I remember sitting in my comfy, little seat at the movies waiting for some badass trailers and seeing for the first time the preview for Rob Zombie’s “The Devil’s Rejects.” I, of course, was quite antsy, expecting another violent roller-fucking-coaster ride through Hell and back. The trailer fed my hunger, but as it ended, something just didn’t sit well. It was the rating. I knew before I even saw it that it would be a hard ‘R.’ That was a given. But it was the explanation for the rating that threw me a bit of confusion: for sadistic violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use. Language and drug use were nothing new. And over the years, for some reason, I’ve seen sexuality and nudity become one when the movie featured both, instead of separating the two. But strong sexual content?

Since when did the MPAA feel the need to use new adjectives, oddly enough on top of other adjectives already describing the movie. But even that wasn’t the real surprise. What really caught my eye was the sadistic violence. I just thought to myself, maybe they just fucking hate you, Rob. But I shook it off, and as time went on, I started noticing more and more descriptive adjectives prefixing the staple explanations we’ve become so accustomed to.

But recently, as I was watching “Zodiac” on DVD, I noticed a little switch-a-roo on those words and instead of sexual content, I found: ‘R’ for some strong killings. I didn’t really know how to take that. Was that an explanation or a compliment? As in, “those are some tight fucking murders in that movie.” Regardless, is there even an opposite to that? A weak killing? That sounds like an insult. As in, “you guys fucking suck at killing people on TV.” Either way, I had a good laugh.

So what the hell happened to the simple shit that just told us what to expect? Or better yet, why were these explanations for ratings originally created? It was to simply inform the viewers of why that particular movie garnered that particular restriction. If the movie is rated ‘R,’ then they have to explain why annoying, little bastard children aren’t supposed to see it without their annoying, bitchy parents. To go beyond that is not only pointless, but arrogant. I enjoyed "Zodiac" myself, but those killings were far from strong. It’s bad enough that they tell us what we can and can't watch, but now they think they’re fucking critics too?

Another recent rating they’ve given is to the forthcoming “Return with Honor,” a movie about a pilot shot down in North Vietnam: rated ‘PG’ for sensuality, bullying, and brief smoking. Yes, I’m going to tear down all three of these fucking reasons. First, bullying? That has to be someone’s lame fucking joke, seriously. That is hands down the worst thing I have ever seen in a rating. I’m afraid I don’t even have anything else to really say about that one. I’m dumbstruck. Second is sensuality, which apparently is not as bad as sexuality. I’m guessing that there's more kissing beforehand, he buys her some flowers, tells her he loves her, and then calls her back after the first date. It’s nothing like sexuality, which would be dirty, sweaty sex in a truck-stop bathroom, anal or doggie-style, and in between hits of their crack pipe they'd hail Satan, right?

The last one is something I truly expected, but this is the first I’ve actually seen in a rating: brief smoking. That’s right, ass-hats. Not drug use. Smoking. And brief, at that. I’m not sure if you have noticed, but smoking has disappeared from movies and television over the past decade. I talked quite a bit before about how they were going to start rating for this, but this is the first I’ve seen them come out and say it in a rating. I’m caught being surprised between the rating itself and the fact that the directors/writers actually had the balls to put someone smoking in the movie, a ‘PG’ movie, no less. Props to Tom Hanks for sticking it to Big Brother and the MPAA.

I don’t really have any great solution. Problems like these are never solved. They’re only dealt with, accepted, coped with. The problem isn’t the people in power making decisions for us. The real problem is that we make pathetic decisions for ourselves and give the worst of the group too much power. You want someone to blame for ratings on movies, video games, CDs, and television programs? Then blame yourself. Indifference is worse than being wrong.

I’ll leave you with the greatest rating I know of, almost poetic: Rob Zombie’s soon-to-be-released “Halloween,” rated ‘R’ for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language. Now I’m sure. They hate you, Rob, and everything you fucking touch. But don’t worry. Even though I’ve been waiting for this one, I’d go see the movie based on that kickass description alone (well, that and your wife). See you at the movies, bitches.

Clearing the smoke.

I just happened to be checking the latest movie news on IMDb the other day, and ran across this article (which drove me to write the first blog):

“Smoke in Movies -- Get an ‘R’”

In a rare alteration of its movie ratings system, the MPAA said on Thursday that the panel that assesses Hollywood movies will begin considering "depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of a historic or other mitigating context." Until now, the subjects that movie raters have primarily considered are violence, language, nudity, and drugs. In a statement, MPAA CEO Dan Glickman said, "There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. ... The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."

So even though smoking is not illegal in real life, if you’re on screen in a drama, action movie, or fantasy, smoking cigarettes is now against the law? Amazing, nicotine is so addictive that you can actually get hooked while watching the badass John McClane smoke cigarettes and German terrorists. I just hope that machine gun he’s blasting doesn’t turn my way. You fucking morons.

I decided to dig a little deeper and found the complete article in Adobe format on the MPAA official site. The link is below, but here are some excerpts:

"The rating board has comprehensively reviewed depictions of smoking in every rated film over the past several years. From July 2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking dropped from 60% to 52%. Of those films, 75% received an R rating for other factors. So, three out of every four films that contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated R."

So three out of four movies that feature someone smoking usually receive an R-rating already? How does that justify sacrificing the profits from a higher rating? Most movies that are labeled as R usually end up making far less than that of a PG-13 grade. Many producers will push filmmakers to go for PG-13 instead to increase total profit, at least on screen.

The article goes on to say:

"They (parents) often tell us that they cannot recall a recent incident in which they took their child to a G, PG or PG-13 film and found a scene involving smoking that was objectionable."

Parents can’t recall ever seeing an "objectionable" scene involving someone smoking during PG-13 movies, and yet they’re still going to attempt to change the rating system? Why would they type a paragraph like this one right below the last when it completely debunks the entire thing? What movies do they plan on changing ratings for when no movies fall under this category? I don’t know why I expected anything different. These are the same clenched tight assholes who think a fucking pair of tits or saying the word ‘fuck’ more than once is much worse for the public to see than Rambo shooting the fuck out of hundreds of people. Hell, if that last sentence was a movie, then I’d be fucked.

So that’s how the MPAA feels about smoking, but what about the rest of the country? The following are “statistics” and "studies" from the American Lung Association:

A recent study found that children ages 10 to 15 who watched a five or more hours of TV per day were six times more likely to initiate smoking that those who watched less than two hours per day.

I’d have to be 10 to 15 to fucking believe this. Honestly, the 10 year olds I know that smoke don’t have enough time in the day to watch five or more hours of TV. They’re too busy smoking.

Older smokers are at greater risks from smoking because they have smoked longer (an average of 40 years), tend to be heavier smokers, and are more likely to suffer from smoking-related illnesses. They are also significantly less likely than younger smokers to believe that smoking harms their health.

And yet…

Through advertising and promotion, the tobacco industry targets 1.63 million new smokers a year to compensate for those who quit or die.

I don’t think too many elderly who have never smoked just all of a sudden start because Joe fucking Kool says so. Or maybe Joe is that fucking Kool. Does your grandma dig camel?

Smoking lessens one's normal life expectancy by an average of 13 to 15 years -- thereby eliminating retirement years for most smokers.

Retirement? Shit, like that was going to happen anyway. The same bastards that wrote this shit are the ones taking my social security and soaking up what’s left of benefits. Current average life expectancy places me somewhere around 63, while retirement age is 65. So go fuck yourself.

Studies show that men who smoke at least five cigars a day and report moderate inhalation, experience lung cancer deaths at about two-thirds the rate of men who smoke one pack of cigarettes a day.

And then they go on to say…

Studies show that men who smoke at least three cigars a day are two to three times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers.

Wait a minute? What the fuck? Studies show that men who smoke at least five cigars a day have about a 66% chance of lung cancer compared to a pack of cigarettes a day, and yet, men who smoke at least three cigars a day have a 200% to 300% chance of lung cancer compared to non-smokers? Well, that would mean cigarette smokers have roughly up to a 455% chance of lung cancer compared to non-smokers, right?

“Men who smoke one pack a day increase their risk 10 times compared with non-smokers.”

1,000 percent? Hmm, I must have missed a decimal somewhere or something.

According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2005, “Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing an estimated 438,000 premature deaths annually, or 1 in five U.S. deaths.”

And yet, a few years ago “38.6% of the total fatalities for the year are alcohol-related fatalities,” according to Loyola University Health System. I think 38.6% is higher than 20%, and I’m sure in most cases people aren’t forced to drink alcohol, making it “preventable” too.

Remember, “Alcohol is society's legal, oldest and most popular drug.”

Yes, smoking is bad. We know that. We don’t need your white-lie propaganda, the MPAA smacking our wrists, or bullshit Truth commercials that are not “informing” anyone. And about those commercials, of course little kids like to see a big, fuzzy, purple mascot. But we all saw how they lost interest in you when you took off the head and they found an annoying, holier-than-thou-art yuppie prick who keeps crying about how much his vagina hurts. "Whudafxup" with scaring little kids, as if I was going to believe 5 year olds would smoke if a purple freak told them to? Stop filling our trash cans with fake appendages. You're pissing off the trashmen with your stupid hippie gimmicks. You’re not educating anyone, dipshit. The whole fucking world knows already! If someone wants to stop smoking, then they will. So shut the fuck up and get back to sipping your iced triple shot vanilla latte, you whiny, self-righteous cunt. Oh yeah, PETA called. They're worried that people aren't going to think they're crazy anymore, because you're stealing the fucking show.

“What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out? Is that the rule now, huh?” – Denis Leary (No Cure for Cancer)

MPAA vs. America.

Anyone that knows me knows how long and how much I have hated the MPAA. Here’s a quick explanation of the Motion Picture Association of America:

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.

I could have summarized it in my own words, but I decided it would be more appropriate to “steal” this information and not give credit to its original author while ignoring the copyright. Now that we know who the Nazis are, let’s meet Hitler and his regime:

Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman became President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) on September 1, 2004. Its members include Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, NBC Universal, and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

That’s enough of the history lesson. Now keep in mind that the people who actually make up the MPAA, other than the President and CEO, are volunteers, but they are also anonymous, meaning the general public has no idea who is saying what we can and can't watch. I decided to investigate this little war they have on “pirates.” Here is some information from the MPAA official site:

“Who are Movie Thieves?”

Anyone who sells, acquires, copies or distributes copyrighted materials without permission is called a pirate. Downloading a movie without paying for it is no different than walking into a store and stealing a DVD off the shelf. Motion Picture Piracy is committed in many ways, including via the Internet through downloadable files, selling pirated DVDs on the street or capturing and redistributing live broadcasts or performances without a license on the Internet. Downloading movies and music without the authorization of copyright holders is a growing international problem that presents serious challenges for the movie industry and has serious legal consequences.

Okay, now we know who they are against, “Anyone who sells, acquires, copies or distributes copyrighted materials without permission” and “Downloading movies and music without the authorization of copyright holders.”

So basically that means everyone in America. Sure, you can lie to me, but don’t lie to yourself. Admit it, you have done or do one of these offenses quite frequently. It continues:

People often download movies on the Internet because they believe they are anonymous and will not be held responsible for their actions. They are wrong. The illegal downloading and swapping of movie files is a serious crime. Pirates and their affiliates can and will be tracked for engaging in Internet piracy.

I’ll bet when this corporate jargon was originally written it was when they were using Spyware to track down those pimple-faced college kids with movies on their parents’ laptops, locking them up, and fining their asses ‘til the day they die. But I’ll bet they never saw it coming when a U.S. Senate committee passed a bill banning the use of Spyware. I remember when that happened, and I remember thinking how awesome it was. It was like a giant middle finger and a big “Fuck you!” to the MPAA from the American consumers. How could they track down these “pirates” without hidden Spyware, tracing IP addresses, or the aid of peer-to-peer programs? They couldn’t. All they could do was take it up the ass.

“Who Piracy Hurts”

Economies

The US movie industry provides jobs, revenue and an export surplus for the US economy. Piracy hurts economies everywhere movies are sold, displayed or broadcast. The worldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic producers, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators lost $18.2 billion in 2005 as a result of piracy.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any recent sales figures other than the MPAA’s since 2001, but I think it will speak for itself. According to About.com, the Annual Report on the Home Entertainment Industry reports "The home video industry experienced its best year ever in 2001 with U.S. spending totaling $18.7 billion." Disregarding recent years, 2001 was the best year ever at $18.7 billion? This is at a time when VHS rentals ($7 billion) were higher than DVD ($1.4 billion), while DVD sales ($5.4 billion) were slowly taking over the VHS ($4.9 billion). So that brings us to $18.7 billion in sales and rentals in 2001. According to VSDA President Bo Andersen, "It is a $19 billion/year industry and growing." Fastforward to 2005, when the MPAA reported the entertainment industry lost $18.2 billion from piracy, and you can figure in that they are making more money on each DVD than they were on VHS while charging more for new releases on screen, but there sure isn't much left. Now tell me, how in the world could they keep going? Maybe they just love what they're doing and don't need a single paycheck for two years. Maybe. Or maybe the MPAA statistics are full of shit.

Entertainment Industry

The average motion picture cost the MPAA member companies $96.2 million to make and market in 2005. Six out of ten movies never recoup their original investment. Fewer movies will be made and fewer creative risks will be taken if piracy continues to rob those who invest in movies.

Six out of ten never recoup their investments? Right… Well, here are six actors listed with their salaries from 2005:

1. Tom Cruise ($31 million)
2. Johnny Depp ($37 million)
3. Julia Roberts ($20 million)
4. Will Ferrell ($40 million)
5. Will Smith ($35 million)
6. Tobey Macguire (32 million)

You do the math. But they also claim “Fewer movies will be made and fewer creative risks will be taken.” Well, also according to the MPAA:

“The total number of films released continued to increase in 2006 with 607 films released. This is an 11% increase over 2005's 549 films. “

*cough*Bullshit!*cough*

Consumers

For consumers to continue to experience the variety and quality of movies they expect, piracy must be controlled. The entertainment industry recognizes the potential of technology to deliver content in new and exciting ways. However, the looming threat of piracy can thwart innovation.

I think I see a loop hole here. If people aren’t willing to pay money for these movies, could it be because they aren’t experiencing “the variety and quality of movies they expect?” Piracy doesn’t “thwart innovation,” greed thwarts innovation. Maybe they’ll stop sucking that green paper cock and come up for air.

“Get Involved in Our Fight to Stop Movie Thieves!”

By following this link (http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp) you can file a report and turn in someone you know who is illegally downloading, copying, and/or selling movies. Sound familiar? It should. Go ahead, red-bait your friends. Put them on the MPAA blacklist. You don't need them. You've got new friends like Truman, McCarthy, and all of the Redlegs. Now go report those pinko-Commie bastard neighbors.

"Each week, law enforcement around the world catch movie thieves red handed." Told you. "Since last year, authorities have seized over 81,000,000 counterfeit DVDs."

81 million DVDs? Bullshit. But then I stumbled upon the most interesting article of all:

“MPAA Admits to Unauthorized Movie Copying”

The Motion Picture Association of America was caught with its pants down, admitting to making unauthorized copies of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in advance of this week's Sundance Film Festival.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated looks at the motion picture ratings system created and run by the MPAA. Director Kirby Dick submitted the film for rating in November. After receiving the movie, the MPAA subsequently made copies without Dick's permission. Dick had specifically requested in an e-mail that the MPAA not make copies of the movie. The MPAA responded by saying that "the confidentiality of your film is our first priority."

Dick later learned that the MPAA made copies of the film to distribute them to its employees, despite the MPAA's stance on unauthorized copying. Ah, there's nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning—apparently the prohibition against copying films without the copyright owner's consent doesn't apply to the MPAA.

"We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees," said Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president for corporate communications. She said Dick spied on the members of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, including going through their garbage and following them as they drove their children to school.

A "digital version" of the movie was submitted for screening, according to Dick's attorney, Michael Donaldson. If that digital version turns out to be a DVD, the MPAA could also find itself in hot water for violating the DMCA. Oh, the irony! Either way, the MPAA can't be happy about being put into a position where they are forced to justify the same actions they decry when undertaken by a consumer.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, but the MPAA isn’t, at least to the best of my knowledge. But Hitler did want to burn books and the MPAA seems to want to burn movies, and burn them to DVD-R’s apparently. They want to play with fire. It’s a dangerous game to point the finger at America and the entertainment industry’s consumers. I don't have an eye-patch, or a peg leg, not even a parrot, but I guess I'm still a fucking pirate. And guess what? So are you. The ship's already set sail, and now there's no turning back. So raise that black flag and pass me the rum...is that a copy of "Spider-Man 3?"