Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies

Journal pudge's Journal: Dumb Movie Rating Reasons 13

These days a lot of movie ratings from the MPAA are accompanied by reasons. I was looking at the trailer for In The Shadow of the Moon and it is rated PG for, in part, "incidental smoking."

As if there is such a thing as non-incidental smoking? Smoking is an event and therefore always incidental! But I digress.

What's the dumbest movie rating reason you've seen, and for what movie?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dumb Movie Rating Reasons

Comments Filter:
  • i had no idea something like that would effect the rating of a film.
  • And stuck in it's own special time warp that bears no connection to reality.
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot
      You've responded to me three times, and all three times you've acted like the passage of time has some significance; that as time passes, therefore everything changes, and that everything past is suspect or invalid.

      And in each case, I believe you're wrong. Indeed, the example I gave is showing the MPAA to be more "progressive" in terms of its restrictions: smoking never would have been a justification for a higher rating when I was a kid.

      • We disagree on many things, obviously (for example I'm in KCDCC and you're SnoGOP).

        The progressivity of the ratings is more due to the deaths and retirements of the unelected MPAA "ratings board".
        • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

          The progressivity of the ratings is more due to the deaths and retirements of the unelected MPAA "ratings board".
          Right. But that's just more evidence they are NOT stuck in a time warp.
          • And you accuse me of logical inconsistency.

            You just said, basically, if A -> B then C -> D without proving any of the other required parts of the logical chain.

            It's like saying we're winning in Iraq. Saying it doesn't change the fact we're not.
            • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

              And you accuse me of logical inconsistency.

              Not really. I accuse you of not backing up your claim, especially in the face of counterevidence (some of which you provided).

              You just said, basically, if A -> B then C -> D without proving any of the other required parts of the logical chain.

              No. I asserted you were wrong that they were stuck in a "time warp," and gave one example (the one from the original entry, of smoking). Then you gave another example (that they were progressing because older people were dying off). And you have yet to provide an example to back up your claim.

              • I never claimed I was going to prove anything.

                You on the other hand, was talking about logic, and logical proofs, and then failed to then use same in defense of your own argument.

                It's like complaining because I brought a grenade launcher to what you thought was a knife fight, when I never agreed to the use of knives, nor that it was a fight.

                But if you pull a knife, I'm free to show you how they can be used as anti-personnel devices.

                Most of the so-called Constitutional claims of authority over the last seven
                • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                  I never claimed I was going to prove anything.

                  And I never said you did. I just said you didn't back up your claim. If you don't want to back it up, fine.

                  You on the other hand, was talking about logic, and logical proofs, and then failed to then use same in defense of your own argument.

                  False. You do not understand what I did. All I did was provide evidence that shows your claim to be false; I did not attempt to show the opposite of your claim to be true.

                  Most of the so-called Constitutional claims of authority over the last seven years by Red Bushies have been proven in a court of law to be unconstitutional

                  That's off-topic. That is the other discussion. This one is about the MPAA.

                  However, it's false. Indeed, a minority of such claims have been "proven" unconstitutional (and you use the wrong word there: the proper word is "rul

                  • So you believe conversations by the same person typed over this thing called the Internet are somehow "separate" just because you gave them different "subjects" and yet they involve the same two people and the replies are interspersed?

                    My.

                    What color are the Tubes at your end?
                    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      So you believe conversations by the same person typed over this thing called the Internet are somehow "separate" just because you gave them different "subjects" and yet they involve the same two people and the replies are interspersed?

                      Nothing I said in this journal entry has anything to do with the Constitution or Bush. So it is off-topic. And, according to the rules of my journal [slashdot.org], you are therefore in violation.

                      You are violating several of the rules, and I am asking you nicely to stop. If you don't want to abide by my rules in my journal, do not post here.

                      And don't pretend I am somehow violating some inherent nature of the Internet with that asinine "What color are the Tubes at your end?" comment. Rule #1 of the Internet is that wh

  • "Incidental" also means "of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature". So, for example, the smoking going on in a Cheech and Chong movie is definitely "non-incidental"!

    I marvel at how particular they're getting. You can google for examples, here's one with a bunch [allmovie.com]. It's not just "sex, violence, language" anymore, they're getting pretty particular. Like, in the kind of movies I like to watch [amazon.com], "zombie violence". :)
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

      "Incidental" also means "of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature". So, for example, the smoking going on in a Cheech and Chong movie is definitely "non-incidental"!
      Yeah, I was just screwing around. :-)

Real Users know your home telephone number.

Working...