Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Has Two Mommies is now a disambig. Dewicking
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** Numerous clips of Jack Valenti show him asserting that the members of the board "are neither gods nor fools, just parents" and represent the "average family". Jamie Babbit, the director of ''Film/ButImACheerleader'', wonders if Valenti thought that meant [[HasTwoMommies gay and lesbian parents such as herself]]. [[ForegoneConclusion You can probably guess the answer.]] Of course, you can't really define the term "average family" in America because of all the different co-existing cultures. Unless the MPAA refers to "anything that we can't construe as mentally or physically abusive under US law", then their definition can't make sense given everything that they won't allow in an R-rated movie. As investigation showed, most of the censors were ''not'' an "average family" anyway.
to:
** Numerous clips of Jack Valenti show him asserting that the members of the board "are neither gods nor fools, just parents" and represent the "average family". Jamie Babbit, the director of ''Film/ButImACheerleader'', wonders if Valenti thought that meant [[HasTwoMommies gay and lesbian parents such as herself]].herself. [[ForegoneConclusion You can probably guess the answer.]] Of course, you can't really define the term "average family" in America because of all the different co-existing cultures. Unless the MPAA refers to "anything that we can't construe as mentally or physically abusive under US law", then their definition can't make sense given everything that they won't allow in an R-rated movie. As investigation showed, most of the censors were ''not'' an "average family" anyway.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Dewicked trope
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
* GayPanic: In-universe. The film dedicates a brief section to how the MPAA often rates scenes with explicit homosexual content higher than scenes with explicit heterosexual content, even if the straight version is more explicit than the gay one (e.g. a lesbian [[ADateWithRosiePalms masturbating]] through her bedclothes in ''Film/ButImACheerleader'' risks an NC-17, but Creator/KevinSpacey's character miserably masturbating in the shower in ''Film/AmericanBeauty'' gets an R).
to:
* GayPanic: In-universe. The film dedicates a brief section to how the MPAA often rates scenes with explicit homosexual content higher than scenes with explicit heterosexual content, even if the straight version is more explicit than the gay one (e.g. a lesbian [[ADateWithRosiePalms masturbating]] masturbating through her bedclothes in ''Film/ButImACheerleader'' risks an NC-17, but Creator/KevinSpacey's character miserably masturbating in the shower in ''Film/AmericanBeauty'' gets an R).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28,30 (click to see context) from:
** Numerous clips of Jack Valenti show him asserting that the members of the board "are neither gods nor fools, just parents" and represent the "average family". Jamie Babbit, the director of ''Film/ButImACheerleader'', wonders if Valenti thought that meant [[HasTwoMommies gay and lesbian parents such as herself]]. [[ForegoneConclusion You can probably guess the answer.]]
*** Of course, you can't really define the term "average family" in America because of all the different co-existing cultures. Unless the MPAA refers to "anything that we can't construe as mentally or physically abusive under US law", then their definition can't make sense given everything that they won't allow in an R-rated movie.
*** As investigation showed, most of the censors were ''not'' an "average family" anyway.
*** Of course, you can't really define the term "average family" in America because of all the different co-existing cultures. Unless the MPAA refers to "anything that we can't construe as mentally or physically abusive under US law", then their definition can't make sense given everything that they won't allow in an R-rated movie.
*** As investigation showed, most of the censors were ''not'' an "average family" anyway.
to:
** Numerous clips of Jack Valenti show him asserting that the members of the board "are neither gods nor fools, just parents" and represent the "average family". Jamie Babbit, the director of ''Film/ButImACheerleader'', wonders if Valenti thought that meant [[HasTwoMommies gay and lesbian parents such as herself]]. [[ForegoneConclusion You can probably guess the answer.]]
***]] Of course, you can't really define the term "average family" in America because of all the different co-existing cultures. Unless the MPAA refers to "anything that we can't construe as mentally or physically abusive under US law", then their definition can't make sense given everything that they won't allow in an R-rated movie.
***movie. As investigation showed, most of the censors were ''not'' an "average family" anyway.
***
***
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
-->-- '''Joan Graves'''
to:
-->-- '''Joan Graves'''
Graves''', Senior Vice President of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Chair of its Classification and Ratings Administration.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
%% * GettingCrapPastThe Radar: Due to overwhelming and persistent misuse, GCPTR is on-page examples only until 01 June 2021. If you are reading this in the future, please check the trope page to make sure your example fits the current definition.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ExecutiveMeddling: A majority of the film {{invoke|dTrope}}s documents filmmakers' gripes about the rating system all but telling them what they can and can't show in a film, especially if it's a film that's meant to be seen only by adults.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
* CensorshipBureau: See OmniscientCouncilOfVagueness. Because the MPAA doesn't want to be perceived as this, they're often hesitant to explain exactly ''why'' they're giving a specific film a specific rating, leaving directors and editors to guess at how much of what to cut for resubmission to reach a target rating. Flat-out asking the MPAA how the film would need to be edited to reach a target rating may or may not work. . . and seems to be more likely to work if it's a studio-backed feature, less likely to work for an independent film.
to:
* CensorshipBureau: See OmniscientCouncilOfVagueness. Because the MPAA doesn't want to be perceived as this, they're often hesitant to explain exactly ''why'' they're giving a specific film a specific rating, leaving directors and editors to basically guess at as to why a film got its rating, with the MPAA acting like an OmniscientCouncilOfVagueness. This leaves movie-makers in the unenviable position of working out what to cut, and how much of what to cut it, for resubmission to reach a target rating. Flat-out asking the MPAA how what the film would need to be edited do in order to reach a target rating may or may not work. . . and seems to be work. The only consistency is that asking is more likely to work if it's a studio-backed feature, less likely to work for an feature; independent film.films will likely be left on the lurch.
Changed line(s) 20,22 (click to see context) from:
* DoubleStandard: The film points out plenty of them -- how sex scenes are often edited more than scenes of violence (including rape scenes), how male nudity is censored compared to female nudity, and how homosexual love scenes can cause higher content ratings compared to heterosexual love scenes, among others.
* ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin: The filmmakers didn't present the final released version of this documentary to the MPAA (it only has a second's worth of difference), which means the film never ended up rated by the MPAA.
* ExplicitContent: Unavoidable, given the subject of the film.
* ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin: The filmmakers didn't present the final released version of this documentary to the MPAA (it only has a second's worth of difference), which means the film never ended up rated by the MPAA.
* ExplicitContent: Unavoidable, given the subject of the film.
to:
* DoubleStandard: The film points out plenty of them -- how sex scenes are often edited more than scenes of violence (including rape scenes), how male nudity is censored compared to female nudity, and how homosexual love scenes can cause higher content ratings compared to heterosexual love scenes, among others.
scenes with otherwise similar content.
* ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin: The filmmakers didn't present the final released version of this documentary to the MPAA (it only has a second's worth of difference), which means the film never ended up rated by theMPAA.
MPAA. So ''This Film is Not Yet Rated'' is not yet rated. And it never will be.
* ExplicitContent:Unavoidable, given Discussed. Because the subject of movie is about the film.MPAA censoring content, the film has to show and discuss the kinds of things that the MPAA considers "explicit" in order to prove its point.
* ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin: The filmmakers didn't present the final released version of this documentary to the MPAA (it only has a second's worth of difference), which means the film never ended up rated by the
* ExplicitContent:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleted line(s) 33 (click to see context) :
* MohsScaleOfViolenceHardness: The interesting point is made by one of the interviewed filmmakers that a film like, say, ''Film/TheGodfather'', which has fairly sparse but ''very'' brutal violence, gets an R rating, while a ''Franchise/JamesBond'' film, with dozens or hundreds of people gunned down in BloodlessCarnage, gets a PG or PG-13. But since the latter example is inarguably less realistic than the former, it should logically take a more mature mind to realize it as a sanitized and fantastic version of violence, thus sanitized violence should be restricted to more mature audiences while younger audiences should be shown the more realistic version of the horror and consequences of violence.