Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Boetie · Apr 27, 2007, 08:20 pm

Jack Valenti who was the overseer of the MPAA passed away. In spite of the rational for the rating system it's motives is questionable on several grounds.

How the ratings are decided is done is secrecy. Could it be that the MPAA is really a front to give favorite ratings to the Studio Industries which are owned by big Corporations and give unfavorable ratings to independent film makers. It appears that way.

The Corporation controls about 90 percent of the film making industry and can get away with an R rated film while an independent film maker may get an M for less than what a Corporation is showing.

Not that a film has to be rated it doesn't but it means the difference between big bucks and next to nothing bucks. Few if any theaters will show an unrated film which can be a lost of big bucks. The film has to get the ratings. An M rated film will generate less money because it is limited to a limited audience.

The MPAA is a big corporate con game on the public to control the industry.

Should we get rid of the rating system so that the independent film maker can get a fair chance at the market?

**Jack** · Apr 27, 2007, 11:09 pm

Today also saw the deaths of David Halberstam and Mstislav Rostropovich. If you count journalism, the arts lost three major players.

gw120 · Apr 30, 2007, 07:14 pm

Quote:

Should we get rid of the rating system so that the independent film maker can get a fair chance at the market?

That or fix it.

Apr 27, 2007, 08:20 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	Jack Valenti of MPAA passed away Jack Valenti who was the overseer of the MPAA passed away. In spite of the rational for the rating system it's motives is questionable on several grounds. How the ratings are decided is done is secrecy. Could it be that the MPAA is really a front to give favorite ratings to the Studio Industries which are owned by big Corporations and give unfavorable ratings to independent film makers. It appears that way. The Corporation controls about 90 percent of the film making industry and can get away with an R rated film while an independent film maker may get an M for less than what a Corporation is showing. Not that a film has to be rated it doesn't but it means the difference between big bucks and next to nothing bucks. Few if any theaters will show an unrated film which can be a lost of big bucks. The film has to get the ratings. An M rated film will generate less money because it is limited to a limited audience. The MPAA is a big corporate con game on the public to control the industry. Should we get rid of the rating system so that the independent film maker can get a fair chance at the market?

Apr 27, 2007, 11:09 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12,999	Today also saw the deaths of David Halberstam and Mstislav Rostropovich. If you count journalism, the arts lost three major players. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)