That's usually where the conversation fizzles out on the Internet when talking about movie ratings.

Often times people, including me, lament the lack of R-rated high budget films in theaters these days.

We're reminded that it's safer for studios to make Pg-13 movies and one or two non-Americans remind us about their superior film rating system.

Personally, I used to mostly ignore the talks of other people's rating systems. The reasons being because it doesn't feel possible to change America's system and because often times it seems like those dirty foreigners were just bragging or being condescending about the topic.

I've recently come to realize that adding a new 15yo rating is exactly what we need. It's usually just one of many topics that arise in a movie ratings discussion, but it absolutely needs to be the main topic.

More people need to realize that a new rating would fix a lot of moviegoers dissatisfactions. Only when the idea becomes widely popular will any sort of change happen.

Let's scrap the rating system all together. It's the 21st century, you don't need a board telling you what content is in a movie when you have google. Hell, even just scrap the lettering system and use the list of things that are already tacked onto ratings.

@Vilageidiotx

Drastic and unrealistic ideas accomplish very little.

Concerned families will still want simple labels so that they can know at a glance if they don't want their 13yo seeing certain movies.

I didn't know anyone paid attention to the specific content list next the the letter grade.

Separating movies by tiny indicators of general "bad things" might prove to be even more divisive and bring odd new forms of self censorship.

Right now it's "Drug usage and violence? Well it's PG-13, so it's probably not too bad."

Without ratings it could easily change to "Drug usage and violence? No way!"

If they don't want to take the time to read why something has achieved a certain letter grade, then that's their fault as parents. As it stands now non-descriptive letter grades allow censors to play games; the system becomes either a sales ploy, or a way for censors to unnecessarily influence a movie's ability to perform in whatever demographic it was made for. Descriptive ratings change the psychology of the thing.

Drastic and unrealistic would be re-adapting children to be more receptive to movie markets. Changing the way movies are rated is hardly drastic. PG-13 was created for the exact reason you are suggesting PG-15, and... this happened.

Yeah I've heard that before too. The ratings exist for lazy parents, which there are a lot of. Yes, no ratings is an ideal method for an ideal world, but it isn't realistically going to happen anytime soon in America. An additional rating is realistic.

And that whole thing about playing games isn't a problem with the system. It's a problem with the people currently in charge of the system. And having a spot between 13 and R would make the "game" far less punishing.

It cuts the teen demographic in half. I suspect it would turn into a compromise for R's, with PG-13 still being the coveted goal for box-office smashes and R being the coveted roll for serious films. I could see it becoming a "We left in some more cussing" spot, but anything else is expecting much. It doesn't fix the problem, it just ads another layer to it. Sort of like saying, when your tire goes flat, that changing the tire is too unrealistic and it's better just to tape over the hole and see what happens.

Changing a tire isn't as unrealistic as overhauling an entire aspect of a multi-billion dollar industry.

How dare you make me type out something so obvious.

Everything prior was arguable, but now you're just being stupid.

Yes, it would be a compromise for R in many cases, but a better compromise than PG-13. It doesn't "add another layer" to the problem in any bad way. I can see how you might think that adding anything to a flawed system is pointless, but it's not. You can add small things to flawed systems to improve them.

And nothing is being split. The demographics bleed into each other.

Changing a tire isn't as unrealistic as overhauling an entire aspect of a multi-billion dollar industry.

How dare you make me type out something so obvious.

Everything prior was arguable, but now you're just being stupid.

Woah, slow down guy. We're literally just talking about movie ratings. Take a deep breath.

Yes, it would be a compromise for R in many cases, but a better compromise than PG-13. It doesn't "add another layer" to the problem in any bad way. I can see how you might think that adding anything to a flawed system is pointless, but it's not. You can add small things to flawed systems to improve them.

And nothing is being split. The demographics bleed into each other.

What I'm saying is that, looking at how this sort of thing played out with PG-13, we have something of a model on what to expect. There isn't any reason to think it would function any differently this time around. The arbitrary nature of picking 15, combined with how very close those ages are, doesn't show this as a fix. It's a broken system. Broken systems gonna broke.

Adding 13 then would be nothing like adding 15 or 16 now. I suppose that is the core difference of opinion, and also truly unpredictable.

I didn't watch that 20 min video, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at.

Adding 13 created a dichotomy. The split grew to be quite harsh.

Adding a middle ground to the current dichotomy is entirely different than the act of creating the split in the first place.

It's not as simple as "adding a new rating is bad, because adding 13 turned out to be bad."

Adding a third option for non-kiddy movies would play out absolutely nothing like adding 13 and creating the split.

It would change the formula entirely. It would be nothing like anything prior. There are no valid previous examples of doing this.

The 13/R split is its own unique entity. It influences the biggest movie production business in a major way.

A third option only helps the situation. While it isn't a big difference from 13 technically, it would create an opportunity for a new set of rules for a new rating. Every tiny amount of adult themes that can be added to a 13 movie will increase the satisfaction of mature audiences. Every small step towards less censorship and more realism attracts mature audiences.

Adults would be happier seeing a 16 than a 13.

16 year olds could actually see movies that are suited towards their interests without needing an adult.

And it's an easier jump for younger kids than a jump all the way up to R.

It's simply better than R in most cases. Actual R can be the new NC17.

Ah, the video is where I was coming from. You should watch the video, but to paraphrase in the extreme, PG used to mean anything with content that parents might not want kids to see, and R was what R is, things rated for those above 17. This meant PG movies were included violence, language, and the occasional nudity (the seventies being what they were). In the eighties they created PG-13. Whereas the old system used to be "G is kid-friendly, PG is questionable, and R is just for adults". It became "G is for toddlers, PG is for kids, PG-13 is appropriate for teenagers, and R appropriate for adults". R began to cover things that PG used to cover, since we replaced the vague idea of "guidance needed" with specific age demographics (and because the eighties were what they were). As a result, movies began to cut things in order to fit PG-13. By being too specific, the rating system ceased being open to interpretation and became a thing that producers had to negotiate.

Okay.

So.

They fucked up the system.

Fine.

But the fact of the matter is--the harsh truth--is that the current system isn't going anywhere. There will be no major changes. There will be no overhaul. It is too big.

It has flaws from our perspective, but the large majority of moviegoers don't have a problem with it. Dumb moms want to be told exactly what is right for their kids to watch. They want no room for interpretation. And it doesn't matter if they are wrong or not, because they are large in numbers and are very loud. The moms are in charge.

It is flawed, but it is foolish to think that it can't be less flawed, or that trying to make a bad situation slightly better isn't worthwhile.

Having the original 3 ratings left a lot of room for PG, which was good.

Adding 2 more ratings changed the system to be more restrictive. Bad.

Obviously, the clear solution to have less restriction is to revert. But again, it's not going to happen.

So then how can we make the current system better without removing anything?

The ratings system has already turned restrictive. It made a big leap all at once. Adding another rating wouldn't necessarily make everything more restrictive. The binary jump between free and restricted has already been made.

However, I think that we can move around the restrictions.

Major movies are mostly being forced down one of two paths: PG-13 and R. Adding a third route in the middle would actually restrict them less. They go from 2 options to 3. How is that worse than now?

Let's say, for example, that there are only 5 kinds of movies: movies for young children, movies for tweens, movies for Highschool kids, light movies for adults, and graphic movies for adults.

When there was G, PG, and R, movies could fit in 2/2/1 and with plenty of line blurring. PG encompassed a large chunk of what mature human beings wanted to see. Good. Studios had no hesitation releasing a PG.

Then there was G, PG, 13, R, and NC-17. It almost lines up perfectly with the five types from before, but it is too weighted for the younger side. 13 isn't a perfect fit for high schoolers. Not good.

And then the middle, teenager rating was forced into becoming the "for everyone" rating. That way a single movie would be appropriate for an entire family to watch together. With no wiggle room.

They also took away a lot of wiggle room for R by becoming more strict with IDs in the last 10 years.

15 would be built around the idea of adding more wiggle room to "movies for everyone." You wouldn't even have to call it 15 or 16. Could be A for adolescent or YA for young adult.

You'd end up with:

Movies For Everyone With a Low Chance of Upsetting Kids. (PG-13)

And

Movies For Everyone With a Slightly Higher Chance of Upsetting Your Kids, But Will Make Dad Happier And Usually Be Fine If The Kid Is Like 14. (New rating)

Let's scrap movies all together and reintroduce naked gladiators as public all-ages and all-genders and all-races entertainment again.

Let's scrap movies all together and reintroduce naked gladiators as public all-ages and all-genders and all-races entertainment again.

I support this.