Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A variety of ingredients go into the success or failure of a motion picture. Without a screenplay that works, it is hard for a motion picture to do well. Similarly, the budget, the director, the actors and the subject matter are all factors that can contribute significantly to a movie’s performance at the box office. So, too, do the size and effectiveness of a film’s marketing and publicity campaign. One other factor of great importance is the rating that the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) assigns to a film.
It is no surprise that the more restrictive the rating, the narrower the audience eligible to see the film. A film rated “NC-17,” meaning that no one under the age of 17 can attend it, or “R,” so that anyone under the age of 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, will be limited to a smaller pool of potential moviegoers than less restrictively rated movies. Even some adults who may be interested in a film’s subject matter, actors or director nonetheless will not see a film if it is rated “R” because they anticipate that it will contain scenes or language that they would find offensive or more intense than they are comfortable seeing. Thus, an “arthouse” film intended for people over the age of 18 may suffer if it receives an R rating, even though the target audience is not foreclosed by its rating. This problem is magnified if a movie receives an NC-17 rating. Not only does the NC-17 rating signify the presence of more intense, potentially offensive content in the film, but also NC-17 rated movies are more difficult to market and exhibit than less restrictively rated movies. For example, television ads generally cannot be shown before 10:00 p.m., print advertising is harder to place and some exhibitors are reluctant to show NC-17 rated movies.
In recent months, there have been several rating-appeal decisions. This article addresses the steps available to filmmakers and distributors when a film they plan to release receives a rating they believe is overly restrictive. While an unwanted rating cannot always be avoided, there are steps that can be taken to try to change the rating.
How the Ratings Work
The rating assigned to a motion picture is not meant to be a critique of its quality, but rather is supposed to reflect what the MPAA’s film raters believe a majority of American parents would think is appropriate for the film. See, Classification and Rating Rules, effective as revised Jan. 1, 2010, p. 16. Virtually all feature-length films that are intended to be theatrically released in the United States are rated by the MPAA. All movies distributed by the member companies of the MPAA ‘ i.e., the major film distributors Disney, Paramount, Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. (and their subsidiaries) ‘ must be rated under the MPAA rules. Further, while non-member companies are not required to have their films rated, “independent” film companies ‘ e.g., The Weinstein Company, Lionsgate and Summit Entertainment ‘ regularly submit their films for rating in order to avoid difficulties that arise in the marketing and distribution of unrated films.
The specific ratings that the MPAA may assign are G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. Although disagreements over the rating assigned to a movie can arise with any rating more restrictive than G, most disputes that result in formal rating challenges involve movies that receive an R or NC-17 rating. Accordingly, this article focuses on those ratings and the PG-13 rating that a distributor may believe should have been issued to an R rated movie.
Under the MPAA’s Rating Rules:
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Stan Soocher
Can the settlement of a lawsuit by one profit participant in a TV production be used to increase the contingent compensation provisions of other profit participants in the show?
In-House Counsel Perspective on Negotiating Social Media Influencer Contracts
By Chris O’Malley
With the FTC amping up its scrutiny in the social media influencer space, in-house counsel has an opportunity to mitigate risk and help their companies get more bang for their influencer marketing buck.
Pursuing AI Programmers and Third Parties over Alleged Rights Violations Caused by AI Software
By Jonathan Bick
Because AIs are capable of causing harm but cannot be a legal entity, they are not held accountable by court action. Several current and future possibilities exist to resolve AI difficulties. Current options involve identifying indirect liability. Future options include but are not limited to changing the law to make an AI a legal person and/or changing the law to make AI programing an ultra-hazardous activity.
By Entertainment Law & Finance Staff
Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
