Should the age-restriction be lowered on R-rated films?

Do you think that the restriction on R-rated films should stay at age seventeen (without an accompanying parent or adult guardian), or would you be okay with lowering it to sixteen, fifteen, fourteen, etc., etc.?

Why not, these kids get to see everything and more on the internet so why restrict the movie to certain ages.

I think it should stay the same, but it doesn't really matter. Anyone who wants to see an R rated movie will do so anyway.

I would vote to keep it the same, but if it were going to be lowered then it shouldn't fall lower than 16 IMO.

Opa Shale wrote:The MPAA is so politicized that it is actually meaningless. I just read an article about using 'fuck' in a PG-13 script. Once is the limit, but you will note there are PG-13 movies with 'fuck' uttered more than once. Yep, there's a loophole for it.

I often suggest on certain R-rated flicks that adults be sure to take their 13-year-old bro, cousin, nephew whatever.

Like the current R-rated Conan the Barbarian. It was made for young male teen boys - and yet it is rated out of their age range. It shows sword battles with blood spatter when ppl are cut or heads bashed. It shows heads cut off. It shows boobies. Just the stuff any 13-year old boy would want to see - and I don't think it would harm him to see it.

That's odd because I read PG-13 has a limit of THREE fucks, like in The Legend of Billie Jean, of course PG13 was new then, but they got away with saying 'fucker' twice, whereas it was originally going to be R for that language.

I personally have no problem with them lowering it to 16, but before that...you know we have PG13 and it's not written in stone but I like to think we have it for a reason and for the crowd of that age and around it.

When it comes to things like language....no matter how crass it is, if that's the extent of the adult theme, then I really don't think film should be rated higher than PG-13. Far as R-rated films go....I think the age limit should stay the same. It's not like it's NC-17, where no one under the age of 17 can see it. If parents are okay with their child seeing an "R," then they should take them to it themselves.

Marc™ wrote: ... If parents are okay with their child seeing an "R," then they should take them to it themselves.

I was once a foster parent to an 11-year-old boy. This was in the late '70s and he wanted to see all those Hong Kong, low-budget, crappy, dubbed in English, Kung Fu movies. He was too young so I had to go with him and sit thru that shit that only an 11-year-old kid could take seriously.

The movie and TV rating systems won't stop every underage viewer but it at least gives the parents an idea of what the content is to decide to give their permission for the kid to see it or not. To answer the question, leave it where it is.

I think it should stay where it is.

Nah