Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-29 09:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:congress, esa, esrb, facing the giants, jim matheson, joe pitts, john feehery, jon stewart, marsha blackburn, mike mcintyre, mike sodrel, mpaa, roy blunt, the daily show

Congress Turns Away From Games, Goes After Movies, Turns Back to Games

Congress just can't seem to tear itself away from video games these days. Even during a meeting ostensibly held to question movie ratings, the political talk turned back to games.

As reported by newsletter The Hill, a meeting earlier this week to discuss film ratings brought together many of the same members of Congress who flayed the video game industry - and especially the ESRB - a few weeks back.

According to The Hill, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) led a group of colleagues in criticism of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its film-rating system at a meeting with MPAA officials in Blunt's Capitol Hill office.

The Congressional attention was sparked by the PG ("Parental Guidance - some material may not be suitable for children") rating assigned to the Christian-themed film Facing the Giants, which some religious conservative critics say received a PG instead of a G ("General Audiences - all ages admitted") because it "proselytizes Christianity." The elected officials expressed concern that the MPAA's rating standards are out of touch with the public view.

"It comes from where you set your worldview. Hollywood has one; Nashville, Tennessee has another one" said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

A spokeswoman for Rep. Blunt said, "Congressman Blunt is still very concerned about this issue of ratings creep. There wasn't much he heard [Tuesday] that assuaged his concerns (that the MPAA has become more tolerant of graphic violence and sex but is wary of religious themes)."

Also attending the meeting were Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Joe Pitts (R-PA) and Mike Sodrel (R-IN).

Matheson has video game legislation before the House and appeared briefly at the June 14th beatdown of the ESRB by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Pitts is a member of that subcommittee. His ridiculous comments as to how Grand Theft Auto might not lead suburban kids to crime but could turn inner-city kids into violent criminals were hilariously spoofed by The Daily Show host Jon Stewart. Rep. Blackburn is also a member of that subcommittee.

Perhaps unavoidably, the meeting with the MPAA turned into a discussion of violent video games.

"That seemed to be on the minds of most of the members," said MPAA exec John Feehery, who probably didn't mind a bit the deflection of Congressional attention from his industry to that of the ESA and ESRB.

Included in the meeting was a discussion of a universal rating system for games and movies, with Rep. Blackburn remarking that the dust-up over "Facing the Giants" was "very unfortunate at a time when we are needing a unified rating system. Maybe it's time for us to do that."

The Tennessee Congresswoman suggested that the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which she is a member, might hold hearings on the issue. Both the ESA and MPAA have been resistant to the idea of unified ratings.

"Games and movies are apples and oranges," the MPAA's Feehery told The Hill. "Our ratings system has really stood the test of time."

For its part, the ESA refused to comment for The Hill's report.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




(35 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]goodrobotus
2006-06-29 03:26 pm UTC (link)
Ah, the old 'Have your cake and eat it' trick.

Problem is, there's a lot of new technology appeared in the media sector over the last decade, and we have to accept that, whilst politicians may make use of this technology, they really have very little comprehension of its scope, workings or flexibility. So we have a lot of Chicken Little's running round shouting 'The Sky is Falling', simply because they are trying to make judgements on something that is a bit of an unknown, and therefore naturally creates suspicion and distrust, after all, 'Why have TV's? Radio's were good enough for Grandad?' etc.

If America starts down the road to censorship, which is what it approaches with treating 'New' media as something different from 'Old' media, then ratings creep will be one of the first signs of it, certification boards will err on the side of caution rather than risk a 'Hot Coffee' or 'Janet Jackson'. And that will start to show in any film with a 'controversial' theme.

In many ways, the confusion is merely the Politicians reaping what they have sown and not realising that it is them and their own actions which are causing the problem in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]wedgetalon
2006-06-29 04:04 pm UTC (link)
Ah, the old 'Have your cake and eat it' trick.

I can't wait for the Get Smart DVDs this fall! :)

Ahem, anyway, to get back on topic, I agree. You mention about ratings boards having to err on the side of caution. They already do. Look at the state of TV and Radio with FCC's policing. It's insane.

I don't know about you, but I'm kind of tired of all of this "legislating morality" crap. I'm Christian myself, but I don't think making laws enforcing Christian beliefs is right. What about when a different religion (islam, scientology, Jesus-The-Mushroom, whatever) is in power? What if a gay person is elected and decides to ban heterosexual marriages (religious belief aside, what's the difference in that from banning homosexual marriage?)? That wouldn't be too pleasant for us Christians now would it? You can't force a person to change. They have to be willing to do it.

Perhaps I should stop now before I hit full-rant mode. :/

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]premo_maggot
2006-06-29 03:29 pm UTC (link)
I'm tired of congress wasting time with garbage debates and bills, that's all I have to say.

(Reply to this)


[info]dreamshade
2006-06-29 03:30 pm UTC (link)
In a blatant move of grandstanding, Congress demonstrates that they know absolutely nothing about movie ratings, either.

A movie is rated through a procedure such as the following: A team of movie reviewers is assembled. In order to carry a broad view about how movies affect different age groups, the reviewers must be parents. These parents will sit down and watch the movie together. After the movie, they will have a discussion on how they feel the film should be rated and by what criteria, and then they vote on a final rating. There is no set rule that says a movie has to be rated PG for religious content, nor does that mean that the religious content is the only reason that the movie was rated PG.

In other words, the MPAA did not impose the rating - it is an anonymous group of parents that is apparently out of touch with society.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]barfo
2006-06-29 04:24 pm UTC (link)
In defense of congress, which they dont really deserve, its not inconceiveable that the board that rates movies might be subject to some potential political pressure from the Hollywood mindse that might mean they are out of touch with mainstream america.

On the other hand, if there is some disparity between the ratings board and middle america on this particular issue, its clear the ratings board got it right, since too much religion too young is a very dangerous thing (for the same reasons kids should not watch too much commercials, etc) because kids before a certain age have not developed analytical logic well enough to evaluate the truth and falsity of propositions and claims put before them and thus are brainwashed easily. Good on the MPAA for rating the movie PG, "overt religious content" is a descriptor (okay i know they dont actually use descriptors but imagine along with me) taht actually would be useful to me as a parent in attending movies (which im not as familiar with as games so i actually need the ratings to tell me whats what).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

so wait a second...
[info]crazygir
2006-06-29 03:45 pm UTC (link)
all the politicians spend most of their time screaming and moaning for an accurate unified ratings system for video games while constantly comparing it to the ratings systems of movies, and then they attack the self same movie system saying it shouldn't be universal? WHY EVEN HAVE SYSTEMS AT ALL THEN??! ARGH

(Reply to this)

Universal ratings system?
[info]nightwng2000
2006-06-29 04:26 pm UTC (link)
They can call it the MMRB (Moral Majority Ratings Board).

Oh please, you know just from this latest nonsense that it's a relgious temper tantrum that's driving it. Much like the religious dogma that gets spouted during hearings and press releases and such that, even if not mentioned out loud, it's religion that is the actual foundation for these arguments. "Protect the children" my afterburner. That sound bite falls under the same heading of "Family Values".

But what I'll find hilarious is, if they come up with this so-called Universal Ratings Board, which religion will we find is given top billing? Face it, just as there are religious arguments in the current issue, there will be plenty of claims of discrimnation against the proposed board. Either it will be one religion against another, or a claim that the religious heads of the board are discriminating against media that contains no religious reference.

Doesn't take a conspiracy theory to have the foresight on this one. It's happening now. It's a fair bet it will happen with any such change as proposed.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this)


[info]sir_bissel
2006-06-29 04:27 pm UTC (link)
It isn't Christianity that the movie industry has a problem with, it's clearly football!

Remember the Titans was rated PG, Invincible is rated PG, the Replacements was rated PG-13... that's the limit to football movies I can think of...

But seriously, OH NOES! A 9 year old is recomended to have a parent with them when they go to the movie! It's not like it was rated R or something like that. And, really, would people complain if a movie with Hindu undertones was rated PG? You know, that way, when a childs worldview is challenged, a parent can explain it?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]toxic_offender
2006-06-29 08:51 pm UTC (link)
"Angels In The Endzone" was rated G... But then, it's a Disney movie, and, y'know, Disney controls the world, so the MPAA wouldn't DARE give them a PG...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sir_bissel
2006-06-30 02:57 am UTC (link)
I thought that was a tv show?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nedlum
2006-06-30 03:19 am UTC (link)
Actually, Disney just controls California. Christopher Lloyd controls the world. Between his angelic football powers, his time machine, and his ability to turn his hands into anvils, he's unstoppable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]toxic_offender
2006-06-30 06:27 pm UTC (link)
XD, nedlum.

Sir Bissel, no, it was a direct-to-video film. "Angels In The Outfield" rocked out loud, so Disney decided to milk the crap out of it. They made "Angels In The Endzone", and also a Hockey one, I believe, but I can't remember the name.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chenry
2006-06-29 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Well it turns out Congress can still do something.

Piss me right off.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]synabetic
2006-06-29 06:48 pm UTC (link)
Me too.

Ooo... I'm -so- glad they are taking the time to deal with -important- societal issues! Thank -goodness-!!

/sarcasm

Bah.

Pisses me off so much. People homeless, starving in this country, being slaughtered wholesale in others and all it seems they can worry about are video games, movies, gay marriage and whether or not they get to keep their nannies and housekeepers. What's next? Another crusade against the Evilles of Comics?
Awesome.
:-|

I know this has all been said before.

Just thought I would say it again.

Anyhow, I'm off to go build a bomb shelter for my kids to protect them from my videogames...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sprngpilot
2006-06-29 04:39 pm UTC (link)
"It comes from where you set your worldview. Hollywood has one; Nashville, Tennessee has another one"

Oh no! Different parts of the country have different standards! Does that mean there are people who aren't Bible-thumping zealots? Quick, we must legislate their different opinions into oblivion! After all, this country was founded on the principle that everyone must think and feel the same way, and if they don't we'll pass laws to make them agree. Right? Right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]grls_r_gamers_2
2006-06-29 08:02 pm UTC (link)
Congress is full of Communists. Why does this come as a surprise?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cyn1c42
2006-06-29 10:08 pm UTC (link)
That was the point of Miller v. California, but that only deals with obscenity.

And how will federally mandated universal ratings solve that 'worldview'

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gray17
2006-06-29 10:44 pm UTC (link)
You know what would be hilarious? If it turned out the people that rated Facing the Giants were from Nashville.

Seriously, I highly doubt the MPAA draws it's raters solely from the population of Hollywood. To try to imply that all movies are ranked based on it's value set is to reveal their own ignorance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Listen... to the sound of the other shoe dropping
[info]illspirit
2006-06-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)
So the politicians go on, and on, and on about how the entertainment industries need to think of the children, and now that the film industry wants to protect kids from religious propaganda, they throw a fit. The irony is oh so delicious!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Any legislation (or even grandstanding demands) to "protect" kids from violent games will provide a precedent/foot-in-the-door to stifling freedom of religion in order to "protect" kids from it. While Christians may be in the majority now, there is a growing segment of the population (particularly amongst the rich) that think religion is bad. One only need look at the battle between "Intelligent Design" and evolution to see the new culture war brewing. And we'll see who laughs last when the table is on the other foot. ;)

The best part of it all? Right now, as we speak, our favorite self-proclaimed Holy Crusader is helping to lay the groundwork for the restriction of faith-based games by attacking "Left Behind" and his very own publisher. Why, with all the hoopla he (and people on the left like Daily Kos) are raising about the title, we might very well see the ESRB add a T+ descriptor for overly religious content. I just wish I could see his face when he realizes he was a pawn in the atheist/deist agenda. I'd warn him and stuff, but he probably wouldn't listen for some strange reason. ^_^

(Reply to this)

Ratings Creep
[info]trooper6
2006-06-29 06:59 pm UTC (link)
You know...I think there has been ratings creep...just not the way they think. Movies have become increasingly less cool with sex.

Before PG-13 lots of PG movies had bare breasts and sexual content they'd never have now. Check out PG films Logan's Run and Airplane one more time. Or take a look at teen sex romp Zapped! That was originally released as a PG film (though I believe is has been rerated for our modern times). In the 80s gratuitous boob shots were everywhere...nowadays, the Janet Jackson boob malfunction in which you couldn't see anything anyway cause people to have caniption fits.

We are getting more conservative, not less.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Ratings Creep
[info]brainswarm
2006-06-30 05:27 am UTC (link)
I can't seem to remember a gratuitous boob shot in a PG-13 movie since Titanic, come to think of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ratings Creep
[info]toxic_offender
2006-06-30 06:45 pm UTC (link)
Check this out:

"Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm" (1993, Animated) - Rated PG.

Blood/Gore: Moderate (A surprising amount of blood, a few onscreen deaths, a nasty corpse showing up onscreen, a man getting stabbed onscreen)

Language: Low-Moderate (Several uses of "Oh my God" in some form or another, one use of "Damn")

Sexual Themes: Moderate (We see people kissing very passionately, and there's a scene where it not only implies, but pretty much outright tells us that people are having sex offscreen)

Remember: RATED PG


"Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker" (2000, Animated) RATED PG-13, a sort-of sequel to the first one I listed

Blood/Gore: Moderate (People getting shot and stabbed onscreen, but with less blood than Phantasm)

Language: Low (One or two uses of "Oh My God")

Sexual Themes: Low (Characters wearing slightly 'slutty'-looking clothes, a scene with a very small amount of sex appeal)

Remember: RATED PG-13, and held back from release for three years out of fear of offending people (It was finally released in full in 2003 after overwhelming fan backlash)

And so.... Yeah. We're definitely more conservative now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Ratings Creep
[info]zippydsmlee
2006-06-30 12:27 pm UTC (link)
"We are getting more conservative, not less"
The more corupt the top gets the more they have to show they are not.

this coruption leads to no oversight over goverment and coperation...whitch we are in now.....

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Well.
[info]praetor_edge
2006-06-29 07:08 pm UTC (link)
If Hollywood had a problem with religious themes and gave movies higher ratings because of them, then the VeggieTales movie would be rated R.

Have the asked whether the ratings board, which reviews and votes on the ratings, is demographically diverse? If it is, then congress is just blustering about a descision they don't like, esentially they're "Trolling on Capitol Hill" (rated PG for liberal and conservative absurdity). If it's not, then perhaps the could ask nicely for more diversity?

And don't they know that web forums are the appropriate place for flaming and trolling?

(Reply to this)

aargh
[info]l0que
2006-06-29 08:07 pm UTC (link)
Not everybody is EFFING CHRISTIAN.

Sorry to burst their bubble. $10 it has something WORTHY of a PG rating, but in a religious context, I guess its ok.


I don't mind conservatives, but the "Religious Right" can go right to their own hell.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: aargh
[info]terminator44
2006-06-30 04:00 am UTC (link)
Amen to that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jabrwock
2006-06-29 08:36 pm UTC (link)
"It comes from where you set your worldview. Hollywood has one; Nashville, Tennessee has another one"

So why don't they set up an MPAA in Nashville, or Tennessee?

Oh yeah, because it's inconvenient...

The reverse is also true though, why should Hollywood abide by Nashville's standards, or Tennessee's, or Utah's? Isn't that equally oppressive of Hollywood?

(Reply to this)


[info]jargon_john
2006-06-29 11:55 pm UTC (link)
I watched the first 2 minutes of that trailer. It's totally religious fanaticism. If it hadn't been about the Christian faith, but, say, the Jewish or Muslim faith, congress would be legislating to ban the film...

(Reply to this)

Marsha Blackburn promotes a double standard in regard to Hollywood vs. Nashville
[info]beardoggx
2006-06-30 01:47 am UTC (link)
"It comes from where you set your worldview. Hollywood has one; Nashville, Tennessee has another one"

Yeah, considering that Music Row has been making blood money off of the 9/11 homicide attacks and the war in Iraq(Alan Jackson, Toby Keith, Darryl Worley, and a host of others) and obviously has no respect for dissenting points of view(attacking the Dixie Chicks for their criticism of President Bush, over which some country music fans sent death threats).

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

(Reply to this)

The MPAA and ESRB are private non-governing companies
[info]tsbaron
2006-06-30 02:49 am UTC (link)
That being said, it's an OPTION to rate your game or movie. To opt out might mean that few theaters would carry your film, and fewer retailers would carry your game, but you don't actually have to hire those companies to rate your product, espicially if you don't like the rating you're given. What's more is that you can consult or even create your own rating board. Such "second opinion" groups will be stuck behind the MPAA and ESRB's shadow, as both groups have a good reputation and a large clientbase, but there's nothing stopping anyone from doing so. The Facing The Giants creatiors have NO space to complain.

(Reply to this)


[info]grimm24
2006-06-30 03:10 am UTC (link)
Have to say thats pretty stupid that a movie got a PG rating because it had to do with christianity. I mean obviously Passion of the Christ deserved an R rating considering it had more blood than the movie Jaws.

However, the ESRB is much more successful than the MPAA, considering that the biggest "slipup" from the ESRB was Hot Coffee which isnt even in the game! Its in the code, not the game!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

It's in the code, not the game
[info]tsbaron
2006-06-30 03:30 am UTC (link)
Try explaining that to our government, most of whigh don't play games, and don't understand technology on a deep level. What slipups have the MPAA made ratings wise?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gray17
2006-06-30 07:00 am UTC (link)
It didn't get a PG because of Christianity, just "some religious conservative critics" are claiming it did. Having not actually seen the movie, I can't say why it got a PG rating though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ss_ebonclaw
2006-06-30 08:07 am UTC (link)
Judging by their mindset, Passion of the Christ should have been rated EC/Edutainment, because of how violenly it shows Christianity.

Sorry, I have no good feelings about anyone who lets evangelism come before decency. Though, Evangelists do have one good thing that can be done with them.. but that's something for another day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]grimm24
2006-07-01 12:44 am UTC (link)
Im a christian, but you dont hear me saying that a movie should be treated differently because of its interpritation of christians or any other religion

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(35 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…