This post is rated PG-13

Whatever that means.

The recent flap over Bully has brought the whole MPAA rating system under new scrutiny, but we'll bet anything that nothing will happen. The present rating system has been around since the 60s, with a handful of subsequent changes, most notably the addition of the PG-13 rating. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was one of the real factors behind the addition. This movie, with beating hearts being ripped out of people's bodies, was rated PG, and parents who brought their little kids to see a fun Indy picture felt like they were having their own hearts ripped out. The creation of a teenage category, so to speak, was the solution.

There's a couple of problems with that. The biggest is that the group is a moving target. The teenager of the 1980s is not the same as the teenager of the 2010s, for one thing, and the definition of acceptability has changed. Violence and sex that were unheard of in movies for teens thirty years ago are now standard issue. Not that parents necessarily want this to be the case, but the world does revolve, no matter what we think about it. Add to that, a lot of parents don't seem to care all that much, and the ratings are decided not by a neutral group but by the film producers, who have a vested interest in money-making:

Stroll down any toy aisle and you’ll see a slew of licensed toys based on PG-13 movies, yet marketed towards very young children. Lego has a Pirates of the Caribbean set called “The Cannibal’s Escape” with a recommended age of 6-12. Fisher-Price sells a Green Lantern Jet that’s aimed at toddlers as young as 36 months. Both of these movies are rated PG-13, yet the licensed toys are marketed at much younger children. Similar examples are seemingly endless.

This is from a comprehensive Geek Dad post, Today’s MPAA Ratings Hold Little Value for Parents. One solution to the problem is a label like the one in the illustration above, with lots and lots of information, so that a parent will actually know what's in the movie, as compared to the more general information now. There is, of course, the other side of the coin, the relegation of the NC-17 to the no man's land of pornography. Going back as far as Siskel and Ebert, when those guys explained at length how there might perhaps be movies that deal with exclusively adult material might be not prurient but simply...adult, NC-17 has been the kiss of death. Which means that at least two of the ratings don't really work. But, as we say, we don't think much will happen, Bully notwithstanding. If the people making the money are the people calling the shots, there going to call them in the way that makes the most money. It's as simple as that.