What does the MPAA consider "bloody"
 

I was wondering. I've seen Freddy's blood switch from red to black, to yellow and perhaps other colors. I think monster blood is more easily accepted by the MPAA than if it was a human's.

What about zombies? I can't remember when the MPAA started it's rating system but why do you think it is that we don't see as many blood in recent zombie movies? They're not humans so it's not really violence, is it?

maybe its a combo of the 2. like if u look at some war/medieval type movies where they slashin each other with swords, theres hardly any blood. not even on the sword

maybe they weigh violence and gore differently...

GDIS

well, if one believes the From Dusk Till Dawn commentary, it's the colour red that they have issue with

whats that pouring out of kitties ears daddy?

raspberry jelly!

GDIS

Uh.....you mean Excalibur, Monty Python's Holy Grail, and Braveheart? :confused: :confused: :confused:

i mean like more recent ones, troy, dragon heart, many others (cant think of any right now)

too many times hvae i seen them slice into people and hardly any blood on the sword. whereas in most horror movies someone could get just a fuckin pin prick and BAM the set is flooded.

GDIS

dont' forget about Dracula: Dead and Loving It. Only funny part in the whole movie is when that guy from Wings staked that one chick

the MPAA considers anything good bloody

I think that if the film is rated PG13 that there is violence but you wont see any blood, and I think that the studios want to make films PG13 so they can appeal to a broader audience than an R rated movie, where there is a lot of blood. I dont think a movie has to be bloody or gorey to be good unless it is necessary to the story. I think it is kind of difficult to make a war film, be it WW2, Vietnam, or knights on a battlefield, without the addition of blood. A movie like Braveheart without the blood would not be enjoyable IMO, fighting on a battlefield with a long sword, would def. be a bloody fight.

exarctly. i view sex in the same way (which is why i cant stand most teen movies, just so pathetic.. appealing to MTV generation)

GDIS

..the mpaa got more rules and guidelines than a beach got sand.i recall an article from "gorezone" titled the golden age of gore 1978 to 1984(or 83)highlighting the goodies in that magic window..prior to the mpaa's crackdown.it was'nt blood so much(pooled or splattered)as it was running or flowing...they had an "issue" with that.

Was the violence in Passion of the Christ really necessary? The MPAA sure thought so.

period blood

if it had been any body else up on that cross it would have been rated NC-17

As someone said before, it's the red that they have issue with. Notice how in Kill Bill Vol.1, when that huge fight took place, the movie went from color to black and white. That's so Tarantino could leave all of the violence and bloodshed in without getting an NC-17, or having to edit the shit out of it. After the gore was over, the movie flipped back to color.

I don't think I'd have a problem with zombies bleeding black in a dark setting.

The REAL point of the thread....and the MPAA's true motivation and source of biased ratings emerges.....