MPAA Makes Unannounced Change to Trailer Content

Ms. Minow got it wrong. The MPAA’s Advertising Administration has not eliminated restrictions on film advertising; rather, we have further enhanced the process to ensure appropriate content is put in front of the right audiences. To be clear, what this means is that the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see.

The intent of the change from “All Audience” tags to “Appropriate Audience” tags is to indicate to the audience that we consider the placement of the advertising material is appropriate for that audience, but that it may not be appropriate for all audiences. This change allows distributors greater freedom to accurately target and promote their movies, while at the same time honoring our pledge to parents that stronger advertising material will not reach younger audiences.

As Ms. Minow accurately points out, the Advertising Administration goes to great lengths to limit access to content which is intended for mature audiences.

Over the course of many years we have received feedback from parents that content for some movies in a trailer with an “All Audiences” tag was misleading. This new change reflects the Advertising Administration’s increased vigilance to target advertising to appropriate audiences, in keeping with the purpose of ensuring that advertising content reflects the true spirit of the film.

I did notice the change, and it appears to be a sneaky way to get titillating material in front of inappropriate (i.e., young) audiences.

Maybe the same folks are in charge of TV commercials. I was shocked by the latest one from Jack-in-the-Box, where several adults walking down the steet quickly strip down to their underwear in front of him. I think we are supposed to laugh, but it was disgusting for what is supposed to be a family restaurant.

Actually Steve, the latest Harry Potter *did* get a PG rating, at least in our local theater. Perhaps there was a different version released in other venues, but I'm not aware of it. Whether or not it deserved the milder rating is another question entirely.

I do wish Ms. Kaltman, as she is presenting herself as a spokesperson for the MPAA, had addressed some of the other issues Nell talked about in her post. Specifically, I'm wondering about the appropriateness of showing previews for movies that get a PG rating for violence in front of children who have been allowed to see a particular PG movie only because it's worst offense was some mild schoolyard language. For my children, Ice Age (rated PG) is age appropriate, but Harry Potter 6 (also rated PG) is not.

Monkie is right, the latest Harry Potter did get a PG. And I will be writing a separate post to respond to Ms. Kaltman and some of the other questions raised here and continue with further updates on the MPAA trailer issue. Thanks very much to all who wrote.

The above post was wrtiten by me.

Thanks, Melanie. I don't think Andreas was endorsing this new policy. And I don't think the "appropriate" language is clear enough, especially as the change was never announced or explained to parents. As noted earlier, a key problem is the accessibility of these trailers via the internet, decoupled from the movies with which they are supposed to be similar in content. I will be writing more about this issue, so stay tuned.

Thanks for your comment -- I really appreciate your sharing this story. I relate to it because I have been turned away from a theater when I was a teenager and because I tried to buy my son a ticket when he was 16 and had the same problem. Paranormal Activity is a very scary movie, so I am sure the theater was being extra careful. I agree with you about language. There is nothing there you haven't heard and probably said. And there is nothing to stop you from seeing this movie in a couple of months on DVD or cable. But this is just one more way the MPAA system is indefensible.