LOL at blasphemy.

There's a good documentary called This Film Is Not Yet Rated and issues with the existing rating system. For example a gay sex scene gets an NC-17 but straight one would get an R rating. If memory serves, they exist to rate the movies to prevent government regulation and to protect the studios which they're rating.

D - death S - sunsnu K - the klan R - Elon would like to a bit too much / >18 - trump would like to a bit too much

The reason is that the MPAA is a private industry org created to prevent movies from being regulated in the US in such a way that they'd have to create an informative content system.

What would blasphemy include? There are a lot of religions, and if you include even the smaller ones, I expect a lot of blasphemy to pass trough unrated.

For example, if I remember correctly, some teachings consider things like reanimated skeletons to be blasphemous.

Also, aren't you going to add "(H) horror" to your list?

TV content ratings do this

Blasphemy?

"Telly Tubbies"? lol it's Teletubbies

The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) of the Philippines has a similar system to this for SPG (Strong Parental Guidance) TV shows, with TLKSHD for Themes, Language, Karahasan (Tagalog for "violence"), Sex, Horror, and Drugs.

However, I think the MTRCB needs to stop existing and go pound sand. Their decisions have been.. questionable.

These systems vary by country and you'll find fault with most of them. They are more often than not rating systems that were introduced to appease a loud group in society, possibly the pious folks were one of those. Society's natural inclination "to think of the children!" makes these rating systems more about age appropriateness than about clearly labelled content. I can see the logic in your approach to the subject. Logic probably wasn't the driving force behind introducing labels such as "parental guidance" or "restricted."

I think it might be easier as a committee to be compelled to come up with an age of people, for whom the content is appropriate, and not argue over labels until they're blue in the face. Is vaping drug use? How much blood (if any) is required to be labelled violent? Etc. Can this committee agree with a majority vote that 12 year olds probably shouldn't see this? That's probably easier.

And an "A" for animal abuse.

But seriously, movie ratings are a joke and basically no one pays attention to them that I know.

I'd guess the idea is that as an adult you can handle anything you see in a movie.

For instance, I saw the movie where 99% of humanity has died, and people are losing their minds when the hero has to put down a doggie.

Depends what ratings are intended to do - if they are just to be informative for potential viewers then the kind of system you propose sounds good.

But, if the main purpose is to legally restrict access based on age, such ratings wouldn't really do the job.

Plus, of course, there's quite a range within each category - language could mean something as innocuous as "bum", or something as deeply offensive as "Belgium" or "Barbara Streisand".

I suppose you could have age ratings for each subcategory - L18, V12, N0, S0, D15, but it'd start to get complicated pretty fast. Plus, presumably, whatever the highest of those ratings was would still be the overall rating. At which point we're back where we started.