Four of the Top 10 Q2 in-quarter film releases (three were in the Top 5) were banned in major film markets for culturally objectionable content, yet still broke revenue records . As we'll show, it doesn't take much to run afoul of regulators in today's top global markets.
Table 1 Q2 Worldwide Box Office, Box Office Mojo
The world's top movie in Q2 is "Top Gun: Maverick," which received widespread criticism for removing the Taiwanese flag from Tom Cruise's character's jacket in the trailer. This was done to appease Chinese regulators, who prohibit display of the Taiwanese flag or any positive reference to the country. Global audiences cheered when the film's producers responded to that criticism by restoring the flag in the final release, but their choice ensured the film would not be shown in mainland China.
Regulators' primary objection to the other three films was the inclusion or reference to LGBTQ+ characters or storylines. It didn't seem to matter whether they were implied or explicit, real or animated, or whether they are portrayed in a positive or negative light. Given the culture in each country, their inclusion was sufficient enough reason that regulators felt the need to take action.
For example, China required three script edits to "Fantastic Beasts: The Secret of Dumbledore" to remove references (no actual footage) to a past gay relationship between the two leading male characters in the film: Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald. China and six other countries banned "Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" for a lead female character referring to "her two moms," China and 14 additional countries banned "Lightyear" for a single same-sex kiss. Despite these edits or bans, these films generated $2.6B in box office revenue through the end of Q2.
Three lessons can be learned from these four films. First, even the smallest references to something like a flag patch is sufficient for a title to be forced into making compliance edits or face a country ban. Second, despite changes in global perceptions of LGBTQ+ characters, even the most minor community reference is enough to get a title banned in a dozen or more countries. Finally, while some countries block content they believe is harmful to their culture or society, consumers will respond positively to banned films containing controversial topics or stories that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The best way to avoid these problems is to know in advance when you may encounter them and in which scene. Utilizing Spherex ratings and monitoring solutions, you can assess your titles at any stage of production for these and other cultural and linguistic issues prior to release and prepare accordingly. With Spherex, you can ensure your titles reach maximum revenue and the largest audiences worldwide.
Contact Spherex today to schedule a demonstration.
TV Ratings vs. Movie Ratings: What's the Difference?
As professionals involved in the Media and Entertainment (M&E) industry, we're sure you are aware there are separate ratings for US film and TV content. What you may not be aware of are the differences between the two. This post will highlight these differences and describe how they impact the audience as content is distributed across various platforms.
The Basics
Ratings exist to inform parents and audiences about the appropriateness of content for their children and families. The problem ratings attempt to solve is that exposure to violent, sexual, adult, or suggestive language content can be harmful or offensive to specific audiences. Ratings provide a warning that those events are part of the production. Age is the primary determinant in assigning a rating, but presumed maturity within a rating category (e.g., PG vs. PG-13) may also be a factor. In other countries, criticism of the government, unflattering depictions of cultural norms, or negatively describing religion are grounds for content to be assigned higher age ratings or even banned. Those factors are not typically an issue with US age ratings for film or TV.
The first thing to understand is the fundamental difference in the purpose, type, and reach between the two platforms. Movie ratings were established for the content shown in movie theaters. TV ratings were created for content displayed on TV screens. The similarity is content; the difference is paid admission versus 24/7 access in our living rooms. The former is controlled access by requiring payment for a ticket, and the latter may not be controlled at all. Parents can be in the audience with a child in a theater but might be away while the show is on the living room TV. As a result, content notification requirements are more granular and specific for TV ratings than for film.
For example, there is no need for a comparable TV-Y or TV-Y7 rating in theaters because a G-rated film easily encompasses and addresses the guidance those ratings provide. Likewise, there is no market for NC-17 content on linear TV or streaming platforms, so TV has no comparable rating.
The next thing to understand is two different groups developed the US ratings systems. The Motion Picture Association ( MPA ), an industry trade group, developed US film ratings in 1968. Occasional updates have reflected changes in types of content, such as the introduction of the PG-13 rating following the release of an Indiana Jones film. We have previously written about this in more detail here .
Television ratings were developed and maintained by the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board, also an industry trade group, in 1996. Its members include the MPA, the National Association of Broadcasters ( NAB ), the Internet and Television Association ( NCTA ), and five public interest groups. Their interests are related, but their ratings differ at the top and bottom of the age scale. TV ratings were created as a voluntary system following concerns expressed by the US Congress and complaints made to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about objectionable TV content being aired without notice to parents. TV programs are self-rated by the networks or platforms in the US system.
The Ratings Matrix
Below is a comparison matrix that presents the difference between movie and TV ratings systems.
US TV ratings also contain "content descriptors" that specify specific types of potentially objectionable content. The elements within those descriptors are:
D -- Suggestive dialogue (rarely used with TV-MA-rated programs)
L -- Coarse language
S -- Sexual content
V -- Violence
FV -- Fantasy violence (exclusive to TV-Y7-rated programs)
These elements are shown below the rating and displayed for 15 seconds at the program's beginning and following any breaks.
Upon review, it's clear that TV ratings closely resemble those used for movies; this is on purpose. The reason is to provide continuity and consistency for parents and regulators across all content distribution platforms, including theatrical, linear, retail, and online services. As a system, both have worked quite well and have served as a model for other countries worldwide who wish to provide consumers with helpful information about content and titles they may consider sharing with their children, families, and friends.
Spherex: Localized Age Ratings Services Provider
As the global industry authority and leading private provider of local age ratings worldwide, Spherex uniquely understands the importance of getting age ratings right, regardless of the platform. Spherexratings™ and Spherexgreenlight™ provide content creators with the necessary knowledge to tailor titles to fit any age rating and identify their best markets. Greenlight™ is a first-of-its-kind AI/ML technology that culturally adapts content for markets worldwide. With this technology, content creators can increase engagement, drive more revenue faster, and avoid legal and regulatory risks.
Take the guesswork and risk out of international expansion. Contact us today!
U.K. Film Industry Braces for Brexit Backlash nan Understanding Global Content Ratings
Pressure on content creators to ensure their productions are suitable for international markets is exponentially increasing. It began in earnest with the release of blockbuster films in the late 70s and 80s, where meeting global demand meant little more than subtitling or language dubs for three or four languages. Very few major films received the complete treatment of multiple language translations that movies and TV shows currently receive because the distribution chain wasn't what it is today, and costs were prohibitively expensive.
Things changed with the advent of streaming and the creation of hundreds of distribution platforms and thousands of channels that provide access to millions of titles to billions of consumers. There is no limit to where a title gets distributed for the first time in history. Thanks to the internet, there are no actual geographical boundaries.
Are There Global Content Rating Standards?
There are no global industry ratings standards-no continental, regional, religious, cultural, or community standards applicable to all content. Content and age-rating criteria used by the Motion Picture Association ( MPA ) in the US can vary significantly compared to the British Board of Film Certification ( BBFC ), the Australian Classification Board ( ACB ), New Zealand's Te Mana Whakaatu Classification Office , or Canada's National Film Board ( NFB ). There may be similarities, but US-released titles are not necessarily assigned the same age rating within other English-speaking countries unedited.
It is common for films produced in one country to be banned there, even if those stories include well-known actors, a famous director, and a large production budget. Add to the equation a language, religion, culture, and political or social mores across borders, and the criteria for releasing a title in other markets gets complicated very quickly. If the content does not meet appropriate standards, it's either edited, assigned an unfavorable rating, or banned. One size does not fit all.
Content Analysis Around the Globe
It is easy for those responsible for releasing titles internationally to get confused about what is or is not acceptable content in targeted markets. There is no simple answer to "what are regulators looking for?" For example, a character in an animated film intended for family viewing mentioning they are in a gay relationship may not register in the US or France. Still, it's enough to get it banned in Muslim, Hindu, and countries with anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Likewise, a scene depicting intentional violence against police or government officers is enough to increase the rating to an adults-only level or even get it banned in dozens of countries.
The best way to avoid problems is to understand each country's criteria.
Simple Workflow Changes Eliminate Risk
Content owners and distributors have three opportunities to make culture and regulatory edits to a title: pre-production, post-production, and before distribution. The benefits of performing a content analysis at each stage vary, as does the cost.
- Pre-production is the best time to review a title for cultural compliance. Dissecting the story, analyzing the script, and reviewing shots to identify culturally sensitive events that may impact age ratings in targeted markets can optimize the production process because content risks are identified and managed. Incorporating Spherex ratings ™ and Spherex greenlight ™ into the pre-production workflow will identify specific scenes and dialogue within the script so the director and writer(s) can address them appropriately and maintain story integrity.
- Analysis of titles post-production using Spherex ratings ™ and Spherex greenlight ™ provides many of the same benefits as if done during pre-production. By providing specific event timestamps and explanations of the issue, localization teams can bleep, blur, or edit scenes to conform to local standards and guidelines. It adds the benefit of identifying specific non-compliant scenes within the completed title across 200+ countries and territories that warrant review.
- Catalogs being prepared for broad distribution also benefit from using Spherex ratings ™ and Spherex greenlight ™. Prior understanding of edits needed for which country and platform reduces the number of prepared versions, the cost of preparing them, and the effort necessary to monitor them, making licensing distributable titles across markets worldwide a more manageable process.
While global content release may now be limited to only the most popular or well-funded titles, or those explicitly produced for international distribution, that is changing. The demand from consumers, governments, and platforms for more localized content will force content creators and distributors to deliver localized content soon. With the right tools and knowledge, getting ready is easy.
