Warning: The MPAA has deemed a movie just too scary for general audiences. Yes, indeed, this Friday's theatrical spook-house horror flick, The Conjuring, was written, shot, and edited to reach the masses, yet hit a roadblock at the doorstep of the shadowy ratings group, which slapped it with an R for "sequences of disturbing violence and terror." Now there's something to be said about parents getting a tip as to what a flick has in store for their kids — we're not talking about those precious family units who breastfeed babies at the midnight showing of Saw V — but this case presents a jarring precedent for genre films trying to play it straight. One thing is for sure — the MPAA is all over the place with their metrics, even if it seems that they are trying to improve their wordplay.

Let's take into consideration The Blair Witch Project. Released in 1999, the film was a phenomenal hit. A super-scary little indie that spawned the "found footage" craze, the flick was packed with jump scares, as well as a frantic ending leading to an indelible image that haunted viewers long after the credits rolled. Yet the MPAA's reason for the R rating? Yep... language! Apparently somebody crossed the line and used the F-word when forces of ghostly nature were stalking them in the woods (and really, when's a better time to invoke a few F-bombs?).

Ironically enough, one of Blair Witch's cinematic children also received a similar soft reasoning for its R-rating. The movie: Paranormal Activity. The reasoning: "for violence." It's like the group of house moms who's on the ratings board forgot that they'd been using "terror" as a descriptive tool for scary films at least as far back as 1996 with the release of Peter Jackson's horror-comedy The Frighteners. Now that movie should not have been handed an R, but there's also seemingly no reason it should sport the same rating reasons that the Conjuring does — albeit in a condensed form (Rated R for terror/violence).

But let's face it: The MPAA has never been the best at describing the content of the films that they studiously judge. One of the most ridiculous examples has got to be Twister's "Rated PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather." Each of their rating categories has inane examples of their reasoning as well, from War of the Buttons' "Rated PG for mischievous conflict, some mild language, and bare bottoms" to Jefferson in Paris's "Rated PG-13 for mature theme, some images of violence, and a bawdy puppet show" to Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation's "Rated R for demented mayhem and torture."

Sometimes it's what the MPAA leaves out rather than what they leave in that's most revealing. While "terror" is used rather infrequently in its reasonings (other films that have garnered it include Darkness Falls, The Grudge, The Mist, United 93, and The Conjuring director James Wan's previous film, Insidious), family films boast a far more common "scary moments" reasoning if the movie is deemed too intense for young viewers by the org. Yet where was that sort of warning for Monsters University — a film that not only made a friend's niece want out of the theater because it was "too scary," but also made my wife squeeze my hand so hard that my ring dug into my flesh? Note: The MPAA rarely — if ever — gives reasonings for G-rated films, but anyone who saw Pixar's latest will attest to there being a few moments of good old scares in the flick — hell, it's part of the plot!

Much of it comes down to the system not being standardized. HitFix's Drew McWeeny made a great case for the MPAA implementing a code for their reasoning in his "Did Evil Dead just break the R rating?" article, in which he pointed out that the board had treated Evil Dead's sexual innuendo- and blood-filled chainsaw finale and The King's Speech's use of the F-word the same by giving both films the same rating. McWeeny offered up a solid letter system that would replace the current vague-to-all-too-specific reasonings, breaking movies down to their barest essentials of what you need to know as a parent. And make no mistake about it, the MPAA is around supposedly for families.

Yet here we are, at a moment when the ratings system basically gives Man of Steel, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Pacific Rim variations on the same PG-13 reasons (sci-fi violence/action), but doesn't touch upon the 9/11-themed mayhem that two of those three flicks have caught flak for (to their credit, the group added "destruction" onto Man of Steel's rating explanation).

Until a better system is implemented, moviegoers will just have to sit and watch the MPAA pull more silly explanations out of its ass. Their reasons might not be as entertainingly inept as in previous years, but if that means they're trying to improve the system a bit, why not go whole-hog? It still doesn't change the fact that a 15-year-old won't be able to see The Conjuring — a movie with no gore, language, or nudity — with their buddies. All this because this faceless org with a terrible rep thinks that this particular film is too scary for a young mind to see without a guardian — the "terror" is just too great! Meanwhile this kid's parents were able to walk right into the PG-rated Poltergeist when they were children. Do the math. The ratings game is fked, whether we're given the right reasons as to why or not. Hey, kid, let me buy that ticket for you.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Follow The Culture Blog on RSS and on Twitter at @ESQCulture.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io