How the MPA’s ratings board decides whether a film gets R, PG-13 or NC-17

The Motion Picture Association’s ratings system, which assigns films to G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 categories, influences how studios market their films and which audiences theaters allow to see them. Yet the board that decides these ratings operates with minimal public visibility: raters are anonymous, working parents rather than entertainment industry figures, and most of their names are never disclosed.

The Classification and Rating Administration, known as CARA, has operated this system since November 1968, when it replaced the Hays Code. Understanding how the board works, what it evaluates, and how studios can challenge its decisions reveals how a self-regulatory panel shapes the commercial trajectories of major films.

Who sits on the rating board and how they vote

CARA’s rating board is made up of current parents from different geographical locations, ethnicities, political leanings, religious beliefs, and ages of children. New raters must have a child aged 5 to 15 when they join and typically serve for up to seven years or until their youngest child turns 21. The board operates independently from the broader MPA structure, and raters’ identities remain confidential.

Each film submitted for rating is watched in its entirety by designated members of the Rating Board, including at least one senior rater. After viewing, each member casts a preliminary vote for the rating they believe the film deserves, and raters discuss their reasoning before the final rating is determined by simple majority vote. Senior raters serve as points of contact between CARA and studios to answer questions about why a film received its rating.

System basics
CARA has parent raters who watch films entirely and vote by simple majority. Each film is viewed by designated Rating Board members, including at least one senior rater. The system launched in November 1968.

What the board actually evaluates

Raters evaluate a specific set of content categories: violence, language, sex, nudity, drugs, smoking, and other thematic elements or situations. The rating criteria provide general guidance rather than bright-line rules. For example, a G rating requires nothing that would offend parents whose younger children view the film, with minimal violence depictions and no nudity, sex scenes or drug use. A PG-13 rating flags material potentially inappropriate for children under 13.

Language carries particular weight in rating decisions. The word “fuck” typically triggers at least a PG-13 rating; multiple uses generally require an R. Drug use of any kind usually mandates at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity also requires at least a PG-13 rating. An R-rated film may include adult themes, hard language, intense violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements. An NC-17 rating indicates content too strong for most parents to allow their children to see, based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element.

The board does not apply mechanical formulas to these categories. Context matters significantly. The same act of violence may be rated differently depending on how it functions within the film as a whole. The same word used once versus repeatedly carries different weight. The board’s task is to assess overall content through the lens of what “the majority of American parents” would consider appropriate for each age group.

How ratings reshape a film’s business prospects

A film’s rating has direct financial implications. An R rating instead of PG-13 can reduce a film’s box office revenue by approximately 35 percent, according to industry analysis. This difference drives much of the strategic importance of the rating for studios: a PG-13 rating typically allows entry to a broader audience, particularly younger moviegoers. Films rated G or PG tend to draw families and younger children, while R-rated films exclude viewers under 17 without parental accompaniment.

Studios therefore spend considerable resources trying to secure favorable ratings. Some films are cut or re-edited before submission to CARA to avoid higher ratings. Others are submitted knowing a higher rating is likely, then appeal the decision.

An R rating instead of PG-13 can reduce a film’s box office revenue by approximately 35 percent.

The appeal process and how rare successful challenges are

Studios can appeal a rating they believe is incorrect. The Appeals Board differs structurally from the original Rating Board: it draws representatives from the MPA, member studios and theater owners rather than parent raters, with hearings typically attended by 12 to 14 members. To successfully overturn a rating, appellants must secure a two-thirds majority vote from the appellate board members present, with a minimum of nine required.

The standard for appeal is narrow: the majority must find that the rating was “clearly erroneous”—in other words, that “the majority of American parents would believe that the rating was clearly erroneous.” Each film appellant receives a structured hearing. Two representatives from the production or distribution company present their argument for 15 minutes, followed by 15 minutes from CARA’s chairperson defending the original rating. The board then has time for rebuttals and questions.

Successful appeals are rare. According to the MPA, only 0.6% of appeals have succeeded, out of more than 30,000 films rated since the system began. Successful appellants often emphasize how disputed content fits the film’s broader message, cite precedent from comparable films with different ratings (allowed since 2007), and send respected creative figures rather than lawyers to argue their case, since board members are film industry professionals more likely to be persuaded by peers than by legal argument.

How the system gained transparency

For decades, CARA’s decision-making process remained opaque. The identities of raters were secret, the reasoning behind specific ratings was not disclosed, and the standards applied to different content categories seemed inconsistent to outside observers. The MPA has since published its rating rules, policies and procedures online, including the full appeals process.

The ratings rules document, updated most recently in 2020, now provides detailed guidance on what content typically leads to each rating category. The MPA also publishes its ratings decisions—though not the identities of individual raters or how they voted. This partial transparency allows studios and observers to study patterns in how different types of content are rated and provides a roadmap for those seeking to understand or appeal ratings.

Related coverage: Why Movies Need Two Times Their Budget in Box Office Gross Just to Break Even; How Studios and Theaters Actually Split a Movie’s Box Office Money.

Photo: iMahesh · CC BY-SA 4.0 · via Wikimedia Commons