A little imagination, that's all I'm asking for...

I look forward to "elbowed with a PG-13," "noogied with a PG," "tickled with a G," and "defenestrated with an NC-17".

Quite, seriously, if you're not a parent, why do you care what the rating is at all? The ratings really aren't talking to you. If you're under 18 - or 17 - I get it. Every rating that doesn't let you into the movie of your chocie is unjust. And who wants to go see a movie with your parents that you'd rather see with your similarly under-aged friends? I'm nearly 50 and I still don't want to see movies with my mother.

But this is the bargain movie theaters and distributors made with America's parents. The Ratings Board rates a film as honestly as it can (and being composed of humans, it will make decisions that other humans, being humans, will disagree with), the distributors and movie theaters post those ratings clearly and the movie theater does its best to enforce them.

This system, of necessity, is not perfect. It requires an imaginative empathy with the concerns of a diverse population of parents with concerns that vary by region, income, education and religiosity. It also requires a certain degree of movie literacy from parents. They need to understand the broad range of films that may come under a PG-13 rating, or an R, and use that knowledge to compare the rating reasons that accompanies each rating. An R for "some sexual humor" will not be directly comparable to a film rated R for "sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture throughout, and for language".

The question I asked earlier, though, still stands. If you're not a parent - and not under 18 - why do you care what a movie's rating is?

I would be deeply remiss if I didn't bring your attention to this post on the digital cinema self-financing panel at ShoWest.

Sperling Reich must have the fastest typing fingers in the West to nail down as much detail as he does here from a fast-paced lunch-time discussion.

When Macdowell turned to Solomon to get an exhibitor's opinion the discussion turned somewhat acrimonious, in a friendly sort of way. "I happen not to be a proponent of 2K [projector resolution] and I have not been a big proponent of integrators," said Solomon. "I believe we should be able to band together and form our own consortium and go negotiate for our own VPFs. I don't believe in giving a cut to an integrator."

CBG's Campbell, like Christiansen, isn't as down on integrators as Solomon and is of the opinion such third parties might be necessary, especially in the short-term. "Self financing is not going to happen for a long time," said Campbell. "I think self-financing is going to be done through the integrators and if we have to pay a small fee of the VPF then so be it."

Solomon, whose smooth New Orleans drawl had Macdowell comparing him to a slick southern lawyer, is not the retiring type and is almost always quotable. Given the chance to air a few thoughts, he let his grievances fly. His comments received the biggest audience reaction by far. "If 2K is the way we're going, then 35mm is better," he argued. "Apparently digital helps distribution, but it doesn't do a thing for exhibition. If distributors want to go with 2K then give us the money and we'll get on with it, otherwise we're going to have to go at our own pace. If distribution wants 2K, give us the money!"

Solomon went on to get a huge laugh when he recounted asking one of his regional managers, "What's the difference between a 35mm film print and a digital cinema hard drive? He said, 'about 40 pounds'."

Levin attempted to diffuse Solomon by pointing out that two of the studios were present and on stage, ready to talk about giving Southern VPFs, but Solomon got the last word in during this exchange as well by snapping back "I know, but I have to figure out how I'm going to pay for [3D] glasses with one of them."

In one instant Solomon made public the rumor that Fox had been telling North American exhibitors that after "Ice Age 3" the studio would no longer be paying for disposable 3D glasses. Presently none of the studios pay for disposable glasses in Europe, though they have been footing the bill in the U.S., Canada and at times Mexico.

 Read the whole thing. It will be well worth your time.