> Duncan getting possessed and killing Richie for me.

Same.

Also, I just looked up Stan Kirsch since I haven't kept up with any of these folks since my childhood. Maybe I shouldn't have. Suicide by hanging in 2020. :(

> If these companies paid their fair share of taxes and retributed their employees fairly, there would be no reason to hate on them. So, it seems like the problem is not the company or the product, but the legal structure around them. Individuals are much better than governments at generating profits for themselves but, of course, need to be held accountable and contribute to the economy.

I agree with this and would recommend people read David Dayen's "Monopolized". The only caveat with your statement would be that this chart displays a global mix of organizations. What you've said is applicable everywhere yet more so in the US where corporate money counts more than individual votes which makes it very difficult for the legal and financial structure to change to benefit the general populace.

This is off the top of my head.

G, PG, PG-13, and R were historically used in movies. PG-13 is the 'newest' (supposedly created to make Spielberg/studios happy so younger audiences could go to more violent movies).

The TV ratings were brought in in the 90's, IIRC. I recall Tipper Gore (the Vice President at the time) advocated for labeling for music. This might've extended to tv. It didn't really change anything, afaik, though now I assume parents can limit content based on them with more control over streaming.

The history of film censorship goes back to the Hays Code in the US.

Estimated budget would be easier to account for and compare against than showing profit as /u/RedRedditor84 wants. Hollywood accounting won't let you get close to understanding actual profitability.