M.P.A.A. blows

[Dauber]

I swear I am honestly getting tired of the mpaa and there stupid antics. The reasons why are because of them softening Americas's viewing material. Such as the case for Jackass 2, granted they actually did approve a majority of the stuff. But for the black bar over the mouth of Chris Pontius while drinking horse semen was retarded. It's not like he's doin a gay porn flick, granted there were homosexual undertones throughout the whole movie. All he was doing was drinking it for the bloody hell of it. Granted I may not like seeing a person drinking it just because he was goaded, he sure is funny as hell watching them spew it up.

[Scorpio24]

I wish the MPAA had just banned the whole fucking film. Waste of space.

[jackson13]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I wish the MPAA had just banned the whole fucking film. Waste of space.

I hate to say it, but you are in the extreme minority on that one. Everyone I know, including my own father, loved the movie. Even the critics loved it.

[thedudeman69]

The MPAA has standards that are so ridiclous, that they are funny.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by jackson13
I hate to say it, but you are in the extreme minority on that one. Everyone I know, including my own father, loved the movie. Even the critics loved it.

Yeah, I have no doubt I am.

I just don't find somebody drinking horse piss or any of the other stuff they do funny.

[AWP82]

Like alcohol, it's an acquired taste. Also like alcohol, you can be predisposed to it genetically. Beyond that, I can't explain why I like it. Maybe I'm immature...

[kcvoorhees]

Originally posted by Scorpio24


I just don't find somebody drinking horse piss or any of the other stuff they do funny.

I concur

[Dauber]

Well if you had actually watched the film it was horse semen and not horse piss. Not that I like remembering that they drank it. The only reason I thought the movie was funny is becasue I frankly would never do any of the stuff without getting paid out the butt. Well there are certain exceptions of what I wouldn't do.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Dauber
Well if you had actually watched the film it was horse semen and not horse piss.


Ahh shit, My mistake.


I take it back then thats fine.

[jaw2929]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I wish the MPAA had just banned the whole fucking film. Waste of space.

Absolutely 100% agreed... I fucking loathe the Jackass bullshit, it's so NOT fucking funny in the least... I'll never understand the humour in a buncha fucking cunts doing retarded nonsensical stunts just for the fuck of it... So fucking lame.

But it is funny how the MPAA works... Fucking bizarre actually....

[Dauber]

Technically speaking the MPAA could never ban it but they could give it an NC-17 in which it should have gotten.

[Derek237]

The MPAA is one reason I love being a Canadian.

For example, Lost in Translation:

MPAA: R

Ontario Film Board: PG


I got another rating: WTF?!

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Trail_Blazer
Absolutely 100% agreed... I fucking loathe the Jackass bullshit, it's so NOT fucking funny in the least... I'll never understand the humour in a buncha fucking cunts doing retarded nonsensical stunts just for the fuck of it... So fucking lame.

But it is funny how the MPAA works... Fucking bizarre actually....

You sure love those fucking F-bombs, don't ya? ;)

[Kevin Lockard]

Hmm, I would think if one were to rant about something the MPAA were harsh on, they'd pick a better choice than Jackass 2. I personally don't find the MPAA as "fascist" as others do. I actually don't mind alot of calls they make. It's not as if there aren't more fucked up boards in the world.

[jaw2929]

Originally posted by AWP82
You sure love those fucking F-bombs, don't ya? ;)

Ya know it's funny, another guy on another message board I'm on pointed out the same thing, he asked:

Do you have to use the word "fuck" everytime you make a post?

To which I replied:

Fuck yea!

So to answer your question sir:

You fuckin' know it! ;)

[CletusHorniblow]

I think instead of bitching about what the MPAA blocked, we should be grateful that they let so much in the film for the R rating.

[slasherfan]

Can't the MPAA be bribed? Don't they accept cash from companys to give movies the ratings they want?

[powersauce]

That horrible speech Kyle's mom made in that South Park movie is a perfect example of how fucked up the MPAA is. It's sad that a violent movie without blood gets a PG-13 yet some youngsters can't see Man on the Moon or Planes,Trains,& Automobiles just because of a few F bombs.

Personally, I prefer the Canadian and British ratings system. There should be a rating like the 15 rating in the UK or the 14 rating in Canada which applies to PG13s that are close to R and Rs that only have F bombs like Erin Brockovich or aren't "slasher movie" violent like The Matrix.

[Raoul Duke]

I was kind of wondering why the shot of Pontius drinking the horse youknowwhat was blocked...Possibly could it be considered some type of beastiality act?

[CletusHorniblow]

Originally posted by powersauce
That horrible speech Kyle's mom made in that South Park movie is a perfect example of how fucked up the MPAA is. It's sad that a violent movie without blood gets a PG-13 yet some youngsters can't see Man on the Moon or Planes,Trains,& Automobiles just because of a few F bombs.

Planes Trains and Automobiles is rated R? I never knew that. Also, Man On The Moon did have a tiny bit of nudity in it...I don't think you can have any whatsoever (other than maybe a butt or a side boob) in a PG-13 flick. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But that really is beside the point. The main issue that still remains is the fact that these nearly harmless flicks are rated R because of F-bombs and nudity while violence is a-okay!

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by CletusHorniblow
But that really is beside the point. The main issue that still remains is the fact that these nearly harmless flicks are rated R because of F-bombs and nudity while violence is a-okay!

That is what is pathetic about us. We have all of Europe laughing at us because they allow nudity on TV. but, they laugh at us because we get upset when a boob appears on televison and yet we let someone get his head blown off. Alot of people in thiscountry have sticks up their asses and are a bunch of tightwads.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by CletusHorniblow
Planes Trains and Automobiles is rated R? I never knew that. Also, Man On The Moon did have a tiny bit of nudity in it...I don't think you can have any whatsoever (other than maybe a butt or a side boob) in a PG-13 flick. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But that really is beside the point. The main issue that still remains is the fact that these nearly harmless flicks are rated R because of F-bombs and nudity while violence is a-okay!

your right blowhorn, but didnt Kate Winslet show her tits for a good couple seconds in Titanic, and that got pg-13 (not arguing with you, just trying to bring up MPAA's dumb fuck ups)

Other pg-13 have that to, which confuses me alot. I really dont get why man on the Moon got R (prob for the F-bombs, whatever)

[Criminal Rock]

If you're still able to see the movie, why does it matter? Besides, I enjoy seeing a good R rated film without having to worry about dumbass kids disrupting the movie.

My only beef with the MPAA is when they try to drop a scene or whatever, but that rarely happens to any of the movies I care about.

[Cyclonus]

Ummm...the new Jackass movie has a guy drinking horse semen?!! The "pastry" scene in Van Wilder was bad enough. Jesus...Harlold...Christ...!

[Kevin Lockard]

That is what is pathetic about us. We have all of Europe laughing at us because they allow nudity on TV. but, they laugh at us because we get upset when a boob appears on televison and yet we let someone get his head blown off. Alot of people in thiscountry have sticks up their asses and are a bunch of tightwads.

Cultural differences. Why is violence in films being accepted over sex in films here a problem? Who decides that? How do you know it's not supposed to be the other way around? Due to the singular nature of humanity, you can't. It's down to a matter of "morals", which are all simple beliefs to the confines of everyone's individual's mind and that belief doesn't spread out and directly effect the world itself as it is simply electrical impules confined to the network of neurons in one's brain.

Besides, "we" don't decide the ratings, the MPAA does. I doubt Europe laughs at us. If they do, let them. The MPAA is one of SEVERAL fucked up boards Why single America out as if they are the only? Answer me that first and foremost. People make too big of a deal over this kind of thing and blow it WAY out of proportion.

Is that wrong? Nope. It's definitely not "pathetic". If Europe wants to "laugh" at us, then watch me laugh back (or look smug perhaps) as to why they can be so disrespectful and rude at film festivals even with the filmmakers sitting right there with them.

[powersauce]

Originally posted by CletusHorniblow
Planes Trains and Automobiles is rated R? I never knew that.


Yep, and here's the ONLY reason why in this funny scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTFLLkwmHlw

[neo15_01]

Ok...Jackass is friggin awesome. Its just hilarious. Its also dumb as fuck, but who cares.

And yes , the MPAA does suck, there's nothing anyone can do to change their wicked ways of taking the gore out of our horror movies but allowing the jackass guys to shock they're testicles. THe world will never know.

[stickmangrit]

wow, you guys aren't even scratching the surface. lets discuss how the fact that movies with near identical sex scenes(same positions, same # of thrusts) can get two totally different ratings. the difference? if you're a major studio, and it's striaght sex, you're R. if you have gay sex, and/or you're an independant, welcome to NC-17 land. and let's not forget the American Psycho debacle, where a shot of Christian Bale flexing in a mirror during sex got it an NC-17. never mind the girl with a chainsaw in her back, or the people with clothes hangers shoved through their collar bones and hung up in a closet, that flexing is goint to bring about a major moral decline in america.

FUCK THE MPAA. facist corrupt studio suck-off pieces of shit.

[Kevin Lockard]

wow, you guys aren't even scratching the surface. lets discuss how the fact that movies with near identical sex scenes(same positions, same # of thrusts) can get two totally different ratings. the difference? if you're a major studio, and it's striaght sex, you're R. if you have gay sex, and/or you're an independant, welcome to NC-17 land. and let's not forget the American Psycho debacle, where a shot of Christian Bale flexing in a mirror during sex got it an NC-17. never mind the girl with a chainsaw in her back, or the people with clothes hangers shoved through their collar bones and hung up in a closet, that flexing is goint to bring about a major moral decline in america.

FUCK THE MPAA. facist corrupt studio suck-off pieces of shit.

Most of what the MPAA does doesn't make sense but it doesn't make them "fascist." And to put the case the wrong way around is to say sex in films isn't accepted hardly at all when it is, just as violence is judged rather harshly on itself. Besides,there are just as many ratings boards in other places that are fucked up but nobody ever seems to want to talk to them.


Also, American Psycho=POS as far as I'm concerned (just for the record.)

[AaronisMe]

There shouldn't be a rating system. It's as bad as having those stickers on the CDs.

And the worst thing is that if you're NC-17, you don't get to promote or get played anywhere but places like Landmark.. I wonder how well Titanic would have done if it was rated R.

This Neo-Puritanism movement has gotta stop.

TV is jsut as bad. Too much censorship.

[BigSugar]

I think there is a larger point here that is being missed: to my knowledge the MPAA has never once forced a filmaker to cut a single frame of film. The STUDIOS and DISTRIBUTORS on the other hand are more than willing to chop and cut to get a desired rating. That's the thing that everyone here seems to be missing. If the makers and the studio behind "Jackass 2" had not given a damn about attendence and taken an NC-17, the film would've gone to theaters (very few of them) untouched. And before you throw up the "contractual obligation" argument, remember that those contracts that stipulate a director must turn in an R rated film are buisiness arrangements and have nothing to do with artistic integity of the film. I think it's a damn shame that the studios never gave the NC-17 rating a chance, but that's the shakes.

[Dauber]

Now what can mean the difference for a film getting an NC-17 rating. For instance take Pulp Fiction for instance which almost did get one for the violence, language, strong sexual content, and drug use. Granted I wasn't a big fan of this Quentin Tarantino flick. Then take a comedy such as Jackass 2 which has language, dangerous stunts, and nudity. Which for me was funny, but stupid nonetheless. Then take a dramatic move such as Young Adam which has strong sexual content, nudity, and language. Was an okay flick. Now why I am I comparing the three films is that stupid people take a film like Pulp Fiction and say that it's too violent and harsh language. I've heard this kind of language everyday at work, like it bothers me all this much. But apparently the MPAA thinks that it's all too realistic for for younger viewers too watch. Apparently they haven't seen Saw, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Dawn of the Dead. Then we have the comedies which are supposed to be farce for whatever the director intended it too be. Yet if it's too crude, vulgar, or makes fun of people with disabilities it gets a slap in the face. Heck where i work we make fart jokes, rude comments, and so forth. Then for the drama's that show too much sex, how do you think you were born. Apparently they think that too much vigorous and heavy petting are far too sensitive for the publics eye.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by powersauce
That horrible speech Kyle's mom made in that South Park movie is a perfect example of how fucked up the MPAA is. It's sad that a violent movie without blood gets a PG-13 yet some youngsters can't see Man on the Moon or Planes,Trains,& Automobiles just because of a few F bombs.

Personally, I prefer the Canadian and British ratings system. There should be a rating like the 15 rating in the UK or the 14 rating in Canada which applies to PG13s that are close to R and Rs that only have F bombs like Erin Brockovich or aren't "slasher movie" violent like The Matrix.

I agree, the Canadian and the UK systems make more sense. But, technically--if I understand this correctly--you're not allowed in if you're under the age. I saw a lot of movies that got a UK:15 rating long before I was fifteen, and I don't think it did me much harm. No system is perfect. The MPAA really doesn't upset me too much, possibly because ratings don't prevent me from seeing a movie either way.

I do think that the word "fuck" appearing twice in a movie does not make it an R-rated movie. It's not like people don't know that word from the time they're 8 or 9 or 10 anyway.

[BigSugar]

Actually, according to an article I read long ago in "Time," two "fucks" does earn and R rating. More then five "shits" and something like eight or nine "bitches" or "goddamns" also qualifies as an R. The article was pointing out one of the few areas where there are quantifiable aspects of a film that can determine a rating. I belive the article was in reference to "Clerks" and "Natural Born Killers" both recieving NC-17's.

[AaronisMe]

The real problem are the people/companies enforcing the policy. The rating system is technically voluntary.

So, we just gotta get on the horn and tell the cinemas and studios to let it be and forget about the ratings. It's just sad to see some lonely NC-17 movie get shafted and not aloud to be advertised. Places like AMC refuse to show NC-17s.

It's kinda like Wal-Mart refusal to carry an CD with the Parental Advisory sticker.

[Kevin Lockard]

This thread is kinda old but whatever, thought I'd throw my final two cents in:

First up: I could probably name quite a few things wrong with every ratings board to some extent. I might be nitpicking a little on some but I personally think the MPAA gets alot more heat than they deserve. In France, Saving Private Ryan and Eyes Wide Shut (yes, the NC-17 version) are both rated U, meaning any person of any age can just walk in and watch it, no parent needed no matter what the age. Yes, that's definitely a problem. This is especially funny cause I just read over on IMDB that Spielberg was concerned about tv shows showing violence and things in commercials and everything. I wonder what he thinks of his movie being available to people of ALL ages, no parents required. Of course, the IMDB douchebags were confronted with this question as to why SPR was given such a rating (by ME!) and they just told me because it's an "anti-violence movie." Hmmm...so is Last House On The Left and Clockwork Oramge. Would you let kids of any age watch them? I sure as hell hope not. Oh, that's right. They are banned in quite a few places still, aren't they? I also recall Roger Ebert flamming the MPAA due to them not letting Kubrick give EWS a NC-17 over an R rating saying that EWS is not meant to be a film for young viewers anyhow. Oh, well. I'd also like to point out that the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is so full of shit it's unbelievable.

Secondly: Nudity. Nudity, I don't believe, should raise a film's rating. Maybe in the case of excessive nudity or something along the lines of what has already been enforced (like showing gentials, usually male genitals or maybe not but whatever, I brought it up anyway) but something like Lost In Translation (I believe?) got an R rating simply because of a woman's tit shots. Maybe they could limit how many shots of nudity you can have and whatnot, I dunno. But nudity shouldn't automatically raise a film's rating, that's for sure.

Thirdly: Simulated Sex. Yes, simulated sex should definitely raise a film's rating. Seeing the naked body isn't really much of a pinch but sex on screen is a little different. And I don't care what the sexual scene entails, yeah, there should be a rating on that. The argument of "How do you think you got here" isn't really a good one to be honest, no offense. There are plenty of reasons for a sexual scene to happen. Next time I'm with my girlfriend (I don't have one, I'm just theorizing) in public, maybe I'll just have sex with her in public since it's no big thing. I mean, it would be the same as giving her a kiss, right? I'm showing my love for her, right? No. Pornos have, uh, sex on them and they are doing acts that have means of reproducing (sex, ya know) but I wouldn't let my children anywhere near them. Besides, Promiscruity (SP? LOL) is kinda running rampant these days very much so. A 5 year old can walk into a store and pick up a book about sex right there out in the open and open it and read about the "Position of the Week." Parents need to make sure their kids are steered clear of this kind of thing and I wouldn't want my kids being exposed to this kind of thing and I wouldn't want them openly watching some sexual scene, no matter how extreme, on film either.

Coming in 4th place: the Catholic Church. Alot of people think we should just do away with the ratings board (well, in a PERFECT world anyhow) and just have the content of the movie displayed, thus allowing parents if they want their kids watching said movie or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't such a thing grant the Catholic Church (of ALL people much less) the power to cut the films down themselves?

Last but not least: I personally think if the NC-17 rating somehow got overturned where either A) NC-17 films got proper advetisement like any other rating and were shown in all theaters or B) NC-17 ratings were done away with and an R rating was the worst you could get, then alot of heat would be off the MPAA and everybody would be much happier. That alone would solve alot of problems.

Other than that, I could care less how much sex (sex, NOT nudity, two different areas there) gets censored due to my own personal theories on the erotic (which, it should be noted for the sake of not being called an idiot, both agree with Kubrick and Romero's theories on the erotic as well).



:cool:

[AceD]

" I personally think if the NC-17 rating somehow got overturned where either A) NC-17 films got proper advetisement like any other rating and were shown in all theaters or B) NC-17 ratings were done away with and an R rating was the worst you could get, then alot of heat would be off the MPAA and everybody would be much happier. That alone would solve alot of problems."

Making R the worst rating doesn't work. You can't give something like SHORTBUS and SPR the same rating. And you can't FORCE privately owned theatres to show/advertise NC-17 movies (or any other movie)...now that would be a bad thing, folks! So I don't see how that solves problems.

"Alot of people think we should just do away with the ratings board (well, in a PERFECT world anyhow) and just have the content of the movie displayed, thus allowing parents if they want their kids watching said movie or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't such a thing grant the Catholic Church (of ALL people much less) the power to cut the films down themselves?"

Exactly. Would a filmmaker really rather have no rating but a long list of everything objectionable? Isn't a box that says "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, and some language" better than that? People are going to DEMAND something that gives them an idea of the content of a film, so you can't just do away with all types of systems. If you have a problem with people desiring to know the possibly objectionable content of a film, then you are a self-righteous moron. If you don't care about ratings, then don't look at them!

[Crazy Dud]

Originally posted by AceD
" I personally think if the NC-17 rating somehow got overturned where either A) NC-17 films got proper advetisement like any other rating and were shown in all theaters or B) NC-17 ratings were done away with and an R rating was the worst you could get, then alot of heat would be off the MPAA and everybody would be much happier. That alone would solve alot of problems."

Making R the worst rating doesn't work. You can't give something like SHORTBUS and SPR the same rating. And you can't FORCE privately owned theatres to show/advertise NC-17 movies (or any other movie)...now that would be a bad thing, folks! So I don't see how that solves problems.

"Alot of people think we should just do away with the ratings board (well, in a PERFECT world anyhow) and just have the content of the movie displayed, thus allowing parents if they want their kids watching said movie or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't such a thing grant the Catholic Church (of ALL people much less) the power to cut the films down themselves?"

Exactly. Would a filmmaker really rather have no rating but a long list of everything objectionable? Isn't a box that says "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, and some language" better than that? People are going to DEMAND something that gives them an idea of the content of a film, so you can't just do away with all types of systems. If you have a problem with people desiring to know the possibly objectionable content of a film, then you are a self-righteous moron. If you don't care about ratings, then don't look at them!

Thank you! People have a right to know if they're going to be exposed to something that offends them or not.

However, I agree that the MPAA ratings system is screwed up, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Anyway, remember that ratings were originally intended as nothing more than guidelines for parents. We're the ones (meaning us as a nation of people) who turned it into something more than that, and let's be honest . . . there are some movies you would not want your child to see.

[Kevin Lockard]

Making R the worst rating doesn't work. You can't give something like SHORTBUS and SPR the same rating. And you can't FORCE privately owned theatres to show/advertise NC-17 movies (or any other movie)...now that would be a bad thing, folks! So I don't see how that solves problems.

No, what I mean is that if they somehow made NC-17 like any other rating, meaning it got proper advertising and such like the other ratings. Yes, I realize it's probably never gonna happen but it would solve problems because filmmakers wouldn't have to fight like hell to get an R Rating knowing that an NC-17 film won't get much business and will pretty much spell death for the film's success.

But you know what? Scratch that statement. I think I like the R Rating being the worst rating better. I don't see why it would be such a bad thing. You have your violent popcorn action flicks that get mostly PG-13 ratings and then you have your Lost In Translation that gets an R Rating cause of, what, a mild tit shot? I'll dispute that for sure.

Then again, I might just scratch that statement as well. I like the one about not having any ratings alot better, just a box that displays the questionable content of the movie and leaves the choice for everyone alike to decide if they wanna watch the movie or let their children watch the movie.

Exactly. Would a filmmaker really rather have no rating but a long list of everything objectionable? Isn't a box that says "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, and some language" better than that? People are going to DEMAND something that gives them an idea of the content of a film, so you can't just do away with all types of systems. If you have a problem with people desiring to know the possibly objectionable content of a film, then you are a self-righteous moron. If you don't care about ratings, then don't look at them!

How is "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality and some language" any less complicated than something that says "This film contains strong violence and sexuality and some language." Isn't that alot better? That was my point. That lets people know the content of the movie without condemning them from seeing it. It also allows parents to know if they would want their children to see something or not. That goes for G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. Isn't that completely fair?

[AceD]

"How is "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality and some language" any less complicated than something that says "This film contains strong violence and sexuality and some language." Isn't that alot better? That was my point. That lets people know the content of the movie without condemning them from seeing it. It also allows parents to know if they would want their children to see something or not. That goes for G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. Isn't that completely fair?"

Sure is -- if we'd never had a rating system to begin with.

Parents (as they should) want some control over what their youngest kids watch. Some are more scared of violence and some are more strict about sex/nudity, but that's not what we're debating here, and again they have the right to their opinion and to raise their kid how they would like to. The problem with having NO rating is how to use an age restriction? Again, for a lot of reasons, you don't want a few eight-year-olds strolling into something like Hostel or Flags of Our Fathers or whatever. So I think a rating system makes it easier. Because again, people will demand explanation: if, for example, the films CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SUBURBIA and SHORTBUS each had no rating but had the explanation of "strong sexuality" -- we all know you can't quantify what's in those two films! I'd rather have a rating than a paragraph that has to explain everything. I don't really disagree with you on all points, I just think having some type of rating that makes it clear it's more graphic than an R-rated film is fine.

"what I mean is that if they somehow made NC-17 like any other rating, meaning it got proper advertising and such like the other ratings. Yes, I realize it's probably never gonna happen but it would solve problems because filmmakers wouldn't have to fight like hell to get an R Rating knowing that an NC-17 film won't get much business and will pretty much spell death for the film's success."

Advertising isn't the point. As far as I'm aware ff they provided a clean enough trailer, an NC-17 film can get a time slot even on TV. The problem is it would be a waste of money, because individual theatres still aren't going to show the film! They don't want the community backlash. Here's an example: I've worked for a couple different Movie Gallery stores: at one, where we had an "Adult Room", the adult product did nearly 40% of our business. At another, there was no adult room, but the store made equal money. It was a drasticly different demographic and the store knew that.

[Kevin Lockard]

Sure is -- if we'd never had a rating system to begin with.

Time we get rid of the rating system then. :D

Parents (as they should) want some control over what their youngest kids watch. Some are more scared of violence and some are more strict about sex/nudity, but that's not what we're debating here, and again they have the right to their opinion and to raise their kid how they would like to. The problem with having NO rating is how to use an age restriction? Again, for a lot of reasons, you don't want a few eight-year-olds strolling into something like Hostel or Flags of Our Fathers or whatever.

If parents don't want their kids strolling into a movie like that, then don't let them see it. By the time they are probably old enough to successfully sneak behind their parent's backs and into said movie, they're probably old enough to see the damn thing anyways. Look over at France, look at the type of films that get a U Rating, meanign people of all ages can see it. And they aren't exactly falling apart over there, are they?

So I think a rating system makes it easier. Because again, people will demand explanation: if, for example, the films CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN SUBURBIA and SHORTBUS each had no rating but had the explanation of "strong sexuality" -- we all know you can't quantify what's in those two films! I'd rather have a rating than a paragraph that has to explain everything. I don't really disagree with you on all points, I just think having some type of rating that makes it clear it's more graphic than an R-rated film is fine.

This is the thing: I'm not saying throw ratings out in the sense where every movie is just put out there to go in and watch. I'm saying just list the suggestive things in the film, nothing more. You already have a paragraph that explains everything! I'm simply stating replace the "PG-13/R/Etc... with "This Film contains....". So, something like Blood Work: Instead of saying "Rated R for Violence and Language", just have it say "This Film contains Violence and Language." Isn't that easier? And more fair at that? It also doesn't cause filmmakers to have to cut down on certainf ilms in order to secure an R rating.

[AceD]

"Look over at France, look at the type of films that get a U Rating, meanign people of all ages can see it. And they aren't exactly falling apart over there, are they"

Who said anything about anyone or anything falling apart? If parents don't want their 13 and under kids to see certain things in film, they should be able to rely on something that doesn't allow them to see stuff that is borderline pornographic.

"This is the thing: I'm not saying throw ratings out in the sense where every movie is just put out there to go in and watch. I'm saying just list the suggestive things in the film, nothing more. You already have a paragraph that explains everything! I'm simply stating replace the "PG-13/R/Etc... with "This Film contains....". So, something like Blood Work: Instead of saying "Rated R for Violence and Language", just have it say "This Film contains Violence and Language." Isn't that easier?"

I don't think so. Look, like I said before, you can't pretend we've never had a rating system to being with -- if you ditched it, you need a way to explain to people the similarities and differences. And yes it would take longer to explain the content of some films without a rating. As I said before, how are you going to explain the difference between sex scenes that we see in movies like LEATHAL WEAPON 2 and THE DREAMERS or SHORTBUS? Saying "this films contains sexuality" doesn't do it justice, so you'd need a much longer (and probably silly-sounding) explanation. I just really don't mind having a rating that signifies the film's content is above and beyond just a passing sex scene in an action flick.

"It also doesn't cause filmmakers to have to cut down on certain films in order to secure an R rating."

Do you really think that without an NC-17 rating something like SHORTBUS would be a box office smash? Maybe from the horny preteen crowd, but that's it. People would rather watch stuff like that in their homes. Now I will give you that some movies (THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, SHOWGIRLS) benefited from and R-rating (or R-rated cut) and it helped their box office. But with a rating or not, I still believe a lot of theatres wouldn't screen some of the more graphic films.

All in all, as i mentioned before, I don't think we disagree on everything.




And more fair at that? It also doesn't cause filmmakers to have to cut down on certainf ilms in order to secure an R rating."

[stickmangrit]

before i start, i should state that i have four siblings, all under the age of 11. i'm just as protective of what they watch as their parents, and i don't discuss any movies they're not allowed to watch around them. i'm highly conscious of what's playing in my car when i drive them someplace. that's my background. and here's my opinion:

NC-17 is the biggest load of horse-shit ever visited upon the american people. what fucking purpose does it serve, if not to censor? the MPAA knows full fucking well what it's doing when they give that rating, and the fact that it's used almost exclusively on independent film-makers and those who dare approve of the mortal sin of homosexuality simply re-enforces that fact. what is truly accomplished by it? what's the fucking difference between it and an R, other than the MPAA deciding for the parent that this shouldn't be seen by minors? and when the fuck did anyone ask the MPAA to make that decision for them? R should be the end point. if a parent wants to bring a kid to Shortbus than that's the FUCKING PARENT'S DECISION, NOT JACK FUCKING VALENTI'S.

[AceD]

"NC-17 is the biggest load of horse-shit ever visited upon the american people. what fucking purpose does it serve, if not to censor?"

They don't "censor" anything. They tell you what they would rate the film under their rules, and you DON'T have to follow those rules. That's not censorship.

"the MPAA knows full fucking well what it's doing when they give that rating, and the fact that it's used almost exclusively on independent film-makers and those who dare approve of the mortal sin of homosexuality simply re-enforces that fact."

What? I don't know what you're talking about here. Can I have some examples of this anti-homosexual vendetta?

"what's the fucking difference between it and an R, other than the MPAA deciding for the parent that this shouldn't be seen by minors?"

Again, it's THEIR set of rules, and no one is required to abide by them.

"and when the fuck did anyone ask the MPAA to make that decision for them?"

The public demands explanation for the content of movies -- that much we seem to agree on throughout this thread.

"R should be the end point. if a parent wants to bring a kid to Shortbus than that's the FUCKING PARENT'S DECISION, NOT JACK FUCKING VALENTI'S."

Then I guess if the filmmakers behind SHORTBUS and other similar films should release the film unrated if they think minors need the opportunity to see it in a theatre.

I understand that you're pissed, but the FACT is that NO ONE is REQUIRED To use the MPAA. If they "ballsy" filmmakers really were groundbreaking, they'd release their film unrated no matter the financial consequences. Just like everyone and everything else, the reason fillmmakers whine about the ratings system has everything to do with money and nothing to do with censorship.

[Jim H]

I don't think you can have any whatsoever (other than maybe a butt or a side boob) in a PG-13 flick. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Watch Nell some time.