View Full Version : the FUK*@# MPAA!!
okay, I FRIGGING HATE THOSE MOTHER FU@#$! they always have to go changing movies they shouldn't, most of the time, very picky. i mean, sometimes when you see an unedited film or a director's cut it is soooo much better, i say the MPAA go put their fingers where they belong, in their asses.
PS. i'm not usually this rude, but i just hate the system... alot.
You think MPAA are bad? Jesus, be glad you aren't British, our censors (BBFC) are still stuck in the fucking dark ages. At least you guys can have unrated videos and dvds. Here there is far more censorship for home viewing than at the cinema
The Shadow
09-26-2002, 10:16 AM
Yea, he is right you know.
James Logan
09-26-2002, 11:27 AM
I think the MPAA, in principle, isn't that bad. I don't think they should cut movies at all, I don't think they have the right to do that, because that's plain censorship and abuse.
But the whole rating system is a good system. I think keeping some movies away from young viewers is a respectable and noble mission, and although the MPAA should stop cutting movies, they should keep the ratings system going.
Unfortunately, we all know that if a movie gets a hard rating, a lot of studios will cut stuff themselves to get the rating down and make the movie more bankable commercially. That's how things work.
Originally posted by SAI
You think MPAA are bad? Jesus, be glad you aren't British, our censors (BBFC) are still stuck in the fucking dark ages. At least you guys can have unrated videos and dvds. Here there is far more censorship for home viewing than at the cinema
OMG! i would be soo pissed! thats such an abuse and exageration! no unrated dvds or videos? :mad:
Joel_R
09-26-2002, 03:00 PM
The MPAA does not edit films, the just give each film a rating. The studios and filmmakers themselves edit the films to keep down the film's rating from an "R" or "NC-17". You should be directing this rant to studio heads not the MPAA.
Whiggles
09-26-2002, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't say that the BBFC is inherently any worse than the MPAA. At least their guidelines are a bit clearer, whereas often with MPAA ratings I've got the impression that it's a bit of a pot-luck process. A BBFC 18 will let you get away with more than an MPAA R -- the thing that makes the BBFC seem stricter is that the age ratings are mandatory, so distributors sometimes decide to cut material to get a lower age rating. For example, Warner decided to edit The Matrix to get a "15", when they could have had an "18" uncut, and Paramount edited Tomb Raider so as to get a "12" instead of a "15". It's swings and roundabouts really.
Frankly I would say what makes BBFC worse is their continued claim to be classifiers rather than censors. This suggests that they are eiether ignorant of their apallingly censorious record (and, despite appearences, little has changed) or believe the general public moronic enough to actually believe them.
Whiggles
09-27-2002, 07:36 AM
Even if they didn't edit anything they would still be censors, since putting a label on a product saying that people under a certain age are not allowed to have it is technically censorship.
I don't believe that. To me classification is an entirely different thing to censorship.
Classification is really just a statement of suitability, it's when these people start limiting the freedom of adults that I have a problem. Much as I'd like to live free from censorship in all its forms we do need to try and prevent kids from seeing certain material. BUT, and this is the salient point, adults MUST be allowed to make their own decisions about what they view, as long as that material is within the bounds of law (IE; child porn, animal slaughter and genuine violence would still be outlawed)
Whiggles
09-27-2002, 09:13 AM
Yes, I think there is a definite need for a classification system. If you look at the situation in the UK in the early 1980s, you can see the problems of not having one. Without guidelines, the tabloid press got their balls in a twist and started campaigning against all forms of violence on video. It reached its peak when the government decided to take matters into their own hands and compiled a list of titles to seize (the "Video Nasties" list). The cops then started raiding video stores, going through the list and seizing any title that was on it, as well as prosecuting the suppliers.
I think adults should have the right to watch what they want, as long as the film itself was not made using illegal practice (such as child porn or actually harming animals).
Originally posted by Whiggles
Yes, I think there is a definite need for a classification system. Without guidelines, the tabloid press got their balls in a twist and started campaigning against all forms of violence on video.
I agree in classification but i don't believe in censorship or cutting. sometimes they do some really silly stuff. for example, in teaching mrs. tingle they filmed a scene were Hellen Mirren slips alcohol on the floor and her dog starts drinking it and he gets really drunk. The studio wanted the movie to be PG-13 and the MPAA said that they have to cut that scene out because it would be and R because it promotes alcohol drinking to children from 13 to 18? what the? and i can go on w/ lots of other stuff. i mean there are movies that change completely because of the deleted scenes, thank god for the uncut dvds and director's cuts!
Whiggles
09-27-2002, 12:47 PM
If you want an example of just how anal the MPAA is, look at the two American Pie movies. Both were cut in the US to get an R rating, yet in the UK both the theatrical cut and unedited cuts were released at a "15" classification. Crazy...
FeverDog420
09-28-2002, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Whiggles
It reached its peak when the government decided to take matters into their own hands and compiled a list of titles to seize (the "Video Nasties" list). The cops then started raiding video stores, going through the list and seizing any title that was on it, as well as prosecuting the suppliers.
Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw. What a waste of taxpayer money. What movies were on the list?
Whiggles
09-28-2002, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by FeverDog420
Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw. What a waste of taxpayer money. What movies were on the list? Various films at different times. The list no longer officially exists, since with classification there is no need for it. Unfortunately, some of the titles that were on it are still unavailable because they have been refused classification. It's really sickening. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a police state. A total of 74 movies were on the list, although not all at once. The list can be found here:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/realmofhorror/nasties1.htm
Even Evil Dead was on the list at one point (although it is now available uncut). Also, other titles like The Exorcist were not specifically targeted, but were refused classification when the ratings became mandatory. (The Exorcist is also available now.)
the only ones i've seen of the nasties are::
I spit on you grave
Last HOuse on the Left
Cannibal Holocoust(really yucky)
i can't believe Caligula isn't in there, yuck! he cuts off some guy's penis! :eek:
Whiggles
09-28-2002, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Ed
i can't believe Caligula isn't in there, yuck! he cuts off some guy's penis! :eek: Oh but surely you know, Ed, 'sexual" violence towards men is okay, but not towards women. /sarcasm :D
Originally posted by Whiggles
Oh but surely you know, Ed, 'sexual" violence towards men is okay, but not towards women. /sarcasm :D
HAHAHA, i needed that whiggles :D
Through my interest in censorship I've been seeing a few of the nasties recently.
Unfortunately most are still heavily cut here.
Here are some capsule reviews of some of the famous titles I've seen.
Cannibal Holocaust is a good film, and truly scary because of the way the story is told through 'found footage' (makes Blair Witch look as original as Goldmember) even with 5 mins 45 secs of cuts but I'd really like to see an uncut version
I Spit On Your Grave (missing 7 mins 2 secs) is NOT a good film, but I can see that the uncut version is going to be much better as what BBFC is cut out a large amount of the motivation for the heroines revenge. How this helps anyone I really don't know.
Zombie Flesh Eaters Is perhaps the best of the nasties I've seen but is rendered worthless by the uncut version (which includes the best zombie make ups I've seen). It's on R1 dvd (Under the title of Zombie )and is recommended for any horror fan
Adam J. Hakari
09-29-2002, 10:57 PM
I've kept silent about the MPAA so far, but they cannot justify giving the wonderful AMELIE an "R" rating because brief, and pretty brief at that, nudity appears once or twice, and two people have off-screen sex. TITANIC got away with sex, nudity, almost the works, and all in a nice PG-13 ratings to get the middle-schoolers to come watch.
And a more recent example, ECKS VS. SEVER was rated R for "strong violence." I saw barely a hint of blood, just a bunch of explosions, non-gory deaths, and heard a couple "S" words here and there. Is that all basis for an R rating? To the MPAA, I just say lighten up a bit, okay? I hear CLERKS-style language in the halls at school almost every day, and we can only see G to PG-rated movies (even PG-13 is a big "maybe" in our grade, and I'm a high school senior).
Just lighten up, MPAA, is all I ask.
I agree that the MPAA isn't wrong in principle. Like it or not, some teenagers find sex and violence disturbing(suckers). What I don't agree with is the following ratings:
Army of Darkness gets an R(the director's cut got an NC-17, for Christ's sake). This film is suitable for just about anybody. Blood is not spilt, ash says "fuck" once, and the only nudity is a slave girl's breasts from far away. How is it that this is R, yet films like LOTR get a PG-13?
Everyone says I love you is R. This is the biggest injustice probably in the history of ratings. ESILY contains: NO violence, NO sex, and one use of the word "fuck". THis film is great and should be viewed by five year olds. This rating is insane.
Evil Dead II gets X. Hmm...a cartoonishly violent film that happens to be one of the funniest films of the 80s...yes....NO ONE UNDER 17!!!
the movie guy
10-04-2002, 07:21 PM
How is it that Pretty in Pink got away with a PG when it shows teens getting drunk, talking about sex, swearing pretty hard, and even a girl showering? Last I checked, American Pie was almost NC-17 for those things (okay, so PIP wasn't THAT bad, but still.) PIP should have been a PG-13 upon the release of the DVD, and it's resubmission to the MPAA (since it originally came out before PG-13 was "invented" in 1990/'91).
Airplane (PG) also has very brief nudity, some language, drug use, and a few vulgar sexual references.
FeverDog420
10-05-2002, 04:07 AM
What's the only PG movie with frontal male nudity?
Click here (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080492) for the answer.
And Pretty in Pink, while actually PG-13, ain't the only example of a classic John Hughes movie with a misleading rating. Sixteen Candles has a few F-bombs as well as kids drinking and smoking pot.
The Bad News Bears has loads of swearing in it, but it's also PG.
And nobody's been able to explain to me how Almost Famous (in which a bright teen learns positive values with the support of his loving mother) is R while Coyote Ugly (which instructs young girls on how to be bimbos who shake their asses for cash) is PG-13.
And semen is R when swallowed in American Pie but NC-17 when dripping down a wall in Happiness? So, it's okay for it to be injested but not seen?
The MPAA needs to stop counting nipples and F-words and start applying logic, thought and reason when giving ratings. Waking Life is R? This reasoning is similar to Amelie's - Hollywood didn't produce them, so the MPAA is under no pressure to grant them ratings that won't deny admission to a single paying customer. See also Keep the River on Your Right - an R movie that contains no sex, violence, language or nudity but had the misfortune to be independently produced and distributed.
Blue Velvet's disturbing psychological horror + Hollywood clout = R
Requiem for a Dream's disturbing psychological horror - Hollywood clout = NC-17
Which one would your rather have your teen see?
Bloodybitch13
10-06-2002, 01:41 PM
Take the Lion King for example. Mufasa is trampled to death by wilderbeasts.You even see his corpse.Simba is nuzzleing him and all around me in theater I heard little kids asking,"Why doesn't he wake up?"
Then you have Bambi whose mom is shot off camera. In Dumbo the main character and his rodent companion drink alchohal and have nightmares about pink elephants.
In Hunchback of note dame the word "hell" is used constanly, I think "damnation" is used once.And the gypsy Esmerelda does a sexy dance.
These are rated G! What is wrong with the mpaa?
FeverDog-
Like I needed MORE reasons not to see Can't Stop the Music.
FeverDog420
10-06-2002, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by bob
Like I needed MORE reasons not to see Can't Stop the Music.
C'mon, how can you hate a movie that opens with a rollerskating Steve Guttenberg whose family jewels keep switching sides as he skates around Manhattan to a truly awful disco song?
Dialogue:
Referring to the Village People's music
"This IS the sound of the '80s!"
Ok, maybe this isn't your idea of a good time. Camp doesn't appeal to everybody, but nothing on Earth could make me give up my DVD.
And, to keep on topic, this is another PG movie with casual potsmoking. And did I mention the nudity in the YMCA shower scene?
The Claw
10-06-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by FeverDog420
C'mon, how can you hate a movie that opens with a rollerskating Steve Guttenberg whose family jewels keep switching sides as he skates around Manhattan to a truly awful disco song?
steve guttenberg on rollerskates. this i gotta see.
i agree with everyone that the mpaa smell like old feet.
FeverDog420
10-07-2002, 06:19 PM
So last night I finally saw Hannibal. It was completely disgusting - a geek show that's gross beyond measure. But what I don't understand is how this movie got an "R" while Clerks was threatened with NC-17. Does Jack Valenti prefer America's teens to be exposed to sauteed brains rather than talk about blowjobs? What is his fuckin' problem, and why don't America's parents (for whom the MPAA was created) question his ethics?
Whiggles
10-07-2002, 06:26 PM
I think the reasoning is probably that Hannibal is not the sort of film that your average teen would be interested in, whereas Clerks is the kind of movie teens would most like to see. There is of course the fact that Hannibal was a large project by two of the major studios in Hellishwood (Universal and MGM) -- the big studios are the reason the MPAA is there in the first place.
At the end of the day, we can debate the censorship matter all we like, but when I want to see a movie, I decide what kind of age group it is suitable for. If a certain movie has been cut where I live (as happens quite often), no big loss -- I just import it from elsewhere. Obviously it's not ideal, but the movie studios are often too spineless to take the risk and accept an NC-17 rating. It's all about money, and the big execs would prefer to butcher a director's hard work than lose money by restricting kids from movies. Heh, kinda makes you wonder how UK distributors manage it -- after all, the 15 and 18 ratings (which the "R" is somewhere in between) are not advisory but MANDATORY... and so was the 12 (PG-13 equivalent) until a few weeks ago. That's right, they are essentially NC-12, NC-15 and NC-18. But still they survive. Go figure.
FeverDog420
10-07-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Whiggles
I think the reasoning is probably that Hannibal is not the sort of film that your average teen would be interested in, whereas Clerks is the kind of movie teens would most like to see.
Are you kidding? How much money did Hannibal make? I doubt that only adults helped it surpass Silence of the Lambs at the box office. And Henry & June, the first NC-17 movie, had limited teen appeal, right?
And Clerks had a limited release - mainly art houses. Did the average teen at the time even know of this movie's existence? Box office receipts say "no."
Whiggles
10-08-2002, 06:33 AM
I still don't think of Hannibal as the movie your average teen would want to see. I think many teens would probably find it boring (I know my brother, who is 15, did), and would be more likely to want to go and see the latest action flick or teen comedy. Since Hannibal's viewing figures were so high, I would suspect that a lot of the audience was probably made up of kids dragged to see it by unwitting parents.
I wasn't aware that its viewing figures surpassed Silence though. Interesting...
the_sneaker
10-09-2002, 03:19 PM
I agree with what Logan said, that 'in principle' they're not that bad, but to cut scenes from a movie is simply... well... they're the Gestapo and the movies are the Jews. They had no right with what they were doing and the MPAA has no right to cut movies.
Evil Dead, I heard, got an NC-17!!!! rating. Give me a break, it wasn't that bad, and what's this crap about The Matrix recieving an R rating? Bull Shi*!
Sorry, I had to get that out.
!the_sneaker!
Michael_myers
10-20-2002, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by SAI
I don't believe that. To me classification is an entirely different thing to censorship.
Classification is really just a statement of suitability, it's when these people start limiting the freedom of adults that I have a problem. Much as I'd like to live free from censorship in all its forms we do need to try and prevent kids from seeing certain material. BUT, and this is the salient point, adults MUST be allowed to make their own decisions about what they view, as long as that material is within the bounds of law (IE; child porn, animal slaughter and genuine violence would still be outlawed)
child porn is illegal, animal slaughter will not be tolerated by most large film companys, extreme violence is only for horror and action. Some films rely on violence (IE friday the 13th)
Lady Summerisle
11-15-2002, 09:29 AM
George Clooney's ass in SOLARIS is getting an R, but most half-decent horrors are getting cut to ribbons, or delayed.
Witness...
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER. Made 1986, released 1990. NC-17 for "atmosphere". My ass.
BubbaStrangelove
11-15-2002, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Whiggles
I still don't think of Hannibal as the movie your average teen would want to see.
Yes way! When I was a teen, going to see Silence of the Lambs was the happening thing -- everyone and their neighbors had seen that flick.
Why would the sequel be any less appealing to teens 10 years later?
I agree that the concept of the MPAA is good, but just like a majority of laws, the people who enact them are numbskulls.
RAIN MAN - rated R (cussing and a shot of boobies)
O Brother Where Art Thou - PG-13 for violence (huh?)
And Clerks was not geared towards teens but to 20-somethings. i was in HS when it came out, and it WAS NOT the movie to see, despite the happenin' soundtrack. It was in black and white, for bejezzus! Most of the teens probably thought it was a classic film.
I really can't understand how Clerks would appeal to teens. Of course now that there is Jay and Silent Bob, I understand, but really, in 1994, Clerks was not a movie teens wanted to see. Like has been said, look at who saw it.
syxxpac
11-15-2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by the movie guy
Airplane (PG) also has very brief nudity, some language, drug use, and a few vulgar sexual references.
That's funny. My cover has a big red R sticker on it.
Whiggles
11-15-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yes way! When I was a teen, going to see Silence of the Lambs was the happening thing -- everyone and their neighbors had seen that flick.
Why would the sequel be any less appealing to teens 10 years later?I don't know about you, but I think Hannibal is VERY different from Silence. It has a lot less mainstream appeal: I see it as a gothic fairytale, and it's certainly not an easy film to get to grips with.
Jon Lyrik
05-18-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Lady Summerisle
Witness...
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER. Made 1986, released 1990. NC-17 for "atmosphere". My ass.
Huh?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.