Nc-17

[Remec]

Yep. I was. And I still stand by that. Select a hundred people randonly worldwide, and I'm convinced that the percentage that recognize said imfamous rapper will be more than who can spot the Ratz-man in a lineup.

Could you spot the pope sans his spiffy robe and hat?

Of course. He's a man of power and influence, not *just* a symbol of cultural importance. Plus, his picture was everywhere in the media a few months ago---his picture in either civies or cardinal robes, that is.

Now, granted, I'm pretty much a nonpractising Catholic (I like to think of it as American Catholic as opposed to Roman, but that's a topic for another thread), but I was raised in that religion and things that touch on it prolly inpinge on my perceptions moreso than the current flavah of rapper. But I think, just as an example, that you have a point. The majority of people to whom "pop culture" typically means anything would prolly be more likely to recognize 50 Cent than Benedict.

Although, would we be--just as a sidethought--speaking of 50 Cent outside of his rapper trappings? 'Cause I'm not so sure he's that identifiable when not in his most known context, unlike...say...Sean Combs, who has a distinctive look and I think would be more easily picked out.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Although, would we be--just as a sidethought--speaking of 50 Cent outside of his rapper trappings? 'Cause I'm not so sure he's that identifiable when not in his most known context, unlike...say...Sean Combs, who has a distinctive look and I think would be more easily picked out.

I'm 22 and, well, me, and I wouldn't be able to recognize either of them, with or without the rapper gear.

 

[Slowlane]

That's a really silly way of avoiding the questions. I'll repeat them, then, and this time respond to what I say instead of going "that's one of the most ridicules (sic) things anyone has ever said" without explaining why it is ridiculous:

If the public hadn't been told those movies had adult content, the public wouldn't even have noticed the adult content, because none of those movies, with the possible exception of Zandalee focus on sex or violence. It's not what those movies are about.

Do you think that any one of those 10 movies is less appropriate to a 16-year-old to watch, for example, than the R-rated Basic Instinct?

Read the first paragraph of my post again. Without the rating system the whole industry hurts. The WHOLE industry, every rating. If it would help so much why do the makers of these films not release them unrated? It’s perfectly legal and done on DVD all the time.

What the movie focuses on is basically immaterial.

What a 16 year old watches is a decision for his/her parents. The rating system helps parents make a decision without needing to watch every film there kids want to see.

I think you are right about the pope and the rapper. Put them in business suits and few would recognize them.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Read the first paragraph of my post again. Without the rating system the whole industry hurts. The WHOLE industry, every rating. If it would help so much why do the makers of these films not release them unrated? It’s perfectly legal and done on DVD all the time.

What does that have to do with anything? Did anyone call for an ending of the rating system? You just continue to avoid the questions:

If the public hadn't been told those movies had adult content, the public wouldn't even have noticed the adult content, because none of those movies, with the possible exception of Zandalee focus on sex or violence. It's not what those movies are about.

Do you think that any one of those 10 movies is less appropriate to a 16-year-old to watch, for example, than the R-rated Basic Instinct?

What the movie focuses on is basically immaterial.

What a 16 year old watches is a decision for his/her parents. The rating system helps parents make a decision without needing to watch every film there kids want to see.

What the movies focus on is paramount to any rating system! So, you as a parent don't want to see every movie before "letting" your 16-year-old go to the cinema. You check the ratings, and it's OK by you for her to see a (very) sexually explicit movie with graphic depictions of violence, glamorizes drug use and uses obscene language, since it is R-rated - such as Basic Instinct. But if she wants to see Requiem for a Dream, for example, which is widely acclaimed not only as a work of art but as an essential anti-drug manifesto, she can't. What sense does that make? What kind of irresponsible excuse for parenting is that?

I think you are right about the pope and the rapper. Put them in business suits and few would recognize them.

I never said such a thing, but that's beside the point. It's better for you to stick to one topic at a time, or else you might get distracted with the funny colours.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What a 16 year old watches is a decision for his/her parents. The rating system helps parents make a decision without needing to watch every film there kids want to see.

That's a nice change of pace, though. So, you're of the opinion that the NC-17 and R-ratings should be abolished, in favour of parental advisory ratings only!

See how easy that was for you to change your opinion?

 

[sweetnpetite]

A number of social conservative groups placed pressure on large video chains including Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, as a result of which these chains do not stock NC-17 titles.[/INDENT]

[/INDENT]

That's ok- you can get your porno (and NC-17) at Family Video.

I don't know how large the chain is, but we always thought it was a bit ironic that they were the only movie place in my former town where 'Adult Movies' could be found.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Not if your ultimate goal is Population Control.

Violent death= Ok.

Birth control= Bad. (evil/sin)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That's ok- you can get your porno (and NC-17) at Family Video.

I don't know how large the chain is, but we always thought it was a bit ironic that they were the only movie place in my former town where 'Adult Movies' could be found.

Well, seeing as there are plenty of NC-17 movies that I would make almost compulsory for any 12-year-old (including many on that list of movies I posted before, many of which are rated for 12 and 15 year-olds elsewhere in the world), I wouldn't call it a bit ironic, but rather ironically accurate.

 

[sweetnpetite]

. In recent years Richard Gere (American Gigalo) Harvey Keital (The Piano?) or Bruce Willis (Colour of something that I forget) 80's and 90's films were controversial because of a male penis? What's up with that?

Why?

Color of Night.

Watch that movie, and you'll really be confused. Confused as to why I little willis winky in the water is the controversail part of this movie. Personally, I enjoyed it on many levels, but it's a very graphic movie filled with sick fucked up people. And it's also a total mind fuck (and far better concieved than Wild Things which falls apart the second time you watch or even think about it)

 

[sweetnpetite]

No rating prevents anything from being shown in theaters or on pay TV.

So, what’s your point?

No rating legally prevents anything from being shown in theaters.

I think it's already been shown that a rating can effectively prevent a movie from being shown and can also effect ticket sales, ratings and movie success.

If it diddn't matter either way, movie makers wouldn't lobby so hard for the lower R rating.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, seeing as there are plenty of NC-17 movies that I would make almost compulsory for any 12-year-old (including many on that list of movies I posted before, many of which are rated for 12 and 15 year-olds elsewhere in the world), I wouldn't call it a bit ironic, but rather ironically accurate.

curious as to what some of those movies are.

[But family video has the 'back room' with the hardcore porno. I'm guesing that's not what you meant]

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yer loud, yer bold, and yer everywhere. No wonder people have opinions.

It's all about US.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

curious as to what some of those movies are.

The list of 10 NC-17 movies I had posted before, a page or two ago (followed by their ratings in places outside the US:

Zandalee - Germany:16
Kika - France:16 / Germany:16 / Sweden:16
Killing Zoe - France:16 / Italy:14 / Netherlands:16
Kids - France:16 / Germany:16 / Norway:15 / Portugal:16 / Sweden:15
Requiem for a Dream - France:12 / Germany:16 / Japan:15
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! - Germany:16 / Sweden:15 (Spain:18 and it still was one of all-time biggest box-office sucesses)
L.I.E. - Germany:12 / Portugal:12
The Dreamers - France:12 / Italy:14 / Norway:15 / Sweden:15
Young Adam - France:12 / Germany:16 / Portugal:16
Bad Education - Canada:13+ (Québec) / Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) / France:12 / Italy:14 / Netherlands:12

At least "Kids", "Requiem for a Dream", and "Bad Education" should be seen by any normal early adolescent. And none of the other films would hurt them, either.

 

[sweetnpetite]

But it's not a fair guide. It is a joke. It will count how many curses and how many shots are fired, but it will happily give a PG-13 rating movie loaded with gratuitous violence and gore. It is a system that grades independent movies with puppets with NC-17 ratings simply because of their origin, not their content.

I think they should drop the letter rating and have a listing and an amount indicator. Or give them a rating (maybe a number 1-4 or 5) for *each* element (violence, language, nudity, sexual situations, gore, disturbing graphics, ect) rather than an overall. of course, that would probably just confuse people.

 

[Slowlane]

That's a nice change of pace, though. So, you're of the opinion that the NC-17 and R-ratings should be abolished, in favour of parental advisory ratings only!

See how easy that was for you to change your opinion?

That isn't what I said. I said parent use the ratings - all the rating - to help make informed decisions. I said that if the rating system is removed the industry will suffer. If the industry suffers ALL movies suffer.

I haven’t avoided any questions. You are locked into such a narrow point of view that you refuse to assimilate the answers.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That isn't what I said. I said parent use the ratings - all the rating - to help make informed decisions. I said that if the rating system is removed the industry will suffer. If the industry suffers ALL movies suffer.

I haven’t avoided any questions. You are locked into such a narrow point of view that you refuse to assimilate the answers.

You haven't given any answers. No one mentioned removing the rating system except you.

Here, let's try again:

If the public hadn't been told those movies had adult content, the public wouldn't even have noticed the adult content, because none of those movies, with the possible exception of Zandalee focus on sex or violence. It's not what those movies are about.

Do you think that any one of those 10 movies is less appropriate to a 16-year-old to watch, for example, than the R-rated Basic Instinct?

What the movies focus on is paramount to any rating system! So, you as a parent don't want to see every movie before "letting" your 16-year-old go to the cinema. You check the ratings, and it's OK by you for her to see a (very) sexually explicit movie with graphic depictions of violence, glamorizes drug use and uses obscene language, since it is R-rated - such as Basic Instinct. But if she wants to see Requiem for a Dream, for example, which is widely acclaimed not only as a work of art but as an essential anti-drug manifesto, she can't. What sense does that make? What kind of irresponsible excuse for parenting is that?

 

[Slowlane]

“If the public hadn't been told those movies had adult content, the public wouldn't even have noticed the adult content, because none of those movies, with the possible exception of Zandalee focus on sex or violence. It's not what those movies are about.

Do you think that any one of those 10 movies is less appropriate to a 16-year-old to watch, for example, than the R-rated Basic Instinct?

What the movies focus on is paramount to any rating system! So, you as a parent don't want to see every movie before "letting" your 16-year-old go to the cinema. You check the ratings, and it's OK by you for her to see a (very) sexually explicit movie with graphic depictions of violence, glamorizes drug use and uses obscene language, since it is R-rated - such as Basic Instinct. But if she wants to see Requiem for a Dream, for example, which is widely acclaimed not only as a work of art but as an essential anti-drug manifesto, she can't. What sense does that make? What kind of irresponsible excuse for parenting is that?”

Read carefully:

There are only two options. Rating or not. Neither one is perfect. A rating system is useful not is – not. The rating system cares little for what the movie is about only the content (an imperfect system but at least useful)

No I didn’t want to see every movie before the kids did, nor did I want to wait for the cleaned up version to hit TV. I made decisions based on the ratings, previews, reviews, and whatever other criteria seemed appropriate. If all else failed I did go see it before I let them see it. Again a repeat. I said it helps make an informed decision. I did not say it was the decision.

Sometimes I let them see the film, sometimes not. Sometimes I went with them to see it, sometimes not. In every case I used the rating as part of an informed decision. And I didn’t let them see Basic Instinct. I haven’t seen Requiem for a dream, but I suspect it would be one we would watch together. I preferred to watch those at home so it was easier to discuses them. Would you prefer they go to a theater and see the film where it is difficult to discus it ?? What kind of responsible parenting is that?

There may be any number of things that keep people from seeing an NC-17 film. But the designation itself is not stopping anyone. By your definition if someone suddenly rated Bambi NC-17, without changing the content, no one would ever watch it again.

BTW – I have raised five teenagers, what’s your score?

 

[sweetnpetite]

You're not exactly his target audience, but I'm pretty sure you would recognise him immediately. He looks like the Pope. And can call him the Pope. The man's name is of no importance.

On the other hand, do you know 50 Cents' name? Could you pick him at a police line-up? Do you think even 1% of the population could?

His name is Curtis Jackson.

I think more than 1% of the population could.

And the % would be higher if you only asked people under the age of say 35.

Sorry, box- I think it was- but pop culture, although short for popular does not refer to *everybody* It refers, in the current day and age to teens and 20-somethings who are considered to be the ideal demographic, opinion leaders, etc. Pop culture refures to that which would make a mention on "VH-1's Best Week Ever" ie. Anna Cornacova, Donald Trump, 50, Diddy, Adam Sandler, JLO, Paris Hilton, Ben Affleck and Hulk Hogan.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I’ll repeat – The rating system is a strictly voluntary system set up by the film industry. They don’t need to use it, film makers don’t need to abide by it, and theaters don’t need to post it. If it was dong the industry any damage they wouldn’t use it.

Not entirely true.

It started as volentary, (and not involving government) but now they have passed laws that prossecute movie theature owners for allowing underaged kids into R rated movies. So it's not entirely voluntary and the government isn't entirely out of it. And they do have to post the ratings.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Exactly. I wasn't talking about the posh hat. I was talking about the bloke underneath it. You are talking about the persona there......and the person here, when that is convenient for your argument. What will it be?

Hey, Ratz was famous before he assumed his current name. A bit like Prince. Or Sean Puff Diddlysquat Coombs Diddy Daddy, or whatever the hell his name is.

Alright then, if you go for person when it suits you, I'll go for persona...

"Benedictus xvi" - 169 000 hits
"50 cent" - 8 300 000 hits
Even more narrow, "50 cent" "get rich or die tryin", still beat mr B - 418 000 hits

Or more fairly perhaps...
The anglofied "Benedict xvi" - 2 400 000
"50 cent" plus "hip-hop" to mininize the references to the actual pocket change (although, artistically, he is pocket change ) - 2 310 000 hits
Pretty equal there if you ask me.

You were saying?

I was going to do the same thing, but really- what does hits on google have to do with pop culture or recognizability?

Anyway, wouldn't it be better to see who was being searched for the most?

http://buzz.yahoo.com/overall/

Movers are the search terms that have increased their buzz score over the previous day's score by the greatest percentage. Leaders are the search terms with the greatest buzz score for a given day.


#10 50 Cent

No pope.

 

[sweetnpetite]

What a 16 year old watches is a decision for his/her parents.

As if.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The list of 10 NC-17 movies I had posted before, a page or two ago (followed by their ratings in places outside the US:

Zandalee - Germany:16
Kika - France:16 / Germany:16 / Sweden:16
Killing Zoe - France:16 / Italy:14 / Netherlands:16
Kids - France:16 / Germany:16 / Norway:15 / Portugal:16 / Sweden:15
Requiem for a Dream - France:12 / Germany:16 / Japan:15
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! - Germany:16 / Sweden:15 (Spain:18 and it still was one of all-time biggest box-office sucesses)
L.I.E. - Germany:12 / Portugal:12
The Dreamers - France:12 / Italy:14 / Norway:15 / Sweden:15
Young Adam - France:12 / Germany:16 / Portugal:16
Bad Education - Canada:13+ (Québec) / Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) / France:12 / Italy:14 / Netherlands:12

At least "Kids", "Requiem for a Dream", and "Bad Education" should be seen by any normal early adolescent. And none of the other films would hurt them, either.

I have more curiousity on the topic- not having seen any of these above mentioned movies, but since our thread has already been pulled in too many different directions, I'll redirect my question to the following thread:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=14187177#post14187177

I hope you'll pop over

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Read carefully:

Ah, finally. That wasn't too hard after all, was it? All you need is a little help focusing.

There are only two options. Rating or not.

Aw, I see that focus didn't last! Damn, and it was so close. Why, pray tell, are there only two options - either the MPAA rating "system" or none? Why can't there be a better system, one that is not a joke? Why can't there be an advisory-only system, for example? Why can't there be several non-exclusive and non-restrictive systems from several sources - spectator associations, movie critic associations, parents associations, etc - so that the public can make an even more informed decision?

Neither one is perfect. A rating system is useful not is – not. The rating system cares little for what the movie is about only the content (an imperfect system but at least useful)

Yes, the MPAA film rating system is very useful. It's very useful for Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. For the general public and for any movie maker outside of those seven big studios, "useful" isn't exactly the most commonly employed word.

No I didn’t want to see every movie before the kids did, nor did I want to wait for the cleaned up version to hit TV. I made decisions based on the ratings, previews, reviews, and whatever other criteria seemed appropriate. If all else failed I did go see it before I let them see it. Again a repeat. I said it helps make an informed decision. I did not say it was the decision.

Sometimes I let them see the film, sometimes not. Sometimes I went with them to see it, sometimes not. In every case I used the rating as part of an informed decision. And I didn’t let them see Basic Instinct. I haven’t seen Requiem for a dream, but I suspect it would be one we would watch together. I preferred to watch those at home so it was easier to discuses them. Would you prefer they go to a theater and see the film where it is difficult to discus it ?? What kind of responsible parenting is that?

Wait a minute. First you don't want to wait for the cleaned up version to hit TV. Now you would watch them at home? You can't have it both ways, sweetie. The original point, however was that NC-17 rating is the box-office kiss of death. And even if you had decided to ignore the rating given and decided that Requiem for a Dream was appropriate for your teenager, you'd still be proving that point.

You would never be able to watch Requiem for a Dream together at a theatre, because it was rated NC-17. Do you know what that means? No admittance. If you tried to take your teenager, both you and the theatre owner would be in a very prosecutable position.

Would you prefer they go to a theater and see the film where it is difficult to discus it ?? What kind of responsible parenting is that?

The kind of responsible parenting that teaches a teenager how to appreciate a movie for the work of art it can be. Movies are to be seen in one go, and I can guarantee it is more effective to give them time to think, let them get the message by themselves. You'll have plenty of time to discuss the movie afterwards, instead of interrupting all the time.

There may be any number of things that keep people from seeing an NC-17 film. But the designation itself is not stopping anyone.

Oh, that's precious. Anyone under 18 would tend to disagree with that view.

By your definition if someone suddenly rated Bambi NC-17, without changing the content, no one would ever watch it again.

At a theatre, which is where box-offices are, no one under 18 would, for sure. Not by my definition, but by MPAA-lobbied US federal law.

BTW – I have raised five teenagers, what’s your score?

Poor things. I don't envy them. I hope they grew up normal, despite the constraints.

I only raised one.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Movers are the search terms that have increased their buzz score over the previous day's score by the greatest percentage. Leaders are the search terms with the greatest buzz score for a given day.

#10 50 Cent

No pope.

So, as far as you know, the Pope can have 50.000.000.000 searches every day, constantly, and 50 Cent could have increased his buzz score by 100% by going from 9 searches to 18?

 

[cloudy]

BTW – I have raised five teenagers, what’s your score?

Oh, way to argue your point.

Give it up. You're making about as much sense here as you were in your "the Santee Sioux mass hanging never happened" argument.