Nc-17

[CharleyH]

Intersting ideas, thank you all. I have barely been here to argue, and anything I want to address has been conceded or argued. However ... regarding ratings? It has always been an interest of mine why a full-frontal cock shot will garner a harsher rating than a pussy.

 

[Slowlane]

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



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?




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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

I only raised one.

Any other rating system is still a rating system. I don’t see where more systems would be anything other then confusing. Learn how the current system works, read everything else about the movie and make a decision. Parent associations and many others (including various magazines) already have informal rating systems.

I have no problem with teaching a child appreciation for art. I have already sad that the movie a kid watches is up to the parent. Movies are to bee seen in one go, being able to replay a part for clarity is an invaluable tool. Again that’s a parental decision.

Any one over eighteen who would like to see the movie may do so at home, I hope with parents permission.

I have already posted a link about the legal aspects. Do you have another?

Did my kids grow up normal? Define normal. Three of them graduated from college, they are all working, none of them use drugs, or tobacco and only two use alcohol, and then only in moderation. In my mind that’s good. Normal? I don’t know.

Back up, missed a piece. – Whether I wait for the cleaned up version or not depends on the content. If it isn’t necessary to wait they would rather watch it on the big screen. If the content required it then they waited. Yes I can, and did, have it both ways.

Back to restating a point in different words. No, I don’t think an NC-17 rating hurts a film. Excessive sex and or violence does. You could rate it G, if it has excessive sex and or violence word will get around, the film will bomb and people will be mad because the rating was wrong. Either way the film was a bomb.

 

[Slowlane]

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.

Are you still making up things I said?

 

[cloudy]

Are you still making up things I said?

"Still"? Would you like me to find them? Or, are you still sticking by your "Lincoln saved" argument?

 

[Slowlane]

Intersting ideas, thank you all. I have barely been here to argue, and anything I want to address has been conceded or argued. However ... regarding ratings? It has always been an interest of mine why a full-frontal cock shot will garner a harsher rating than a pussy.

I've often wondered that. I swonder if it's because a cock sort of hangs out there, and a pussy doesn't.

 

[cloudy]

Are you still making up things I said?

You said:

I believe you are talking about the Santee Sioux incident in Minnesota? I have heard that number to be anywhere from 15 to 38. I have never found any verification of the story.

When I posted verification, you said it sounded "slanted" and that the website I'd gotten the info from had "an agenda":

The writer had an obvious agenda. The account is not very credible, at least not without some substantiation.

When presented with "substantiation," from several sources, you said:

We have established the actual event took place, and that the whole thing was tragic for both sides. I don’t see where Lincoln ordered anyone hung. He, debatably, saved the lives of 265 Indians.

So, now you admit that it happened, but insist that Lincoln didn't order anyone hanged, at which point, I posted:

What part of "On December 6 (1862) President Lincoln notified Sibley that he should "cause to be executed" thirty-nine of the 303 convicted Santees." did you not understand, Slowlane?

And you abandoned the argument at that point, as well you should. You're an idiot.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Intersting ideas, thank you all. I have barely been here to argue, and anything I want to address has been conceded or argued. However ... regarding ratings? It has always been an interest of mine why a full-frontal cock shot will garner a harsher rating than a pussy.

I'm not sure they always do. I remember "The Life of Brian" which shows a frontal cock shot and I believe the movie is rated PG. In that case, the cock was not erect, which makes a difference.

I would expect an erect cock, which is strictly sexual, would garner a harsh rating, R at the least. A shot of a pussy, showing just a patch of hair, probably wouldn't get that strong a rating but a beaver shot or a shot of the woman "showing pink" would be equally sexual, and would probably get the same rating.

 

[CharleyH]

I'm not sure they always do. I remember "The Life of Brian" which shows a frontal cock shot and I believe the movie is rated PG. In that case, the cock was not erect, which makes a difference.

I would expect an erect cock, which is strictly sexual, would garner a harsh rating, R at the least. A shot of a pussy, showing just a patch of hair, probably wouldn't get that strong a rating but a beaver shot or a shot of the woman "showing pink" would be equally sexual, and would probably get the same rating.

I see your point, Box. However I am certain the division is much greater. I know Passolini's Salo was banned in the US for many years ... there was a chinese or Japanese film as well, "The Realm of Pleasure", maybe ... and "Last Tango in Paris" garnered an X-rating. All of them are on my Blockbuster shelf for anyone to rent, even 12 year olds?

NC-17 is a very new rating. Still, how is, other than you cant distribute it, is a movie with an NC-17 rating not only differentiated from these movies, but hurting children more than an average horror film?

More importantly, why can they rent it on DVD, 4 months later?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Lauren, I haven't seen any of those movies, so I wouldn't know if people would have noticed the sex without the rating. Probably more people would have seen the movies if they'd been rated R, but maybe not. Foreign language films with subtitles aren't popular in the US, not with the teenage public that makes up most movie audiences.

Foreign films, even if they are in English, are generally viewed as 'art' films and attract a smaller audience anyway. Lots of indy houses, like the Music Box in Chicago, show foreign films and NC-17 rated films, but they attract a select audience. The NC-17 rating probably didn't help with broad release of the films, but they wouldn't have played for very long in the regular theaters.


Charley, yes, there are many of us who believe an NC-17 rating because of sexual content, or specific type of sexual content, is foolish when horror and violence pass through with an R. Those of us who stay away from horror and sometimes graphic violence would rather there be a way to separate out those films. HBO and maybe some of the other cable movie channels use a rating system that specifies whether the film is rated as it is based on nudity, violence, language, and other criteria.

And we see the irony of making sexuality a taboo while tacitly promoting violence and gore. I suppose a whole bunch of us could try to lobby the movie industry to change their rating system, but I don't care enough to lead the charge.

Regardless of ratings, movies won't be any less violent until we stop going to see them. Sex won't be any less taboo until we start teaching our children that's it's a natural and very cool thing, and not only for the depraved. We do not accept our sexuality, though our culture is permeated with references to sex and we use it to sell everything. I blame the Puritans.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I see your point, Box. However I am certain the division is much greater. I know Passolini's Salo was banned in the US for many years ... there was a chinese or Japanese film as well, "The Realm of Pleasure", maybe ... and "Last Tango in Paris" garnered an X-rating. All of them are on my Blockbuster shelf for anyone to rent, even 12 year olds?

NC-17 is a very new rating. Still, how is, other than you cant distribute it, is a movie with an NC-17 rating not only differentiated from these movies, but hurting children more than an average horror film?

More importantly, why can they rent it on DVD, 4 months later?

I saw Tango and I don't remember any cock scene. I do remember the famous anal scene when Brando still had his pants on. The movie was made 32 years ago and the X rating might have been from the profanity and "sexual situations", much like Midnight Cowboy four years earlier. That one is PG now!

 

[CharleyH]

I saw Tango and I don't remember any cock scene. I do remember the famous anal scene when Brando still had his pants on. The movie was made 32 years ago and the X rating might have been from the profanity and "sexual situations", much like Midnight Cowboy four years earlier. That one is PG

now!

Barbarella was PG (perhaps G, since it was a touted as a childs movie) when released in early 70's - 72? Of course anal america had not lobbied for NC-17 at that point. I could not get into ... what was that Richard Gere slut movie with the blondie song? American Gigalo? LOL? Salo is still contoversial, and so is Realm of Pleasure(?) title not sure of ... but why are they on my local video shelves for all to rent, and not in the backroom? NC-17 is also a big contradiction, no?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Barbarella was PG (perhaps G, since it was a touted as a childs movie) when released in early 70's - 72? Of course anal america had not lobbied for NC-17 at that point. I could not get into ... what was that Richard Gere slut movie with the blondie song? American Gigalo? LOL? Salo is still contoversial, and so is Realm of Pleasure(?) title not sure of ... but why are they on my local video shelves for all to rent, and not in the backroom? NC-17 is also a big contradiction, no?

I would think Barbarella would be PG because of the sexual references and Jane Fonda's costumes. I believe the only thing given a G rating would be a feature length film about the Care Bears, or something like that. Even if Bambi, to mention one that was mentioned before, were to be released anew, it would probably be PG. So would most of the old Walt Disney animated films because of the violence and crime.

Barbarella was never a movie for children. It was based on an erotic French comic strip, and the director was known for hiserotic movies.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Any other rating system is still a rating system. I don’t see where more systems would be anything other then confusing. Learn how the current system works, read everything else about the movie and make a decision. Parent associations and many others (including various magazines) already have informal rating systems.

I have no problem with teaching a child appreciation for art. I have already sad that the movie a kid watches is up to the parent. Movies are to bee seen in one go, being able to replay a part for clarity is an invaluable tool. Again that’s a parental decision.

Any one over eighteen who would like to see the movie may do so at home, I hope with parents permission.

I have already posted a link about the legal aspects. Do you have another?

Did my kids grow up normal? Define normal. Three of them graduated from college, they are all working, none of them use drugs, or tobacco and only two use alcohol, and then only in moderation. In my mind that’s good. Normal? I don’t know.

Back up, missed a piece. – Whether I wait for the cleaned up version or not depends on the content. If it isn’t necessary to wait they would rather watch it on the big screen. If the content required it then they waited. Yes I can, and did, have it both ways.

Back to restating a point in different words. No, I don’t think an NC-17 rating hurts a film. Excessive sex and or violence does. You could rate it G, if it has excessive sex and or violence word will get around, the film will bomb and people will be mad because the rating was wrong. Either way the film was a bomb.

Wow. You just keep shooting yourself in the foot and you don't even notice it. How does that feel?

Let's go over this once more. No one said that there shouldn't be a rating system. The original point of the thread was the ridiculousness of the MPAA standards and application of the NC-17 rating only.

Fact: Since the introduction on the NC-17 rating, there has never been a single movie produced by any of the MPAA associated companies rated with NC-17.

Fact: There have been several R-rated box-office sucesses produced by MPAA companies that contain more graphic violence and more explicit sex that many independently produced NC-17-rated movies. Cases in point: Saving Private Ryan; Basic Instinct.

Fact: There has never been a box-office sucess rated as NC-17, even among American-produced, award-winning and critically acclaimed movies with all-star casts. Cases in point: Requiem for a Dream, The Dreamers, L.I.E.

You say that it's not the rating that hinders the movie's box-office success, it's the sex and violence. How do you explain that sex and violence in R-rated movies doesn't hinder their success?

You say that if an NC-17 rated movie received a lower rating, people would get mad and it would bomb anyway. Can you provide an example? Because Saving Private Ryan and Basic Instinct are widely acknowledged as NC-17-deserving, if it weren't for their producers' weight at the MPAA, and they did all right at the box-office.

You say that what movies a child/teenager may or may not see should be a parental decision, so I ask: what is the point of the NC-17 rating? Your parental decision over it is zero. If you want to take your child to an NC-17-rated movie, you can't. You are not allowed. You say that's OK, that you'll wait for the movie to be available to watch at home. Well, guess what? There aren't any box-offices in your living-room. You keep proving your own point wrong every time you mention that.

The NC-17 rating takes away your every parental decision. You yourself said that there are R-rated movies you don't let them see, and that you would let your children watch some NC-17 rated movies, by themselves or with you. Well, you're free to make a parental choice with R-rated movies - you can either take them to the movies or not. But with NC-17, you have no choice but to wait for it to come out in video.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, I haven't seen any of those movies, so I wouldn't know if people would have noticed the sex without the rating. Probably more people would have seen the movies if they'd been rated R, but maybe not. Foreign language films with subtitles aren't popular in the US, not with the teenage public that makes up most movie audiences.

Foreign films, even if they are in English, are generally viewed as 'art' films and attract a smaller audience anyway. Lots of indy houses, like the Music Box in Chicago, show foreign films and NC-17 rated films, but they attract a select audience. The NC-17 rating probably didn't help with broad release of the films, but they wouldn't have played for very long in the regular theaters.

Only two or three of the movies in that list are foreign, LJ. The rest are American-made and with either all-star casts or star directors or both. The only foreign movies I included there were critically acclaimed and award-winning in the US.

 

[Liar]

Xscuse me... this might have been mentioned... But what are the criteria for a NC-17 versus a R rating? Ok, there seems to be lobbying going on from the major distributors to avoid the NC-17 stigmata. But where, in theory, does the distinction go?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Xscuse me... this might have been mentioned... But what are the criteria for a NC-17 versus a R rating? Ok, there seems to be lobbying going on from the major distributors to avoid the NC-17 stigmata. But where, in theory, does the distinction go?

It's an MPAA panel decision.

The distinction, in their words, is this:

An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously.

The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.​

So, there isn't a palpable difference between the two ratings, other than NC-17 rated movies being off-limits to minors, whether their parents agree or not. It's all up to the 12 white men.

 

[Slowlane]

Cloudy

I left the other thread because you were being confrontational, and quite frankly a bitch. It was also becoming obvious that you weren’t open to any discussion that didn’t fit you’re my-shit-doesn’t-stink racist attitude. The short of it is I left the thread because, differences of opinion aside, I don’t like you.

The fact they you have pursued me reinforces my feelings about you. If anyone is interested enough (which I doubt) they can find that thread and see for themselves who found what facts and who said what about them, and form their own opinions.

Go ahead and argue with yourself if you want too. This is my last reply to your posts.

 

[Slowlane]

Lauren

The only part of our last conversation that had anything to do with the conversation at hen is my last paragraph and yours. That’s not to say that the rest of it wasn’t interesting, I always enjoy an honest exchange of views.

I like the rating system and I don’t want to see it change. I like it that kids can’t get into those moves under any circumstances. As a parent, I think that’s the way it should be. (Not that the system is perfect).

I still don’t think if a film has real merit it will do well. If it doesn’t have merit it won’t. That is based on the public’s definition of merit, not yours or mine. Since both sides seem to based on opinion, and neither of us seems willing to change ours, I suggest we agree to disagree and move on. I’ll hang on to my opinion for the time being, and concede the debate to you, but only because you scored more points than I did. lol

“I’ve enjoyed it but I have real word things to do for the next two or there days, and must tend to them.”, He said, wondering how long it will take Cloudy to claim she was the one who ran him off.


Twelve “white” men, Lauren? We have only had this one conversation, but I thought you were above a racist remark like that. I’m disappointed.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren

The only part of our last conversation that had anything to do with the conversation at hen is my last paragraph and yours. That’s not to say that the rest of it wasn’t interesting, I always enjoy an honest exchange of views.

I like the rating system and I don’t want to see it change. I like it that kids can’t get into those moves under any circumstances. As a parent, I think that’s the way it should be. (Not that the system is perfect).

I still don’t think if a film has real merit it will do well. If it doesn’t have merit it won’t. That is based on the public’s definition of merit, not yours or mine. Since both sides seem to based on opinion, and neither of us seems willing to change ours, I suggest we agree to disagree and move on. I’ll hang on to my opinion for the time being, and concede the debate to you, but only because you scored more points than I did. lol

Well, there is a difference. When presenting my opinion, I based it on hard facts:

Fact: Since the introduction on the NC-17 rating, there has never been a single movie produced by any of the MPAA associated companies rated with NC-17.

Fact: There have been several R-rated box-office sucesses produced by MPAA companies that contain more graphic violence and more explicit sex that many independently produced NC-17-rated movies. Cases in point: Saving Private Ryan; Basic Instinct.

Fact: There has never been a box-office sucess rated as NC-17, even among American-produced, award-winning and critically acclaimed movies with all-star casts. Cases in point: Requiem for a Dream, The Dreamers, L.I.E.

You say that it's not the rating that hinders the movie's box-office success, it's the sex and violence. How do you explain that sex and violence in R-rated movies doesn't hinder their success?

You say that if an NC-17 rated movie received a lower rating, people would get mad and it would bomb anyway. Can you provide an example? Because Saving Private Ryan and Basic Instinct are widely acknowledged as NC-17-deserving, if it weren't for their producers' weight at the MPAA, and they did all right at the box-office.

You say that what movies a child/teenager may or may not see should be a parental decision, so I ask: what is the point of the NC-17 rating? Your parental decision over it is zero. If you want to take your child to an NC-17-rated movie, you can't. You are not allowed. You say that's OK, that you'll wait for the movie to be available to watch at home. Well, guess what? There aren't any box-offices in your living-room. You keep proving your own point wrong every time you mention that.​

You're free to keep your own opinion, of course, and free to like the MPAA rating "system". But don't pretend it's because of its merits, and don't pretend an NC-17 rating doesn't have direct impact on a movie's box-office success, all other things being equal. I gave you several examples demonstrating this, and you haven't given a single contradicting one.

The movie in question at the first post of this thread, Atom Egoyan's "Where the Truth Lies", is just another example on a series of laughable decisions. MPAA's official justification for the NC-17 rating was "some explicit sexuality" involving Kevin Bacon, Colin Firth, Rachel Blanchard. "Basic Instinct", on the other hand, got an R-rating, for "for strong violence and sensuality, and for drug use and language". Convincing argumentation, eh?

Twelve “white” men, Lauren? We have only had this one conversation, but I thought you were above a racist remark like that. I’m disappointed.

Sorry to disappoint. Actually, what I said was "12 white men", not 12 "white" men. If you watched more movies or watched more movies worth watching, instead of letting yourself be blindly guided by the Motion Picture Association of America (originally more aptly named Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association), whose obvious sole purpose is to market and distribute their own product, you might have recognised it as a reference to a promotional tagline from 1971's blaxploitation film "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song".

Nothing is random.

 

[Liar]

It's an MPAA panel decision.

[znipped stuff]

Interresting. I would have thought there were some actual rules. For instance:
Brief nudity in a sexual context = R
Repeated full frontal nudity and/or sexual acts = NC-17
Limited graphic violence = R
Repeated graphic shock value violence = NC-17

...and so on. Apparently, that's not the case.

Ok, so let's sum it up:

1. There are no clear guidelines what constitutes an R rating vs a NC-17 rating, other than the fuzzy "what most parents" would disapprove of. Have the made a poll on what "most parents" think?
2. An MPAA panel makes the call.
3. MPAA is an association of companies with commersial interrest in the ratings.
4. Conflict of interrest.
5. Not good.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ok, so let's sum it up:

1. There are no clear guidelines what constitutes an R rating vs a NC-17 rating, other than the fuzzy "what most parents" would disapprove of. Have the made a poll on what "most parents" think?
2. An MPAA panel makes the call.

To be fair, MPAA's rating board is formed by parents, (supposedly) proportionally representative of US parents' demographics. Except they're hand-picked (employees) by the MPAA.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Hi Lauren.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Hi Lauren.

Hi, Abs.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy

I left the other thread because you were being confrontational, and quite frankly a bitch. It was also becoming obvious that you weren’t open to any discussion that didn’t fit you’re my-shit-doesn’t-stink racist attitude. The short of it is I left the thread because, differences of opinion aside, I don’t like you.

The fact they you have pursued me reinforces my feelings about you. If anyone is interested enough (which I doubt) they can find that thread and see for themselves who found what facts and who said what about them, and form their own opinions.

Go ahead and argue with yourself if you want too. This is my last reply to your posts.

I didn't "pursue" you, sweetcheeks. I normally post in the AH. And, yes, I am a bitch, thank you.

Good, we're even. I don't like you either.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowlane
Twelve “white” men, Lauren? We have only had this one conversation, but I thought you were above a racist remark like that. I’m disappointed.


Sorry to disappoint. Actually, what I said was "12 white men", not 12 "white" men. If you watched more movies or watched more movies worth watching, instead of letting yourself be blindly guided by the Motion Picture Association of America (originally more aptly named Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association), whose obvious sole purpose is to market and distribute their own product, you might have recognised it as a reference to a promotional tagline from 1971's blaxploitation film "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song".

Nothing is random.

Essentially, Lauren, you are saying that the blaxploitation film "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song" is a movie worth watching. do you really mean that? I have never seen it and don't expect to ever see it.