[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I am not a big fan of Kevin Smith at all, but his attitude about this whole thing is pretty reasonable. Before he appealed the NC-17 rating, I recall seeing an interview where he said something like this (paraphrased, I don't remember his exact comments)...
"Yeah, so the MPAA gave the movie an NC-17-rating. I'm scheduled to appeal the rating in a few days. I understand that the MPAA has a job to do, but I disagree with this film's rating when I see all kinds of other movies getting R ratings for similar content. So just like when Clerks got an NC-17 rating, we appealed it and the rating got lowered to an R. So in a few days I'll do the same thing. I'll appeal the rating, provide examples of other movies that set a precedent for having the same kind of content with an R-rating, and we'll see what they decide."
And let me reiterate that I'm just paraphrasing what I remember. THat is NOT an exact quote from Kevin Smith, that's just me summarizing what he was saying about the NC-17 rating just a few days before he appealed it.
But...that's what happened. The MPAA gave the movie an NC-17 rating. Kevin Smith disagreed with the rating and didn't want to cut anything else from the film, so he appealed the rating, provided evidence of why it should be rated R, and the MPAA gave it an R rating without making Kevin Smith cut anything else from the film. That's how the process works. Kevin Smith apparently understands this, and is apparently capable of not being a total douche when the MPAA calls him out for intentionally trying to push the boundaries of "good taste". Kevin Smith KNOWS that he's intentionally trying to push the boundaries of good taste, he knows that the MPAA has a job to do, and he knows that this isgonna increase the likelihood that sometimes the MPAA isn't gonna like what he does. Okay. Rather than whine and moan about it, and throw a tantrum, Kevin Smith has enough sense to not be a total fearmongering douchebag and go through the process that it takes to get his movie out. He disagreed with the MPAA's rating, he explained why he disagreed like a professional, and the MPAA changed their minds about what rating the film should get. And that's it.
Film-Guy
The MPAA has made stupid decisions in the past though, you should see This film is not yet rated. Not everyone gets a fair deal like Kevin Smith does.
Everyone makes stupid decisions sometimes.
However, here's the thing that bugs me. Everytime the MPAA slaps an anticipated or interesting-looking movie with the NC-17 rating, everyone throws around first amendment violation accusations. Every time an anticipated videogame gets slapped with the AO rating by the ESRB, people are abgry at them for banning the game.
What people forget though, is that ratings organizations are NOT in the business of banning media. They are in the business of giving ratings. If an AO rating on a videogame is an effective ban, that's because Wal-Mart won't sell AO games. If an NC-17 rating on a movie is an effective ban, that's because theater chains won't show them. NC-17 movies absolutely DO get released.
This has far less to do with the MPAA giving out ratings, and far more to do with studios refusing to release NC-17 movies. This has far less to do with the MPAA giving out NC-17 ratings than it has to do with theater chains refusing to show NC-17 movies.
Here's the thing though...for everyone here who thinks that NC-17 rating should NOT be an effective ban, how many of you here have actually boycotted a particular chain because they don't show NC-17 movies? How many people have actually boycotted Blockbuster video or Wal-Mart because they refuse to carry NC-17 movies?
For all the backlash directed at ratings boards simply for giving out ratings, how much comparable backlash do we dish out to the people who have a "no-tolerance" policy to those ratings?
People complained about Fox cutting Die Hard 4 to a PG-13. That was a studio issue, NOT an MPAA issue. So when ANY movie is given an NC-17 rating, and the studio cuts it in order to get an R rating, how is that scenario any different? How is it an MPAA issue when we're talking about NC-17 vs R, but NOT an MPAA issue when we're talking about R vs PG-13? If we're going to criticize a studio for cutting an R rated movie to PG-13 rather than risk losing sales because it's R, why do we stop blaming studios and start blaming the MPAA when it becomes a situation in which an NC-17 movie gets cut down to an R? Lust Caution was NC-17. It got released as NC-17. A Dirty Shame was NC-17. It got released as NC-17. And yes, if the Zack and Miri Porno movie were to have kept its NC-17 rating, it COULD still get released. The things limiting it's release are N{OT the rating, but the studio's lack of balls and artistic integrity, the theater chain's lack of balls and artistic integrity, and retailers' lack of balls and artistic integrity.
But what does that have to do with the RATING? The MPAA doesn't ban movies, they rate them. It's studios who refuse to release movies, it's theater chains who refuse to show them, and it's retailers who refuse to sell them. And yet we're generally pretty happy to financially support those same studios/theaters/retailers and lob all of our blame at the people who gave it the rating.
Revised and MPAA aproved: 
Log in to comment