When i saw the hangover 2, it got me thinking... There was alot of bare male, female, and inbetween genetalia in the hangover movies, does the R rating pretty much mean you can show whatever you want?
Do R rated movies really have limits?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Nope, there's still NC-17...
Of course. The MPAA are insanely picky in the worst possible ways. I recommend you watch This Film is Not Yet Rated.
Also, watch I Saw the Devil.
if its acting, will it really make a difference? this is probably a bad example, but in superbad, the actor playing mclovin had a sex scene when he was only 17 at the time, so im starting to think that pretty much anything goesI believe horrible things involving children are off limits.
InEMplease
[QUOTE="InEMplease"]if its acting, will it really make a difference? this is probably a bad example, but in superbad, the actor playing mclovin had a sex scene when he was only 17 at the time, so im starting to think that pretty much anything goes There was no nudity in the scene, just a close-up of the actor's face. In fact, there's no nudity in the film at all except for a quick porno scene that the characters watched on a computer, and a bunch of drawn genitials.I believe horrible things involving children are off limits.
emb4
Not necessarily. Kevin Smith's Clerks initially was rated NC-17 because of the language. Funny because there's absolutely no violence or nudity whatsoever. The films's distributors successfully appealed the rating, and had it reduced to an R rating. You don't see many NC-17 rated movies because a lot of places wouldn't advertise a film with such a rating. It's basically the Kiss of Death in the film industry.It's pretty much why there's no more NC17 movies anymore. To get past an R rating you either have to be a porno or have super realistic, over the top violence.
Pirate700
You don't see many NC-17 rated movies because a lot of places wouldn't advertise a film with such a rating. It's basically the Kiss of Death in the film industry.Hallenbeck77
Yep. Only some indie theaters will release NC-17 films. No mainstream theater (Regal, AMC, etc.) would release an NC-17 film. A lot of R rated films are rated an NC-17, then forced to be cut for an R rating.
In short: the MPAA sucks.
[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]You don't see many NC-17 rated movies because a lot of places wouldn't advertise a film with such a rating. It's basically the Kiss of Death in the film industry.thegerg
Yep. Only some indie theaters will release NC-17 films. No mainstream theater (Regal, AMC, etc.) would release an NC-17 film. A lot of R rated films are rated an NC-17, then forced to be cut for an R rating.
In short: the MPAA sucks.
Why blame the MPAA because movie theaters won't run certain films?Because the MPAA are anal about the smallest of things, and especially what context the content is in.
MPAA are tied in with major studios, major studios are tied in with major theaters chains, etc.
Yeah, I believe they have limits.
[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]You don't see many NC-17 rated movies because a lot of places wouldn't advertise a film with such a rating. It's basically the Kiss of Death in the film industry.thegerg
Yep. Only some indie theaters will release NC-17 films. No mainstream theater (Regal, AMC, etc.) would release an NC-17 film. A lot of R rated films are rated an NC-17, then forced to be cut for an R rating.
In short: the MPAA sucks.
Why blame the MPAA because movie theaters won't run certain films? Because the MPAA sometimes gives movies ratings more extreme than what's it should. Aside from the Clerks example I stated earlier, The King's Speech wound up with an R rating because there's a scene in the film where the main character says the F-word a few times and from what I understand, it's not even in a sexual reference.Another reason is the inconsistencies in which they rate the films. When Scarface came out in 1983, it was hit with an X rating because of the violence. The director re-submitted it again without making ANY cuts to the film whatsoever---and they gave it an R-rating the second time around.
Why blame the MPAA because movie theaters won't run certain films? Because the MPAA sometimes gives movies ratings more extreme than what's it should. Aside from the Clerks example I stated earlier, The King's Speech wound up with an R rating because there's a scene in the film where the main character says the F-word a few times and from what I understand, it's not even in a sexual reference.[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]
Yep. Only some indie theaters will release NC-17 films. No mainstream theater (Regal, AMC, etc.) would release an NC-17 film. A lot of R rated films are rated an NC-17, then forced to be cut for an R rating.
In short: the MPAA sucks.
Hallenbeck77
Another reason is the inconsistencies in which they rate the films. When Scarface came out in 1983, it was hit with an X rating because of the violence. The director re-submitted it again without making ANY cuts to the film whatsoever---and they gave it an R-rating the second time around.
Very true. X-Men had the F-word once, didn't get an R rating. In all honesty, depending on context. I don't think language should be a deciding factor.
Honestly, I'm still trying to understand why the Matrix was R.
Because the MPAA sometimes gives movies ratings more extreme than what's it should. Aside from the Clerks example I stated earlier, The King's Speech wound up with an R rating because there's a scene in the film where the main character says the F-word a few times and from what I understand, it's not even in a sexual reference. Another reason is the inconsistencies in which they rate the films. When Scarface came out in 1983, it was hit with an X rating because of the violence. The director re-submitted it again without making ANY cuts to the film whatsoever---and they gave it an R-rating the second time around.Hallenbeck77
So? That entirely wouldn't be an issue if more places were willing to advertise/sell NC-17 movies.
Think of it like this...there are surely PG-13 movies out there that don't really deserve the PG-13 rating. At most, they should have been rated PG. But...nobody cares about inconsistency there, since those movies still aren't going to receive the "kiss of death".
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]Why blame the MPAA because movie theaters won't run certain films? Because the MPAA sometimes gives movies ratings more extreme than what's it should. Aside from the Clerks example I stated earlier, The King's Speech wound up with an R rating because there's a scene in the film where the main character says the F-word a few times and from what I understand, it's not even in a sexual reference. Another reason is the inconsistencies in which they rate the films. When Scarface came out in 1983, it was hit with an X rating because of the violence. The director re-submitted it again without making ANY cuts to the film whatsoever---and they gave it an R-rating the second time around. Not only was the use of the f-word in 'The Kings Speech' not used in a sexual or aggressive manner, but it was actually a part of his speech therapy, a technique actually used in real life for people of all ages. I can not stand the control they have over studios and film makers. The case that angers me the most is with 'Blue Valentine'. They were going to give it an NC-17 due to a scene depicting cunnilingus, which had a purpose as in it wasn't something like 'The Hangover 2' which shows nudity just for laughs yet was given an R-rating. The fact that they can take a scene like that and turn around to the director who put in years of hard work and actually gave up his own money to make what turned out to be an emotionally powerful film and tell him 'no, this won't work, either cut the scene or we will give it a rating that is sure to make it not gross anything in the box office' really just pissed me off...and to make matters worse they will come down hard on someone for sexual images, yet are perfectly fine in cutting directors some slack when depicting acts of violence.Yep. Only some indie theaters will release NC-17 films. No mainstream theater (Regal, AMC, etc.) would release an NC-17 film. A lot of R rated films are rated an NC-17, then forced to be cut for an R rating.
In short: the MPAA sucks.
Hallenbeck77
The fact that they can take a scene like that and turn around to the director who put in years of hard work and actually gave up his own money to make what turned out to be an emotionally powerful film and tell him 'no, this won't work, either cut the scene or we will give it a rating that is sure to make it not gross anything in the box office' really just pissed me off...and to make matters worse they will come down hard on someone for sexual images, yet are perfectly fine in cutting directors some slack when depicting acts of violence.SaintLeonidas
What, they somehow OWE the film a commercially viable rating just because the filmmakers worked really hard on it?
Since when was it the job of ratings boards to coddle artists? There's no LAW against making NC-17 movies, so the filmmakers can either find someone willing to fund it, pay for it themselves, or simply change the content if they doom it to be too comercially unviable.
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] The fact that they can take a scene like that and turn around to the director who put in years of hard work and actually gave up his own money to make what turned out to be an emotionally powerful film and tell him 'no, this won't work, either cut the scene or we will give it a rating that is sure to make it not gross anything in the box office' really just pissed me off...and to make matters worse they will come down hard on someone for sexual images, yet are perfectly fine in cutting directors some slack when depicting acts of violence.
MrGeezer
What, they somehow OWE the film a commercially viable rating just because the filmmakers worked really hard on it?
Since when was it the job of ratings boards to coddle artists? There's no LAW against making NC-17 movies, so the filmmakers can either find someone willing to fund it, pay for it themselves, or simply change the content if they doom it to be too comercially unviable.
...yes, a film maker should change/censor their own film just because some idiotic film rating board found one scene offensive :roll: ...you clearly don't know too much about the board, their actions and many of the things they have done in the past with comments like this and your one before, you should watch 'This Film Not Yet Rated' or some interviews/roundtables with directors about the MPAA. They essentially pick and choose which films/scenes to censor, usually for such unnecessary things and never take into account the context of the actual content under question. Like with 'Blue Valentine' anyone with half a brain would understand the scene that they wanted cut was in no way NC-17 worthy, yet they thought it was (although they allow crap like The Hangover 2 to show full frontal and give it an R rating), and by them making that decision with no good excuse and even though they are much more slack on other films, it is as someone said a 'kiss of death', gives the film a bad image and means people will avoid it and so theaters won't show them which is not fair to the film maker and actors who dedicate so much time into make a project only to have the MPAA turn around and want it changed because they found something to be offensive.] ...yes, a film maker should change/censor their own film just because some idiotic film rating board found one scene offensive :roll: ...you clearly don't know too much about the board, their actions and many of the things they have done in the past with comments like this and your one before, you should watch 'This Film Not Yet Rated' or some interviews/roundtables with directors about the MPAA. They essentially pick and choose which films/scenes to censor, usually for such unnecessary things and never take into account the context of the actual content under question. Like with 'Blue Valentine' anyone with half a brain would understand the scene that they wanted cut was in no way NC-17 worthy, yet they thought it was (although they allow crap like The Hangover 2 to show full frontal and give it an R rating), and by them making that decision with no good excuse and even though they are much more slack on other films, it is as someone said a 'kiss of death', gives the film a bad image and means people will avoid it and so theaters won't show them which is not fair to the film maker and actors who dedicate so much time into make a project only to have the MPAA turn around and want it changed because they found something to be offensive.SaintLeonidas
Again, the MPAA aren't the ones deciding that NC-17 movies don't get sold at Wal-Mart. That's Wal-Mart's decision. If places like that hadn't made up their own policy of refusing to associate with NC-17 rated movies (regardless of context), then unfairly giving a movie an NC-17 rating wouldn't even be an issue.
Look...if the MPAA tells you to change your movie in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, you don't have to change anything. Hell, you never had to submit it for a rating in the first place.
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]] ...yes, a film maker should change/censor their own film just because some idiotic film rating board found one scene offensive :roll: ...you clearly don't know too much about the board, their actions and many of the things they have done in the past with comments like this and your one before, you should watch 'This Film Not Yet Rated' or some interviews/roundtables with directors about the MPAA. They essentially pick and choose which films/scenes to censor, usually for such unnecessary things and never take into account the context of the actual content under question. Like with 'Blue Valentine' anyone with half a brain would understand the scene that they wanted cut was in no way NC-17 worthy, yet they thought it was (although they allow crap like The Hangover 2 to show full frontal and give it an R rating), and by them making that decision with no good excuse and even though they are much more slack on other films, it is as someone said a 'kiss of death', gives the film a bad image and means people will avoid it and so theaters won't show them which is not fair to the film maker and actors who dedicate so much time into make a project only to have the MPAA turn around and want it changed because they found something to be offensive.
MrGeezer
Again, the MPAA aren't the ones deciding that NC-17 movies don't get sold at Wal-Mart. That's Wal-Mart's decision. If places like that hadn't made up their own policy of refusing to associate with NC-17 rated movies (regardless of context), then unfairly giving a movie an NC-17 rating wouldn't even be an issue.
Look...if the MPAA tells you to change your movie in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, you don't have to change anything. Hell, you never had to submit it for a rating in the first place.
I would be able to agree with you...if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't Wal-Mart or a theaters fault for not wanting to show something that was given a rating that a group like the MPAA has made into such a stigma. It would be perfectly fine to say 'well this film has some graphic images so we don't want children seeing it' but instead the MPAA has almost made it their goal to make a film with that rating to be seen as'omg so graphic, cover your children's eyes!' so when the audience sees that it turns them off and they usually gross less at the box office. The whole system needs to be revamped and the MPAA needs to be replaced.
I would be able to agree with you...if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't Wal-Mart or a theaters fault for not wanting to show something that was given a rating that a group like the MPAA has made into such a stigma. It would be perfectly fine to say 'well this film has some graphic images so we don't want children seeing it' but instead the MPAA has almost made it their goal to make a film with that rating to be seen as'omg so graphic, cover your children's eyes!' so when the audience sees that it turns them off and they usually gross less at the box office. The whole system needs to be revamped and the MPAA needs to be replaced.
SaintLeonidas
Care to give an example of how the MPAA is making people see the NC-17 rating as a stigma?
Or let me ask a different question: never matter the question of whether or not the NC-17 rating is unfairly or consistently given. Do you think that the rating should exist at all? That is to say...IF we are going to continue to actually have movie ratings, can you agree that there should be a rating that's a step above R?
There is a lot of good discussion in this thread. I agree with many of the points and would also point out that the South Park movie also almost got an NC-17 just for the language. I agree that This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated is a great film that exposes the subjective nature of the rating system. X used to be the be for anything above R but it became assoicated with porn. Porn producers started putting XX and XXX on their boxes like they were even worse ratings, so they created NC-17. Problem is, NC-17 is also now assoicated with porn so most theaters won't carry it (hence Hallenbeck's comment that it's the kiss of death, a point re-enforced by that the docmentary).
As I see it, besides the fact that I agree with Leonidas that we should "THIS IS SPARTAAAAAA!!" the entire MPAA into the pit of death the other part of the problem as I see it is there is no rating between R and pron in the eyes of the public. Porn is pretty easy to quantify in most cases, but art-house movies with past R nudity or content should be classified differently. Of course, it's always going to be subjective even if the MPAA is improved/replaced but at least we can get movies like Requiem for a Dream into Blockbuster without the director being forced to make an "R" rated cut.
-Byshop
Care to give an example of how the MPAA is making people see the NC-17 rating as a stigma?
Or let me ask a different question: never matter the question of whether or not the NC-17 rating is unfairly or consistently given. Do you think that the rating should exist at all? That is to say...IF we are going to continue to actually have movie ratings, can you agree that there should be a rating that's a step above R?
MrGeezer
See my post after yours. The problem is by the MPAA's reckoning a stuff like "XXXombies" and "Requiem For A Dream" are the same thing. Sure, the MPAA hasn't told anyone not to watch NC-17, but if a movie like "Hard Target" gets lumped into the same category as every hard core porn in the porno shop then that's close to the same thing. Sure, there will be people out there who are smart enought to read up on a movie to realize that in spite of the rating it's not just porn, but not a sufficient number to make a movie economically viable.
-Byshop
NC-17 is the kiss of death
R rating is not great for movies studios bottom line.
the sweet spot for them is the PG-13, which is where they can get all those prebusent boys and girls to watch a somewhat 'adult theme' movie. They can rake in a lot more cash with that rating.
I think you have to absolutely amazing realisticaly in detail gory, or a full on hardcore pornography to get the NC-17 rating.
a kathoey flashing the characters for a second would rate simple R.
As I see it, besides the fact that I agree with Leonidas that we should "THIS IS SPARTAAAAAA!!" the entire MPAA into the pit of death the other part of the problem as I see it is there is no rating between R and pron in the eyes of the public. Porn is pretty easy to quantify in most cases, but art-house movies with past R nudity or content should be classified differently. Of course, it's always going to be subjective even if the MPAA is improved/replaced but at least we can get movies like Requiem for a Dream into Blockbuster without the director being forced to make an "R" rated cut.
-Byshop
Byshop
See, there's the thing. It seems to me like there's just a general mindset that anything with a more restrictive rating than R is porn. And there are only a handful of ways I can see potentially getting around that...
1) Get rid of anything above R. Make R the highest rating.
2) Replace the "NC-17" rating with a new rating, similar to how "X" got replaced by "NC-17".
The problem with #2 is obvious: If you replace NC-17 with something else, then people are just going to see THAT as being the new NC-17. They'll stay away from those movies as if they were the plague, just like how they stay away from NC-17 movies now.
And #1 only works if you accept that there SHOULDN'T be a rating higher than R.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
Care to give an example of how the MPAA is making people see the NC-17 rating as a stigma?
Or let me ask a different question: never matter the question of whether or not the NC-17 rating is unfairly or consistently given. Do you think that the rating should exist at all? That is to say...IF we are going to continue to actually have movie ratings, can you agree that there should be a rating that's a step above R?
Byshop
See my post after yours. The problem is by the MPAA's reckoning a stuff like "XXXombies" and "Requiem For A Dream" are the same thing. Sure, the MPAA hasn't told anyone not to watch NC-17, but if a movie like "Hard Target" gets lumped into the same category as every hard core porn in the porno shop then that's close to the same thing. Sure, there will be people out there who are smart enought to read up on a movie to realize that in spite of the rating it's not just porn, but not a sufficient number to make a movie economically viable.
-Byshop
Perhaps porn and NC-17 should be mutually exclusive.
It's pretty much why there's no more NC17 movies anymore. To get past an R rating you either have to be a porno or have super realistic, over the top violence.
Pirate700
Saving private ryan has realistic violence. And its rated R.
I think you have to absolutely amazing realisticaly in detail gory, or a full on hardcore pornography to get the NC-17 rating.
SaudiFury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
I seriously doubt that. Granted, many of the movies on list were re-edited in order to receive an R, but a lot of movies on this list were clearly always intended to be major releases.
Perhaps porn and NC-17 should be mutually exclusive.
JediXMan7
Exactly, that's what I suggested in my other post. Make a seperate rating for porn.
@MrGeezer, I don't think either of those two suggestions fix the fundamental problem. As you point out, replacing NC-17 would just make the new rating the new NC-17 just as NC-17 was the new X. Dropping anything above R doesn't solve the problem because making the system -less- specific just creates more ambiguity. Bear in mind that retailers use these ratings to determine what they carry and who they sell to.
-Byshop
Perhaps porn and NC-17 should be mutually exclusive.
JediXMan7
I don't see that as a viable option. Or at least, not a better option. Then instead of rating movies on CONTENT, they'd be rating movies on stuff like artistic merit.
After all, what the hell is "porn", exactly? I've heard it said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Problem is, I've seen "porn" that sure as hell wouldn't be deserving of the NC-17 rating (or an equivalent rating, for other forms of media).
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
I think you have to absolutely amazing realisticaly in detail gory, or a full on hardcore pornography to get the NC-17 rating.
MrGeezer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
I seriously doubt that. Granted, many of the movies on list were re-edited in order to receive an R, but a lot of movies on this list were clearly always intended to be major releases.
some movies i am surprised, some movies i am not. I mean who'd of thought "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" would ever get slapped NC-17. :P It seems those two themes strong violence and/or strong sex is gonna be in the film. Granted their gonna probably be more lenient to the violence. and even then NC-17 or it's replacement i think will still basically be the 'kiss of death' to it. even on the Wiki page (and i don't like quoting WIki at all.... too many people with agendas fighting to have their version of truth be put up there) it states it was 'intended to make money at Home Video/DVD". BTW.. I have not been following the thread, i read the first post and wrote.Exactly, that's what I suggested in my other post. Make a seperate rating for porn.
@MrGeezer, I don't think either of those two suggestions fix the fundamental problem. As you point out, replacing NC-17 would just make the new rating the new NC-17 just as NC-17 was the new X. Dropping anything above R doesn't solve the problem because making the system -less- specific just creates more ambiguity. Bear in mind that retailers use these ratings to determine what they carry and who they sell to.
-Byshop
Byshop
Here's the thing...adding MORE ratings probably isn't going to help things either. I think we can agree that the ONLY reason that an NC-17 rating is "the kiss of death" is because that's money down the drain. Yet, there ARE movies that are made and marketted specifically to be gruesome or sexual (just, not quite gruesome or sexual enough to get the NC-17 rating). Also consider that hardcore pornography is a big business. Yes, there's absolutely a market for it. And the makers of those porn flicks have found a way to find an audience without having to rely on an R rating from the MPAA.
So here's my point...suppose we take the criteria for an NC-17 and further split that up in order to distinguish between "real movies" and "pornography". Well...that's still sort of pointless. Because the people making pornography generally don't bother messing with the MPAA at all.
[QUOTE="JediXMan7"]
Perhaps porn and NC-17 should be mutually exclusive.
MrGeezer
I don't see that as a viable option. Or at least, not a better option. Then instead of rating movies on CONTENT, they'd be rating movies on stuff like artistic merit.
After all, what the hell is "porn", exactly? I've heard it said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Problem is, I've seen "porn" that sure as hell wouldn't be deserving of the NC-17 rating (or an equivalent rating, for other forms of media).
None of this would be a problem if the MPAA had it's head on straight when it came to actually passing judgement on the films they review. An NC-17 rating should be only for films that clearly intend to be graphically sexual/violent for no reason other than to be a snuff film/porno. It shouldn't be a problem if a film depicts violence and sex, like with Blue Valentine or Requiem for a Dream, in a way that fits the context of the film and is for story telling/emotional purposes and not intended just to be sexual or graphic. As you said they should be judging based on artist merit, there should be more of a thought process involved instead of just a list of limits/things that can't be done or said, like with foul language. I've said it over and over again, the biggest problem with the MPAA is that the content isn't judged based on the context of the film. They see nudity, drug use, foul language and they instantly try to slap it with a high rating even though in many cases when consider within the context of the film the images are not offensive/graphic. Like with 'The Kings Speech', they gave it an R rating for saying the f-word multiple times. Now I could see a reasoning behind that if it was used aggressively towards someone as like a threat, or if it was used in a sexual manner...but it wasn't. It was used as part of a speech therapy technique, one that is actually used in real life for people of all ages and totally harmless...but the MPAA didn't care. They just said "well it exceeds the f-word limit for films and so gets an R'.I don't see that as a viable option. Or at least, not a better option. Then instead of rating movies on CONTENT, they'd be rating movies on stuff like artistic merit.
After all, what the hell is "porn", exactly? I've heard it said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Problem is, I've seen "porn" that sure as hell wouldn't be deserving of the NC-17 rating (or an equivalent rating, for other forms of media).
MrGeezer
That's a lofty goal, but artistic merit is waaaaaaaaaay too subjective. That's something that art critics can't even agree on, much less movie reviewers or raters. Artistic merit boils down to "quality" too easily, and how many movies have you read "the reviews from critics were mixed"?
I agree that in some cases the line between art and porn is going to be fuzzy, but I think adding a "pornography" rating would work for the majority of films to categorize as either "yes" or "no". Sure, there will always be movies that border the edge of both categories but right now the system is just broken.
Porn, at least in concept, is not that hard to define. Websters defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." I don't think very many people rented "Boys Don't Cry" because they wanted wanking material.
Also bear in mind that films created outside the film industry with sex scenes, these scenes are simulated whereas in straight up porn the actors are actually having intercourse.
No matter what, there will never be a perfect system. The idea of rating movies is the idea of dividing an artistic medium into linear categories. The best we can ever hope for is to create a system that more accurately represents the opinions of the majority than the current system, but ultimately the whole thing is subjective from the perspective of the observer. There will always be people who might think any depiction of full frontal regardless of conext should never be seen by anyone under 17 ever, while others might think differently depending on the context in which it's presented. The idea of the rating system is to represent what most people would think of the film if they watched it so the prespective viewer doesn't have to perform their own independent research on every film they buy or even that their children might buy for themselves.
-Byshop
Here's the thing...adding MORE ratings probably isn't going to help things either. I think we can agree that the ONLY reason that an NC-17 rating is "the kiss of death" is because that's money down the drain. Yet, there ARE movies that are made and marketted specifically to be gruesome or sexual (just, not quite gruesome or sexual enough to get the NC-17 rating). Also consider that hardcore pornography is a big business. Yes, there's absolutely a market for it. And the makers of those porn flicks have found a way to find an audience without having to rely on an R rating from the MPAA.\
So here's my point...suppose we take the criteria for an NC-17 and further split that up in order to distinguish between "real movies" and "pornography". Well...that's still sort of pointless. Because the people making pornography generally don't bother messing with the MPAA at all.
MrGeezer
Again, I'm not talking about artistic merit, I'm talking about intent. True, the porn industry goes great in the direct video home sales (an in the old days, porno theaters) market but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Pornos in general do not have multi-million dollar budgets so if they make 500k in direct DVD sales on a film that cost 20k to make that took 3 days to film then they are doing pretty well (not to mention they will often film multiple films at the same time with the same actors). Even counting low budget indy films, there's still a lot of work that goes into them (read up on the production of Aaron Daronofsky's Pi sometime) whereas porn is cranked out like a factory assembled machine.
The porn industry embraces their status generally (see adult entertainment expo in Las Vegas every year) and they do not try to juke the system because it would only hurt them in the long run. I think the short term solution would be something to differentiate between porn (actual on screen sex, for instance) and movies that are NC-17 for something other than depictions of actual people screwing on camera.
-Byshop
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
I think you have to absolutely amazing realisticaly in detail gory, or a full on hardcore pornography to get the NC-17 rating.
SaudiFury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
I seriously doubt that. Granted, many of the movies on list were re-edited in order to receive an R, but a lot of movies on this list were clearly always intended to be major releases.
some movies i am surprised, some movies i am not. I mean who'd of thought "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" would ever get slapped NC-17. :P It seems those two themes strong violence and/or strong sex is gonna be in the film. Granted their gonna probably be more lenient to the violence. and even then NC-17 or it's replacement i think will still basically be the 'kiss of death' to it. even on the Wiki page (and i don't like quoting WIki at all.... too many people with agendas fighting to have their version of truth be put up there) it states it was 'intended to make money at Home Video/DVD". BTW.. I have not been following the thread, i read the first post and wrote.My point is, I'm wagering that quite a few of the movies that were edited down to an R really only required minor edits in the first place.
Yes, there's stuff on that list which is clearly intended to be porn (or at least "Erotica", if there's a difference). That kind of stuff is generally never INTENDED to reach a very large audience. However, many of the movies on this list were clearly intended to be major releases by big studios. And THOSE are the kinds of movies which were always intended to receive an R rating in the first place. Example...Natural Born Killers. Not much had to be edited out in order to receive an R rating, because it was a prominent movie with backing from a major studio. The vast majority of the content fits perfectly into R territory because it was always intended to have an R rating. If the intent was otherwise, the movie never would have gotten made in the first place.
Anyway, here's my apathy towards the whole NC-17 controversy: complaints about the MPAA and the NC-17 rating almost invariably seem to revolve around the stifling of good art and the artists' vision. And to that I say, "tough luck". Those writers and directors chose to go commercial, and they should EXPECT marketability to be a major factor.
Think about it like this...remember how I said that movies never have to be submitted to the MPAA in the first place? Well, yeah. Movies don't have to be submitted to the MPAA in the first place. So hypothetically, let's just say that you and a few of your friends shot a low-budget indie film. You're really proud of it, you think it's awesome. You then submit it to the MPAA. Well, WHY are you submitting it to the MPAA, given that you totally don't have to? Answer: because you want something from the MPAA. More specifically, you want them to give it a rating so that you can then get it put on store shelves and have people buy it. If the MPAA then just happens to give it an NC-17 rating, and then you just happen to fail to get it distributed because it's NC-17, then it's sort of a copout to blame the person who gave it that rating. If they're that useless, then why were you trying to get them to rate the movie in the first place?
Simultaneously, it's hard to blame places like Wal-Mart for not stocking NC-17 movies on their shelves. They want to maintain a family friendly image, and it's easier to just plain refuse to carry movies that receive an NC-17 rating. That's just them responding to a perceived market, which is exactly what you did when you submitted the movie to be rated in the first place.
Still doesn't concern me in the least. Because the thing here is that movies are almost inherently so expensive that they are almost ALWAYS going to be approached by one or more parties as a commercial endeavor. Wanna make movies too hardcore for an R-rating? Go right ahead, just as long as you can afford to pay for it out of pocket and don't mind losing money when no one buys it. Otherwise, you're gonna have to make compromises in order to pay the bills.
Porn, at least in concept, is not that hard to define. Websters defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." I don't think very many people rented "Boys Don't Cry" because they wanted wanking material.
Byshop
Yet, I'm totally sure that a lot of people watched the PG-13 Fast And Furious movies at least in large part because of hot chicks with big butts.
MrGeezerNothing you just said was i in disagreement about. so yeah, basically my thoughts as well. :) I would wager however that perhaps the reason why studios need to go through the MPAA, is because of the MPAA's connections to the cinema owners and the retailers and distributors. It's like a 'mark of passage' in order to the get the move going. Otherwise you really are just gonna piss a load of money away.
MrGeezer, I think you and I are pretty much of the same mind minus a couple minor points.
My point is, I'm wagering that quite a few of the movies that were edited down to an R really only required minor edits in the first place. Yes, there's stuff on that list which is clearly intended to be porn (or at least "Erotica", if there's a difference). That kind of stuff is generally never INTENDED to reach a very large audience. However, many of the movies on this list were clearly intended to be major releases by big studios.
Agreeed.
And THOSE are the kinds of movies which were always intended to receive an R rating in the first place. Example...Natural Born Killers. Not much had to be edited out in order to receive an R rating, because it was a prominent movie with backing from a major studio. The vast majority of the content fits perfectly into R territory because it was always intended to have an R rating. If the intent was otherwise, the movie never would have gotten made in the first place.
Disagree because I think that's the hypocracy of the system. Filmmakers -have- to target an R rating because financially because anything above that is synomymous with porn. A lot of filmmakers set out to tell a story rather than to tell an R rated story per se. They say "this is the content of my movie and what I wanted to get across" and the MPAA either says it's ok (R) or not (NC17).
Anyway, here's my apathy towards the whole NC-17 controversy: complaints about the MPAA and the NC-17 rating almost invariably seem to revolve around the stifling of good art and the artists' vision. And to that I say, "tough luck". Those writers and directors chose to go commercial, and they should EXPECT marketability to be a major factor.
Agreed, although if we are too apathetic towards this issue then we will lose out on a lot of great films because they'll never get funding.
Think about it like this...remember how I said that movies never have to be submitted to the MPAA in the first place? Well, yeah. Movies don't have to be submitted to the MPAA in the first place. So hypothetically, let's just say that you and a few of your friends shot a low-budget indie film. You're really proud of it, you think it's awesome. You then submit it to the MPAA. Well, WHY are you submitting it to the MPAA, given that you totally don't have to? Answer: because you want something from the MPAA. More specifically, you want them to give it a rating so that you can then get it put on store shelves and have people buy it.
Because unrated is just as bad as NC17.
If the MPAA then just happens to give it an NC-17 rating, and then you just happen to fail to get it distributed because it's NC-17, then it's sort of a copout to blame the person who gave it that rating. If they're that useless, then why were you trying to get them to rate the movie in the first place?
Here's my problem with that. The MPAA can give out NC-17 rating for very arbitrary reasons that to many filmmakers make absolutely no sense. I highly recommend watching that documentary This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated if you haven't seen it already, but there was one movie that got an NC-17 rating because a female orgasm scene went on too long (nothing explicit, just the actresses' face). Depections of male sexuality often get R but female sexuality is over the top.
Simultaneously, it's hard to blame places like Wal-Mart for not stocking NC-17 movies on their shelves. They want to maintain a family friendly image, and it's easier to just plain refuse to carry movies that receive an NC-17 rating. That's just them responding to a perceived market, which is exactly what you did when you submitted the movie to be rated in the first place.
Agreed
Still doesn't concern me in the least. Because the thing here is that movies are almost inherently so expensive that they are almost ALWAYS going to be approached by one or more parties as a commercial endeavor. Wanna make movies too hardcore for an R-rating? Go right ahead, just as long as you can afford to pay for it out of pocket and don't mind losing money when no one buys it. Otherwise, you're gonna have to make compromises in order to pay the bills.
Again, I'd like to see more granularity so we can get big studios to film awesome experimental and art house films that I really enjoy. Right now the system makes it extra hard to make a film like this.
Anyway, my kid is crying so I gotta run. Fun chatting all.
-Byshop
Again, I'm not talking about artistic merit, I'm talking about intent. True, the porn industry goes great in the direct video home sales (an in the old days, porno theaters) market but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Pornos in general do not have multi-million dollar budgets so if they make 500k in direct DVD sales on a film that cost 20k to make that took 3 days to film then they are doing pretty well (not to mention they will often film multiple films at the same time with the same actors). Even counting low budget indy films, there's still a lot of work that goes into them (read up on the production of Aaron Daronofsky's Pi sometime) whereas porn is cranked out like a factory assembled machine.
Byshop
And that's sort of my point. "Real movies" (as opposed to hardcore pornography) generally tend to be pretty expensive. And if you're working on a miniscule budget, you've gotta work all the more harder to make every single penny go as far as possible. It's not exactly easy. That's why one person will generally make a painting or a photograph, while an assload of people are involved in the production of even a low-budget movie.
Making movies is, almost inherently, a commercial endeavor.
More and more, that is simply a fundamental requirement of the art form. You can draw all day and make "art for art's sake". You can spend an assload of time planning on how to shoot a certain subject without spending any extra money. But movies generally have to SELL. And budget issues aren't a PROBLEM, they're a fundamental component of any investment. If you can't afford to do it, then you either make sacrifices and do it cheaper, or you don't do it at all.
Don't get me wrong...I would absolutely love to live in a world in which any artist receives the funds to make any art that the want, regardless of how much it costs. But that's fantasy land. I'd might as well expect to win the lottery tomorrow morning. The reality is that art costs time/money/effort to make. And (particularly with movies) that usually isn't ****ing cheap. If you're making it at all (here I'm specifically talking about movies), then it's damn near 100% certain that one of your primary goals is to get it to SELL. Keep in mind that there are a LOT of painters/drawers/photographers out there, and the VAST majority of them spend most of their time on commercial work. It's VERY hard for artists to get to the point where they can simply make art without being boxed in by commercial pressures.
[QUOTE="JediXMan7"]
Perhaps porn and NC-17 should be mutually exclusive.
MrGeezer
I don't see that as a viable option. Or at least, not a better option. Then instead of rating movies on CONTENT, they'd be rating movies on stuff like artistic merit.
After all, what the hell is "porn", exactly? I've heard it said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Problem is, I've seen "porn" that sure as hell wouldn't be deserving of the NC-17 rating (or an equivalent rating, for other forms of media).
I would say that the primary difference is context. Is it sex/nudity for the sake of it or is it part of the plot? Yes it drifts into the artistic merit thing, but still. The system is imperfect.
And that's sort of my point. "Real movies" (as opposed to hardcore pornography) generally tend to be pretty expensive. And if you're working on a miniscule budget, you've gotta work all the more harder to make every single penny go as far as possible. It's not exactly easy. That's why one person will generally make a painting or a photograph, while an assload of people are involved in the production of even a low-budget movie.
Making movies is, almost inherently, a commercial endeavor.
More and more, that is simply a fundamental requirement of the art form. You can draw all day and make "art for art's sake". You can spend an assload of time planning on how to shoot a certain subject without spending any extra money. But movies generally have to SELL. And budget issues aren't a PROBLEM, they're a fundamental component of any investment. If you can't afford to do it, then you either make sacrifices and do it cheaper, or you don't do it at all.
Don't get me wrong...I would absolutely love to live in a world in which any artist receives the funds to make any art that the want, regardless of how much it costs. But that's fantasy land. I'd might as well expect to win the lottery tomorrow morning. The reality is that art costs time/money/effort to make. And (particularly with movies) that usually isn't ****ing cheap. If you're making it at all (here I'm specifically talking about movies), then it's damn near 100% certain that one of your primary goals is to get it to SELL. Keep in mind that there are a LOT of painters/drawers/photographers out there, and the VAST majority of them spend most of their time on commercial work. It's VERY hard for artists to get to the point where they can simply make art without being boxed in by commercial pressures.
MrGeezer
I agree, but since I recognize that there's a line between NC-17 with artistic merit and straight up porn (and that I happen to be a fan of that category) I would like to see the rating system help rather than hinder that market.
-Byshop
Disagree because I think that's the hypocracy of the system. Filmmakers -have- to target an R rating because financially because anything above that is synomymous with porn. A lot of filmmakers set out to tell a story rather than to tell an R rated story per se. They say "this is the content of my movie and what I wanted to get across" and the MPAA either says it's ok (R) or not (NC17).
Byshop
I can't agree with you here. Reason being that the audience should sort of be a consideration at some step during the making of the movie.
It's not just a requirement that the movie is GOOD, it also needs to fit the parameters for what it is intended to do. If you're getting a 30 million dollar budget then the obvious goal is to "make a profit". That doesn't mean that you have to totally ignore your desire to tell the story which is burning in your mind. But, throughout every step of the process, you should be thinking of the final product and thinking about if it's something that's actually gonna make money.
I mean, suppose a restaurant hired me to promote their restaurant with photographs. So I'm taking pictures of their entrees and I notice that one of their entrees is duck. So then I decide to get all artistic and take a picture in which I've crucified a dead duck. Was there a point to the photograph? Maybe? Did it say what I thought needed to be said? Possibly? Is it the kind of ***** that the restaurant thinks will help them to promote their business? Absolutely not. So I'd sort of have no one to blame but myself when they see that **** and immediately fire me.
Look, I'm all for free artistic expression and all that stuff. But when you get hired to do a job and are given a fairly big-ass budget to get it done, then you do it the way that your employers want. You're working for them, not the other way around.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment