Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment

MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating 424

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the defining-irony dept.
jtcm writes "An original documentary by Kirby Dick, called "This Film is Not Yet Rated" has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA. The film explores the MPAA's own film rating system and "its profound effect on American culture." The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content" and will likely limit the movie's distribution, as many theater chains will not show NC-17 movies. Among the filmmakers speaking openly in the movie are two of my personal favorites, Kevin Smith and Matt Stone. For those who are eager to view this exposé, fear not. The Independent Film Channel (IFC) will present the film uncensored and uninterrupted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating More

MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating

Comments Filter:

  • Gee.. what a shock. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RedOregon ( 161027 ) <redoregon.satx@rr@com> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:28PM (#14229387) Homepage Journal
    The MPAA doesn't want many people to see the BS they do. I'm shocked, totally shocked.

    • Re:Gee.. what a shock. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:35PM (#14229410)
      The filmmakers made a mistake of having such content in, forcing the MPAA to give such a rating. If they had limited such content, and the MPAA still gave such a rating, then there would be a stronger case for calling it a conspiracy.

      We'll just have to wait and see what this "explicit sexual content" is and if it's worth such a rating.

      Granted, Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" had to cut a scene with some pretty nasty descriptions of sex out before it could get an R. I don't even think "The Aristocrats" tried to get a rating, and you can't get much more nasty without actually showing the acts.

      • Re:Gee.. what a shock. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plalonde2 ( 527372 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:37PM (#14229425)
        Of course, getting an NC-17 is going to give this film much more press than it would have otherwise garnered.

        • Re:Gee.. what a shock. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:03PM (#14229540)
          But it'll limit it's potential audiences. Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies. Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies. It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan, especially if he can't pick it up along with his dry cleaning and a bucket of KFC.
          • they don't carry unrated [blockbuster.com]? Really?

          • Re:Gee.. what a shock. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DeadMeat (TM) ( 233768 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:36PM (#14229711) Homepage
            Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies.
            This is untrue. Back when there was talk of Lion's Gate screening High Tension uncut, there was a survey of theaters that showed that the vast majority had no policy against showing NC-17 rated movies. There's a perception among studios that NC-17 is the kiss-of-death, but it mainly comes from the commerical failure of Showgirls (which was due to a number of factors besides its rating).
            Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies.
            This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade. I've seen plenty of unrated versions of movies, though.

            Blockbuster is a franchise chain, so individual stores may have different policies on what they'll carry. But AFAIK it's not official Blockbuster policy to carry NC-17 or unrated movies -- and if it is, then plenty of stores violate that policy anyway.

            It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan
            The casual movie fan's interest was already lost when the directors decided to make a documentary about the MPAA rating system. The film's target audience was already small before the MPAA slapped a rating on it, and that audience probably won't be deterred by an NC-17 rating. If anything, like the grandparent pointed out, the extra press will only help.

            • This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade. I've seen plenty of unrated versions of movies, though.

              Young Adam (Sony Pictures Classics) was originally given a NC-17 rating. It was later released as a "R", but I'm not sure what, if anything was cut. I do remember seeing the NC-17 version at a local (mainstream, commercial) movie theater.

          • Blockbuster carries PLENTY of unrated stuff. Nothing that you'd have to go in the back room with the curtian for in another store though. Softcore porn though, yeah, they've got plenty.
          • Blockbuster DOES carry NC-17 or unrated films. I just rented F3 (Frenzied Frustrated Female) which has NO RATING whatsoever from there.

            On the other hand, Yes, most movies won't show an NC-17 movie. I used to work for Malco.

          • Re:Gee.. what a shock. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ivan256 ( 17499 ) *
            But it'll limit it's potential audiences.

            It's a documentary. Do you really think the potential audience was that large in the first place? The people who want to see it will find a place to see it. When it doesn't sell that well, it won't be because it wasn't showing in every theater. It'll be because most people don't want to shell out $10 to see something that doesn't blow up or get them laid afterwards.
      • I think the scene your refering to went something like this. Jay was talking to a hooker. Hooker:I can be as nasty as you want me to be Jay: Ok well i'm ramming you in the ass while you go down on a midget. My friend bob is jerking off into a cup and you... Hooker: That's to nasty for me I quit.

      • The filmmakers made a mistake of having such content in, forcing the MPAA to give such a rating. If they had limited such content, and the MPAA still gave such a rating, then there would be a stronger case for calling it a conspiracy.

        How do you show what content makes a movie NC-17 in the eyes of the rating board without making your movie NC-17? If you don't show clips than the audience can't make an informed decision on whether the ratings board is right, and if you do then your movie will also inevitab

    • No, it makes perfect sense.

      If the movie is about the rating system, then chances are it will have to show clips / examples from all of the ratings brackets. So if the film has NC-17 clips, the it would be NC-17 itself.

      Personally I don't see that the big deal about the rating is, it'd actually make me more likely to see the film.
      I've only actually seen one NC-17 movie, "Kids", and it was excellent. I've only really heard of one other (Showgirls), which I've heard from trusted friends sucked.
    • If their intention was to do an expose on the MPAA's rating system, you'd think they would have made the movie such that it could reach the widest possible audience. Instead they threw in stuff they had to know (they are filmmakers) would get them an NC-17 rating. Even if it was borderline, a reasonable person would have erred on the side of caution to ensure their message got out. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.

      Instead, the best they can do is get it shown in art-house theaters and a film channel v

  • May I be the first to say.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:30PM (#14229394)
    Porn on a non-pay-per-view channel! WooHoo!!

  • LOL, Cinemas not showing a film? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:30PM (#14229395)
    Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?

    What about the adult market? Or is it like pop music now - only good for children? Adults should be working and brainless, good consumers but never exposed to anything that'll make them think...

    What do these theaters show after 10pm? Bambi?
    • You may laugh, but I've read that teenagers are the movie market now. R movies make much less money than PG-13 movies, to the extent that studios are not willing to make a lot of R movies. (The rating for a studio movie is decided before it gets made.) NC-17 movies would presumably make even less money because teens wouldn't be able to get in at all.

    • Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe you haven't realized that a majority market for the major film producers is indeed the teenage crowd. Not to mention adults going with their children. You may also fail to realize that "family organizations" would probably organize a boycott against theatres showing porn. Personal responsibility or not, the organized are more powerful than the disorganized. When it comes down to it, the theatres are centers of business not political ideology. They will respond to those that could harm their profit mar
    • Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?
      It's a ceremonial black mark, just like the AO video game rating. Normal people understand that watching it/playing it won't cause their souls to turn black as sin, but it's enough to scare theaters away from showing it/Walmart from selling it.

      I remember how the South Park movie originally got an NC-17. Didn't they make fun of the MPAA too? How odd.

  • Biased? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IvanTheViking ( 922353 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:31PM (#14229398) Homepage
    Gee, anyone else think they might be a bit biased rating about a movie about themselves?
    The higher the rating, the less people will be able to see, especially the younger crowd, that is those who have yet to form a complete opinion on Hollywood yet...

    • Re:Biased? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      Gee, anyone think the film's producers might have included very adult content knowing the MPAA would have to rate it NC-17 according to their policies and then capitalize on the publicity of "oh noes! censorshipzors!"?

      Seriously. Come on Slashdotters. I know common sense isn't that common around here but put your fucking tin foil hats down for a second.

      • Put your tinfoil hats down? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:55PM (#14230093)
        You're the one articulating a conspiracy theory that presumes the film producers engineered all this controversy in the first place. Personally, I think you're probably right about this, but it's a little rude to tell other people to put their tin foil away when your answer is a conspiracy theory that's even more convoluted.
    • That's possible... but given the topics he is exploring I think he probably did include several very graphic sex scenes. It would be hard to compare the MPAA's handling of similar material in two different films unless he actually showed (at least parts) of the scenes in question to the audience.

  • Optioned yet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:32PM (#14229401)
    So when do we get the film about the film about ratings getting an NC-17 rating?

  • Why No -NC-17? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SlashdotOgre ( 739181 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:32PM (#14229402) Journal
    What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy? I can understand having a a policy of not having certain NC-17 movies based on management's decision after viewing a particular movie, but it seems naive to just ban all NC-17 movies blindly. I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?
    • Well when a good amount of kids will find a way into a movie no matter what, not allowing NC-17 movies is a good way to cover your ass. In this country, I wouldn't be surprised if a parent was able to sue a theater for letting them allow their 11 year old kid watch a "porn" (Be it real porn, or just a few seconds of NC-17 footage).... Business is all about covering your ass, and going after those who have a bare ass for some people....

    • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Icehouseman ( 597782 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:51PM (#14229490) Homepage Journal
      Easy. When the new NC-17 rating came out in 1990; the religious nutters like Jerry Falwell put pressure on all the major chains to refuse to show NC-17. So of course they got their way and now it's virtually impossible to show NC-17 movies. It wouldn't be hard to keep children out of NC-17 movies, any movie theater could do it, so it's mostly the right wing attacking that which they can't understand and don't like.
    • The whole point of ratings (for anything, not just movies) is to free people from having to make case-by-case decisions.

    • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by east coast ( 590680 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:11PM (#14229576)
      What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

      Because it's like the old XXX rating. Automatically the NC-17 rating is associated with hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is a big turn off to parents paying for their 15 year old going to the theater. This is a bad business move regardless if the movie is rated NC-17 or unrated due to gore, violence, etc etc...

      I recall when NC-17 was being put in place that there was a move to have better definitions of "offensive" content to help the horror industry make films that were a bit more graphic without having them associated with pornography. As we all know, this never happened.

      it seems naive to just ban all NC-17 movies blindly. I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religiously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

      Not to be a troll or a flame but you are the naive one here; This has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with the profitability of the theater in the face of a fairly common social morality. Sure I can imagine a few bible beaters showing up to protest this at my local theater in a community that has tens of thousands of members but if anything this would help the theater get people interested in this film.

      Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).

      Do you really think a theater owner should show this film knowing that the community isn't going to support this type of film? That's probably your most naive sentiment; theaters and the movies they show are not about art, they're about profit. If you want art for the sake of art on the big screen you're not going to find it at the 18 screen megaplex. Not because it might upset a very small number of religious people, but because it's bad business.

      And what if you found out the theater owner was an atheist? how would that effect your unfortunate stereotype of the "religiously charged, mid-west family"? What would you look to next as a crutch for a really lame assumption? There is morality outside of religion. Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group. This is absolutely false. Even without religion society will find a common morality and there will still be "oppression" in the name of the public good or in the greatest cry of politicians and prudes everywhere; "What about the children?". Social morality, while it may have been at one point based on religion (as all the major world religions have a few points in common concerning morality) today this morality is based on a sense of purpose and right not based on a religious doctrine but rather an "natural" sense of right and wrong.

      • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:38PM (#14229721) Homepage Journal
        Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group.

        Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

        I think the leftist assumption is not that community moral standards arise from religion, but that stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion -- and in the US, at least, that assumption is usually correct. Believers and unbelievers alike agree that, e.g., murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, because those cause obvious and direct harm to other people. But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.
        • Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

          I've never seen proof of this.

          stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion

          Such as?

          • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:55PM (#14229828) Homepage Journal
            > Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

            I've never seen proof of this.

            [shrug] I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality; I do know that I've seen many, many right-wingers argue this position, and rarely (though not never) seen left-wingers do the same. Actually, that's a study I'd like to see.

            > stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion

            Such as?

            Such as the idea that there's some inherent danger in mainstream movie theaters showing NC-17 movies.

            Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages, students should learn creationism in science class, it's an appropriate use of the FBI's time to invesitgate "obscene" material on the internet, et bloody cetera.

            • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Golias ( 176380 )
              Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages

              No, that's an issue of fuck-buddies taking advantage of loopholes in laws which were written to motivate parents to stay married for the sake of the kids.

              It's based on several axioms:

              1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.
              2. Society wants kids to be well off.
              3. Using tax laws and so forth, we can encourage families to stay together.
              4. A gay couple, collectively, can never produce

              • Oh, come now. This isn't morality; it's prejudice and spite masquerading as morality.

                1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.

                No, definitely not. Not as a generalisation. A kid is better off being raised by happy, low stressed people in a stable relationship. Biological relationship simply does not come in here. It's always been 'a wise child who knows who his father is' - infidelity is a fact of life in all communities and at all periods of history. Kids

        • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mjh ( 57755 )

          But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.

          For example:

          • No smoking in restaurants
          • Mandatory seat belt laws
          • Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

          Yep. It's those darn religious conservatives who were responsible for those sort of nanny-state decisions.
          </sarcasm>
          About the only political party that has any claim on leaving people to make their own decisions are the libertarians. Neither the repubs nor t

    • What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

      Let me ask you this. You read NC-17 and you say, doesnt sound so bad... but what about when you read "X-Rated". how does that make you feel? Why do I ask? Because NC-17 was a rating that replaced X-Rated. it sounds nicer and non-pornographic. Because, well, X-Rated filmes were not pornoraphic (thats XXX) and the association was getting out of hand. Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.

      Now, why is it bad for Theaters to

      • Re:Why No -NC-17? (Score:5, Funny)

        by scotch ( 102596 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:00PM (#14229852) Homepage
        Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.

        Yeah, the Xbox, generation-X, X-men, X-games, are all marketing disasters.

      • There was no XXX rating (Score:5, Informative)

        by DECS ( 891519 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:15PM (#14229923) Homepage Journal
        Originally the MPAA labeled movies G, GP (later changed to PG), R and X. There was a Catholic organization that rated films as well, labeling them with various levels of "reservation," and giving some an O for "offensive," that meant catholics weren't supposed to watch them. At one time, being labeled O meant a lot of people were not going to see your movie.

        Indiana Jones III in 1984 got a new PG-13 rating to create something that sounded edgier than PG but not quite R, something that older teens could be expected to watch. It featured the scene where the voodoo guy rips out a beating heart from a living person and bites it.

        Later, filmmakers asked for a renamed rating for "mature" subjects that were considered "more than R" to disassociate mature with the porn stigma attached to "X Rated"

        So to accommodate mature, non porn films, the MPAA re-branded the X rating as NC-17, and some non-porn feature films actually got released as NC-17. Very few "X rated" mainstream films that had ever been released before. The X rating didn't necessarily mean sex and nudity, but in reality it generally did; when people heard X they associated it with hardcore porn. Before NC-17, films getting an X rating that weren't porn simply edited things down to get an R rating.

        Porn theaters had long done the opposite: they marketed their content (much of which was not really feature length movies, but just sex, and so not even officially ever "rated") as "Triple XXX!!!" There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. That sink in yet?

        Any theater choosing to show NC-17 movies would be risking the taint of being labeled a porn-house, likely incur the wrath and bad publicity of morality/family interest/religious groups, and for all that trouble only show limited run movies with a narrow appeal. How would that be a good business decision?

        Theaters already are unlikely to show independent movies without guaranteed draws that deliver profits efficiently. If you are puzzled as to why a theater, and particularly a huge chain designed to make money fastest, would not (or rarely ever) show NC-17 rated films, then you must also be wondering why WalMart doesn't sell latex suits, dildoes and, buttfucking slings.

  • So fucking what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:33PM (#14229404)
    The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"

    That's what NC-17 is for.

    NEWSFLASH! Producers of anti-MPAA film include racy content with intention to pull an NC-17 rating that causes typical Slashdot readers who never read articles and jump to conclusions to conclude that the MPAA is rating such film inappropriately because of the target of said film and not the adult content. More at 11!

    • Re:So fucking what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"

      That's what NC-17 is for.

      Really? But I've seen some PG-13 movies where people complained that it contained "some graphic sexual content."

      There is no definition of what is "sexual" - Is a woman breastfeeding "sexual"? What about just the breast? If she's giving herself a mamogram? If she's showering? If she's playing with it? Where do they draw the line? They don't tell anyone.

      There is no definition of "graphic." Does that mean a

      • Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"

        You don't even know what the 'graphic' content is in the movie. Maybe they played a 30 second clip of some random porn film? But who cares. Its just a rating by a private group. Yes, it does mean that most movie theaters will n

      • Re:So fucking what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jonny_eh ( 765306 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:05PM (#14229547)
        So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?

        King Kong (1933) was SUPER popular and didn't get any Oscar nomination either.

        • Re:So fucking what? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?

          What do I care about that one. I was thinking of a movie that was actually a documentary. "Hoop Dreams." Everyone involved in the process claims they rated it the highest of all films rated, yet it did not get a single nomination. It confused people enough to warrant a lawsuit. There isn't any mystery why Fahrenheit 9/11 got a poor result. It was very contraversial and debatable of whether it is a "pure" documentary.

      • If there are any legal protests, they will surely fail. Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...

        Companies are responsible for making sure their films' names are on the eligibility reminder list. Then the communi

    • Re:So fucking what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by liangzai ( 837960 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:48PM (#14229474) Homepage
      I am sorry, but I really don't understand why sexually explicit stuff should have such a rating. On the other hand, I am just a dumb European, and where I am from there are no such ratings (15 for extremely violent movies or pure pornography, although it is more of a recommendation). Late teens (almost adults) can drive a car but can't see boobies!?

      Could you point me to a (repeatable, verifiable) scientific study showing that kids are harmed in any way by seeing sexual content on the screen?

      What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

      • Re:So fucking what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:00PM (#14229525)
        You forgot the best part. They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

        • Re:So fucking what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:17PM (#14229619) Homepage Journal
          The best part is, in most states they can have sex at 16, but they can't watch it in a cinema for another year!
        • They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

          Well, that's because if you drink before you are 21, you might, uh, die. Just not for your country.

          Anytime after 21, it's perfectly safe...

        • That being said, "underage" drinking is quite common. Also, since the United States hasn't drafted someone since the 1970s (unlike certain European countries I could name), your sentence should read "...they can't legally drink until they are 21 but can choose to die for their country when they are 18." A question of semantics, but important nonetheless.
        • They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

          I think "kill for their country" is much more appropriate.

          People die all the time, at ages much younger than 18. Whether or not it's "for their country" is just a question of whether the circumstances which lead to their deaths was something considered important to the country.
        • At 18 you can work in a bar but you can't drink there. Strange but true. You can serve drinks but can't have one for yourself.

          It's just retarded puritanism that's all. We are still in the dark ages in so many ways.

      • Re:So fucking what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShyGuy91284 ( 701108 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:08PM (#14229563)
        The US is fucked up in many ways (I live in the US, and am not a typical "anti-American American"). One of the biggest problems is we have managed to turn things like pr0n and drinking into a sort of a enormous taboo for younger people (Is a typical 18 year old casual drinker really any more mature about drinking then a 21 year old casual drinker?), and have just encouraged them and attached a stigma to the "bad" that are a known part of life. I remember reading once that Japanese baths used to be co-ed many years ago before the white man (Might have been America, might have been Europe, I don't know) attached a stigma to such things. A not-so-bad thing that then had a stigma attached to it. I do agree with you. Many of the things "to protect minors" are just making them another way to rebel against "the system". You can smoke at 16 (which is probably one of the most addictive activities around), but can't watch porn? Yeah, I see a situation where the market is controlling the people (see my sig).
        • I remember reading once that Japanese baths used to be co-ed many years ago before the white man

          There was actually an interesting period of time in Japan when bare chested women were racey in urban areas (which were influenced by western models), but not in rural areas. So men would come from rural areas, aftr working with shirtless woman in their homes, and girls with their tops exposed would suddently become this taboo hottness for them.
      • As an American who has spent more than half my life living in Europe (France, Austria, and Sweden), I understand your sentiments. On the other hand, I would like to point out that many Europeans are somewhat hypocritical about decrying the state of civil liberties in the US, seeing as they themselves limit free speech (e.g. Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries).

      • Re:So fucking what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:15PM (#14229604) Homepage Journal
        In a country where a movie [The Rock], can have someone's mouth stuffed full of nerve toxin so their face melts off, and it only gets an R, it's clear that sex is thought to be more taboo than graphic violence.

        And heaven forbid there be a naked penis in a scene! Why, the viewers' sensibilities would run out of the room screaming should that ever happen. Penises are more dangerous and vile than guns you know.
      • What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

        First off, it's not banned, it's limited and it's not by the governement, it's by a third party entity and wise businessmen.

        Secondly, let's look at some other titles that would doubtlessly be NC-17 in the US and see how they faired in the more enlighted countries:

        Faces of Death from 1978

        Certification: New Zealand:(Banned) / Australia:(Banned) / Finland:(Banned) /
    • That's what NC-17 is for.

      Actually not. It was a blanket replacement for the X rating. The real purpose wasn't just sexual content but all inappropriate content without the X stigma, now we have the NC-17 stigma. It's possible to get an NC-17 for no sexual content or even language, violence and gore is enough. The irony is that's where the argument first got hot. George Romero was known for not submitting his films for rating because several of the Dead films would have gotten X ratings inspite of lacking

  • OH NO (Score:4, Funny)

    by matr0x_x ( 919985 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:36PM (#14229416) Homepage
    Now that the film is rated 17+ all America's 13 year-olds are going to download it and watch it behind their parents back...

  • Stuck in paradox! (Score:5, Funny)

    by whois_drek ( 829212 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:36PM (#14229418)
    "This Film is Not Yet Rated" and has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA.

    Brain...stuck...in...paradox. Must...make joke about Soviet Russian movies rating YOU...to abort...

  • a pr for a movie that is airing in fall 2006? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Comsn ( 686413 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:36PM (#14229420)
    thanks for the almost 1 year heads up!

  • Ratings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Da3vid ( 926771 )
    Ratings haven't been around for very long. The process isn't perfect and its not very consistent. Steven Spielberg has had a lot of influence on the system, even going so far as being credited with creating the PG13 (with the Temple of Doom) but with rating creep, PG13 films are getting more and more "graphic violence" and it takes some pretty hot material to make a film go from R to NC-17. Now, we don't know what the film has, but apparently it has "some graphic sexual content." That doesn't sound very ser

  • Don't show NC-17s? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taskforce ( 866056 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:43PM (#14229452) Homepage
    Here in the UK we have a much harsher rating system which is actually enforced by statue law; our ratings go 12, 15, 18. (years old) From working at a theatre once and seeing how the ticket sales go, a theatre not showing an 18 movie would be complete suicide here.

    • Sortof (Score:5, Informative)

      by goldcd ( 587052 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:39PM (#14229725) Homepage
      We actually have a few more rating you skipped over there.

      Uc - Universal (children) - Films specifically aimed at pre-school children.

      U - Universal - Suitable for all.

      PG - Parental Guidance - Might have some themes that might upset some children - but generally fine for all.

      12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

      15 - Must be over 15

      18 - Must be over 18

      R18 - Restricted 18 - Can only be purchased from certain outlets - it's porn.

      The British system still has the weird bias towards violence over smut - but it's got a lot better over the last few years (BBFC replaced their chair with a slightly more enlightened chap).

      A few years back R18 didn't exist - hardcore was either not available, or heavily cut. Nowadays pretty much everything can be released with a few notable exceptions (violence, non-consensual stuff etc).

      www.bbfc.co.uk has a nice little breakdown of the above rules. Nice little note on the R18 page "These guidelines make no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual activity."

      Good.

      • Re:Sortof (Score:3, Informative)

        by m50d ( 797211 )
        12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

        No, 12 was not allowed to be seen by under 12s at all, 12A is over 12s or under 12s with a parent. I presume they're now phasing out PG as it's actually a harsher rating than the "higher" 12A (legally, you can't let a 17 year old in to a PG film without a parent), and 12A certainly exists for videos.

  • I'm sure the movie producers wanted this rating. It generates news, for sure.

    Movie ratings are a great way to use free market provisions to set rules without force. The theaters aren't required to enforce the ratings guidelines, and my local theater actually regularly disregards them based on the values in my specific community.

    The whole ban on NC-17 movies seems pretty ridiculous. Our mall theater follows the ban, but I do recall one or two NC-17 movies in our smaller theater (I can't remember which fil

  • nc-17 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slashdotnickname ( 882178 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:53PM (#14229501)
    I'm a big movie buff, and watch at least 3 a week... so I've seen a lot that were originally labeled NC-17 at the box office. My general impression of these movies is not favorable though, as most seem interested in just exploiting the shock value of sexual or violent actions. Can anyone think of any NC-17 (or greater!) movies that are on par with some of the classics (story-wise) out there? I know movie tastes are very subjective, but I'd like some suggestions as I travel the lesser-known roads of the movie landscape.
    • The first NC-17 film, Henry & June [imdb.com], has a very good story. While it utilizes some heavy eroticism, it in no way received it's rating due to "shock value". It is an intelligent and well written film.
    • I'm not going to bother trying with classics, because everyone has such a subjective opinion of what is "classic" and what is "crap". However if you want to see how silly the ratings can be, I have an easy starter:

      For this we'll be using the movie American Pie. If you've seen it, but not for some time, then perfect. In that case go rent the unrated and the theatrical (R-rated) versions. Watch the unrated version first. See if you can point out, from memory, what is different. My bet? You might get one scene
    • Last Tango in Paris was originally 'X', certainly due to the depiction of anal sex.

      Midnight Cowboy, as mentioned above, was also originally 'X'. Certainly due to the depiction of homosexual acts.

      Today I think both have been re-released as 'R'. Possibly without any changes.

  • Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by thomasoa ( 759290 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @02:54PM (#14229504)
    I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.

  • Mmm... press... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scaryjohn ( 120394 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ddod.leahcim.nhoj'> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:10PM (#14229570) Homepage Journal
    The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content" and will likely limit the movie's distribution, as many theater chains will not show NC-17 movies.

    It's an independently released documentary. For fuck's sake, that pretty much limits its distribution to places that would show it irrespective of its rating already. Hell, the new rating may open its distribution circle to the kinds of theatres Pee-Wee Herman frequents.

  • Graphic violence (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's been said before, but as a european I am regularly shocked by the graphic violence in american films and astonished at their insane prudery about sex. There are countless films where people get their fucking heads blown off, yet they don't even feature a normal slow kiss.

    I've never actually _been_ to america, so like a lot of europeans, most of what I "know" about america comes from Hollywood: so, americans, what the HELL is really up with you? I can't imagine it's remotely healthy to fill your kids h

  • Won't Show? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by displaced80 ( 660282 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:14PM (#14229602)
    I had to look up what an NC-17 was, since I'm from the UK.

    Broadly speaking, it seems similar to our 18 cert. In other words, a level of maturity reasonable for an 18 year old is required to see the film.

    So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds? Does this not annoy anyone? The ratings system there seems to have been appropriated to decide what should be seen by adults, not what I'd imagine a ratings system's purpose to be: to highlught material which is perhaps not appropriate for minors

    Just seems a little horse-before-cart to me. And more than a little Victorian. What I don't understand is why there isn't outrage over this sort of behaviour? Well, perhaps outrage is too strong a word. A broad assumption seems to be that here in Ye Olde Europe, we all live in nanny-states. But perhaps the nanny'ing pressure groups in the US need to be treated to a little more questioning, and perhaps brought down a peg or two.

    • Re:Won't Show? (Score:2, Informative)

      by oclawgeek ( 861555 )
      What do you expect of a nation that can't even properly spell theatre or colour? Our society has been hijacked by the mob -- an illiterate puritan mob.

    • Re:Won't Show? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rob the Bold ( 788862 )

      So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds?

      NC-17 is an "official" MPAA rating that replaced the "X" rating that was synonymous with "porn" in the US. Supposedly, it would allow erotic "Art Films" so be shown in places (Boston, Kansas, AMC Theaters) that wouldn't go for porn. As I recall, that was the way it was promoted when NC-17 rating was created. In practice, towns, theaters, etc., just viewed NC-17 as another name for "X" and nothi

      • Re:Won't Show? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by displaced80 ( 660282 )
        Cool, thanks for the info.

        The link between NC-17 and X, historical or not, is a bit daft, surely?

        To my unAmerican ears, it sounds like: "Any other rating, you're safe. NC-17? Well, that just might be PORNOGRAPHY!"

        We've got the 18 cert to say "Make Up Your Own Damn Minds. If you're at least this old, you should be big enough and ugly enough to figure out if the film contains material you'd object to." Or, in their own words, "at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that

    • Re:Won't Show? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:25PM (#14229967)
      Well first of all teenagers are the most desirable demographic for the us theatres. Second of all most theatres are architectually designed to allow everyone inside and let them roam (so that they buy a lot of popcorn, drinks, etc). If they have to screen an NC-17 movie they will have to separate off a specific theatre, and check ids there, which will screw up their whole business model, and cost them more money and prevent them from getting the popcorn revenues (which is where their profits come from).

      If they architecturally design their theatre to have an "over 18" area, then the place will be automatically labeled a porn theatre and nobody will want to bring a date, or their kids there.

      Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth. These groups have a lot of power in local politics in most medioum to small cities, so they can easily screw over any theatre that they deem to be pornographic. And for them NC-17 means porn ... for them even many R movies are porn. And they are not very smart so they are completely imune to any artistic effect a movie may have.

      So the effect is that there onle a few theatres in the biggest cities of america which show nc-17 movies ... which are mostly foreign art films.
      • Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth.

        Warning! Your objectivity is showing!

  • Bourne (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EternityInterface ( 898741 )
    I've listened to 1 director's comments. It was for the bourne identity. At one part he said he wanted more swears, but the pg13 rating only allowed 3 swears, and eventually he only ended up using 1. They still had more, but that was in german.

    Oh, I was just listening to "An operator's manual" and there they censored bitch in sonofabitch, which seemed weird, as that is the (collection of words) I've noticed swears have been replaced with in movies, again and again.

    I'll blame this all on the victorians [a9.com], becau
    • I'll blame this all on the victorians [a9.com], because they started it with fucking up the kama sutra.

      I don't know if you intended that to be funny, but you're a riot, dude.

  • And what will I get out of watching this movie? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Matt Ownby ( 158633 ) on Saturday December 10, 2005 @03:42PM (#14229749) Homepage Journal
    I already know the MPAA is corrupt and that rating systems are not a perfect solution. So what is the point of me going to the extra effort to try to view this documentary? Frankly, I think this news story is blown out of proportion because it implies that there is great value in viewing this documentary, a claim that I question.
  • Here we had a movie called "La Ley de Herodes" (Herodes' Law), it was about politicians and how the party in power was so corrupted, etc. etc.

    (Informational Note: "La ley de herodes" is a century-old mexican adult saying. It goes like this: 'O te chingas o te jodes'. A literal translation would be: Either you get f***ed, or you get f***ed. In other words, you're f***ed anyway. But it also could mean "either you bribe, or get f***ed", since the spanish word 'chingar' (which is a bad word, btw) has around 50 different meanings, depending on the context).

    Anyway, this "La Ley de Herodes " movie was censored by... guess who? The government. This only caused a political scandal, and the movie became so famous it ended up being shown in theaters anyway.

    Something tells me the ratings film's intention was exactly this one - to get censored by the MPAA.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close