This movie convinced me….of the opposite.
-
the_unknown_one1984 — 13 years ago(November 08, 2012 09:14 PM)
i wish u did not use big daddy as your comparison for why NOT to watch adam sandler movies. While I particularly do agree that adam sandler is a mindless one trick pony of sucess when it comes to his comedies, big daddy is one of the few that I enjoy more than most of the mind numbingly stupid annoying other ones. Yes Big Daddy is not a top notch movie, and in fact it is vulgar in some ways, as well as being crude, but other adam sandler movies have way less heart and way more idiot humor , and crude language. Does the fact that he makes his 2 friends that are in almost all of his films homosexual in big daddy bother you more than the fact that its an adam sandler movie? Are you trying to prevent from having your child see it because it shows a homosexual couple kissing, and says for the most part that its an acceptable choice? Adam Sandler is an idiot, he is also a crude comedian, and i personally dont even use the word "fart" in life. I think its crude just to say it, and all his movies are nothing but "fart" jokes in my opinion. I am however a gay 28 year old man and I happen to appreciate that even though he is crude, and stereotypical he has tackled homosexuality with some real care towards respecting human rights not just this pre concieved notion of what church and country calls "family" it just became legal in my State (Maryland) for same sex marriage this week. Personally I would never marry, because I dont find it an appealing concept, but i also dont think that HUMANS should have to fight to be able to marry other HUMANS, Period. My question is why couldnt you have said "my 7 year old son isnt allowed too watch Billy Madison, or that stupid golf movie i cant remember the name of that has bob barker in it (adam sandler movie). Why did you specifically cite Big Daddy, and not one of the more commonly seen Sandler films? Is it because there is a child around the age of 7 , being directly in front of 2 gay male characters and the movie showing a kid that your kid can relate too for watching the movie, but putting that kid into a situation where he is around a gay couple (which mind you they were a terrible depiction of one but the film made it clear that Its supposed to be odd, but its OK because there still people).
Sorry for the long post, but I find it odd you specifically said that movie, and I am no supporter of adam sandler or his humor, but I do think that its time we move past Narrow thinking, and accept the fact that society isnt going to turn children into gays, it is not a choice, nor is it EVER in life a choice, you just are or you arent. And people need to understand that and accept that there children should be taught that all humans atleast in the USA are humans and have the same rights.
This directly ties into the ratings issue, because Its absolutely ridiculous that gay sex is viewed differently than straight sex scenes and rated differently. -
creativinity — 13 years ago(October 28, 2012 10:49 AM)
Yes.
I agreed with the movie in that the MPAA are who want their secret club secret. But throughout the entire film all I could hear from the directors and doc-makers was "Whine, whine, whine" "They want to limit my art it's not fair"
I was so distracted by that and thought: "Listen, these entitled MPAA jerks and their secret club do this job to give a vague idea to parents about what to expect in a film.
"If you get an NC-17 rating: who doesn't let you promote your film on tv? Who doesn't allow you to market your film? Who is the real obstacle?
"The big media companies. Not the MPAA. The MPAA are tiny little kids who don't play fair. The big media are the bad parents who keep squashing your dreams." -
pdlussier1 — 13 years ago(January 16, 2013 05:47 PM)
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the real obstacle are the big media companies due to the fact that many will not run adverts on TV or trailers in cinemas or sell ad space on a page to promote NC-17 films? Indeed, this is a very real obstacle.
HOWEVER, the MPAA represents the 6 major studios, which, between them, control 90% of all media. So, in essence, if big media is to blame, so is the MPAA. There is a serious conflict of interestTHIS is where the problem lies and why the ratings system is applied unfairly and indie films are judged much more harshly. This aspect is what the documentary should have explored better and in more depth.
The following is actually off of official MPAA documents: "MPAA's members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc." And, "Our goal is to advance the business interests of our members." -
Death163 — 13 years ago(February 13, 2013 05:36 PM)
The big media company's make up the MPAA i don't know if you saw the appeals part yet or not but they expose them all as being major players in the media company's.
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA" -
Atheist_in_a_Foxhole — 13 years ago(November 10, 2012 06:45 PM)
I agree. I'm a libertarian, I'm very liberal about sex and violence in media, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist who is totally against governmental regulation. I expected to more or less agree with this film. BUT, the interview subjects were generally a bunch of ignoramuses, and the documentary is very unconvincing overall.
They used straw man arguments constantly. The director you mentioned was just one example. And their theories about the "actual" reasons for NC-17 ratings, distinct from the stated reasons, were sometimes very flimsy.
Also, any of them seemed very confused about the meaning of "free speech" and the difference between government and industry regulation, and I also found it absurd that the one subject argued in favour of governmental regulation of content over industry regulation on the grounds that the government is "more transparent."
I wasn't a fan of the editing eitheralso I suspect that some of the points about treating different subject matter unequally is correct, it is totally useless and misleading to show three second clips of two movies that received different ratings.
Someday you will die somehow and something's gonna steal your carbon -
ItsNotJust-a-flick — 11 years ago(February 21, 2015 11:16 AM)
So, you want to say that only the government can have unjust regulations, and not the industry?! FYI, the gov is mostly consisted of corrupted politicians with strong ties to various corporations and lobbies.
-
ilon — 13 years ago(March 04, 2013 11:37 AM)
"So, so many of the interviews were so, so unconvincing. Example: the director of Gunner Palace, an Iraqi war film, says, "this is real footage! so there's going to be swear words! come on, what do people expect, the soldiers to say 'oh darn, that guy just shot me!'"
No, Mr. Director, I don't expect the soldiers to say that. I expect them to swear. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? Nobody's saying you can't have your movie, or that you can't have footage with people swearing! All we're saying is that a movie like that should be rated R so that parents can make an informed opinion about it. "
You are missing the point. The problem is that with that rating you can't show to the younger ones the real impact of a war. I think that if a young mind decides that s/he wants to see something it is because of an interest in the subject matter. In parents hands is to evaluate which thoughts gave the young one the impulse to watch something, then if necesary talk about it and TEACH them to evaluate by themselves. But never, never restrict the acces to the work, because a) will be watched anyway b) won't trust you ever again and most important c) you won't be able to know you kid, mainly because you don't want to. I'm not saying that this could be suitable for a 3 year old, but a 12 year old kid nowadays has the hability to think properly and to make his/her own decisions. The only need they might have at that age is some help.
The rating board decides in order to control the kids, the industry and people easily malleable. I'm not against a rating, but the ones who have to decide what to take from that rating is the one who is going to watch the work, not the one trying to control the one who is going to see the work (because s/he is going to watch it, no matter what). -
ebrock1988 — 13 years ago(March 19, 2013 02:20 PM)
noones saying you can't show your kids an r-rated movie, just that they can't go see it or rent it without your permission. And for crying out loud, dont' show them Private Ryan. Show them MASH, Little Big Man, Joyeux Noel, and Forrest Gump. Heck, show them Doctor Who. All better choices than the frankly overrated Saving Private Ryan.
-
Mr Blue-4 — 12 years ago(April 23, 2013 01:29 PM)
I found the movie completely convincing and I was completely on the side of it and the directors interviewed. I think you completely missed the REAL points of the film.
- A NC-17 rating is not merely another rating. A bunch of theater chains will not book an NC-17 film. You can't run ads for an NC-17 film in many places. Blockbuster and WalMart, which made up 40% of the home video market when this film was made, will not carry NC-17 films.
In other words, it's not merely the top of the rating chain. It SEVERELY limits the commercial potential of a film. This was not made clear enough in the film, and you can blame them for that. But this is the upshot of getting THAT particular rating. - There is an inconsistency between the treatment of independent films and studio films during the rating process, which at the very least smacks of favoritism.
- There is the inconsistency with the treatment of sex vs. violence by the ratings board.
For the record, I'm not a parent. When I was a kid, I resented that I couldn't see whichever movie I wanted to (porn aside- I get the age restriction on that). When I was at that "formative age" profanity, violence, and sexual content didn't bother me at all. And I can't relate to people for whom it does.
So, I'm someone who is indifferent to a ratings system. I don't much care as long as it doesn't interfere with what the filmmakers want to make, and doesn't get in MY way as a consumer. And the film shows that the MPAA is guilty on both counts.
- A NC-17 rating is not merely another rating. A bunch of theater chains will not book an NC-17 film. You can't run ads for an NC-17 film in many places. Blockbuster and WalMart, which made up 40% of the home video market when this film was made, will not carry NC-17 films.
-
daddie0 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 11:05 PM)
Blockbuster and WalMart, which made up 40% of the home video market when this film was made, will not carry NC-17 films.
This is all about tyranny though, right? Are you suggesting that retailers should be required to sell things they have decided don't fit their demographic? If so, where does that stop?
I'd say why not tell the industry to go get stuffed and not submit your film or take your NC-17 and flaunt it? If there is so much appeal (and money to be made) it will find a market. If the system is so broken, stop playing there. The irony for me is that so many of the materials that are controversial (especially the day of digital distribution) only appeal more to a certain audience who wants life unfiltered. The whole premise of distribution control seems whinny to me. Either stand by your art, be a true revolutionary and say screw it, or submit to it, sell out, take your check and go home.
-
daddie0 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 11:06 PM)
See my post above:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10493459/board/nest/203222832?d=224345687#2 24345687 -
samgslp — 12 years ago(July 31, 2013 08:06 PM)
Well, they are censoring. You send a movie in, and they tell you what you have to take out if you want to be able to show your movies in theaters. So even if you believe that this censorship is good and necessary, that doesn't negate the fact that censorship is happening.
The director of Gunner Palace was making a point that his film was a reflection of reality. Most films glorify war and show a fictionalized version, but his is authentic and a much more important document for Americans to see. He shouldn't be penalized for showing reality as it is.
This Film is not yet Rated wasn't making the case that there should be no ratings system, it was making the case that the ratings system should be objective and transparent. It shouldn't operate in secrecy, it shouldn't be lenient in regard to violence yet strict when it comes to sex, and it shouldn't favor the studios over independent films. You look at the MPAA appeals board - who's on that board? The CEO of Fox Searchlight, for one. Members of the film industry. They have an invested interest in preventing independent films from being successful, because those films compete with their own. So the whole system is complete garbage. And what makes it worse is that the MPAA tries to hide the fact that a big part of their ratings system is operated and influenced by the studios. This is collusion, and it's garbage, and it is beyond any shadow of a doubt censorship. -
Mannequin — 12 years ago(September 02, 2013 10:34 PM)
He shouldn't be penalized for showing reality as it is.
I have no particular fondness for the MPAA but I think it's important to note that an MPAA rating is really just a classification. It's a way of disclosing to the viewer, up-front, the type of content one should expect to see in a film in terms of violence, language, sex, etc. So in that sense it's kind-of a neutral thing: it's just a label, a descriptor. And even though the rating may have negative implications at the box office, you have to ask yourself, should an 'R-rated movie' not be given an R-rating just because the director would prefer more ticket sales or larger audience viewership?
I rate it all.
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2136437/ratings -
ashsrv123 — 12 years ago(October 03, 2013 04:38 PM)
Shouldn't the MPAA just remove the NC 17 rating? Therefore directors wouldn't have to cut/edit or depreciate their art. Also funding and support will be made available with an R rated movie and it will subsequently reach a larger audience.
We all know Parents are protective of their children and will decide on what their child is allowed to view, just knowing a film is R rated would indicate profanity sex and violence to the parent and they will make their decision based on that information.
What baffled me was the examples of films with the NC 17 rating as opposed to the R rating titles. There was little difference and in most instances I thought the R rated films were more explicit!
Take what you want from this but they should abolish the NC17 rating. From what I see It will always be the parents decision on what the child watches. Most of the films rated NC17 a child/teen wouldn't enjoy anyways, their stories tend to be complex or emotionally based which children and teens tend not to enjoy or understand.
Plus its 2013 and the children (7-8 year olds) at my local primary school already use strong language (c word f word s word you name it) It surprised me a little at first but then I realized 'oh wait its 2013.'