This movie convinced me….of the opposite.
-
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.' -
daddie0 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 11:16 PM)
A few points:
Shouldn't the MPAA just remove the NC 17 rating?
I appreciate the NC-17 vs R rating. For me as a parent and viewer it gives one more tool to understand content before consuming it. That's the rub right? You can't unsee something. And that's all well and good for you, but when you're trying to screen for your kids, it's even more an issue.
Also, wasn't NC-17 created to stop using X, since X had become so affiliated with pornography exclusively? I'm not saying NC-17 is equal to pornography, but I appreciate that it broadens the rating recognizing that there are great films that don't fit in the lower ratings but shouldn't be lumped in with straight-up porn.
What baffled me was the examples of films with the NC 17 rating as opposed to the R rating titles.
I agree with this, but wasn't that the point of this documentary? They were comparing the most egregious errors the MPAA has made over the years. I would still say that as I watch a lot of films, it seems they get it right more than wrong.
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.'
This is probably the weakest argument against NC-17 or rating systems in general. If the standards try to become equivalent with the most offensive behavior we see in society, then any system would be pointless. There's always someone who's standards are lower than yours, and this is nothing more than an optional tool for viewers to know something of what to expect without spoiling the experience. -
ParnoldP — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 03:48 AM)
They shouldn't remove the NC-17, but it needs a reworking. It should be more like the R we have in Australia. (18+, no minors admitted, but shown in normal theatres and marketed and sold like an R. Maybe they could call it AO and then shift NC-17 to porn related films.
-
Valerie_Vance — 12 years ago(November 20, 2013 02:04 PM)
I think the point he was trying to make was that the action films that were granted PG-13 ratings showed showed violent acts with no consequences i.e. no blood. His film, however, was an honest (and bloody) depiction of war which showed severe consequences. A lot of directors avoid blood if they want a PG-13 rating. This was actually in the film.
It's an ordinary high school day. Except that it's not. -
yusef-ghanima — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 09:07 PM)
i didn't watch this doc. but i think you forgot something important which is real censorship in practical way, that the distribution of movies is very limited when ratings are n17 or something like it. kubrick used to censor himself just to get an r rating. there are serious financial issues here. and their could be hidden political agenda, like to limit access to the people to be informed on war for example. i guess it's the fault of the film not clarify these issues.
-
daddie0 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 11:21 PM)
I would agree with you in as much as it didn't convince me of it's "premise" if that premise is believed to be taking a stance that the MPAA is evil and should be abolished. That said, I don't really know what the filmmaker's goals were, and for me I did enjoy learning more about the process, and while I wasn't comfortable with all the positions staked out in the documentary, in the end I was won over to the idea that there could be more transparency in the process for filmmakers. But as I've said elsewhere, this whole process is optional, and artists are choosing to submit their work. That very act is giving away power in the hope of getting something in return (distribution, exposure, profits, etc).
-
Ethereal-Cloud — 12 years ago(February 22, 2014 10:05 AM)
This whole production reeked of crybaby industry insiders whining about something only they care about. I don't know if I'd say "This movie convinced me.of the opposite", but I would like to kick some of the participants in the teeth (as long as it's rated R).