Is NC-17 superfluous?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — This Film Is Not Yet Rated
repete66211 — 16 years ago(October 08, 2009 12:38 PM)
The MPAA seems to have as its mandate the responsiblity to
protect the children
. I have no problem with a fair rating system whose purpose is to assist parents in deciding what movies their kids should see. That's all fine for G, PG and PG-13 movies. However, who gives a sht what a parent thinks about the distinction between an R and an NC-17 since their children shouldn't be in either one of those movies. So what's the difference between R and NC-17?
R - Under 17 requires accompanying parent or legal guardian
NC-17 - No one under 17 admitted
What kind of parents are taking their children to R movies anyway? Surely not the kind that care what a bunch of ninnies in Hollywood think.
The MPAA rating system is flawed, especially concerning the issues with secrecy. It's no wonder they try to keep identities secretthe appeals board is made up of clergy and executives from major distribution companies. What an unbiased lot that will be, right?
Ultimately,
the real problem isn't the MPAA, it's the distributors who refuse to distribute NC-17 movies
. If they would grow some balls and give their patrons the freedom to make the decision about what to see documentaries like this would be unnecessary. So I don't blame the MPAA, I blame the chickensht distributors who apparently are still reeling from the Catholic Legion of Decency protests that took place 80 years ago. -
thebigoka72 — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 12:47 AM)
Total agreement. There is a theater in my region, privately owned by a family. The owner held a press conference announcing that he would only show films PG13 and below as a way to promote family values in the community. Everyone cheered and swore they would partake of his "family friendly" venue. Within a month, the owner held another press conference and announced that those families that applauded his removal of R rated films from his theater forgot to show up for the "family friendly" films and damn near bankrupted him.
Midnight Cowboy was the only X rated film to win an Oscar and Scarface was also rated X before Stone appealed and actually won. What theater owners need to do is say to the distributors, "We'll take your films, no matter if it gets NC-17 or R." The DVD market is full of Unrated versions of films and they still fly off the shelves. That should be a clear indication that the ratings system is outdated and in desperate need of an overhaul. -
Frosted-Flame — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 12:12 PM)
They're probably secret so that studios or filmmakers won't be able to try to influence and corrupt the process. If they know the names they can try and wine and dine them to influence their decisions. But on the last note you hit hte nail on the head. If distributors and theater chains would show NC-17's the NC-17 would get wider acceptance. It's childish to blame the MPAA when really the MPAA is voluntary. If i REALLY wanted my movie to be out there, i could bypass the system entirely and release my film as is.
-
DeadlySinner — 15 years ago(June 29, 2010 02:41 AM)
"They're probably secret so that studios or filmmakers won't be able to try to influence and corrupt the process."
Did you watch the film? Studios already influence the process! Maybe if you meant studios outside the big 7.
"It's childish to blame the MPAA"
It's childish to rationalize all of their faults away.
"when really the MPAA is voluntary."
If I put a gun to your head and tell you to do something, or I kill you, am I really giving you a choice?
"If i REALLY wanted my movie to be out there, i could bypass the system entirely and release my film as is."
And it would be seen by all of 5 people.
Required reading for theater patrons:
http://tinyurl.com/shutheeffup -
SeanMarshall — 15 years ago(October 25, 2010 04:31 PM)
Ultimately, the real problem isn't the MPAA, it's the distributors who refuse to distribute NC-17 movies.
So you're saying don't blame the left hand of the distributors, but the right hand? The ultimate ratings are in the hands of the distributors. -
SeanMarshall — 15 years ago(October 27, 2010 02:16 AM)
Basically yes, but not all distributors are represented in the MPAA.
No, but the ones who are represented effectively create a distribution cartel. In addition, even those not directly represented often have adopted the MPAA policies resulting in a very effective capability to censor which films receive any wider release. -
cca382000 — 14 years ago(July 13, 2011 06:54 AM)
"There are some R rated movies that just barely fall on the R side of the PG-13/R line"
Frost/Nixon, anyone?
The LAST film that was released fully unrated in theatres was Hatchet II. My bosses had me standing at the auditorium doors making sure EVERY guest was 18 and over (NC 17 is No Children 17 AND UNDERNOT "No one Under 17 Admitted")
Andy=
Yeah, I remember that girl. She was a ho for sho'. (The 40 Year Old Virgin) -
Theblacktionstar — 12 years ago(July 15, 2013 10:23 PM)
I saw Terminator 3 and the two Matrix sequels with my dad when I was 6 years old.
Both are very light R's, a lot less violent than some PG-13 movies I've seen, and I saw many R rated movies on TV. So yeah, there's a difference between NC-17 and R.