lazarillo — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 08:15 AM)

The MPAA supposedly exists to "protect the children". This is highly ironic given how much violence the MPAA has allowed the Hollywood studios to cram into PG and PG-13 films aimed at "the children". (Not surprisingly, since the MPAA is essentially run by the Hollywood studios). But why should there be any other rating than "R" or "Adult" for ADULTS? Why do you NEED an "X" or an "NC-17"? Adults don't need other adults to rate movies for them.
There is the specter of "porn". But it's actually easy to tell if a movie is not porn. If people in the movie theater are not masturbating to it, then it's NOT porn. But porn movies have been shot on video since the 80's, and even in the 70's no one ever slipped a porn movie into a legitimate theater. So the idea that there is more than one adult rating to protect against "porn" and you need the MPAA to stop people from masturbating in theaters is laughable.
I think it's quite simple. If the Hollywood studios had ever been successful THEMSELVES at making X or NC-17 movies, they wouldn't be banned from theaters today (see the "Showgirls" thread). But since they weren't, those ratings became another tool to limit their competition. It's just one way of hiding the obvious collusion that exists between Hollywood and the theaters since the studios are not allowed to OUTRIGHT control the theater chains since a ruling in 1948.
But people do make good "NC-17" movies that clearly aren't porn, just not Hollywood. And if there was ONE adult rating those films would play in theaters. But that's clearly not in Hollywood's interest. But if people really just DON'T WANT to see non-porn movies with sex in them, then why not just rate them all "R" and let them decide for themselves?