<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Should be NC17]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Wolf of Wall Street</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>filmmagnet</strong> — <em>9 years ago(December 21, 2016 03:17 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Don't want to condemn, it was funny, interesting and well acted but it had porn level nudity, record number of F bombs and equally explicit drug use. I'll do a comparison with films I have seen that were actually NC17/unrated equivalent.<br />
Evil Dead and Braindead (Dead Alive): Can't really compare because they were for violence.<br />
Happiness: Not much explicit sex or nudity (a few situations and brief shots of breasts) but explicit theme around a paedophile and him sodomising a little boy (not shown), and a controversial darkly comic tone.<br />
Kids: One scene of lower female nudity where a teen girl is raped in her sleep, otherwise it's mainly scantily clad teens rather than actual nude, would definitely get an R if it was adults in the same situations.<br />
Requiem for a Dream: Extreme drug use, couple of sex scenes not overly graphic and one scene where Jennifer Connelly stands in front of a mirror wearing only a bra.<br />
The Dreamers: Similar nudity level to Wolf of Wall Street without the drug or profanity levels.<br />
Shame: Most similar to Wolf of Wall Street in terms of graphic displays of addiction and excess nudity/language but is somewhat more responsible in that it lacks the glamor factor. It shows the destructive effects of such a lifestyle while The Wolf of Wall Street shows the main character getting off lightly (not a condemnation of it being made, it was a true story worth telling, but explicit with terrible message).<br />
I wonder if this movie would have got an R if it had been a film made by nobodies who didn't know how to manipulate the system. I think it's more explicit than the examples I've given (the sexual examples, not talking about the two horror films, that's another argument over whether sex or violence is worse). Also I think the R rated films Boogie Nights, South Park, Eyes Wide Shut and Autofocus are more explicit than the listed NC17/unrated films.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/246090/should-be-nc17</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 17:01:47 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/246090.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:31 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Should be NC17 on Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:37 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>lukejbarnett</strong> — <em>2 years ago(November 05, 2023 07:24 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">that's what i said myself after i watched it. it is so filled with drug using, nudity and sex that it was a blur watching it. i felt numb to all the nudity sex and drug using. if this movie can skate by somehow with an r rating then they should just get rid of the nc-17 rating bc it is null and void<br />
and meaningless and by comparing to it and the r rating dishonest to the people who are about to watch this movie bc they are in for the most sex drug and nudity filled hollywood movie they have ever watched.<br />
i think the only way they didn't get an nc-17 is by making the nudity scenes very short so you only get 30 seconds in every scene of nudity content so it seems like it's not that bad and not that much nudity but it actually is bc there is freaking nudity scene every 20 minutes for 2 hours!<br />
if henry and june got an nc-1 rating then this movie should get a nc-20 rating by comparison as far as amount of scenes of nudity and sex.<br />
that's what i thought too had this been made by some nobody arthouse director it would have gotten nc-17 for sure which is horrible bc it's pandering and giving preferential treatment to the director just bc he is a star movie director.<br />
lukejbarnett</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070170</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070170</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:37 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Should be NC17 on Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:35 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Sk8tergirl</strong> — <em>3 years ago(May 03, 2022 04:15 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Not to mention Boogie Nights had Heather Graham full-frontal as well as that prosthetic dick of Mark Wahlberg.<br />
We don't talk about Bruno! No, no, no!</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070169</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070169</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:35 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Should be NC17 on Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:34 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>lukejbarnett</strong> — <em>3 years ago(May 02, 2022 07:12 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">yes you are right exactly if there is one movie one movie that deserves and equals an nc17 rating bc of an over abundance, excessive amount of sex and nudity it is this movie<br />
this movie has way too much sex and nudity to the point where it is softcore porn and also to the point where the only other movie that has as much sex and nudity as this movie that was well received and well made is pretty much just a clockwork orange and guess what it was rated x when it first came out. so yeah nowadays this is an nc17 movie whereas back then they didn't have nc17 so that's why aco got an x rating for sex and nudity.<br />
there is an nc17 film that i think shouldn't be rated nc17 it should be rated r and its henry and june i mean its very very tame compared to most other nc17 movies.<br />
you dont really see any explicit sex scenes and thee isn't that much nudity.<br />
yes boogie nights should definitely without a doubt be rated nc17, it isn't really? the amount of nudity but mostly the scenes of sex and the extremely graphic explicit harrowing disturbing very realistic violence are the things that should have gotten this film rated nc17.<br />
lukejbarnett</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070168</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070168</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:34 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Should be NC17 on Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:33 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>mikko-sandt</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 14, 2017 11:47 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I think it's a GREAT change for the better that boobies and penises on the big screen are not treated the way they were before. That this could have fallen under an NC17 rating in a different era is a reason to criticize the archaic standards of the past rather than to attack its current rating.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070167</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070167</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:33 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Should be NC17 on Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:32 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>m-slovak79</strong> — <em>9 years ago(December 25, 2016 11:04 PM)</em></p>
<h2>It's definitely not hardcore porn level, maybe softcore at the most purely from a visual standpoint.<br />
also, i think another reason it's downplayed with a R rating is because i think the nudity in it shown is largely in a comedic way and not more of a serious tone.<br />
what i said above i think is largely why things are the way they are. plus, it seems like, at least in some cases, you can get away with frontal nudity (both male/female) in movies and get a R rating.<br />
also, given your examples i can see why it's more likely those get a NC-17 and Wolf does not, especially given Wolf's more comedic tone in relation to the sexual content.<br />
plus, Scorsese is a big name director so, if anything, i would imagine that makes it more likely he could get away with a R rating instead of NC-17. which is sorta like James Cameron getting away with some nudity in Titanic (got PG-13 instead of R) but at the same time i imagine some of the reason he got away with it in Titanic is it's portrayed in a artistic sense and not sexual. so it was probably a combination of those two things in how it got a PG-13 instead of R.<br />
but with all of that said i am sure the MPAA system is not always fair for everyone and is probably skewed a bit for those with power in the industry vs those who don't have names who might get the short end of the stick occasionally.</h2>
<h2>My Top 100-ish Movies of All-Time! =<br />
<a href="http://goo.gl/EYFYdz" rel="nofollow ugc">http://goo.gl/EYFYdz</a></h2>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070166</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2070166</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:32 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>