CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The MPAA Bows Down To Disney
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The MPAA Bows Down To Disney - Page 2

post #51 of 147
What is the MPAA's position on "fuck" nowadays? You can say it...twice and still get a PG-13?

Like DARKMITE8 and others here, I sat through stuff like Robocop, Excalibur, Dawn of the Dead, etc. as a child and civilization didn't end nor did my head explode. My own folks (i.e. the most conservative of people) just shrugged their shoulders and said, "It's just a fucking movie..."
post #52 of 147
I didnt realise that, thought it didn't see the light of day in the US.

I was just thinking about that Shortbus film as well, I've never seen it but I understand the sex scenes were pretty graphic
post #53 of 147
I find it funny that America has such a problem with violence and its ratings. I think sometimes the ratings are so fucked up due to kids are doing more fucked up things mimicking film.

I think the problem is the kids are already repressed anyways. They see violence as this forbidden object, and not able to be numb to it. Violence is a fact of life, it happens. If we had more violent movies as a common place thing, my trenchcoat kid won't feel like acting out that in life. He'd want to do something unique. Better parents also help too.

On a semi-related note: I hate living in GA, and having to not buy alcohol on sundays just due to it being sunday. Separation of church and state my ass.
post #54 of 147
I didn't think America had such a problem with violence? I thought it was sex?
post #55 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bees?! View Post
I didn't think America had such a problem with violence? I thought it was sex?
Yeah, I remember a quote back during the whole uproar that led to the NC-17 rating about how you could show someone slashing a breast and it'll get an R, but show someone kissing it and it gets an X.
post #56 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Yeah, I remember a quote back during the whole uproar that led to the NC-17 rating about how you could show someone slashing a breast and it'll get an R, but show someone kissing it and it gets an X.
That's from Harlan Ellison. He wrote what struck me as some incredibly visceral horror stories, but was a vocal critic of graphic depictions of violence in movies.
post #57 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence Boddicker View Post
Am I the only one who thinks There Will Be Blood could have gotten away with a PG-13?
It was playing with a PG rating up here in Canada, I assumed it had something similar in the states. That's rather surprising.
post #58 of 147
What isn't Harlan Ellison a vocal critic of?
post #59 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
The idea of treating all fucks the same is stupid, by the way. In ONCE fuck is just a punctuating word, not a descriptive one.
I think having a list of no-no words is stupid. This isn't a movie example, but take "Dre Day" by Dr. Dre. "Luke's bending over, so Luke's getting fucked" gets changed to the radio safe "Luke's bending over, so Luke's getting stuffed". I find the image of Luther Campbell getting "stuffed" with implied cock more a disturbing mental image than the use of "fucked" communicates.
post #60 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Oysterburger View Post
Also, I thought that ban on head butts and nunchucks had been lifted now?
I had to deal with this issue about a year and a half ago (in regards to a video game we were submitting for UK rating). Head butts, that is. We didn't have nunchuks (unfortunately).

EDIT: This is a pretty interesting read (and convincing case) for anyone who's interested.
post #61 of 147
Back in 1990 I saw a movie called "Repossessed" (that clocks me in about 13/14 years old, depending on the release) and that movie had profanity, slapstick violence and boobies. Rated PG-13. At that point I realized the rating system was fucked.

That being said, I don't think fuck should be taken into context. As a father, I am not going to be more lenient on my daughter if she said "fuck" in any context and to be inundated with the word fuck (30+?) times is a tad much. If you want a movie to be more realistic you should accept an R Rating, life is hard core, why should you get a pass to earn money? If a buddy of mine is saying "fuck" around my kid, I'm telling him to knock it off or I'm not hanging out with the guy. Same thing works for going to the movies.
post #62 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
That being said, I don't think fuck should be taken into context. As a father, I am not going to be more lenient on my daughter if she said "fuck" in any context and to be inundated with the word fuck (30+?) times is a tad much. If you want a movie to be more realistic you should accept an R Rating, life is hard core, why should you get a pass to earn money? If a buddy of mine is saying "fuck" around my kid, I'm telling him to knock it off or I'm not hanging out with the guy. Same thing works for going to the movies.
Yeah, if I get a call from my daughter's preschool teacher because she drops the "F Bomb" in class (having heard the word somewhere else), they're not gonna care what the context was (necessarily).

"Oh... that. She only used it as an expletive (as Daddy sometimes does, especially after tripping over a toy and stubbing his toe); she wasn't referring to the sex act. Can you really blame her? I mean c'mon. Nap time is really impeding on her finger-painting."
post #63 of 147
I cant see how bringing up LOTR helps make the case... LOTR has gore, horror elements, mutilation, decapitations and dismemberment, torture... In terms of scale if LOTR is PG13 then Narnia probably deserves a lighter rating.
post #64 of 147
Whether or not the BBFC ban occasional films, they're not at the mercy of the big studios the way the MPAA are, and actually approach their job with something resembling objectivity most of the time.
This wasn't terribly true 10 years ago, but the modern Board seems to have lost most of the eccentricities of its predecessors. The nunchucks nonsense, for instance, is gone.
Condemning them as an organisation because they refuse to certify large quantities of pornography and the occasional extreme piece of obscure torture-porn seems a little blinkered to me, expecially since within the current statutory framework they don't have a choice in the matter.
The only ribiculous banning still in effect in the UK is the one on Visions of Ecstasy, and that's less the fault of the BBFC and the more fault of Parilaiment for not repealing the outdated Blasphemy law we really shouldn't have any more.

As for the This is England point Spike mentioned, it really should be noted that local councils have every right to override or ignore the BBFC and release films at whatever cerification they wish within their own jurisdictions. They, not the BBFC, are the ultimate arbitrators of whether something gets banned or not.

I can quote the specifc law behind all this if people really aren't convinced.
post #65 of 147
That's the thing about the MPAA. At least the BBFC has the ability to ban films openly. That's at least somewhat honest. The MPAA proudly puts up a veneer of being there to help filmmakers while what they're actually doing is practically labelling films from ever being seen in a much more insidious way. A way that's hard to fight it because it's so nebulous.

The issue has certainly changed now. Films can be released unrated and not have the marketing support of studios, but distribution is in such a way that at some point you will be able to acquire such films. The internet really helps. It's just easier to access them if you know what you're looking for.
post #66 of 147
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor View Post
Whether or not the BBFC ban occasional films, they're not at the mercy of the big studios the way the MPAA are, and actually approach their job with something resembling objectivity most of the time.
This wasn't terribly true 10 years ago, but the modern Board seems to have lost most of the eccentricities of its predecessors. The nunchucks nonsense, for instance, is gone.
Condemning them as an organisation because they refuse to certify large quantities of pornography and the occasional extreme piece of obscure torture-porn seems a little blinkered to me, expecially since within the current statutory framework they don't have a choice in the matter.
The only ribiculous banning still in effect in the UK is the one on Visions of Ecstasy, and that's less the fault of the BBFC and the more fault of Parilaiment for not repealing the outdated Blasphemy law we really shouldn't have any more.

As for the This is England point Spike mentioned, it really should be noted that local councils have every right to override or ignore the BBFC and release films at whatever cerification they wish within their own jurisdictions. They, not the BBFC, are the ultimate arbitrators of whether something gets banned or not.

I can quote the specifc law behind all this if people really aren't convinced.
Any governmental agency that bans any work of art should be criticized wholly and heartily. Period.
post #67 of 147
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Yeah, if I get a call from my daughter's preschool teacher because she drops the "F Bomb" in class (having heard the word somewhere else), they're not gonna care what the context was (necessarily).

"Oh... that. She only used it as an expletive (as Daddy sometimes does, especially after tripping over a toy and stubbing his toe); she wasn't referring to the sex act. Can you really blame her? I mean c'mon. Nap time is really impeding on her finger-painting."
So you're one of those people who thinks violence in movies and games inspires violence in real life? If you're a decent parent, wouldn't you discuss any movie you see with your small child so they can understand what is and isn't acceptable behavior from that movie?
post #68 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
So you're one of those people who thinks violence in movies and games inspires violence in real life?
No. But I do believe that kids pick up on language and absorb stuff into their lexicon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
If you're a decent parent, wouldn't you discuss any movie you see with your small child so they can understand what is and isn't acceptable behavior from that movie?
Sure.

My point was in regards to the word "fuck", children's ability to repeat what they hear (and they do), and many people's indifference to the way that word is used. Most parents (or teachers) don't want their 3-4 year olds blurting that out in public, regardless of context... and I don't think a 3-4 year old can make that discernment or is ready to hear what the definitions are.


EDIT: I don't know where you drew your conclusions from. I made the argument a page back that ROTK isn't too violent for teens, and wouldn't deserve an R rating.
post #69 of 147
Thread Starter 
I don't know what you're exactly even saying. If ONCE was PG-13, would that mean an explosion of pre-schoolers saying 'fuck'? What's your exact point?
post #70 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
I don't know what you're exactly even saying. If ONCE was PG-13, would that mean an explosion of pre-schoolers saying 'fuck'? What's your exact point?
Just that the word ""fuck" should be considered when determining rating, regardless of context. Most people that are offended by the word, are offended regardless of HOW it's used. Someone alluded to the fact that ONCE (or PLANES TRAINS, etc) should not be R because it was used as an expletive. I disagree. 30 X is 30 X. It's not something that can glossed over at that point.

I wasn't arguing that ONCE is or isn't appropriate for my 3 year old kid, just that if my kid were using that word, people would be bothered. And it wouldn't matter if she were in Junior High either, I'm sure her teachers wouldn't find it acceptable. It was in response to this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke
That being said, I don't think fuck should be taken into context. As a father, I am not going to be more lenient on my daughter if she said "fuck" in any context and to be inundated with the word fuck (30+?) times is a tad much. If you want a movie to be more realistic you should accept an R Rating, life is hard core, why should you get a pass to earn money? If a buddy of mine is saying "fuck" around my kid, I'm telling him to knock it off or I'm not hanging out with the guy. Same thing works for going to the movies.
EDIT: I suppose that this differs from my stance on quality VS quantity in regards to violence. I think pervasive foul language is probably more influential than pervasive "fantasy violence". Teens are more prone to curse, than they are to re-enact the beheading of an orc. As a parent, I'll have to think about that some more.

EDIT2: I appreciate this discussion, but it helps me challenge and self-evaluate my POV. Personally I think that a certain amount of "comic/fantasy violence" in a child's entertainment and play is healthy and even beneficial (hence why I linked to that book earlier).

As a qualifier: I work in the game industry and am extremely frustrated with how we're viewed by the press/gvt/public.
post #71 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
So you're one of those people who thinks violence in movies and games inspires violence in real life? If you're a decent parent, wouldn't you discuss any movie you see with your small child so they can understand what is and isn't acceptable behavior from that movie?
I don't usually consider taking the opinion of someone who masturbates into a sock as a reliable source for child raising*. If you take your kids to go see a movie with 30+ fucks in it and they're under 18 and still highly impressionable then you're probably not a great parent, no matter how much conversation you have afterwards.

You pour the knowledge in, you can't control how it filters out, they're not puppets.
post #72 of 147
As for The Dark Knight supposedly warranting an R-rating, I feel that you can logically eliminate language and sexuality, so is this film extremely violent? So much so that it could deserve that rating?

I guess that's directed at Devin, Beaks, or Russ because they have the most insight on the subject. And the reason that it's fascinating is because Batman is one of WB's top tier properties, and I'm surprised they'd even allow the film to flirt with that line, and then not demand cuts. Trying to avoid a Where the Wild Things Are, maybe.
post #73 of 147
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
I don't usually consider taking the opinion of someone who masturbates into a sock as a reliable source for child rearing. If you take your kids to go see a movie with 30+ fucks in it and they're under 18 and still highly impressionable then you're probably not a great parent, no matter how much conversation you have afterwards.

You pour the knowledge in, you can't control how it filters out, they're not puppets.
What do you masturbate into? Your children?
post #74 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
What do you masturbate into? Your children?
It was a clever way of saying you don't have kids, so you wouldn't understand but I think your reply exemplifies that quite magnificently.
post #75 of 147
I know what my kid can or can't handle. She handled IRON MAN fine. TRANSFORMERS fine. I think she could handle CASPIAN, but we're not going to see it, likely, because I don't think I'd enjoy it, but that's for another thread.

I don't get involved in ratings arguments anymore, because I know what my kid can handle. I'd have absolutely no problems with her seeing ONCE. It's not a contextual argument with me, I'll take every film on an individual basis. She watched RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK with me last night, and she hid her eyes during the face-melting parts. And you know, she didn't have any nightmares and I don't think she's going to be scarred for life. I don't need the MPAA. I barely pay attention to ratings anymore. The decision lies with me.
post #76 of 147
Thread Starter 
My reply was a simple way of saying that I don't give a shit about your kids or how you raise them or abuse them. Don't inflict your poor parenting on me and my entertainment. Don't take your stupid little shitty kid to any movie not rated G and you won't have to worry about anything.
post #77 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
As for The Dark Knight supposedly warranting an R-rating, I feel that you can logically eliminate language and sexuality, so is this film extremely violent? So much so that it could deserve that rating?
If what's seen being set up in the trailers and commercials is shown on screen, then yeah, it can go into pretty extreme places in terms of violence. I can definitely see an R rating if it goes there.

I don't think it will get that rating and we won't see anything to explicit, but what we've seen shows that it goes to pretty dark places.
post #78 of 147
Thread Starter 
THE DARK KNIGHT will not have an R rating. I never said it would have an R rating. Everything I hear is that it's a PG-13 that will be seriously stretching the PG-13 in terms of tonality and violence.
post #79 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
THE DARK KNIGHT will not have an R rating. I never said it would have an R rating. Everything I hear is that it's a PG-13 that will be seriously stretching the PG-13 in terms of tonality and violence.
I didn't say anyone said it would have an R rating. I was simply asking which part of it was going to be stretching the PG-13 rating to it's limit, which you answered, so thank you.
post #80 of 147
I don't think that it'll happen, but even without stretching the rating, that it wouldn't take that much more to move into an R.
post #81 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
My reply was a simple way of saying that I don't give a shit about your kids or how you raise them or abuse them. Don't inflict your poor parenting on me and my entertainment. Don't take your stupid little shitty kid to any movie not rated G and you won't have to worry about anything.
Well, since the MPAA isn't designed to rate films for 30+ year old childless adults, I'm not sure why the rating system matters to you in the slightest. It's based on your actual age, not maturity level.
post #82 of 147
Thread Starter 
Because ratings can make a difference in how much money a movie makes. An R rating will reduce a film's success. An NC-17 will essentially kill a movie. This means that studios are less willing to make more adult films, or to make films that will push boundaries. This is why it matters to me.
post #83 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
An R rating will reduce a film's success. An NC-17 will essentially kill a movie.
Did you ever get anything out of Snyder regarding Watchmen? Or is that information still a no-go in terms of the embargo?

ETA: I don't know if an R would help or hurt a property like Watchmen, and 300 did pretty well. For the comic people who form almost zip of the box office percentage, I'm sure they want an R because of the myth that darker and more adult equals better.
post #84 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Because ratings can make a difference in how much money a movie makes. An R rating will reduce a film's success. An NC-17 will essentially kill a movie. This means that studios are less willing to make more adult films, or to make films that will push boundaries. This is why it matters to me.
This is the same reason I've been paying attention to information as trivial as the the box-office grosses of movies for the longest time. Technically, why should I care how much money a film makes? Doesn't it only matter that I enjoyed it? Unfortunately, of course not.

Sad to say, I now keep track of box-office in order to dread the endless stream of shit coming my way. Gotta know the enemy!

But once in a while, something like Iron Man will do well. So that's good.

The rating system may have been designed for parents, but it doesn't exist in a parent only vaccum. It has powerful reprucussions on what we will and won't see.
post #85 of 147
As to your argument, the fact the films rating system reduces the success of the film, indicates that parents and children are the prime target group that is needed to make a film successful, just because there are a lot less 30+ year old childless adults who buy movie tickets doesn't equal the MPAA screwing over the entertainment industry, it means that there are a lot less of people like you and a lot more of people like me, it's simple economics. Supply & Demand.

As to my argument, since R rated movies can be quite successful financially, I would rate the argument that a rating on a movie equaling financial success as rather moot. Look at Aliens(R) vs. Alien v. Predator (PG-13). Alien was considered a box office success back in 1986 while AvP was considered somewhat of a financial failure until DVD sales entered into the mix then it became a luke warm success meaning an R rated sequel in an attempt to (falsely) appeal to its presumed demographics. Was that film a success?

It's not the rating that makes a movie successful, it's the film. A movie that I know you loved the Fountain, how well did that do? It was rated PG 13.
post #86 of 147
Thread Starter 
You don't know what you're talking about. This is no longer interesting to me.
post #87 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Because ratings can make a difference in how much money a movie makes. An R rating will reduce a film's success. An NC-17 will essentially kill a movie. This means that studios are less willing to make more adult films, or to make films that will push boundaries. This is why it matters to me.
You cant be certain of the cause/effect in this situation. So many movies have no market for their product and rating becomes an excuse. The Matrix did exceptionally well despite the R... Showgirls, Basic Instinct, and a couple of other movies did extremely well considering their quality as NC17 at least partially because they were NC17. Obviously marketing has something to do with this, but just as obviously a studio that uses ratings as an excuse to cut marketing is simply looking for an excuse because history has shown these ratings are not definitive causes of low profits.
post #88 of 147
Thread Starter 
*facepalm*
post #89 of 147
But in a business where you can never be sure of anything, the lack of certainty in this cause/effect situation doesn't matter. It is still being acted upon by the men in suits. Films are altered/butchered/cut based on these uncertainties.

The examples of R and NC-17 rated films that were cited... those were exceptions. Of course there are films that will strike a nerve and create interest regardless of its rating. But those are the lucky ones. Just looking at the list of the highest grossing films is enough to tell you that. On the wikipedia list of highest grossing films (worldwide), only 2 are in there. The Matrix Reloaded and The Passion of the Christ.

Obviously, the issue is not that simple. But a suit could only look at that list and come to one conclusion.
post #90 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by kartaron View Post
You cant be certain of the cause/effect in this situation. So many movies have no market for their product and rating becomes an excuse. The Matrix did exceptionally well despite the R... Showgirls, Basic Instinct, and a couple of other movies did extremely well considering their quality as NC17 at least partially because they were NC17. Obviously marketing has something to do with this, but just as obviously a studio that uses ratings as an excuse to cut marketing is simply looking for an excuse because history has shown these ratings are not definitive causes of low profits.
...What?
post #91 of 147
Also, Basic Instinct was rated R.

And Showgirls bombed.
post #92 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
But in a business where you can never be sure of anything, the lack of certainty in this cause/effect situation doesn't matter. It is still being acted upon by the men in suits. Films are altered/butchered/cut based on these uncertainties.

The examples of R and NC-17 rated films that were cited... those were exceptions. Of course there are films that will strike a nerve and create interest regardless of its rating. But those are the lucky ones. Just looking at the list of the highest grossing films is enough to tell you that. On the wikipedia list of highest grossing films (worldwide), only 2 are in there. The Matrix Reloaded and The Passion of the Christ.

Obviously, the issue is not that simple. But a suit could only look at that list and come to one conclusion.
The highest grossing theatrical releases is not an honest measure. Total receipts well after the DVD release minus costs (including marketing) would be a much better measure of what was truly successful. A suit would not only know that but have access to the numbers as well. Suits greenlight R rated movies all the time.

Suits cut and reshoot entire movies because the test audience thought the movie wasnt funny enough, or didnt like the lead's fake accent... Ratings are only one measure.

Besides, what solution is offered? Shouldnt audiences be able to know what potential objectionable material is in a film? Or studios (who finance the film) care what the potential audience might find opjectionable? Or theaters use a marking system generally accepted by their customers?

I think its a bit ridiculous to keep complaining that a subjective marking system is subjective. I dont even see the sense in arguing that.
post #93 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Also, Basic Instinct was rated R.

And Showgirls bombed.
Showgirls at one point had one of the highest DVD sales spots... might still.. Had multiple releases, collectibles. Bombed the theaters, made the studios a fortune.
post #94 of 147
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kartaron View Post
The highest grossing theatrical releases is not an honest measure. Total receipts well after the DVD release minus costs (including marketing) would be a much better measure of what was truly successful. A suit would not only know that but have access to the numbers as well. Suits greenlight R rated movies all the time.

Suits cut and reshoot entire movies because the test audience thought the movie wasnt funny enough, or didnt like the lead's fake accent... Ratings are only one measure.

Besides, what solution is offered? Shouldnt audiences be able to know what potential objectionable material is in a film? Or studios (who finance the film) care what the potential audience might find opjectionable? Or theaters use a marking system generally accepted by their customers?

I think its a bit ridiculous to keep complaining that a subjective marking system is subjective. I dont even see the sense in arguing that.

We should have an FAQ because this stuff keeps getting trotted out.

1) All movies make a profit. It is a rare film that does not make a profit. With TV, DVD, airplane, foreign, etc, almost every film eventually turns a profit. What the studio guys care about is turning that profit right away, in a theater. See, they might not be at their job when EXPLOSION THE MOVIE finally turns a profit in ten years because they got fired when EXPLOSION TEH MOVIE bombed.

2) Hollywood is a fucked up business. It's just as much about perception as it is about numbers. Being number one domestic is important. Doing well domestic is important. Getting nominations is important. This isn't all bottom line shit, it's high school shit, and this is what makes the weird town turn.

3) No director signs a contract saying he will deliver a movie with a guaranteed number of laughs or a guaranteed score from the test audience. They do sign contracts saying they will deliver movies of a certain rating.

4) The rating of a movie not only impacts the potential size of an audience but how it can be marketed. You can put TV ads for R rated movies on at certain times. No newspaper will carry ads for NC17 movies. And because R rated films have a lower ceiling, generally, the studio puts less muscle behind them anyway.

5) You can trot out exceptions to the rule all day, but the truth is that the studios don't want to release a movie that has a limited audience. They'd rather an R than an NC17 and a PG13 than an R. EVERY TIME. (Except prestige and low budget pictures. Bring your movie in very cheaply and you'll have more leeway, since your budget will be under whatever the bean counters see as the R rating ceiling).

All of this, by the way, is why a rating needs to happen for soft R movies like ONCE. A PG-15 or something just makes a ton of sense.
post #95 of 147
Going back to the ratings board in the UK, how much is language a factor in movie ratings?
post #96 of 147
I did mention that it's obviously not that clear cut of an issue. It's just one other thing in a whole mess of other things.

Have you never heard any of the stories about the battles that have been fought over the MPAA's system? Is there any sense in complaining about a subjective rating system being subjective? Not much. But this is an organization that's not supposed to. Clearly, full objectivity will never be possible, but the contant bitching is a way to make sure that those who are willing to listen will see how messed up that system is so that it can become more transparent.
post #97 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by kartaron
Showgirls at one point had one of the highest DVD sales spots... might still.. Had multiple releases, collectibles. Bombed the theaters, made the studios a fortune.
It made money on DVD the same way porn makes money on home video. Still doesn't change the fact that it was a disaster in theatres, and it hardly validates your point.
post #98 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Any governmental agency that bans any work of art should be criticized wholly and heartily. Period.
This is entirely fair, but the BBFC is not a governmental agency. It's independent, and was founded by the film industry in 1912 the way I believe the MPAA was.
The local city/town councils of this country are, in fact, the governmental censorship agencies. They tend to rely on the BBFC certifications most of the time, but there have been some notable exceptions, like the original release of Spider-Man.
When it comes to theatrical releases, the BBFC's position is technically only one of recommendation for the benefit of the local licensing authorities.
post #99 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdrow View Post
Going back to the ratings board in the UK, how much is language a factor in movie ratings?
Not a huge one. I've definitely heard a "cunt" and indeed several "cunts" in a 15 rated movie. I'm not sure that there's any "more than 3 of those and you get an 18 rating" rule. "Fuck" can cheerfully get blurted out in a 12A - but is possibly restricted to a set number, much like the US PG-13 . They're more down on violence than sex these days, but are definitely more lenient towards everything than they were in the 80s.

That said, the BBFC are still a bunch of inconsistent clowns.
post #100 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
All of this, by the way, is why a rating needs to happen for soft R movies like ONCE. A PG-15 or something just makes a ton of sense.
You'd just bitch that a movie was PG-15 instead of PG-13 or PG then. That was after all your complaint about the new Narnia movie.

Once has 24+ profane words in it, it's excessive and they aren't necessary for the story and an R rating is perfectly justifiable. Let's face it, your perception on what a line is and what is over the line is completely fucked, see masturbation into a child as a prime example and lashing out at pretty much anyone on the internet as a prime example of this. You're just a bitter not-so-little cinemaphile who thinks he knows best for a segment of the population he isn't part of, probably out of bitterness or frustration or whatever your shrink diagnoses you with, either way.. you're off base and out of touch. "Nice article" though, try focusing a bit more on 15+ year old outdated movies, it suits you better.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The MPAA Bows Down To Disney