Why Does NC-17 Exist?

[PeteEU]

We both just cited multiple movies that show penis with an R-rating, and now you're claiming "graphicness" as the distinction for an NC-17 rating. This thread has consisted of nothing but you claiming something being the nc-17 threshold, being proven wrong, and you shifting the goal; posts to some new standard.

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about

The hell it is. The ranking system in the US and many other places (basically based on the same idiotic moral ideas) are stupid and the fact that a movie like SAW where people are cut up into pieces is only given an R rating, but show a tit or two too many gets you R as well, let alone NC-17... sorry but that is beyond stupid.

we both just cited a number of them...

You cited one, with a fake penis.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The hell it is. The ranking system in the US and many other places (basically based on the same idiotic moral ideas) are stupid and the fact that a movie like SAW where people are cut up into pieces is only given an R rating, but show a tit or two too many gets you R as well, let alone NC-17... sorry but that is beyond stupid.

Who here said they supported the system? What I and Hershaw did was point out that your complaints about it were based on nothing more than ignorance. Something we have shown multiple times

You cited one, with a fake penis.

No, I cited boogie nights for the Heather Graham full frontal, because you originally claimed vag shots got it, as well. And even pointed out the American Psycho "r-rated" version still had the chainsaw chase scene, and that Gilles Marini had a full frontal in Sex and the City. Like I said, it's obvious you have no clue what you speak of. Something very common with you

 

[paris]

No, it's a huge difference,

Not really. Since the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised. No big difference from a distributor's pov.

 

[Harshaw]

Not really. Since the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised. No big difference from a distributor's pov.

I know. When your first theory doesn't work, find another.

 

[Harshaw]

The hell it is. The ranking system in the US and many other places (basically based on the same idiotic moral ideas) are stupid and the fact that a movie like SAW where people are cut up into pieces is only given an R rating, but show a tit or two too many gets you R as well, let alone NC-17... sorry but that is beyond stupid.

What's "beyond stupid" is that you keep spouting your disproven thesis as if it continues to be valid. I know you really WANT things to be the way you say, but too bad for you -- they're not.

You cited one, with a fake penis.

I cited quite a few, all being very real.

 

[PeteEU]

Who here said they supported the system? What I and Hershaw did was point out that your complaints about it were based on nothing more than ignorance. Something we have shown multiple times

Nope.. it is your ignorance that seems to be the issue here.

No, I cited boogie nights for the Heather Graham full frontal, because you originally claimed vag shots got it, as well.

That was bush. There was no "vag" shown. Full frontal female is "normal", where as full frontal male is very rare and usually means NC-17.

And even pointed out the American Psycho "r-rated" version still had the chainsaw chase scene,

Yes and that is exactly my point... that should have made it an NC-17 movie but it did not. They cut out a lot of sex scenes and a bit of violence and got it down to R.

and that Gilles Marini had a full frontal in Sex and the City.

Come on.. it is in there for like a milli-second and you can barely see anything unless you really look.. hell I did not even notice it before you pointed it out..and I have seen the movie several times (not willingly!). The movie even got a PG rating as far as I remember.. Compared to Heather Graham's full frontal.. that is frankly pathetic "full frontal".

Like I said, it's obvious you have no clue what you speak of. Something very common with you

It is more like you that has no clue. Every example you have come up with are massively edited to get to even get the R rating and in almost every case it is sex that has to be edited out, and not violence and that is my point all along.. the ratings system caters to puritanical Christian morals more than it caters to curbing violence in movies. God save us all if we see two people engaging in sex or see a penis, but no problem chopping up people or showing decomposing bodies in prime time tv.

 

[paris]

I know. When your first theory doesn't work, find another.

This is what I've been saying all along. The NC-17 does severely restrict the distribution of a film.

 

[Harshaw]

This is what I've been saying all along. The NC-17 does severely restrict the distribution of a film.

No. This is what you said:

Huh. Aren't such movies legally deprived of many venues for advertisement?

 

[Harshaw]

Nope.. it is your ignorance that seems to be the issue here.



That was bush. There was no "vag" shown. Full frontal female is "normal", where as full frontal male is very rare and usually means NC-17.



Yes and that is exactly my point... that should have made it an NC-17 movie but it did not. They cut out a lot of sex scenes and a bit of violence and got it down to R.



Come on.. it is in there for like a milli-second and you can barely see anything unless you really look.. hell I did not even notice it before you pointed it out..and I have seen the movie several times (not willingly!). The movie even got a PG rating as far as I remember.. Compared to Heather Graham's full frontal.. that is frankly pathetic "full frontal".



It is more like you that has no clue. Every example you have come up with are massively edited to get to even get the R rating and in almost every case it is sex that has to be edited out, and not violence and that is my point all along.. the ratings system caters to puritanical Christian morals more than it caters to curbing violence in movies. God save us all if we see two people engaging in sex or see a penis, but no problem chopping up people or showing decomposing bodies in prime time tv.

You've changed "your point" so many times, it's hilarious. And you're still ignoring the R-rated movies listed which do exactly what you say is an automatic NC-17.

 

[paris]

No. This is what you said:

You realise that quote is a question. Yes?

The next one is what I'm talking about:

Huh.

Movie Pictures | Movie Posters - Yahoo Movies

"Typically, the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised" ....

 

[Harshaw]

You realise that quote is a question. Yes?

It actually wasn't, as you've been twisting yourself into pretzels trying to "prove" it, or get as close to it as you can, even when that means changing your tune entirely while claiming it's what you've been saying "all along." If it had been a question, you'd have stopped at a simple "no."

 

[paris]

It actually wasn't, as you've been twisting yourself into pretzels trying to "prove" it, or get as close to it as you can, even when that means changing your tune entirely while claiming it's what you've been saying "all along." If it had been a question, you'd have stopped at a simple "no."

Sorry, I'm not ready to take your words for gospels just yet. That's why I looked for a news article giving another point of view than yours, which states that typically, the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised.

 

[Harshaw]

Sorry, I'm not ready to take your words for gospels just yet. That's why I looked for a news article giving another point of view than yours, which states that typically, the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised.

And when you were told that the article didn't mean what you thought it meant, you kept trying to find ways to get it to work.

Besides, your own article says:

Given the badge of honor bestowed by a Palme d'Or, Sundance Selects would have been mercilessly criticized if it had ordered the extensive cuts necessary to bring the film an R rating. Its only real choice was to accept the NC-17 or to do what most companies in its situation have done, and release the film without an MPAA rating.

In the last five years, more than 1,000 movies have been released without a rating, while only three have gone out with an NC-17. The latest was William Friedkin's "Killer Joe," which grossed almost $2 million in 2012; the top-grossing was Steve McQueen's "Shame," which grossed $3.9 million in 2011.

The vast majority of the movies that were released unrated would not have been rated NC-17, but were released by companies that are not MPAA members and opted not to go through the ratings process.

Which explains to you quite clearly that the ratings system is entirely voluntary and actually "restricts" nothing that distributors don't agree to. And they agree to it for marketing and commercial reasons, not legal or moral reasons. Complaining that it's "the same" from "a distributors POV" is just an attempt to keep believing what you want to believe. According to your silliness, any movie which doesn't have a commercially-viable market is "censored," and it's the same as the government restricting it legally. That's really, really stupid.

 

[paris]

Yea, right, it doesn't mean what I think it means...then what does that other article mean to you?

'Blue Valentine' NC-17 Rating Reversed; Ryan Gosling Accuses MPAA of Sexism - The Moviefone Blog

"The Weinstein Company made their appeal to the MPAA an exceptionally public affair, hoping to embarrass the board into reversing their decision. This afternoon it was announced that their efforts were vindicated: The verdict was rescinded and 'Blue Valentine' was granted its infinitely more appropriate "R" rating. In yesterday's rant, Gosling explained why the distinction between the two ratings is so important to a film, saying: "A lot of people think, 'What's the big deal if it's NC-17, the kids under 17 can't see it,' but that's not true. What it really means is it can't play in a major theatre chain and you can't have ads for the film on television. It stigmatises the movie in a big way. What we're really saying is not that our kids can't see this movie but nobody can see this movie unless you live in a big city and there's an arthouse theatre.""

 

[Harshaw]

Yea, right, it doesn't mean what I think it means...then what does that other article mean to you?

'Blue Valentine' NC-17 Rating Reversed; Ryan Gosling Accuses MPAA of Sexism - The Moviefone Blog

"The Weinstein Company made their appeal to the MPAA an exceptionally public affair, hoping to embarrass the board into reversing their decision. This afternoon it was announced that their efforts were vindicated: The verdict was rescinded and 'Blue Valentine' was granted its infinitely more appropriate "R" rating. In yesterday's rant, Gosling explained why the distinction between the two ratings is so important to a film, saying: "A lot of people think, 'What's the big deal if it's NC-17, the kids under 17 can't see it,' but that's not true. What it really means is it can't play in a major theatre chain and you can't have ads for the film on television. It stigmatises the movie in a big way. What we're really saying is not that our kids can't see this movie but nobody can see this movie unless you live in a big city and there's an arthouse theatre.""

:shrug: This isn't inconsistent with anything I said, period. It's you who insist on seeing thing which aren't there because you want them to be.

 

[Tucker Case]

Army of Darkness got an NC-17 rating originally?!?!?!? Most network TV shows are worse than that movie was.

 

[paris]

:shrug: This isn't inconsistent with anything I said, period. It's you who insist on seeing thing which aren't there because you want them to be.

The Weinstein Company won an appeal against the MPAA to reverse Blue Valentine's NC-17 verdict. Because as one of the actors said, what the NC-17 really means is the film can't play in a major theatre chain and you can't have ads on television. It stigmatises the movie in a big way...

 

[Harshaw]

The Weinstein Company won an appeal against the MPAA to reverse Blue Valentine's NC-17 verdict. Because as one of the actors said, what the NC-17 really means is the film can't play in a major theatre chain and you can't have ads on television. It stigmatises the movie in a big way...

Seeing as this is same thing as you said in the last post, my response is exactly the same:

:shrug: This isn't inconsistent with anything I said, period. It's you who insist on seeing thing which aren't there because you want them to be.

 

[paris]

Seeing as this is same thing as you said in the last post, my response is exactly the same:

Both articles contradict you. They both say the NC-17 severely restricts the distribution of a film.

 

[Harshaw]

Both articles contradict you. They both say the NC-17 severely restricts the distribution of a film.

No, they don't. You're misreading them because you want to.

Neither article contradicts what I said:

That's because NC-17 films are less commercially viable than those with lower ratings and theaters don't want to take the hit. There's no legal requirement.

As for the advertising, I already told you -- red-band trailers, which show adult content, are only run in front of certain films. Green-band trailers, which don't, can be run in front of any film. But this, again, is not legally-enforced.

I fully understand you are determined to believe exactly what you want to believe.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Not really. Since the NC-17 severely restricts the number of theaters that will show a film, and the venues in which it can be advertised. No big difference from a distributor's pov.

Being that fact that it's all entirely voluntary there is a huge difference, being that a) people can still make the films, and b) theaters can still choose to show them.

There just really isn't a viable market though

 

[Harshaw]

Being that fact that it's all entirely voluntary there is a huge difference, being that a) people can still make the films, and b) theaters can still choose to show them.

There just really isn't a viable market though

Good luck; been trying to explain that to him this whole thread. :shrug: Like PeteEU, he's got what he wants to believe and isn't budging.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Nope.. it is your ignorance that seems to be the issue here.

lol, I'm not the one constantly revising my theory/ moving goal posts

That was bush. There was no "vag" shown. Full frontal female is "normal", where as full frontal male is very rare and usually means NC-17.

feel free to argue over my use of "vag", but the original remark you made on the topic was "bush" which is clearly included in full frontal

your original claim:

***Showing a penis*** gets you NC-17.

Tits are a bit more liberal, ***but show bush and chances are you are close to NC-17***.

well, we have cited numerous movies with an r rating showing "penis" and "bush"

so that makes you, get this, "wrong" ...

Come on.. it is in there for like a milli-second and you can barely see anything unless you really look.. hell I did not even notice it before you pointed it out..and I have seen the movie several times (not willingly!). The movie even got a PG rating as far as I remember.. Compared to Heather Graham's full frontal.. that is frankly pathetic "full frontal".

No, it had an R rating, check IMDB. There are also the numerous other films with penis shots we cited

It is more like you that has no clue. Every example you have come up with are massively edited to get to even get the R rating and in almost every case it is sex that has to be edited out, and not violence and that is my point all along

Criterion released an uncut version of robocop that was a huge deal among fans because it included all the original gore and violence that had to be edited out, and you cited american psycho that had to be edited down due to the graphic violence, and got an r-rating with the penis shots still intact...

God save us all if we see two people engaging in sex or see a penis, but no problem chopping up people or showing decomposing bodies in prime time tv

Again, who here has defended the reasoning behind the rating system, or it's application? What Hershaw and I have correctly pointed out, that contrary to your claims, it is voluntary, does not issue nc-17 rasting over "bush" or 'penis" shots, and does issue such ratings over things like violence


If you want to slink away from your original arguments that is fine, but don't act like your original claims were false and that you have shown nothing but ignorance on the topic

 

[paris]

Huh. Blue Valentine examplifies that a distributor did not agree with the NC-17 verdict, and had it reversed to R. The film is the same, no editing was done to please the MPAA. So you can't say that they voluntary agreed to it, since they had to appeal the MPAA's verdict.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

And when you were told that the article didn't mean what you thought it meant, you kept trying to find ways to get it to work.

Besides, your own article says:



Which explains to you quite clearly that the ratings system is entirely voluntary and actually "restricts" nothing that distributors don't agree to. And they agree to it for marketing and commercial reasons, not legal or moral reasons. Complaining that it's "the same" from "a distributors POV" is just an attempt to keep believing what you want to believe. According to your silliness, any movie which doesn't have a commercially-viable market is "censored," and it's the same as the government restricting it legally. That's really, really stupid.

just an fyi, killer joe is a great movie