MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating

jtcm writes "An original documentary by Kirby Dick, called "This Film is Not Yet Rated" has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA. The film explores the MPAA's own film rating system and "its profound effect on American culture." The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content" and will likely limit the movie's distribution, as many theater chains will not show NC-17 movies. Among the filmmakers speaking openly in the movie are two of my personal favorites, Kevin Smith and Matt Stone. For those who are eager to view this exposé, fear not. The Independent Film Channel (IFC) will present the film uncensored and uninterrupted."

Comments

Gee.. what a shock.

[RedOregon]

The MPAA doesn't want many people to see the BS they do. I'm shocked, totally shocked.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Flounder]

The filmmakers made a mistake of having such content in, forcing the MPAA to give such a rating. If they had limited such content, and the MPAA still gave such a rating, then there would be a stronger case for calling it a conspiracy.

We'll just have to wait and see what this "explicit sexual content" is and if it's worth such a rating.

Granted, Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" had to cut a scene with some pretty nasty descriptions of sex out before it could get an R. I don't even think "The Aristocrats" tried to get a rating, and you can't get much more nasty without actually showing the acts.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[plalonde2]

Of course, getting an NC-17 is going to give this film much more press than it would have otherwise garnered.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[brianosaurus]

No way!

Are you sure they just don't want to interfere with the artistic vision of the filmmaker?

I mean (heh, heh) the MPAA really cares (snicker) about the artists!

Bwa hahahahahahhahahahahah!!!

Sorry. I couldn't keep a straight face.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Flounder]

But it'll limit it's potential audiences. Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies. Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies. It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan, especially if he can't pick it up along with his dry cleaning and a bucket of KFC.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Rufus211]

they don't carry unrated? Really?

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[generic-man]

You assume that the "casual movie fan" has an interest in watching anti-MPAA propaganda.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies.

This is untrue. Back when there was talk of Lion's Gate screening High Tension uncut, there was a survey of theaters that showed that the vast majority had no policy against showing NC-17 rated movies. There's a perception among studios that NC-17 is the kiss-of-death, but it mainly comes from the commerical failure of Showgirls (which was due to a number of factors besides its rating).

Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies.

This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade. I've seen plenty of unrated versions of movies, though.

Blockbuster is a franchise chain, so individual stores may have different policies on what they'll carry. But AFAIK it's not official Blockbuster policy to carry NC-17 or unrated movies -- and if it is, then plenty of stores violate that policy anyway.

It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan

The casual movie fan's interest was already lost when the directors decided to make a documentary about the MPAA rating system. The film's target audience was already small before the MPAA slapped a rating on it, and that audience probably won't be deterred by an NC-17 rating. If anything, like the grandparent pointed out, the extra press will only help.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Masami Eiri]

Blockbuster carries PLENTY of unrated stuff. Nothing that you'd have to go in the back room with the curtian for in another store though. Softcore porn though, yeah, they've got plenty.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[yorkpaddy]

I think the scene your refering to went something like this. Jay was talking to a hooker. Hooker:I can be as nasty as you want me to be Jay: Ok well i'm ramming you in the ass while you go down on a midget. My friend bob is jerking off into a cup and you... Hooker: That's to nasty for me I quit.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Jeremy Erwin]

This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade. I've seen plenty of unrated versions of movies, though.

Young Adam (Sony Pictures Classics) was originally given a NC-17 rating. It was later released as a "R", but I'm not sure what, if anything was cut. I do remember seeing the NC-17 version at a local (mainstream, commercial) movie theater.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[angrist]

No, it makes perfect sense.

If the movie is about the rating system, then chances are it will have to show clips / examples from all of the ratings brackets. So if the film has NC-17 clips, the it would be NC-17 itself.

Personally I don't see that the big deal about the rating is, it'd actually make me more likely to see the film.
I've only actually seen one NC-17 movie, "Kids", and it was excellent. I've only really heard of one other (Showgirls), which I've heard from trusted friends sucked.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Anonymous Coward]

The stores do not carry NC-17 or unrated. Online stock is different. By the way, your link is broken. You can't link directly to search results. It comes up with a blank page, which make you look like a huge idiot. Luckily I did know they carry unrated stuff online.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[fury88]

I don't know why they didn't do what every other film producer does, release it on DVD with features they left out of the theatre and then the DVD gets a "Unrated" label. That would have been the best way around all this junk and would have gotten it into the sticklers like WalMart and some of the other conservative chains.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Pretzalzz]

The filmmakers made a mistake of having such content in, forcing the MPAA to give such a rating. If they had limited such content, and the MPAA still gave such a rating, then there would be a stronger case for calling it a conspiracy.

How do you show what content makes a movie NC-17 in the eyes of the rating board without making your movie NC-17? If you don't show clips than the audience can't make an informed decision on whether the ratings board is right, and if you do then your movie will also inevitably be NC-17.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Austerity Empowers]

If their intention was to do an expose on the MPAA's rating system, you'd think they would have made the movie such that it could reach the widest possible audience. Instead they threw in stuff they had to know (they are filmmakers) would get them an NC-17 rating. Even if it was borderline, a reasonable person would have erred on the side of caution to ensure their message got out. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.

Instead, the best they can do is get it shown in art-house theaters and a film channel very few people will watch. I'm not even sure we get an independent film channel in texas that doesn't involve agriculture in one form or another. It's like a presidential candidate who only campaigns to his family.

Anyway of all the evil in the world, particularly with the MPAA, the movie rating system scores down around "mostly harmless" in my book. If a few movies don't get wide distribution because they show graphic sex, either usefully, or just because the director was horny, I'm not losing sleep. The fact that the MPAA controls a lot of money and businesses and apparently the government, is really a lot scarier. Expose that, and make sure it gets PG.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Golias]

Actually, while Blockbuster refused to carry the original NC-17 version of "Requiem for a Dream", it provoked the creation of an R-rated edit specifically for large video chains.

But then, a few months later, an unrated directors cut was released, which included and I rented it from a Blockbuster. Jennifer Connolly sharing a double-sided dildo with another girl right there on a Blockbuster-blessed DVD. Go figure.

Swerving back to the main topic...

This jackass could have simply released the film unrated, and the title would have fit just fine. He submitted a film for approval when it features clips which provoked NC-17 ratings in other movies, so you can't tell me he's surprised it got slapped with an NC-17 of its own. He obviously was hoping for the NC-17 so hyperbolic screams about the eeeeeevil MPAA would generate a little more buzz about his great big whine-fest.

News flash, movie directors: If you make a film with a lot of kinky sex and freakish violence in it, some people will not want to see it, or want their kids to see it, or even want it promoted in their neighborhoods. Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.

Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[nittacci]

What's absurd is that words alone can be so dangerous as to require the ratings board to effectively ban a film. Just words. No dirty pictures, no horrible violence. That the filthy-minded ratings board is so afraid of nothing more than language is the scariest part of the whole story. I also think of a truly subversive film like "Last Tango in Paris" and how tame it is by the standards of today. Yet it would certainly get an NC-17 rating again if it came out now.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[thparker]

This jackass could have simply released the film unrated, and the title would have fit just fine. He submitted a film for approval when it features clips which provoked NC-17 ratings in other movies, so you can't tell me he's surprised it got slapped with an NC-17 of its own.

I didn't see anything in the article that described the content that warranted the NC-17. Have you actually seen the film? Or are you merely speculating on how graphic the content is? Not that speculating would be very hard to do -- given what is said in the article, it sounds like he probably contrasts some of the gay sex scenes that have resulted in NC-17 ratings against hetero sex scenes that have received an R. And that would be pretty relevant material given the topic of this documentary, and would probably not warrant your rabid criticism.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what's actually in the film.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Stiletto]

there was a survey of theaters that showed that the vast majority had no policy against showing NC-17 rated movies.

Careful there... was it the vast majority of theaters or the vast majority of theater chains? If the 3 largest theater CHAINS, which control most of the theaters out there do have policies against showing NC-17 movies, then the grandparent poster's point would be valid.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[ivan256]

But it'll limit it's potential audiences.

It's a documentary. Do you really think the potential audience was that large in the first place? The people who want to see it will find a place to see it. When it doesn't sell that well, it won't be because it wasn't showing in every theater. It'll be because most people don't want to shell out $10 to see something that doesn't blow up or get them laid afterwards.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open..."

I wasn't going to bother seeing this film. After reading your description of it, I'm now very interested. Where is it playing, pray tell...

--

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[k31bang]

Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies.

My local Blockbuster carries a NC-17 movie called Crash (a pretty below average film by the way...IMHO). Plus i've seen lots of unrated films there as well, many times advertised as such. Of course Movie Gallery has even more of these types.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[JourneyExpertApe]

I don't think this film was intended to be a box office hit. This seems like one of those things that most people see on DVD. People go to movie theaters to turn their brains for a couple hours and be entertained. There have been a few exceptions lately, but I don't think the subject matter of this movie interests most people enough to see it at the theaters. People it does interst enough will seek it out, and will be able to find it at a movie rental store or a library.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Cramit]

I know for a fact that Hollywood Video carries Unrated films. The location where I work carries Showgirls, Crash (the one about people having sex whle they crash cars), and the movie KIDS (unrated but caused a stir when released)

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[miceyman]

I can't say for sure that Blockbuster has an explicit nationwide policy of not renting out NC-17 movies, but I believe they do. Blockbuster has deals with production companies to get exclusive, censored versions of movies. The recent NC-17 John Waters movie, A Dirty Shame, had a "Neuter" R-rated edit of the movie for Blockbuster (it should still be on their shelves). And I believe it is Blockbuster's policy as a family-oriented video store to not carry NC-17 movies, especially if a special, official Blockbuster-approved edit exists.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[RubberDogBone]

Last I heard, Blockbuster had a policy where company HQ exercised total control over what the stores could rent, and the company had a rather conservative stance on what they would allow. Local stores had zero authority to add "unapproved" titles.

This made every Blockbuster more or less the same (fat chance of ever finding that rare film) and effectively blocked controversial films and adult movies. Perhaps the company will rethink this policy now that Blockbuster is in decline. Adding porn and controversial movies might bring people back to the stores.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Belgand]

Blockbuster has definitely been carrying the "unrated" versions of many mainstream films. The thing is, most of these movies aren't really "unrated". Rather, it's not that they had content that they had to cut in order to get a lower rating, most of them simply throw in a bunch of deleted scenes (some of which, admitedly have more sex and nudity) that they never submitted for rating hence with the unsubmitted scenes added back into the film it is now "unrated".

In many cases these are just the scenes that are normally available under the deleted scenes section on the "rated" DVD.

This is, admittedly, typically only true of the big-budget mainstream teen-focused comedies you routinely see loudly exclaiming how unrated they are (e.g. Eurotrip). The trend pretty much started with American Pie, but as anyone who saw the unrated version found out there was perhaps an extra 2 minutes worth of minor differences, however, they were scenes that were removed to lower the rating and AFAIK, were not present originally as deleted scenes.

The movies that Blockbuster doesn't carry in unrated format typically tend to be those films that were originally released in as unrated or NC-17 (e.g. Requiem for a Dream), but which released edited versions primarily because of Blockbuster and Wal-Mart.

In short, if Blockbuster carries an "unrated" DVD you're probably not getting anything you wouldn't already get on the original, they just slapped on the unrated to try and make it sell. If they don't carry and unrated DVD it's because the makers refused to release an compromised version of their film. Pretty hypocritical of Blockbuster, isn't it?

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Belgand]

Not much would ever bring me to Blockbuster. They have terrible selection, cater only to recently released ultra-mainstream films, and have a terrible policy on collecting anything that's more than a few years old. For all this they charge an excessive price per rental.

The local store I rent from carries porn (now with a suggestion list!), a disturbingly large anime section, a wide selection of foreign films and a decent selection of obscure horror and martial arts. Hell, they even have The Short Films of David Lynch which is only available from his website. Prices are $2 for regular rentals (5 days) and $3 (3 days) for new releases with films coming down from new release pretty quickly and recently released versions of classic films going directly out to the regular section rather than trying to charge more for it.

The staff is always very friendly and actually knowledgable about film (I've had interesting conversations with them on everything from classic slasher movies to French New Wave), late fees are often waived (and never excessive to begin with at only 50 cents a day or $1 for new releases) under reasonable circumstances and if you're unable to find something they order it (including semi-obscure Criterion titles).

Digital Shelf in Manhattan, KS if you ever happen to be in the area. It's the only thing about the town that I'm going to miss when I move.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Belgand]

Much of the softcore porn that Blockbuster carries is actually rated R. That's typically the hallmark of softcore. Nothing but topless women and simulated sex.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Helios1182]

Every Blockbuster I have been to has carried the Unrated versions of movies. (In Michigan and Illinois).

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[giorgosts]

what about Michael Moore's 9/11? Did it depict sexual acts too and got an NC17?

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Golias]

I would even maintain that if it does not contain NC-17 material, then it's not very useful as a documentary.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.

Actually, it doesn't.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Frymaster]

>> Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies.

This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade.

on february 10 2002 robert ebert (who apparently knows stuff about movies) stated:

[Blockbuster] refuses to handle NC-17 movies, insisting that R-rated versions be supplied. Blockbuster thus dictates both format and content. Imagine the outcry if a book store stocked only the Reader's Digest Condensed Book versions of a novel, and quietly removed all the offensive parts.
...
By refusing to handle NC-17 movies, Blockbuster has all but destroyed the freedom of American directors to make studio pictures intended for adults.

my source for the above qoutes is here:
http://www.raptorial.com/Zine/b-buster.htm

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Vellmont]

If you make a film with a lot of kinky sex and freakish violence in it, some people will not want to see it, or want their kids to see it, or even want it promoted in their neighborhoods. Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.

And I thought people had a choice whether to go to movies or not. Apparently people are forced into going to movies that they're "grossed out" by.

Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.

I think I want a rating on your post. Have you gone completely mad? There's not even that kind of shit in porn, much less anything resembling a movie. If you actually want to make a point maybe you should stick with what's actually in NC-17 movies.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird. The first thing I was thinking about was *not* a "conspiracy", but rather the American hypocrisy that sex scenes are "bad" for youths (which I think they are not) while every movie massacre goes completely unfiltered even to minors. But that's from my European point of view.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Anonymous Coward]

you live in the city and can't find a decent blockbuster? you need to look harder. the blockbuster i go to has a very nice selection of older movies, including indy hits like man bites dog. i usually never have a problem finding movies especially when its a 2 story movie store

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Careful there... was it the vast majority of theaters or the vast majority of theater chains? If the 3 largest theater CHAINS, which control most of the theaters out there do have policies against showing NC-17 movies, then the grandparent poster's point would be valid.

Unfortunately, it's been a while since I read the article that printed the results of the survey, and I haven't kept a copy, so I'm not 100% sure of the methodology. But I'm fairly certain that it said that the three major chains left whether or not to show NC-17 rated movies to the discretion of individual theaters.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Either Ebert is wrong, or the Blockbuster policy is unenforced. I actually spoke too soon when I said that I've never seen an NC-17 rated movie at Blockbuster. I've seen DVDs of Evil Dead on the shelves at a couple of local Blockbusters. All editions of Evil Dead released on DVD in the United States contain the original, NC-17 rated theatrical cut.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[pnewhook]

Maybe people should stop blaming the rating system and start blaming the distributors and the theatre chains for not showing NC-17. I mean really, the rating system is only there so individuals can make an informed choice as to whether they want to see or not see a move based on the content and their own value system. This break's down when the distributors decide for you based on the rating, or if every movie receives an 'R' just so it gets on the distribution list.

Blaming the MPAA for low distribution because of the rating is like blaming the label on the pack of cigarettes for giving the smoker cancer.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[rizzo420]

funny, i've seen team america unrated, american pie unrated, that new jet li movie unrated, and many others taht said "unrated" on the shelves of my local hollywood video (i believe i saw them when i was at blockbuster recently as well). now the unrated american pie isn't bad (boobies, whoop dee doo), but the team america with the extended sex scene featuring "watersports" and poop was pretty bad... i don't know about the jet li movie, i'm not a fan of that type of movie.

and what about all those blatantly sexual movies that you see mixed in with the new releases? the ones with the cheesey titles...

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[dododge]

I can't say for sure that Blockbuster has an explicit nationwide policy of not renting out NC-17 movies, but I believe they do.

It may be an explicit "NC-17" marking that triggers the problem. As mentioned above, Blockbuster definitely carries "unrated" versions of some movies. For example just last week I bought used DVDs of "High Tension" and "Lords of Dogtown" at a local Blockbuster, both loudly claiming "UNRATED EDITION" on the front cover.

On the other hand, for a movie like "The Dreamers", which I think has an official "NC-17" on the director's cut instead of just leaving it unrated, I've only seen them carry an R-rated version.

May I be the first to say..

[Flounder]

Porn on a non-pay-per-view channel! WooHoo!!

Re:May I be the first to say..

[dewright23]

Thinking like this is what places a stigma on NC-17. NC-17 does not mean a movie is about sex or porn. Most often the violent horror films are originally given an NC-17. NC-17 was created because the original X rating for adult themed movies was never copyrighted and was taken over by the porn industry because they could place an X rating on a movie without going through the MPAA. One of the first X rated films was awarded an Academy Award for best picture. Anyone remember Midnight Cowboy?

LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?

What about the adult market? Or is it like pop music now - only good for children? Adults should be working and brainless, good consumers but never exposed to anything that'll make them think...

What do these theaters show after 10pm? Bambi?

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Wesley Felter]

You may laugh, but I've read that teenagers are the movie market now. R movies make much less money than PG-13 movies, to the extent that studios are not willing to make a lot of R movies. (The rating for a studio movie is decided before it gets made.) NC-17 movies would presumably make even less money because teens wouldn't be able to get in at all.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you haven't realized that a majority market for the major film producers is indeed the teenage crowd. Not to mention adults going with their children. You may also fail to realize that "family organizations" would probably organize a boycott against theatres showing porn. Personal responsibility or not, the organized are more powerful than the disorganized. When it comes down to it, the theatres are centers of business not political ideology. They will respond to those that could harm their profit margin.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Anonymous Coward]

>What do these theaters show after 10pm? Bambi?

Oddly enough, nothing.

Most of the theatres around me (and I'm in a city joined to North America's most used highway [401]) don't have movie showings after 9:50 pm. Yeah, the rare one will be, but it's really rare. Ho hum... Another reason I don't go to movies and download them instead. I like to watch them at 12:00 at night just before I go to bed.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Prog_Burner]

Since most theatres are owned in Canada by Famous Players, which is basically a US company, all you can really see is the latest blockbuster, plus whatever other movies the distributer bundles with that big movie (due to the crazy restrictions distributors can put on movies, for example: 1 screen showing Harry Potter = 1, 2 or even 3 screens have to show a movie from the same distrubtor.) Basically what that means is that although there's no outright ban on certain movies, if it's an independant release, it won't get shown. The exceptions seem to be movies that are expected to gross high (Fahrenheit 9/11 comes to mind)or cities with enough theatres that they can afford to show smaller films.

There's also no equivelent to NC-17 here, basically any movie that's rated NC-17 in the US gets the equivelent R or 18 or 18A rating here. Most movies rated R in the US get a 14A rating here too, unless they're ultra violent (sex and language doesn't really factor in)

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[EternityInterface]

I wouldn't say brainless, it's like working and stressed. They do think about things, it just happens to be it's too many things and they can never relax.

Or is it like pop music now - only good for children?

It's made for the record execs. That sugarcubes vid has been on mtv for uh... too long for me to... accidently see it several times, the blatant sexuality to it is quite the thing, and I mean these chicks are targeted to low low (girl) ages. (the rapvids with 2 dozen 99% naked chicks in them each are for the boys) (does this give me a promotion?) (The group's brand new single, "Push The Button," was premiered on BBC Radio One in August 2005 Oh, only then? *Add something here which nicely blends into* got skank?)

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[tommers]

"would probably organize a boycott against theatres showing porn"

I think the fundamental problem is that the MPAA ratings are so knee-jerk and contextless that honest sexuality is conflated with porn. It seems the MPAA and probably mainstream American audiences are uncomfortable with sexual intimacy much or than obscenity or gratuitous sexuality, vulgarity, or violence. And since pornography is so prevelant in our society, even if its not up on the cineplex screens, our conception of sex comes primarily from porn and raunchy comedies.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[agraupe]

I do remember one or two occasions where minors couldn't get into a movie at all at Famous Players. No, I don't specifically remember which movies they were (one of them was fear dot com, I seem to recall), but they were definitely as restricted as possible. This introduces the possibility that there is an NC-17 rating in Canada, or some movies are evaluated on an individual basis for especially offensive content. YMMV.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[glitch23]

That would be Bambi Does New Orleans for those who watch F/X, HBO, Skinemax, and Showtime.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[21st Century Peon]

Are you sure you don't mean the Sugababes?

The Sugarcubes were Björk's band before she went solo.

(Here endeth the pedantry.)

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[EternityInterface]

Well, if one doesn't take a single word out of context, it would be impossible to figure it for anything but sugarcubes... babes... such is the case with using flawed neuron storage.

Biased?

[IvanTheViking]

Gee, anyone else think they might be a bit biased rating about a movie about themselves?
The higher the rating, the less people will be able to see, especially the younger crowd, that is those who have yet to form a complete opinion on Hollywood yet...

Re:Biased?

[Seumas]

Gee, anyone think the film's producers might have included very adult content knowing the MPAA would have to rate it NC-17 according to their policies and then capitalize on the publicity of "oh noes! censorshipzors!"?

Seriously. Come on Slashdotters. I know common sense isn't that common around here but put your fucking tin foil hats down for a second.

Re:Biased?

[HexRei]

That's possible... but given the topics he is exploring I think he probably did include several very graphic sex scenes. It would be hard to compare the MPAA's handling of similar material in two different films unless he actually showed (at least parts) of the scenes in question to the audience.

Re:Biased?

[Bob of Dole]

This Just In: Censorship the fault of the censored!

"Well if you hadn't said that I wouldn't have had to censor it."

Thanks, slashdot!

Re:Biased?

[boarder8925]

[P]ut your f**king tin foil hats down for a second.

The above post rated R for intense language. Anyone under the age of 93 reading this must shut down his monitor and report to the government immediately.

;)

Re:Biased?

[thparker]

Gee, anyone think the film's producers might have included very adult content knowing the MPAA would have to rate it NC-17 according to their policies and then capitalize on the publicity of "oh noes! censorshipzors!"?

No, I certainly didn't.

I think it's far more likely (and far less conspiratorial) that they show scenes from films from the various ratings. One of the key points of the film seems to be that the ratings board exhibits some bias in its review of films that depict homosexual acts. It's probably going to show a gay sex scene that received NC-17 and a raging raw hetero sex scene that got a R and consider whether there's really much difference between the scenes other than the gender quantity.

This seems like such a non-debate. Everyone here wants to posit some conspiracy, but these seem like no-brainer decisions on the part of all parties. Filmmakers: "We need to include these 4 NC-17 scenes if we're going to explore the fairness of the NC-17 rating." Ratings board: "This movie includes a sex scene from XXX -- we gave that scene a NC-17 rating 4 years ago." Both seem like obvious choices.

Re:Biased?

[giorgiofr]

WTF. Burning the book/disc/whatever is censorship. Saying "People, there's sex and, like, stuff in there" is NOT. Get your facts straight.

Re:Biased?

[Bob of Dole]

It is when no one will show the "sex and, like, stuff" movies.

Re:Biased?

[fermion]

I recently saw a movie called A histoy of Violence. This was quite a shocker of a movie. Full frontal nudity, depictions of oral sex, depictions of rape, repeated acts of graphic violence. It was rated R in the US. Middle School age kids, maybe younger, were in the audience. When I was young, the violence itself might have made it Rated X. Remember The Graduate was rerated PG in the 70's. Before that it was approved, which I believed meant essentailly X. I also recall a movie called Little Darling which had no nudity, no violence, just adult situations, namely an adolescent losing her virginity. This movie got an R rating. OTOH, Kill Bill, amazingly, was R.

Why do I bring these things up? Because the point of the documentary seems to be that the ratings are indeterminate. Just because this film had some scenes depicting sex, was it neccesary to make it NC-17. Was it more graphic that History in America? Unless it shows actual penetration, I think not.

I am an avid film goer, and I can tell you the rating do seem to vary based on how makes the film, which is anothe thesis of this documentary. For instance, Y Tu Mama Tambien has some brief full frontal in it, both male and female, and a dipiction of sex, but no blood and guts shooting everywhere. When I saw the movie, I understood the characters had just graduated high school, making them consenting adults. This film was originally rated NC-17, but has recently been rerated. I have seen other examples over the years. Therefore, it is arguable that the rating are used to help major studio production gain an articificial advantage.

As an end note, is there any reason for Pride and Prejudice not to rated G? Does one kiss, and some breasts really make it PG?

Re:Biased?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Damn! Now I'll need a fake ID to rent ultraporn!"

Optioned yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do we get the film about the film about ratings getting an NC-17 rating?

Why No -NC-17?

[SlashdotOgre]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy? I can understand having a a policy of not having certain NC-17 movies based on management's decision after viewing a particular movie, but it seems naive to just ban all NC-17 movies blindly. I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[ShyGuy91284]

Well when a good amount of kids will find a way into a movie no matter what, not allowing NC-17 movies is a good way to cover your ass. In this country, I wouldn't be surprised if a parent was able to sue a theater for letting them allow their 11 year old kid watch a "porn" (Be it real porn, or just a few seconds of NC-17 footage).... Business is all about covering your ass, and going after those who have a bare ass for some people....

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Dash_Rantic]

Becuase they probably won't get as many patrons to come see an NC-17 movie as opposed to a movie with a lesser rating. So, if there's a choice between say a PG-13 and an NC-17 movie, they'll go with the PG-13 one because it'll make more money. Most theaters can't simply choose to show both, as they have a limited number of screens/showtimes. Chalk this up as another victim of the bottom line. -Dash

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Icehouseman]

Easy. When the new NC-17 rating came out in 1990; the religious nutters like Jerry Falwell put pressure on all the major chains to refuse to show NC-17. So of course they got their way and now it's virtually impossible to show NC-17 movies. It wouldn't be hard to keep children out of NC-17 movies, any movie theater could do it, so it's mostly the right wing attacking that which they can't understand and don't like.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[brianosaurus]

Choosing a better performing product over a lesser one is good business.

But a blanket policy against NC-17 movies is different. They do that "for the children". You don't hate children, do you? ;)

Its a lame CYA policy. If they don't show the movies, they won't get complaints and boycotts and other crap. If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.

You know... Kind of like how all those IMAX theaters decided not to show that movie about the ocean since it had the word "evolution" in it.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Wesley Felter]

The whole point of ratings (for anything, not just movies) is to free people from having to make case-by-case decisions.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

If they won't show NC-17 movies because of worries, then the terrorists have already won.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

Because it's like the old XXX rating. Automatically the NC-17 rating is associated with hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is a big turn off to parents paying for their 15 year old going to the theater. This is a bad business move regardless if the movie is rated NC-17 or unrated due to gore, violence, etc etc...

I recall when NC-17 was being put in place that there was a move to have better definitions of "offensive" content to help the horror industry make films that were a bit more graphic without having them associated with pornography. As we all know, this never happened.

it seems naive to just ban all NC-17 movies blindly. I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religiously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

Not to be a troll or a flame but you are the naive one here; This has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with the profitability of the theater in the face of a fairly common social morality. Sure I can imagine a few bible beaters showing up to protest this at my local theater in a community that has tens of thousands of members but if anything this would help the theater get people interested in this film.

Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).

Do you really think a theater owner should show this film knowing that the community isn't going to support this type of film? That's probably your most naive sentiment; theaters and the movies they show are not about art, they're about profit. If you want art for the sake of art on the big screen you're not going to find it at the 18 screen megaplex. Not because it might upset a very small number of religious people, but because it's bad business.

And what if you found out the theater owner was an atheist? how would that effect your unfortunate stereotype of the "religiously charged, mid-west family"? What would you look to next as a crutch for a really lame assumption? There is morality outside of religion. Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group. This is absolutely false. Even without religion society will find a common morality and there will still be "oppression" in the name of the public good or in the greatest cry of politicians and prudes everywhere; "What about the children?". Social morality, while it may have been at one point based on religion (as all the major world religions have a few points in common concerning morality) today this morality is based on a sense of purpose and right not based on a religious doctrine but rather an "natural" sense of right and wrong.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[docbob]

Contrary to many of the statements here it comes down to legality. It is next to impossible for a theater the way they are designed now to stop anyone from going into any film once they paid for it. So If a teen pays for Bambi and goes into "I am Curious - Yellow", then the theater gets in trouble for letting the kid see porn. Either change the layout of the theaters (fat chance, they make more money this way) or make sure any kid under 18 is accompanied by an adult to all movies (that is not going to happen either). It comes down to $$$. The Doc

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[SurgeonGeneral]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

Let me ask you this. You read NC-17 and you say, doesnt sound so bad... but what about when you read "X-Rated". how does that make you feel? Why do I ask? Because NC-17 was a rating that replaced X-Rated. it sounds nicer and non-pornographic. Because, well, X-Rated filmes were not pornoraphic (thats XXX) and the association was getting out of hand. Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.

Now, why is it bad for Theaters to show x-rated films? Well, besides the obvious, since teenagers and kids are the largest demographic for the theater going audience it is probably inappropriate to show x-rateds.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[ChrisN79]

I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

As a proud Michigander, let me clarify that Arkansas is not the Midwest.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group.

Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I think the leftist assumption is not that community moral standards arise from religion, but that stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion -- and in the US, at least, that assumption is usually correct. Believers and unbelievers alike agree that, e.g., murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, because those cause obvious and direct harm to other people. But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I've never seen proof of this.

stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion

Such as?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

> Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I've never seen proof of this.

[shrug] I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality; I do know that I've seen many, many right-wingers argue this position, and rarely (though not never) seen left-wingers do the same. Actually, that's a study I'd like to see.

> stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion

Such as?

Such as the idea that there's some inherent danger in mainstream movie theaters showing NC-17 movies.

Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages, students should learn creationism in science class, it's an appropriate use of the FBI's time to invesitgate "obscene" material on the internet, et bloody cetera.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[scotch]

Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.

Yeah, the Xbox, generation-X, X-men, X-games, are all marketing disasters.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[The Warlock]

Not really. In that circumstance, the kid is breaking the law. The theater isn't responsible, just like if you buy beer with a convincing fake ID, the store isn't responsible.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[UserGoogol]

To be pedantic, XXX wasn't a real MPAA rating. It was a self-attributed thing which porn would sometimes call itself. X was the highest rating the MPAA could give out, but when porn companies wanted to show that their porn was really porny, they'd call themselves XXX. (See Wikipedia) But otherwise yes, the switch from X to NC-17 was because X was overly associated with pornography.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[wfberg]

XXX is however the major constituent of the city seal of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Golias]

Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages

No, that's an issue of fuck-buddies taking advantage of loopholes in laws which were written to motivate parents to stay married for the sake of the kids.

It's based on several axioms:

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.
2. Society wants kids to be well off.
3. Using tax laws and so forth, we can encourage families to stay together.
4. A gay couple, collectively, can never produce offspring of their own.
5. If you allow gays to be legally married, they enjoy the benefits which were put in place for the sake of keeping families together, which is fundamentally unfair to single people and common-law marriages, who also do not enjoy said benefits.

Of course, where gays can claim they are being discriminated against is that we allow sterile people to marry. If a woman with no uterus is permitted to marry a man, how can you use the same lack of a uterus to prohibit a man from marrying him?

The only way to make it completely fair to everybody is to strip away all government recognition of marriage, and handle all weddings with simple civil contract law... which is fine by me, but that's exactly what the anti-gay-marriage crowd is desperately fighting against. They like their unfair marriage-law goodies, and don't want gay couples horning in on them and exposing how nonsensical they really are.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I've never seen proof of this.

Proof that right wingers claim that morality implies religion? That's one of their main planks for arguing that oour nation is based on christian principles. I've seen them claim it lots of times. What more do you need?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, it's usually right now when I say you're both fuckin' retarded.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Brandybuck]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

Partly the same thing that motivates them to have a "No X Rated" blanket policy. Seriously. NC-17 means "no children under 17". Back when "X" was a rating, it meant the same thing. Not all X movies were pornography, and one even won an Acadamy Award. But that rating got tainted and so NC-17 was born, as a category for serious non-pornographic works that were inappropriate for children.

Theaters are businesses. Most have children (17 and under) and families as their core market segment. An NC-17 can earn a theater a reputation that can harm its business. Imagine a McDonalds restaurant selling Playboy. However, not all theaters are this way. Not by a long shot. If you want to see a movie that one theater isn't showing, go to another!

Speaking of McDonalds, where is the outrage that fast food restaurants aren't selling pornography? Where's the outrage that Safeway grocery stores don't have Hustlers in their magazine racks? They sell condoms, so why not porn?

but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

Yes, it's all a grand conspiracy by Bush and the Religious Right to keep you from seeing titties. No go crawl back into your hole and keep quiet. Sheesh.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Tlosk]

so it's mostly the right wing attacking that which they can't understand and don't like

I'm not saying they all have good intentions, but I think it's not unfair to say that most of the rank and file are of the opinion that this material actually harms people. And just as you might distribute mosquito netting to reduce malaria, reducing the outlets where this stuff gets shown will reduce the damage.

As long as they aren't getting this stuff outlawed, I think they are well within their rights to try to convince people to not watch it, not distribute it, and not profit from it (where all the interactions are voluntary).

I suspect many of the politicians are involved for self-serving and rather cynical reasons, but in the end that doesn't matter, as long as you are able to say what you want and use your own resources to get that message out. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that free speech gives you the right to use other people's resources to convey your speech or to force anyone to listen to you.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Peter La Casse]

Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I've never seen proof of this.

Neither have I, but I've seen plenty of evidence. It's not unreasonable for someone who gets their morality from their religion to believe that religion is the only source of morality. It's the only source of their morality, after all.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[BushCheney08]

Buddy, the "terrorists" won a long time ago...

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Brandybuck]

Yet it's always the "left" that insists that private businesses like movie theaters should NOT have the freedom or liberty to set any standards. A theater that does not show this movie is imposing its morality on others. It is not their right to decide, they must show all movies and so that all people can them all.

You have the right to choose for yourself whether or not you want to see a closeup of coitus but it is not your right to deny that decision to your young child. How dare you!

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Brandybuck]

If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.

Yet these same theaters will show R movies have sex, nudity and violence.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).

It's actually nothing like advisory warnings. Rating a film NC-17 is akin to putting on an advisory warning, refusing to show it is akin to refusing to sell CDs with warnings on them.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[tommers]

I didn't get the IMAX reference and was about to reply, but instead looked it up:

Here's what I found for those interested:
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050319_imax.h tml

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[greyseal]

Actually, the store would be breaking the law, at least in California. The store would be fined, possibly lose its liquor license, and the offending cashier most likely fired.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Actually, in some states it's illegal to sell a CD with a PA sticker on it to a minor. Also many outlets do not carry CDs with PA warnings. So it's very much the same thing.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[shotgunefx]

I imagine it's mostly politcal/religous pressure and some math.

Many kids see R rated movies. No way with an NC17. It hurts box office, so they don't show them. Maybe the blanket policy is a kind of pressure from the theatre owners as they don't want product they can't make maximum profit off of. So if you know it's the kiss of death, then you'll submit to the R.

Funny, Evil Dead would have received an X which was why I and II were unrated. Now they show them on network tv, mostly uncut (except for the tree rape).

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[brianosaurus]

Yeah... my bad. I should have included a link, but I'm lazy. :)

Its pretty ridiculous when SCIENCE centers are rejecting SCIENCE movies for religious reasons.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality

I'm not saying that religion isn't a source of morality for some, but you said that right wingers insist you can't ave morality without religion. I have never seen anyone, right or left, proclaim that morality can not exist without religion. That's the proof I'm looking for.

Such as the idea that there's some inherent danger in mainstream movie theaters showing NC-17 movies.

If you'd be so kind as to read my parent post you'll understand that it is not a matter of religious pressure but rather normal social morality outside of a religious group that makes showing NC-17 films both unprofitable for a theater and unpopular among the local patrons. Perhaps religious groups do protest but do you honestly think it's going to matter? Harry Potter is protested by the religious (in much greater numbers than this film would be) and yet it's a blockbuster. Your argument holds no weight and the profitability of films like the Potter series and The Last Temptation of Christ is undeniable proof that the religious fundamentalists have very little control over the movie industry.

gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages

That is one I will give you. But do not think this is purely religious; if gay marriage comes about as a legal standard it's going to cost industries and the state big dollars in the way of taxation, benefits and pensions. I think you're going to find a more serious business threat to this type of legislation as time goes on and the church gives up it's struggle.

students should learn creationism in science class

Perhaps not science but it should be taught in school as a popular ideology. The separation of church and state should not leave us blind to various religious mythologies and their effects on society including the creationist point of view as many people believe it, it's not like we're teaching about cargo cults, this is a major religion and one of it's key beliefs. That alone makes it noteworthy.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Enonu]

Actually, by being married, you don't have the ability to declare an extra deduction that you would of if you were single. You are screwed because the govt. knows that you have a combined income. Where are these magical tax laws you are talking about?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[BlueHands]

Dear Sir:

If you could please in the future avoid giving a reasonable, honest and cogent examples it would prove much easier for people here to debate and disagree with you. Thank You.

Yours,
The Management

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Proof that right wingers claim that morality implies religion? That's one of their main planks for arguing that oour nation is based on christian principles. I've seen them claim it lots of times. What more do you need?

I want for you to find one quote from a respectable source that is said by a member of the church inside of the united states to the effect of "morality can only be based on a religious belief and without religion there can be no morality"

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[brianosaurus]

No one said it wasn't hypocritical nonsense.

The distinction between R and NC-17 is pretty subtle. The idea, I suppose, is that R movies have mature content, but responsible parents should be allowed to decide if their kids can see it or not. NC-17 tries to close the loophole where a bunch of kids could pay a homeless guy to get them in, but it is only used in special cases.

Heh.. I guess the MPAA wants to keep the kids out, so they don't the children to get "confused" hearing a message in the film that is different from what the Guest Speakers at school tell them, and perhaps contradicts the "Who Makes Movies?" commercial they saw right before the previews (the one where an actor playing a blue-collar crew member calls the ticket-holding theater audience a bunch of thieves)... but i digress..

The studios, special interest groups and even the MPAA all exploit these rating systems as they see fit.

How else do you explain "Showgirls"?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Stiletto]

If you'd be so kind as to read my parent post you'll understand that it is not a matter of religious pressure but rather normal social morality outside of a religious group that makes showing NC-17 films both unprofitable for a theater and unpopular among the local patrons.


What non-religious "social morality" causes people to not want to send teenagers off to a movie theater showing NC-17 films?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Aexia]

Actually, by being married, you don't have the ability to declare an extra deduction that you would of if you were single. You are screwed because the govt. knows that you have a combined income. Where are these magical tax laws you are talking about?

You get a larger deduction, irregardless of whether both of you work. That's why most married couples get a tax break. Larger deductions and larger tax bracketts.

Two-income families(especially where one makes significantly more than the other) might get screwed but that's about it. It's difficult to come up with a tax structure benefitting both single-earner families and two-income families without completely screwing over single people.

Income tax aside, it's pretty much gravy from there. Multitudes of discounts, public and private, await married couples. Whether it's health insurance and family discounts or the vast legal framework of rights, there are a lot of financial benefits for married couples.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

Automatically the NC-17 rating is associated with hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is a big turn off to parents paying for their 15 year old going to the theater. This is a bad business move regardless if the movie is rated NC-17 or unrated due to gore, violence, etc etc...
I recall when NC-17 was being put in place that there was a move to have better definitions of "offensive" content to help the horror industry make films that were a bit more graphic without having them associated with pornography. As we all know, this never happened.
[...]
this morality is based on a sense of purpose and right not based on a religious doctrine but rather an "natural" sense of right and wrong.

"It's ok to ban sex, but it's unfortunate that violent gore fest are banned by being lumped in the same NC-17 rating" comes from a natural sense of right and wrong?

Are you kidding me?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[gardyloo]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

      Aaahhhhh. I've always wondered what to call those tin-foil emergency blanket thingies. Thanks!

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the GP is from New York or some shithole like that -- everything that's not NY or California is "the midwest" to him. You know, it's where those weird people live.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[ChadN]

He said "right wingers", not the members of churches of the United States. Would you be satisfied with quotes from many acknowledged and prominent "right wingers", like say Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Rielly (arguably), or Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, or George Bush Sr., or Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or etc.?

Assuming any of the above people are actually church members, I'm positive I can find quotes from most or all of them that support the claim. Coulter's claims are particularly entertaining (and easily found on google), while George Bush's famous slam against athiests, that they were not "patriots or citizens" was downright scary.

Granted, I'd say none of the above are respectable sources, so you may win on a technicality.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a smarmy little cocksucker, aren't you?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Hilary Clinton?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mirkob]

I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality I'm not saying that religion isn't a source of morality for some, but you said that right wingers insist you can't ave morality without religion. I have never seen anyone, right or left, proclaim that morality can not exist without religion. That's the proof I'm looking for. you could wiew some italian news, you will find that some right wing politician (about second/third charge of the state) tell exactly this in conjunction whith the pope. in america there is an huge bigotrism on the base, but sadly here in italy there is a STRONG church whit some ideas a little MEDIEVAL and a lot of brainwashed peoples who do not even admit the possibility that the state allow something that they (the church heads really) declare not good for a good christian. ie no abortion could be allowed because a good christian do not only avoid it (at least on the daylight), but he work to avoid those murders, iven if it is done for safety of the mother and bot the (non christian) would be parents decide for it. the problem is not the single case, but the continuous interference of the churd hierarchy in the state's affairs.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Hackie_Chan]

...it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

As an off-topic tip for people who get caught in a debate with that argument, here's what you answer to that: Just say "My morals are based on Utilitarianism", i.e. the greatest happiness of the greatest number (keep in mind that "based on" is important to say because hardcore utilitarianists advocate for the right of suicide for example).

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.

For example:

• No smoking in restaurants
• Mandatory seat belt laws
• Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

Yep. It's those darn religious conservatives who were responsible for those sort of nanny-state decisions.
</sarcasm>
About the only political party that has any claim on leaving people to make their own decisions are the libertarians. Neither the repubs nor the dems can claim any innocence in that area.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

The Waltons are from Arkansas, not the mid-west.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

while George Bush's famous slam against athiests, that they were not "patriots or citizens" was downright scary.

This says nothing about morals. Either stop beating around the bush and put up some quotes to the effect of what I said or accept the fact that assumption that those of religious faith equate morality with religion absolutly for all people is just nonsense.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Motherfucking Shit]

Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).

Considering that the the "conservative" idea is generally to ban them altogether, I'll stick with the advisory warnings, and ignore your attempt to make "liberal" seem like a naughty word.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Considering that the the "conservative" idea is generally to ban them altogether

Prove it. I'm not talking about some bazaar off faction, I'm talking about a legitimate group with enough power to do such a thing. As I pointed out elsewhere the church obviously doesn't have the power since Harry Potter is such a large success.

I'll stick with the advisory warnings, and ignore your attempt to make "liberal" seem like a naughty word.

No, it's more of an attempt to open some eyes to the FACT that this kind of crap goes on regardless of all the little feel good labels that float around. If you have a problem with that concept that's your problem. People who think that a label (that is often false) is a seal of credibility and follow it blindly deserve whatever they get.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

What non-religious "social morality" causes people to not want to send teenagers off to a movie theater showing NC-17 films?

The same one that makes it a fact that not everyone who lacks a faith in God is out on the streets today killing, raping and stealing.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[JudgeFurious]

Such as?

  On Sunday I want to go to the store and buy something. The store I want to go to is closed though because it's Sunday and the law states that they must close on Sunday. Why? The store I wish to shop at is owned by an Indian family who to the best of my knowledge are not Christians. I was born and raised here (Here is in the so called bible-belt of the United States) but I am not a Christian. I am forced to obey their idiotic idea of a Sabbath though because they passed a law that stated that even those who don't share their beliefs must comply with them.

  Why can I not buy a beer on Sunday morning. Certainly that's a bit early for drinking but I'm going to an NFL football game that starts at noon and I'm meeting some friends to tailgate before the game. Last night I forgot to go the store and buy some beer but I can't rectify that mistake on the way to the game because the god squad long ago made sure that by law nobody can by that old demon alcohol on their holy Sunday morning.

  This should suffice I think.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oversimplified ...

Smoking definitely affects others, and seat-belted drivers with belted passengers have better control of their vehicle, and are therefore less likely to hit somebody else.

You can make an argument with helmet laws, that's why there is so much variation in state laws.

(Cue the 'you can go to a different restaurant argument' in 3..2..1...)

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Firethorn]

Ones that think that NC-17 films might provoke violence, irresponsable sexual acts, too mature for a teenager*, or just wrong?

Pretty much the same as the religious groups, but without being able to simply say "That's EVIL!!!". There's no restriction for non-religious people to not have morals.

Generally speaking, the lower the rating of a film, the wider the potential audience. A good G rated movie has the whole familty there. Moving to PG/PG13 can cut your potential audience by 20%, R by 50%, NC17 by 80%. This is tempered a bit by the fact that adults have more money to visit theaters, and many enjoy the more adult higher rated films. But teenagers are a pretty wealthy crowd as well, and can't go to a NC17 film, but can go to a R.

Now, If I was a chain movie theater, I'd generally show the lowest rated films first. IE general release G films are guarenteed to be shown. Then PG's, moving up to R if I have enough screens(probably guarenteed). Now this would be moderated by expected viewership: Star Wars will be shown, regardless if a dozen G films are being released the same week. Depending on how conservative the area I'm in is, I'd consider showing NC17 films if I could reasonably guarentee that prohibited persons aren't going to get into the room showing it. This can range from the furthest screen in a more relaxed area, maybe with a seperate ticket taker/checker, to a different theater with no kids allowed in conservative areas. The problem with this is that you have to hire seperate ticket people, concessions, etc resulting in greater expense.

Having lived in the midwest for a while, I can tell you that the religious/moral umbridge folks can be quite vocal. When a 'juice bar' opened outside of town, taking advantage of a quirk in state law tying nude show laws with alcohol. No alcohol license, no rules against. They didn't have to spend a cent in advertising. They made the front page of the newspaper a week running from all the protests.

*Considering "Teen" covers anything 13-19, it's quite a range. Also, maturity levels between even the same age teen varies widely.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Belgand]

G tends to sell well because it's a way to shut up small children. Depending on the film it's unlikely that anyone without a small child would go to them.

PG/PG-13 tends to be very dependent on the film. Some parents care intensely if a film is PG-13, others don't care at all. Again it's usually up to the film at this rating where it ends up selling.

R rated films tend to make up the vast majority of films showing. This particular week is a bit of an aberration with Harry Potter and Narnia in theaters and more of a move towards big, family-oriented films to be shown during the holiday season. Many weeks though there's a pretty small limit on what to see. As well, R is such a wide rating anymore that many, many films end up being placed in this category: serious dramas, action movies, teen sex comedies, etc.

In an interesting comparison though, it's the higher rated films that would tend to be thought of more highly. While I have serious, serious issues with many of their choices a quick run-down of the Academy Award Best Picture winners for the past 20 years (as PG-13 was introduced in 1984) shows that 8 were PG-13, 10 were rated R, and only one was rated PG (Driving Miss Daisy). Perhaps this would show that "comtemporary community standards" aren't exactly what many people want to think they are.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Firethorn]

G tends to sell well because it's a way to shut up small children.

Doesn't mean that it doesn't make the theater money. And that's all that matters. I was thinking as I hit the submit button, but a limitation of G movies is that they restrict too much. Many storylines just can't be fitted into a G film. This tends to limit the amount of the "adults without children" crowd you're going to get. And they're the richest group.

PG/PG-13 tends to be very dependent on the film. Some parents care intensely if a film is PG-13, others don't care at all. Again it's usually up to the film at this rating where it ends up selling.

Agreed, this is where you can get some real storytelling done.

R rated films tend to make up the vast majority of films showing

Not in my area. PG/PG13 are the majority. A quick rundown of my local theater(8 screens):
1 G
2 PG
4 PG-13
1 R

Normally, we'll have 2 R's, I'll admit. Some time ago they had Jarhead and Doom up at the same time.
You might have more in your area. Past topics are hard to come up, but Moviefone's upcoming release schedule for non-limited release films stacks up as:
1 PG
5 PG-13
2 R(January)
1 NR(Late December release, assumed R)

Perhaps this would show that "comtemporary community standards" aren't exactly what many people want to think they are.

"Contemporary community standards" are different for children and adults. MPAA ratings are obstinately solely for children, it's assumed that adults can determine whether a movie is appropriate for themselves.

Awards tend to go to films with impact, and that's one of the things that you sometimes need to have adult situations in.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[ipfwadm]

Another poster mentioned a couple arguments as to how your first two examples do affect others.

In addition to this, all three of your examples prevent an undue burden on the healthcare system, a burden which would result in higher costs for all of us either through our own medical insurance premiums or through government spending that eventually gets passed back to the taxpayer. As for the motorcycle helmet law, if you wish to sign a waiver stating that in the event of severe head trauma that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, you agree to foot the bill in full (if you have insurance) or waive the hospital's responsibility to treat you (if you don't have insurance or are unable to pay the bill), then go for it. Unfortunately, no such waiver would ever be held conscionable by the courts, so the only alternative is to make helmet use the law.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Stiletto]

Why? Because "seeing boobies is bad for kids" is a moral that people free from religious indoctrination naturally have?

I suggest you take a trip to Europe and ask around.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... the terrorists are children?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[neurojab]

But do not think this is purely religious; if gay marriage comes about as a legal standard it's going to cost industries and the state big dollars in the way of taxation, benefits and pensions. I think you're going to find a more serious business threat to this type of legislation as time goes on and the church gives up it's struggle.

I doubt it. Treating people equally is good business. Many major corporations already give domestic partners the same benefits as married spouses. The reason? There are a lot of talented gay people out there, and having them as employees can boost the company's bottom line. Why exclude good talent?

Perhaps not science but it should be taught in school as a popular ideology. The separation of church and state should not leave us blind to various religious mythologies and their effects on society including the creationist point of view as many people believe it, it's not like we're teaching about cargo cults, this is a major religion and one of it's key beliefs. That alone makes it noteworthy.

Provided that the class is on "world religions" and is an elective, I have no problem with that. What most people have an issue with is when we start teaching religious doctrine in science class, which is what the kansas school board wants.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Belgand]

Many storylines just can't be fitted into a G film. This tends to limit the amount of the "adults without children" crowd you're going to get. And they're the richest group. My point exactly. G-rated movies tend to sell exclusively to the "has children" segment and rarely will anyone else go near them with exceptions (e.g. Pixar, documentaries, ... David Lynch). This has a unique effect on the market in that parents will almost inevitably take their kids (and pay for it themselves), but the films don't command enough of a market share otherwise to make them fill out the roster so you'll typically only see one or two playing at any given time. No mainstream multiplex, however, is stupid enough not to be showing those one or two films. As for PG/PG-13 let me also amend my earlier statement. You also tend to get a great deal of broad-appeal films that they know is going to do well and that they can keep cut down enough to make it into PG/PG-13 (e.g. Bond movies, LOTR, Star Wars, event films). PG-13 seems to be heavily the realm of action-adventure (as opposed in this context to the more R-rated action genre) films, but brings in all sorts of other misfits. Still, while plenty of films would naturally end up with this rating, it's often quite obvious that many large studio productions are purposefully designed/forced into it in an effort to increase the potential market. As to whether R rated films make up the majority it partly depends on when you look at the releases and it partly depends on where you live (theater size and local chains). I can think of many times I've checked the current releases playing at a representative 12 or 20 screen theater nearby and well over half the films playing were R. There tends to be maybe 1 or 2 G rated films and usually a pretty even mix of PG/PG-13. This time of year and this particular release year tends to favor PG/PG-13 a bit more heavily. Part of the reason I find this interesting is because a great deal of important, relevant, artistic films are often rated R. Technically this means it should be restricted to those 17+, but in reality this is pretty ludicrous. Not only are most high school students likely to see say... The Matrix, but they would be cultural outcasts if they didn't! Part of this is the reason why the term "hard R" has come into being and part of it is the result of silly age limits. I mean, in the USA you can drive at 16 and in most states you're over the age of consent, but according to the MPAA and theater owners you're not to be allowed to see nudity in film (and if you're lucky enough to make use of being over the age of consent then well, why are you seeing so damn many movies and actually paying attention to what's on-screen?). I'll admit that in this I come from a biased viewpoint as my parents never screened films based on rating (I recall distinctly going to Black Rain when it was in theaters, at the time I would have been 8) and when I was into my teens and going to movies by myself would often buy me tickets if need be. Ironically I was carded at A History of Violence (rather good, not fantastic, but reccomended) a few months back and what with the beard, long hair, being in a college town and having an obviously early 20s girlfriend still had to prove that I'm 24.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

(Cue the 'you can go to a different restaurant argument' in 3..2..1...)

Yes. Because it happens to be correct.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

You make a perfect example of why the health care system should *NOT* be socialized. Because personal decisions that enable freedom suddenly impact others. The more you socialize anything, the more individual decisions impact others through increased costs. In other words socialism is the opposite of freedom. The more socialized things are the less individual freedom can exist.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[BlueHands]

yummo!

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, though, that there is no such thing as a XXX rated movie.
MPAA had an X rating, and purveyors of porn would use the XXX label as a marketing device. In all likelihood, movies labeled XXX are actually X-rated, or even unrated.
All of which is why you never see XX rated movies - and believe me, I've looked!

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[ChadN]

What I accept is that you have no desire to actually have a discussion. *I'm* not the one you originally challenged, so I don't feel obligated to do anything for you. But I did ask you some questions, which you avoided answering, and you keep seeming to equate a comment about "right wingers", to "church-goers" or "those of religious faith". Whatever, as you demand, I personally will "accept the fact that assumption that those of religious faith equate morality with religion absolutly for all people is just nonsense." Doesn't seem to be what the original point was, however. HAND.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Alsee]

I have never seen anyone, right or left, proclaim that morality can not exist without religion. That's the proof I'm looking for.

I'm sorry I can't provide a link, but the "proof" is indeed linked somewhere to my backlog of posts in the Slashdot database. I have been on the opposite side of exactly that argument more than once. The claim that atheists cannot be moral, and that if there is no God then there is no reason not to steal/rape/murder.

You really shouldn't be so surprised. It's hardly shocking for religious extremism to define itself as the very meaning of "moral" and "good". The idea that there is a single universal definition of morality, that it comes from God, and that they have a monopoly on it. The idea that anyone not following their religion is not following God's word and is therefore not following God, and is therefore sinful.

I like to site crime rate as an approximation to measure morality, and cite the fact that studies have shown atheists have a signifigantly lower presence among prison populations. As an amusing twist of the knife I admit that that does not proove that atheists commit less crime... admit that another possible explanation would be that atheists are somehow more intelligent and merely get caught less often, chuckle. An alternative that would hardly be any more appealing than admitting that atheists really can behave morally.

if gay marriage comes about as a legal standard it's going to cost industries and the state big dollars in the way of taxation, benefits and pensions. I think you're going to find a more serious business threat to this type of legislation

Compared to the dollars already involved from straight marriages, gay marriages would barely be a blip on the precentage radar. I think the PR aspects (and thus financial impact) of meddling in the issue on either side would outweigh any direct dollar impact from gay marriages.

Perhaps not science but it should be taught in school as a popular ideology. The separation of church and state should not leave us blind to various religious mythologies and their effects on society including the creationist point of view as many people believe it, it's not like we're teaching about cargo cults, this is a major religion and one of it's key beliefs. That alone makes it noteworthy.

I certainly agree that teaching about religion (covering multiple religions impartially) is perfectly possible within the limits of Separation of Chuch and State. However there are two major practical problems with it. Number one is that there is a substantial number of people who will be in an uproar and cause all sorts of problems over THEIR CORRECT religion being treated equally to, and thus equated with, the "lies" and "mythology" of other religions. Some people get extremely pissy if you try to compare Biblical Genesis to the "Turtles all the way down" of some eastern creation story. The second problem is that while many or even most teachers could reasonably handle such a class, too many would simply seize on it as an excuse to use their government teaching position to evangelize their religious beliefs.

One could legitimately use the Bible in an english class as pure literature, but the only teacher who would ever choose to do so is exactly the teacher that most needs to be prohibited from doing so. Any english teacher capable of using it properly would be well aware of the special challenges and care involved in doing so, and would simply select a less problematical text of similar value.

You can find courses like comparative religion at the college level, including at government run universities, but teachers for such courses are going to have special training and expertise in the subject. An average highschool teacher is generally ill prepared to handle the complex and delicate Separation of Church and State issues involved in such a class.

-

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Firethorn]

I'll admit that in this I come from a biased viewpoint as my parents never screened films based on rating

My parents weren't so rich that I got to go to the movie theater much before I had my own job, but my parents did the exact same thing. They considered me and my brother very mature for our ages. I had a permission slip filed with the local video rental place allowing me to rent R rated movies. Thus, I never needed to worry about the rating. I was just told to stay away from the horrors.

As for artistic, important films being rated R, well, a common theme for life, what's considered 'important', involves sex and/or violence. The very things people want to shelter their kids from.

Of course, the rating system is limited, actually more limited than the game rating system that was so critized over the hot coffee mod. On the other hand, most people can tell by the descriptions, title, and artwork(movie posters) what a movie is about. I think that a major limitation might be the lack of something between PG13 and R. R is 17 and over, four years over PG13. If you created a "R15", movies like the matrix would probably end up in there. Maybe even some of the war movies like Saving Private Ryan.

Of course, the whole rating system is 'parental or adult supervision'. Showing SPR in a class that explains what's going on is very different from them just going and watching it themselves.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Sabriel]

(Cue the 'you can go to a different restaurant argument' in 3..2..1...)

Yes. Because it happens to be correct.

The statement "you can go to a different restaurant" has no bearing on whether smokers will be at that restaurant too, let alone any other factors. But you already knew that.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

The statement "you can go to a different restaurant" has no bearing on whether smokers will be at that restaurant too, let alone any other factors. But you already knew that.

The statement "you could choose a different movie" has no bearing on whether or not it will be any good, let alone other factors. Those things are true, and yet we don't legislate against bad movies.

No one forces you to go to any restaurant. And when you go into a restaurant, if someone is smoking, no one forces you to stay. If, despite that, you choose to stay, how is that anyone's business except yours?

I simply do not wish to legislate your behavior. I'd rather have the freedom to self-regulate my own. And if I believe that the value of a particular restaurant is higher than the cost of being there with 2nd hand smoke, that's my choice. As it is your choice. I'd rather that we both are given the freedom to choose.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Why? Because "seeing boobies is bad for kids" is a moral that people free from religious indoctrination naturally have?

So you think every athiest out there would just let their kids run willy nilly with pr0n? You gotta be kidding me.

I suggest you take a trip to Europe and ask around.

Oh, really? So now everyone in Europe is also an atheist? Please... Get a clue. Maybe they do handle the issue better but that in no way means that they're suddenly liberated by atheists.

Methinks you give atheists too much credit. Perhaps you think every atheist thinks like you? Perhaps you think every religious person is an uptight prude? You're wrong if you answered yes to either question. You're just as much of a fundamentalist as al-Quada and the puritans. the fact that you don't have religion doesn't obsolve you from being a common two bit zealot.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

What I accept is that you have no desire to actually have a discussion. *I'm* not the one you originally challenged, so I don't feel obligated to do anything for you.

Heh. Whatever loser. It's because you CANT, not that you dont want to.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

"It's ok to ban sex, but it's unfortunate that violent gore fest are banned by being lumped in the same NC-17 rating" comes from a natural sense of right and wrong?

Actually, it's because the violence is fake and the sex is real. And to be honest I think most soccer moms are more comfortable explaining murder to their children then they are sex. You can't honestly tell me that you don't think sex is more taboo in society compared to violence?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

You can't honestly tell me that you don't think sex is more taboo in society compared to violence?

I'm saying that has nothing to do with nature. It's a learned taboo.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

I'm saying that has nothing to do with nature. It's a learned taboo.

The "nature" argument is very old. Morals are anti-nature and morals and taboos go hand in hand. And if we're going to go back to the atheist way of looking at things then technically speaking violence and murder are just as valid an action as is sex.

And not to give credence to the nature argument but who says that violence isn't natural? There is a fair number of animals that make their living by violence. Perhaps the repression of violent tendencies is a "learned taboo".

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

And if we're going to go back to the atheist way of looking at things

Ah, bible thumper.
Remember: You must not suffer a witch to live! I won't keep you, I'm sure you have a few bonfires to start.

violence and murder are just as valid an action as is sex.

I'll never trust someone who lumps "sex" and "violence" in the same category... Their girlfriends do tend to "walk into doors" and "fall down stairs" a whole lot.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

Ah, bible thumper. Remember: You must not suffer a witch to live! I won't keep you, I'm sure you have a few bonfires to start.

Yeah, keep assuming that I'm Christian.

Or do you expect for me to be ashamed that I have a religious belief? Please. You're not dealing with a 12 year old looking for acceptance from his peers.

I'll never trust someone who lumps "sex" and "violence" in the same category... Their girlfriends do tend to "walk into doors" and "fall down stairs" a whole lot.

Uh, this is a discussion about the ratings of film based on sex and or violence. This entire conversation is about the perception of sex and violence in popular media. So either you're not getting the point or you're being a troll.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

Or do you expect for me to be ashamed that I have a religious belief? Please. You're not dealing with a 12 year old looking for acceptance from his peers.

No, I'm just realising that your belief that sex and violence are the same comes from some religion, apparently you aren't pretending to be christian, whichever it is, I've had conversation about morality with people before who like you say "the atheist point of view", they usually mean that morality is god-given, and that infidels are immoral.

The example above was to illustrate how immoral religious views can be. Name me your organised belief, I will tell you an example of immoral teaching it has, if you want. There's always plenty to choose from.

Uh, this is a discussion about the ratings of film based on sex and or violence. This entire conversation is about the perception of sex and violence in popular media.

This specific sub-thread was about the origins of that perception. Nature VS nurture.

you're not getting the point or you're being a troll.

I lost interest and became flippant when you moved from "nature VS nurture" to supernatural origins of morality. Please, please, if you think I'm troling you, stop replying, by all means: Don't feed the trolls.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

they usually mean that morality is god-given, and that infidels are immoral.

Certainly not in this case. Feel free to think what you want tho... I see I made it to your "foe" list for simply being religious... I guess I can see how open minded you are.

This specific sub-thread was about the origins of that perception. Nature VS nurture.

This is about sex and violence too. Don't try to twist the argument here.

I lost interest and became flippant when you moved from "nature VS nurture" to supernatural origins of morality.

I'm not the one who tried to move it to religion. i can't help it you have a problem with people of with religious beliefs

Please, please, if you think I'm troling you, stop replying, by all means: Don't feed the trolls.

Ha! Don't think you can stop me, ever. :)

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

I'm not the one who tried to move it to religion.

See, this is why you made the foe list: You turn to religious arguments, then say you didn't. Saw that coming... and for the record, I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic. I'm waiting for proof either way.

Anyway, let's pretend you didn't for a sec there...

So no, violence and sex aren't the same thing, and should not be rated the same.

Yes, the U.S. has the sentence "sex and violence" ingrained in i's collective conciousness to the point where it seems impossible to discuss this matter beyond the scope of that conditioning, as this thread depressigly demonstrate, but that doesn't make it natural in the sense of "congenital", but natural in the sense of "habitual".

There's the futility of discussing subjects when the whole argument is split on different meanings of a word being debated.

So, yes, there is such a thing as sex and violence in movies: Rape scenes. You have both, or rough sex, but that's somewhat different. And as far as real sex VS simulated violence, that is a non-argument, as it only demonstrate how wrong you are to lump sex and violence together. There is real violence shown on TV, on the news, on sports broadcasts.

Hell, here's the ultimate demonstration of the insanity I'm decrying: The "wardrobe malfunction" incident. One split second of a niple: MAJOR outcry. Repeated violence and injuries: Good clean fun.

Football is violence, 100% wholesome American fun. Show one nipple, and it's been defiled! Lawsuits, fortunes in fines, outrage!

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

See, this is why you made the foe list: You turn to religious arguments, then say you didn't. Saw that coming...

I guess you didn't see much. I spoke of morals both in and out of religion having like points. That's as close as it came to religion until I pointed out that from an atheistic standpoint without morality that murder could be seen as non-different than sex. You took this in directions you wanted it to go in, not me. But it's good I made it to your foe list. I took some interest in you and your "logical" posts you had in your journal but still you want to keep an enemies list? Sounds like a subconscious form of violence to me to mark your enemies.

Hell, here's the ultimate demonstration of the insanity I'm decrying: The "wardrobe malfunction" incident. One split second of a niple: MAJOR outcry. Repeated violence and injuries: Good clean fun.

People who are playing a game and accepting that it's a physical game. That's not violence. Next you'll be saying that people who engage in physical activities where injuries to the self are common are practicing masochism.

But onward... The event had a rating for the family. There is a certain acceptable level of various activities within a culture to what is acceptable and what isn't. This action wasn't acceptable. The reason for the backlash? Because networks have the responsibility to represent their programming within this rating system fairly. In this case they did not. As I explained elsewhere nudity is not unheard of and is infact not as uncommon as most make it seem on American TV but the appropriate rating should be applied.

Football is violence, 100% wholesome American fun.

Oh, so this is about America bashing... I see. No other country on the face of the entire planet has violent sports.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Scrameustache]

from an atheistic standpoint without morality

There it is again.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

There it is again.

What? You taking me out of context? Heh.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Sabriel]

I simply do not wish to legislate your behavior. I'd rather have the freedom to self-regulate my own. And if I believe that the value of a particular restaurant is higher than the cost of being there with 2nd hand smoke, that's my choice. As it is your choice. I'd rather that we both are given the freedom to choose.

The sadness is that smoking is addictive. How can there be self-regulation when smoking takes away self-control?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

The sadness is that smoking is addictive. How can there be self-regulation when smoking takes away self-control?

First, there's a huge population of smokers who have quit. It wasn't fun, but they did it. Second, anyone who smokes now can't claim ignorance about how addictive smoking is.

Third, we're not talking about people choosing to smoke. We're talking about people choosing to eat at restaurants where smoking is allowed. If it's so annoying to them, then they're free to go somewhere else. If there's such a huge demand for smoke-free restaurants, then that's a business opportunity. Legislation is not needed.

We have vegitarian restaurants and the number of vegetarians in this country is far fewer than the number of non-smokers. Why is it that the only places where non-smoking restaurants exist in areas where it's legislated? I think it's because that's the only way that those restaurants can exist. In other words, there's no market for non-smoking restaurants. Which is just another way of saying that the vast majority of people simply don't care and legislation is the only way the vocal minority can get their way.

So fucking what?

[Seumas]

The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"

That's what NC-17 is for.

NEWSFLASH! Producers of anti-MPAA film include racy content with intention to pull an NC-17 rating that causes typical Slashdot readers who never read articles and jump to conclusions to conclude that the MPAA is rating such film inappropriately because of the target of said film and not the adult content. More at 11!

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is displaying a penis sexually explicit content? Is showing a scene where to men have sex under the sheets sexually explicit? "Airplane" (check imdb) is a movie that shows breasts, yet it is rated PG. The point of the article is that the MPAA has yet another means of control over distribution. This is an area where they should NOT have control. The rating system is supposed to do the general public good, not be a way to limit an audience do to a personal agenda. However, you feel it is ok to dismiss this movie as something you've heard a million times. It is not.

Re:So fucking what?

[damsa]

Airplane was shot before the PG 13 rating. You can show breasts in a PG 13 movie, it just doesn't happen that often.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"

That's what NC-17 is for.

Really? But I've seen some PG-13 movies where people complained that it contained "some graphic sexual content."

There is no definition of what is "sexual" - Is a woman breastfeeding "sexual"? What about just the breast? If she's giving herself a mamogram? If she's showering? If she's playing with it? Where do they draw the line? They don't tell anyone.

There is no definition of "graphic." Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"

I've seen plenty of "graphic sexual content" in R-rated movies. Full frontal of women, glimpses of genetal details of women, backsides of both, lots of breasts, and all that will still be found in R-rated movies. I'm sure that they'll claim the "I know it when I see it" standard.

If there are any legal protests, they will surely fail. Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...

Re:So fucking what?

[liangzai]

I am sorry, but I really don't understand why sexually explicit stuff should have such a rating. On the other hand, I am just a dumb European, and where I am from there are no such ratings (15 for extremely violent movies or pure pornography, although it is more of a recommendation). Late teens (almost adults) can drive a car but can't see boobies!?

Could you point me to a (repeatable, verifiable) scientific study showing that kids are harmed in any way by seeing sexual content on the screen?

What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

Re:So fucking what?

[pkulak]

Dude, I wish I had some mod points for that post. I totally agree. Land of the free guns and brutally restricted everything else.

Re:So fucking what?

[danielk1982]

Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"

You don't even know what the 'graphic' content is in the movie. Maybe they played a 30 second clip of some random porn film? But who cares. Its just a rating by a private group. Yes, it does mean that most movie theaters will not play it (which is a self-enacted policy as opposed to the law). However I don't think its a big deal since documentaries like this usually play at indie-theaters anyway.

Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...

That was a good thing...right? Because having a court-ordered Oscar nomination would have been bad..right? RIGHT????

Re:So fucking what?

[peragrin]

You forgot the best part. They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

Re:So fucking what?

[Jonny_eh]

So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?

King Kong (1933) was SUPER popular and didn't get any Oscar nomination either.

Re:So fucking what?

[artifex2004]

If there are any legal protests, they will surely fail. Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...

Companies are responsible for making sure their films' names are on the eligibility reminder list. Then the community of eligible voters votes to nominate up to 5 candidates for each award.

At what point do you think anyone has a right to sue if they don't get nominated, and should they be suing the Academy, or their production companies, or their peers? The very idea is lame.

Re:So fucking what?

[ShyGuy91284]

The US is fucked up in many ways (I live in the US, and am not a typical "anti-American American"). One of the biggest problems is we have managed to turn things like pr0n and drinking into a sort of a enormous taboo for younger people (Is a typical 18 year old casual drinker really any more mature about drinking then a 21 year old casual drinker?), and have just encouraged them and attached a stigma to the "bad" that are a known part of life. I remember reading once that Japanese baths used to be co-ed many years ago before the white man (Might have been America, might have been Europe, I don't know) attached a stigma to such things. A not-so-bad thing that then had a stigma attached to it. I do agree with you. Many of the things "to protect minors" are just making them another way to rebel against "the system". You can smoke at 16 (which is probably one of the most addictive activities around), but can't watch porn? Yeah, I see a situation where the market is controlling the people (see my sig).

Re:So fucking what?

[swiftstream]

As an American who has spent more than half my life living in Europe (France, Austria, and Sweden), I understand your sentiments. On the other hand, I would like to point out that many Europeans are somewhat hypocritical about decrying the state of civil liberties in the US, seeing as they themselves limit free speech (e.g. Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries).

Re:So fucking what?

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

I have heard that if you enlist in the armed forces you can drink, even if you are under 21. Anyone actually know?

And I think America's desperate grasp on Puritanical ideals sucks.

-If

Re:So fucking what?

[saskboy]

In a country where a movie [The Rock], can have someone's mouth stuffed full of nerve toxin so their face melts off, and it only gets an R, it's clear that sex is thought to be more taboo than graphic violence.

And heaven forbid there be a naked penis in a scene! Why, the viewers' sensibilities would run out of the room screaming should that ever happen. Penises are more dangerous and vile than guns you know.

Re:So fucking what?

[SamSim]

The best part is, in most states they can have sex at 16, but they can't watch it in a cinema for another year!

Re:So fucking what?

[zippthorne]

I believe it is only if you are actually deployed.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunks don't rob oil from countries. Brainwashed guardians of "freedom" do.

Re:So fucking what?

[Esion Modnar]

They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

Well, that's because if you drink before you are 21, you might, uh, die. Just not for your country.

Anytime after 21, it's perfectly safe...

Re:So fucking what?

[chazzf]

That being said, "underage" drinking is quite common. Also, since the United States hasn't drafted someone since the 1970s (unlike certain European countries I could name), your sentence should read "...they can't legally drink until they are 21 but can choose to die for their country when they are 18." A question of semantics, but important nonetheless.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth and kill!

Re:So fucking what?

[dancingmad]

I remember reading once that Japanese baths used to be co-ed many years ago before the white man

There was actually an interesting period of time in Japan when bare chested women were racey in urban areas (which were influenced by western models), but not in rural areas. So men would come from rural areas, aftr working with shirtless woman in their homes, and girls with their tops exposed would suddently become this taboo hottness for them.

Re:So fucking what?

[generic-man]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, and I don't like him either, but don't tell me Fahrenheit 9/11 was Oscar material. In much the same way as Passion of the Christ drove millions of Christians to the theaters to see it repeatedly, Michael Moore decided to pretend like he's the "little guy" and that "his little movie" ought to be seen. People bought into it left and right. I saw it. Do you really need 2 hours to illustrate how much you hate the President? Most street-corner preachers need only 90 seconds and a pamphlet to make their views clear to me.

Re:So fucking what?

[east coast]

What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

First off, it's not banned, it's limited and it's not by the governement, it's by a third party entity and wise businessmen.

Secondly, let's look at some other titles that would doubtlessly be NC-17 in the US and see how they faired in the more enlighted countries:

Faces of Death from 1978

Certification: New Zealand:(Banned) / Australia:(Banned) / Finland:(Banned) / South Korea:18 (heavily cut) / UK:18 (cut) / USA:Not Rated / West Germany:18 / UK:(Banned) (1984-2003) / Norway:(Banned)

Deep Throat 1972

Certification: UK:18R / Australia:X / Canada:18+ (Quebec) / Canada:R / Canada:XXX (Nova Scotia) / Chile:18 (2001) / Denmark:15 (video rating) / Finland:(Banned) (1993) / Ireland:(Banned) / Italy:X / Sweden:15 / USA:X

Hmmm... odd, films that actually got play in the US are banned in some "enlighted" euro countries. How ironic when /.ers piss and moan about bans and censorship in the US that often we're a bit more liberal than most other countries in all reality and the fact is that normally most of what people consider "bans and censorship" is neither a ban nor censorship...

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the second best part. The drinking age is low in Europe because it can be--drunk teenagers can take public transportation home relatively easy. I know my friends and I always rode the tube back home after hitting up the pubs. However, from my stay in America, its pretty clear that in most areas its impossible to get from one place to another without using a car. A lowering in drinking age would probably be disastarous to American highways.

Americans can't drive anyway so I'm not sure we would notice much of a difference.

Re:So fucking what?

[OneOver137]

Officially, no. It probably depends on who your commander is and whether or not he gives a hoot. I wouldn't let my troops drink in a combat zone. Ever try to shoot accurately after a few beers?

Re:So fucking what?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

In the Air Force, at least, when I was in (1989-1997) it was at the base commander's discretion whether to allow 18-20-year-old airmen to drink (on base only; if you went off base and drank, and violated local laws in the process, you were liable for both civilian and military penalties.) However, over the years I was in, the tendency was to get steadily more restrictive -- when I was under 21, I could drink on almost any base I went to, but by the time I got out (at the age of 27) there were very few bases where under-21 personnel could legally get a drink.

So, of course, they drove off base, got shitfaced, got into accidents, and the whole thing ended up creating enormous amounts of problems that just didn't exist when they could go do their drinking at the NCO club and then stumble home. (And as a medic, working in the base ER, I got to see the results of this up close and personal.) Ditto the situation on college campuses. Treating people like adults with respect to sex, money, and work but like children with respect to alcohol is one of the dumbest ideas society has ever come up with.

Re:So fucking what?

[Belseth]

That's what NC-17 is for.

Actually not. It was a blanket replacement for the X rating. The real purpose wasn't just sexual content but all inappropriate content without the X stigma, now we have the NC-17 stigma. It's possible to get an NC-17 for no sexual content or even language, violence and gore is enough. The irony is that's where the argument first got hot. George Romero was known for not submitting his films for rating because several of the Dead films would have gotten X ratings inspite of lacking any real sexual content, if seeing a naked zombie turns you on you've got issues. When the standard was established it also covered strong sexual content in mainstream films. Ironically it wound up once again lumping violence with sex. The real issue then becomes that most people see the two subjects differently. Some have no problem with sex are offended with extreme violence while other others are offended by sex on screen. The ratings often spell out which it is but most have a knee jerk reaction to seeing an NC-17 and assume it's for sexual content. It was kind of a botched revision that ignored the real world. They really need to throw in the towel and create a split rating for violence and sexual content. Seems obvious enough list extreme sexual content as "S" and extreme violent content as "V" and films with both "SV" or "VS". There's still the watermark of what constitutes each rating. Everyone has their standards. Personally I'd like "R" to mean religious content but that's just me.

Re:So fucking what?

[evilviper]

They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

I think "kill for their country" is much more appropriate.

People die all the time, at ages much younger than 18. Whether or not it's "for their country" is just a question of whether the circumstances which lead to their deaths was something considered important to the country.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, two whole examples! That convincing stuff you got right there!

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The drinking age is low in Europe because it can be--drunk teenagers can take public transportation home relatively easy. I know my friends and I always rode the tube back home after hitting up the pubs. However, from my stay in America, its pretty clear that in most areas its impossible to get from one place to another without using a car.

That's exactly why some American cities with robust public transit systems aren't subject to the "age 21" rule. New York, Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco all have a drinking age of 18 for residents (and even 16 with an adult in Miami). But almost all places without public transit are at 21. When I was 19 I spent a year in L.A., and it sucked that their public transit system was virtually non-existent. That's why I moved up to San Fran when I was 20. Man, some crazy things can happen when you're young and drunk!

Re:So fucking what?

[killjoe]

At 18 you can work in a bar but you can't drink there. Strange but true. You can serve drinks but can't have one for yourself.

It's just retarded puritanism that's all. We are still in the dark ages in so many ways.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunks don't rob oil from countries

No ex-drunks do. Not that I agree that we are robbing oil. But if your gonna make a swipe or a joke, get it right.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that's f*cked up.

16 year olds can drive a car but can't watch a NC-17 movie.

18 year olds can vote and go die in a war, but can't have a beer.

Showing sex gets a NC-17 rating, but showing people having their heads ripped off by a rusty axe in detail only gets a rating of 'R'.

And Europe thinks we're backwards... gee, I wonder why.

Re:So fucking what?

[LnxAddct]

These ratings are voluntary and given by an organization, they have no legal binding like ratings do in Europe. A study like the one you propose would be a little hard to get accurate simply because of the nature of the study and the time spans required to accurately test any hypothesis. Human sexuality is a very complex thing and not something that younger kids need to worry their minds about, "why this" and "why that"... I guess it really comes down to a matter of oppinion. Most parents, even the Europeans I know, try to shield their kids eyes if something sexual is on the screen. One could argue that explicitly throwing around images of nudity on the screen would devalue the body and also the intimacy of relationships. Over the long term, possibly increase teen pregnancy rates as the act of sex becomes more accepted over younger generations.

TV has only been around a few decades, there is no way to verify one way or the other. In the states though, only stations on public air waves typically can't show nudity, other stations do it out policy and respect. At around 11:00 PM though, alot of channels will show nudity simply because most of the younger viewers are asleep. I'm not arguing in favor of one or the other, I myself love porn:) (who doesn't? ) and have probably been looking at it since my early teens with no noticeable adverse affects. The above arguments were to simply point out that there are reasons. I also found it ironic that a European was making fun of American's opting out of seeing sexually explicit material when its illegal or highly frowned upon in most of Europe to mention Nazism, way to try to cover up your past by forgetting about it... at least Americans embrace their mistakes (most of the time). Not to nitpick at Europe, but you guys try to outlaw all kinds of crazy things like religious jokes, guns, and in England (not sure about the rest of Europe) there are cameras on every corner watching you. I don't think either of us have the merits to critique the other, we all have our problems.
Regards,
Steve

Re:So fucking what?

[killjoe]

I learned a lot from 9/11. For example I didn't know about what happened in the congress about the florida elections, that was interesting. I also didn't know people were egging the president's car and that he had to change course. That was also the first time I saw footage of the president being told about 9/11 and seeing the blank dumb expression on his face.

What I learned most was that the press in the US is not free to report those things. I should not have had to see a movie to see those things, they were news and they should have been in the news. The fact that the so called "liberal media" didn't report them says a lot.

Michael Moore may have been a little strident but at he was a wimp compared to what the right wing did to him. They made personal attacks on him a daily thing. What was funny was that they often resorted to attacking his weight and calling him ugly because they could not dispute the facts of his movie. At least Moore did not call bush ugly or made fun of how he looks.

I'll take moore over hannity, oreilly, teller (or is it penn?), dennis miller, and the rest of the right wing zealots any day. At least he tries to make sure things he says actually happened and does not resort to cheap shots like calling people terrorists or anti american.

Re:So fucking what?

[scotch]

Unless you're deployed in Iraq where nobody drinks. Ha ha ha.

Re:So fucking what?

[Chemical]

I don't buy that. I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life and have never heard anything like this. Sources, please.

(also, the fact that you said "San Fran" makes me skeptical as to whether or not you are actually from San Francisco)

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right it is. Since you contest his argument, why don't you get off of your lazy ass and show us two counterexamples. Put up or shut up.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? I live in Boston and travel to NYC frequently and there aren't any places you can drink under 21.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you want to argue semantics your sentence is much worse than the original. Someone is not breaking the law if they are forced to drink, regardless of their age. Someone can choose to die for their country at any age--just not legally (in WWII, many 16-year-olds lied about their ages to serve). Just because the US has not drafted anyone in 30 years does not mean they will not do so at some point in the (possibly near) future. Nor does someone have to be in the service to die for their country. It can even be argued that many of those in the service are not dying for their country but dying for specific individuals and companies.

Semantics but, as you say, important nonetheless.

Re:So fucking what?

[solios]

"Graphic" is certainly analogue.

The difference between the Rated R and the original Rated X cut of Robocop ? ED209 unloads about a dozen more rounds into the suit during his "malfunction" - that scene and a couple of other violent bits are a second or three longer.

It's not the violence itself, it's the duraction- at least in Robocop's case.

Re:So fucking what?

[wcbarksdale]

Actually, the minimum enlistment age is 17, with parental consent. This is one reason the US has not yet signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (the execution of minors had been another).

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a CSPAN discussion (or something) on how they designed the law - they have a freaky algorithm that basically tries to measure drunk driving among kids, and localities within the states can lower the drinking age based on local variables of consumption and death and injury on interstates ("class 1") and local roads ("class 2").

GIven the algorithm, few places will ever be able to lower it from the maximum of 21. Alaska doesn't have interstates, so the algorithm doesn't really work for them, pinning the resulting metric at 21 years old even though they have zero injury or death on the interstates. That's why the three Alaskans in congress voted against the bill - with no impact on the other hundreds of law makers.

Stupidly, it put rural areas at a huge disadvantage - just a handful of local-road fatalities can mess up a whole state's drinking age - and in practice, that's exactly what happens year after year in most states.

Another stupid government law by stupid congress trying to be a nanny state.

Re:So fucking what?

[Brandybuck]

What I learned most was that the press in the US is not free to report those things. I should not have had to see a movie to see those things, they were news and they should have been in the news. The fact that the so called "liberal media" didn't report them says a lot.

The funny thing is, Mr. Moore got all of his news clips from the news.

Re:So fucking what?

[daspriest]

don't forget about the fcc bans on anything sexual..... remember boobies are bad.....

Re:So fucking what?

[BushCheney08]

Go back to your commie hole in the ground, you anti-american terrorist! : p

Re:So fucking what?

[mebob]

No where in the US is it legal to purchase before your 21!

Consuming it is a little different in some states, but if you go out to a bar you have to be able to purchase it to drink it.

Now of course there are laws and then there are "rules."

In NYC I have NEVER been carded, this seems to be the "rule," but I've heard that Boston doesn't have the same "rule."

This is nothing more than bars and authorities being more lenient in certain areas. Albeit in areas with better public transportation as well as in areas where the authorities probably have much better thing to be busting for. I've even had friends in NYC who got searched for drugs by under cover cops, who weren't even the slightest bit interested the fact that they were drinking underage let alone walking around with open containers on the street.

Again, definitely not the laws.

Re:So fucking what?

[Phroggy]

I saw The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe yesterday. It's quite violent, as it should be (though not bloody, I noticed). It's only rated PG.

Re:So fucking what?

[iluvcapra]

There is no definition of what is "sexual" - Is a woman breastfeeding "sexual"? What about just the breast? If she's giving herself a mamogram? If she's showering? If she's playing with it? Where do they draw the line? They don't tell anyone.

There is, in fact, no line to speak of, since the whole matter is subjective, and you seem to be getting at this, but the perhaps we should go over how the classification and ratings system works.

Big movie studios, distributors, and exhibitors are members of the MPAA, a large industry consoritum which operates as a political interface for the film industry. The MPAA and its predecessor, the MPPDA, were formed for the original and explicit purpose of instituting voluntary censorship among large film producers. They do this for a couple reasons, none of which are evil:

• In the 20's, many low-rent filmmakers were attmepting to pass-off pornography (by 1920s standards), or at least clearly explotive, low-quality material, as suitable public entertainment; 'white slavery' and incest were surprisingly popular themes in popular media in the 20s. Parents needed to have a sort of "truth-in-advertising" guarantee that they would be able to show up at the theater and the film would always meet a certain "community standard," to use the modern term. To screen the film before they showed it to their kids was -- and still is -- quite impractical (it is supposed to be entertainment, after all, and making parents worried and nervous is very unshowmanly).
• A more modern reason: As we have seen with the Parents Television Council and other entities, it only really takes 10 well-paid crackpots and e-mail relay to get Congress to start talking about censorship. Censorship was seriously discussed both in the 20s and in the 60s when the ratings system was established. The ratings system is far superior to government censorship, which in the US would absolutely happen in its absence.

So, the MPAA rates films by taking a film submitted by a producer and screening it for a panel of half parents (otherwise unaffiliated with filmmaking) and half industry people -- the panel is a standing commitee of 8-12 people who do the job full time and are paid by the MPAA. They vote, and will give specific comments to the filmmakers about what makes them vote a certain way, and if the rating isn't what the producer wanted, the producer does the cuts and get the "better" (lower, bigger audience) rating. This is self-censorship, but an MPAA rating is a cricital part of marketing the film to parents, so they do it.

I'm sure that they'll claim the "I know it when I see it" standard.

That is eactly how it works, since they are not identifying immorality or obscenity, but suitability of a particular film for a particular audience. Let's say they did spell out the rules, so that, for example:

"The depiction of frontal female nudity, where the dimensions of the genitals on-screen occupy 20% or more screen area (at 1.85:1 aspect) for a duration exceeding one-half second, shall automatically cause a film tor receive an R-rating."

That sort of thing seems to be what you are asking for. Of course, is the depiction artistic, as in a scene of people scketching a nude, or is it clearly sexual? And if so, is it two unmarried people, or married people? Exceptions would be made for various circumstances, and each of these would be an absolute judgement of moral value, and further it would be an implicit message to parents that if they allow their younger child to see X image or acitivity, when the MPAA specifically classes them out of it, they are bad parents. As the system is, a few letters in an MPAA label is not a moral statement, but attaching qualifications or a point system to it would surely put it on the road to being one.

he courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David

Luckily, in this case Goliath doesn't give a fuck about your angry anti-globalization documentary, and you are free t

Re:So fucking what?

[EvanED]

On broadcast TV.

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over CABLE (though they are trying) let alone movie theatres.

Re:So fucking what?

[Mattintosh]

That's not completely true.

If you're in the US military and are 18 or older, you can buy alcohol at any military base, and can consume alcohol anywhere within the borders of the USA and its territories... legally. You cannot purchase alcohol from a non-base store until you conform to the legal requirements (usually an age limit, and usually 21, though some states have allowed drinking as early as 18) of the state or territory where that store is located.

Re:So fucking what?

[Tiro]

or 17, with a high school diploma and parental consent

Re:So fucking what?

[east coast]

Wow, two whole examples! That convincing stuff you got right there!

Want more examples? Go find them and prove me wrong. I'm certainly not stopping you from doing some research. I used IMDB if you need someplace to start.

I can not think of a film that has been outrightly banned in the US in the last 30 some years without it being a snuff film or kiddie porn and such. I did look for more but it turns out that most modern porn normally only gets rated in it's country of creation.

Re:So fucking what?

[Gamelore]

Wrong.

3 years ago, my brother (19 at the time), an Army Ranger, got caught drinking when he was home on leave in California. He went before a judge and was fined and had his license revoked for a year. Usually stationed in Germany, he was used to drinking legally.

There is no such law that you suggest. Under 21 is under 21.

He quickly went back to Germany and continued to drive with his German license, never once missing his US one :)

Re:So fucking what?

[WWWWolf]

Deep Throat 1972 ... Finland:(Banned) (1993)

K-18 as of 1999.

Couldn't find Faces of Death, but it probably would go under 18+ these days too. Unless it had something that was downright illegal, which I doubt.

Finnish movie laws changed recently and nowadays, almost everything previously banned can go through these days, just under 18+ age restriction. There's a lot more uncut violence and pornography out there these days. Thank you, VET! Some sanity at last!

Re:So fucking what?

[Pichu0102]

Remember, you're allowed to knock up someone, but you're not allowed to watch porn that might prevent you from knocking up someone.

Re:So fucking what?

[east coast]

remember boobies are bad.....

I dunno about that. I've seen plenty of nudity on TV. Granted, it's often very controversial but there has been full frontal nudity on broadcast TV since 1973. If you're speaking of the Janet Jackson thing I kind of agree with the FCC on this. As a TV viewer with the rating system on US broadcast TV I have certain expectations of the content of a program based on this rating. I don't think it's too much to ask that if you advertise a program as family friendly that it should remain so. Did it kill anyone to see Jackson flabby breast? No. But I wouldn't want to be the parent of a six year old who's going to get asked about it in the middle of a sporting event and I'm sure even those who don't mind the idea of their children seeing the nude physical body at a younger age still want to have some control on how their children are introduced to the body and sexuality instead of it being thrust apon them. It's more of a matter of respect to the viewing audience than any real damage being done.

Re:So fucking what?

[MadJo]

hmm this could make an interesting case for graphic violent games.

Re:So fucking what?

[thparker]

I can not think of a film that has been outrightly banned in the US in the last 30 some years without it being a snuff film or kiddie porn and such.

Can you actually think of a banned snuff film? Everything I've ever seen on the topic says that the FBI has never been able to find a single case of an actual snuff film.

Re:So fucking what?

[Darby]

In the Air Force, at least, when I was in (1989-1997) it was at the base commander's discretion whether to allow 18-20-year-old airmen to drink

Do you know how this was determined? I mean presumably that was the policy of the Air Force, but are civilian laws relevant there?
It's just curious since it's civilian law that makes it illegal to drink under 21 so if it doesn't apply to the base, then why the need to even have a policy? If it does apply to the base, then would there need to be a special civilian law stating that the base commander can make the distinction?

I know, laws are confusing enough and mixing them with military law could cause a serious headache, but it just struck me as a curiousity.

Re:So fucking what?

[Mictian]

First off, it's not banned, it's limited and it's not by the governement, it's by a third party entity and wise businessmen.

I think its fair to say that usually a NC-17 rating is a death sentence for a movie (at least in the economic sense), since it will be close to impossible to get it distributed and thus for people to see it. So while it is not technically banned, in reality the end effect is rather close to it.

Also, I would dare claim that it does not matter too much if the "banning" (or more precisely the rating that leads to the cripling of distribution) is not done by government but by a third party, if the end result is the same. Are we any happier that it has been "only" banned de facto by the industry, but not banned de iure by the government?

Secondly, let's look at some other titles that would doubtlessly be NC-17 in the US and see how they faired in the more enlighted countries:
Faces of Death from 1978
Certification: New Zealand:(Banned) / Australia:(Banned) / Finland:(Banned) / South Korea:18 (heavily cut) / UK:18 (cut) / USA:Not Rated / West Germany:18 / UK:(Banned) (1984-2003) / Norway:(Banned)

Deep Throat 1972
Certification: UK:18R / Australia:X / Canada:18+ (Quebec) / Canada:R / Canada:XXX (Nova Scotia) / Chile:18 (2001) / Denmark:15 (video rating) / Finland:(Banned) (1993) / Ireland:(Banned) / Italy:X / Sweden:15 / USA:X

Hmmm... odd, films that actually got play in the US are banned in some "enlighted" euro countries.

I can't speak for the current censorship laws of the other countries listed, but those two films (or any film for that matter) are no longer banned in Finland. We got a new law/act governing the classification of audiovisual programs on January 1st 2001, which ended the old system that admittedly sucked ass and was a manifestation of sorts of the nanny state.

The new law is a huge improvement, although not exactly perfect (laws crafted by politicians rarely are). I can't remember outright what downsides it has (even though I remember it had some quirks), but the upside is that there is no longer any censorship on video (DVD) distribution and the cinema ratings were redone, simplified and "loosened". From the limited sampling that I have observed (a few hundred movies or so) the new finnish ratings have been consistently lower than their US equivalents. I like to make comparisons every now and then, since I share my time between, and watch movies in, both countries.

How ironic when /.ers piss and moan about bans and censorship in the US that often we're a bit more liberal than most other countries in all reality and the fact is that normally most of what people consider "bans and censorship" is neither a ban nor censorship...

I'll agree with you partly. Sometimes us of European descent like to point out the lack of freedoms in the US a bit too eagerly and occationally in error or without a deeper understanding of all factors affecting the situation. I would imagine we wouldn't be doing it quite so often if you americans wouldn't be trumpeting the "Land of the free" argument so often without a better knowledge of what freedoms one actually enjoys in the Western Europeans countries.

This is not meant as an insult or a flamebait. As I mentioned I split my time between the Old and the New Continent and both have their own advantages and particular freedoms that may be greater than on the other side of the ocean. While I'm myself no censorship law expert, most people seem to take this and any other "country vs. country" comparison in a deeply emotional and nationalistic way. These arguments often degenerate into "my country is better than your country" fights without actually making an objective analysis of the legislation concerning the question.

Here are a couple of links to the Finnish Board of Film Classification's webpage for those two or three of you who are interested enough to actually go read 'em: The Act in a nutshell and the whole act / legal framework.

Re:So fucking what?

[jjthe2]

Here's a few more examples if you need them:

UK: 91 Films Banned

Finland: 867 Films Banned

USA: 4 Films Banned

And two of those from the US are for legal reasons and the other two are from 1908. The fact is that USA has always had more freedom of speech than any European country, and still does today. Limiting access to a book or movie is not the same thing as banning it outright. Any person over 17 that really wants to see this movie will have no trouble doing so.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No where in the US is it legal to purchase before your 21!

This is both grammatically and factually incorrect. Let me fix it:

There are places in the US where it is legal to purchase before you're 21.

There are a few places within the United States that permit the purchase of alcoholic beverages by people as young as 18. But in most places within the US, Americans are prohibited from buying alcohol until they're 21. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong. It's a common misconception generated by those who are screwing up the Nanny States of America.

Re:So fucking what?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The general principle is that, on bases in the US, civilian laws (local, state, and federal) apply as long as they don't conflict with military law or regulation. So on Minot AFB in North Dakota, where I spent much of my tour, AF personnel could be prosecuted by civilian authorities for violating ND law, on or off base, as long as there wasn't a military law or regulation saying their actions were okay -- such as, e.g., the regulation allowing the base commander to allow people under 21 to drink; for a more extreme example, the base cops and some flightline personnel could shoot to kill anyone who even looked like they were threatening the security of the nuclear weapons stores, which is behavior that is generally illegal on routine civilian guard duty.

In reality, it was very rare for active-duty personnel to be prosecuted by civilian authorities for anything they did on base, since almost everything that's a crime under civilian law is also a crime under military law with much harsher penalties, but theoretically it could happen; off base, it was actually pretty common, particularly when it came to drinking and fighting ... And civilians who committed crimes on base had to be turned over to civilian authorities; the base cops could arrest them, but they weren't subject to military law, and the base didn't have any civilian courts.

Overseas it's even more complicated. In friendly countries, such as the UK, where I also spent a fair amount of time, there's an agreement between the US and the host country called a SOFA, or Status Of Forces Agreement, which spells out the degree to which service personnel are or are not subject to local laws. And I do recall a case in which a guy who smuggled an Iraqi AK-47 back from Desert Storm was prosecuted by the British authorities for violation of their firearms laws, which are much stronger than those either in civilian US law or under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). However, it's worth noting that he was arrested by a British cop while trying to sell the weapon off-base; and again, while theoretically the AF could have turned him over to the British authorities for prosecution even if he'd never taken it off-base, they probably wouldn't have.

In unfriendly countries, of course, only military laws apply; no one is going to argue that Cuban law applies at Guantanamo Bay! (Or any other kind of law, apparently, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

The usual IANA(M)L disclaimers apply: I had to know something about military law in my roles both as a medic and as an NCO, but all this is off the top of my head, and it was a while ago. But as I remember it all, that's pretty much the way it worked.

Re:So fucking what?

[M1FCJ]

And what's stopping you from dying after you are 21?
I'm happy that I managed to survive those three very dangerous years, drinking as the usual amount for a university student. I think Americans got this wrong, quite wrong.
Now I drink a lot less, work life is less stressful than university life. It's down to a pint or two once in a while at the pub on a friday lunchtime.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?

What do I care about that one. I was thinking of a movie that was actually a documentary. "Hoop Dreams." Everyone involved in the process claims they rated it the highest of all films rated, yet it did not get a single nomination. It confused people enough to warrant a lawsuit. There isn't any mystery why Fahrenheit 9/11 got a poor result. It was very contraversial and debatable of whether it is a "pure" documentary.

Re:So fucking what?

[M1FCJ]

Obvious, When you believe in Jesus (aka Aslan), you can kill without shedding blood ('cause Jesus/Aslan died for your sins).
I like japanese movies just for this reason, they are bloody, sooo bloody that it stops being real and start being comical (just like Kill Bill emulated). Ichi the Killer was some violent movie but it was so surreal, you can probably watch it from start to end without retching.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

That was a good thing...right? Because having a court-ordered Oscar nomination would have been bad..right? RIGHT????

Do you think that employers should be allowed to look at an intervewee and say "sorry, you are black, and we don't hire minorities."? If you think it is a good thing that private employers be allowed to discriminate based on race, then I would have to say that you should think it is a bad thing that someone tried to sue. However, if you think that race descrimination is bad and the laws that protect people from it are good, then you should support the lawsuit. It wasn't to force them to nominate it. It was to see what the process is to ensure that it wasn't illegal.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

but don't tell me Fahrenheit 9/11 was Oscar material.

Ok. Then I'll tell you that Hoop Dreams was Oscar material, since that was the documentary I was thinking of.

Re:So fucking what?

[danielk1982]

Holy crap you're an idiot.

Re:So fucking what?

[Tokerat]

Thats' what Jesus loves.

*sigh*

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I learned most was that the press in the US is not free to report those things. I should not have had to see a movie to see those things, they were news and they should have been in the news. The fact that the so called "liberal media" didn't report them says a lot. You didn't "learn" anything from Farenheit 9/11, you were simply indoctrinated.

They were in the news, dipshit. Where do you think those clips in the movie came from? The fucking news. The fact that you think they weren't reported says a lot more about your level of awareness than it does about the media. It's easy for Michael Moore to manipulate you with clever editing and repeated sound bites because you're an empty vessel for him to fill with his over emotional hatred.

At least he tries to make sure things he says actually happened

Oh yeah, like the time he said that "Nine kids from my high school came home from Vietnam in boxes". Never mind that his whole home town only suffered 6 causalties throughout all of the Vietnam conflict (one of which was a heart attack and no technically a casualty), and only two of those were even drafted. That was obviously a very personal and dear "fact" to him.

At least Moore did not call bush ugly or made fun of how he looks.

You're right. Michael Moore is quite a mature adult. Especially that time he said that Bush "poops in his pants."

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, you may be able to drink there - the Federal law implemented by Reagan is really about linking the interstate highway maintenance funds with the purchase of alcohol. Lots of sense there, eh?

In any case, consumption and serving laws vary drastically by state. US territories aren't impacted by the highway law, and therefore can have various drinking ages without impact on their highway funds. So most outlying places like the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, have a purchasing age of 18. So much for "state's rights".

I guess 18-20 year olds are simply more responsible in those territories. Or the federal government cares less about those citizens. Or serving to younger people is so profitable in those places that it's worth letting kids die. Or all three. I'm sure your congressman can tell you which excuses he or she believes in.

The law was implemented in 1984, mostly due to the political arguments put forth by lobbying PACs such as "MADD".

Re:So fucking what?

[east coast]

Can you actually think of a banned snuff film? Everything I've ever seen on the topic says that the FBI has never been able to find a single case of an actual snuff film.

Good point since I can't think of a snuff film but you get my point as well.

What about the execution videos from al-Quada? Granted, I would think it would be in poor taste but I wonder if these can be legally shown? I'd calssify these as snuff films.

Re:So fucking what?

[Esion Modnar]

And what's stopping you from dying after you are 21?

Sorry, but that last statement was meant to be sarcastic. I thought the ironic tone of the preceding was enough to signal this, thus dispensing with the need for <sarcasm> tags.

Yes, drinking can result in death no matter the age.

Re:So fucking what?

[Zathrus]

I've seen plenty of "graphic sexual content" in R-rated movies.

I doubt it. Graphic sexual content generally refers to the explicit showing of a sexual act (oral, vaginal, or anal) on screen, plainly. Despite all your complaints, this is a generally accepted definition.

Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing

And your point is? Michael Moore was the one who fucked that up -- he did not submit the movie for Best Documentary (which it almost certainly would've won), but only for Best Picture. He could've submitted it for both, but didn't. Go ahead, check into it.

the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry

What are you babbling about now? There was no lawsuit against the Academy over this. There were a number of other lawsuits regarding Farenheit 9/11, but they were not even vaguely related to this (mostly/all related to questioning the factualness of the movie; AFAIK they were all thrown out).

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not using a common standard. First of all because you've not noticed that IMDB lists all ratings ever submitted, so it includes obsolete ratings of "Banned" for countries which have since rated the movie for ages 18, 16 or lower.

The status you're calling "banned" in the USA is a legal ban on display.

The status you're calling "banned" in the UK is technically called "uncertificated" and is not so different to the US NC17, it's a rating which prohibits effective distribution through commercial channels.

The actual banned status, a legal ban, is almost non-existent in the UK because of a loophole concerning "private" showings. While an ordinary cinema can't, and won't show something which isn't certificated for display, the UK is full of "private" cinemas such as those on any University campus, which show whatever they like, to anyone they like, so long as that person joins a club, society or other organisation. If you don't want to be offended, don't join a private cinema.

The only film that I recall being "banned" in the UK in the sense that those films listed above for the US are "banned", is Clockwork Orange, which was legally restricted until the director's death at his express wish. Instead of seeing Clockwork Orange in your local student cinema with the uncertificated kung-fu movies (real broken legs and screaming!), extreme horror (fake gore is too expensive, let's kill a goat!) and dodgy 70s porno (you can't fake it, that moustache is real!), you had to go to France to see it.

Of course in the UK and the US it's illegal to possess certain movies because their content is considered to be illegal for reasons quite unrelated to censorship. Those movies are distinct in the UK because not only can't they be shown in a private cinema, you can't even own a copy and watch it at home.

Re:So fucking what?

[generic-man]

Ah, my bad. I read the phrase "most popular documentary" in history and thought of Fahrenheit, whose $100M+ in worldwide box office receipts topped those of Hoop Dreams. Since Michael Moore keeps insisting that what he makes are "documentaries," I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Sorry about that.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. You said (sp?) so you at least knew that your spelling was incorrect.

But for the love of God... HOW do you get it SO wrong?!!! Did you even try to sound out the word? lol.

Re:So fucking what?

[argStyopa]

Pot = Kettle

In the US, you can watch violence but not the panis or boobehs.
In Europe, you can watch panis and boobehs all you want, but violence is seen as some sort of secular sin.

And don't give me "sex is part of life" nonsense because violence is JUST as endemic to life as sex. Do I think the US's 'approval' of violence is ok? No. But I also think that the smugly moralizing Europeans are hypocrites whose "watching boobehs is fine" position has more to do with their mens' widespread (and accepted) patronizing and degrading objectification of women, than any pseudo-sophisticated enlightenment.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

Ah, my bad. I read the phrase "most popular documentary" in history and thought of Fahrenheit,

Since multiple people thought the same thing, I reread my post and realized I was ambiguous. I meant to indicate that they snubbed what was, at the time, the most successful documentary. Not the current champ. It was my error.

Re:So fucking what?

[spauldo]

Of course in the UK and the US it's illegal to possess certain movies because their content is considered to be illegal for reasons quite unrelated to censorship.

Dunno about the U.K., but in the U.S. there's very few types of films that can't be shown for reasons not related to censorship. This would be stuff like your neighbor's home videos, if you don't have permission from him, pirated movies, and stuff that's been given a security classification. Basically, it's OK to watch pretty much anything if you have permission from the people who own the rights to it (or fair use, which is arguably permission anyway).

Everything else I can think of that can't be shown is directly related to censorship. Child porn, snuff films (I think they're illegal, anyway), etc - they're restricted due to censorship. That's one of the few places almost everyone agrees with censorship, but that doesn't change what it is.

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the UK we have 15 for mid violence and some sex scenes/drug useage. But we have an 18 for very violent films and really explicit sex and drug usage. Trainspotting got an 18. But then so did alot of films I've seen like Kill Bill. Frankly the violence isn't remotely realistic in that.

Re:So fucking what?

[Vellmont]

But I wouldn't want to be the parent of a six year old who's going to get asked about it in the middle of a sporting event and I'm sure even those who don't mind the idea of their children seeing the nude physical body at a younger age still want to have some control on how their children are introduced to the body and sexuality instead of it being thrust apon them.

Uh huh. And ads for viagra, beer, and blowing someones brains out are just fine. There actually was an add for Viagra or Levitra during the super bowl. Are we all supposed to be concerned when some religious extremist has to explain to his kid what these drugs are for?

More to the point, where's the restrictions on things I don't like? I don't want kids to watch Rush Limbaugh, but unfortunately the FCC won't ban him. I honestly believe he's more harmful to children that Janet Jacksons teet. Why is it that what certain people don't like (and pretty much everyone has and does) (nudity, sex) is restricted, but what almost no one does and everything thinks is wrong (murder) is OK to show on TV?

Re:So fucking what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was the insurance companies that got the drinking age raised. The drunk driving accident and fatality rate went way up when the drinking age was lowered to 18 in many states, then dropped down again when the federal government (under pressure from insurace lobbyists) pressured the states into raising the drinking age back to 21. I was in a state that at first resisted the pressure, but when the federal government withheld federal funds for highway maintenance, and offered to take over maintenance of at least one major state highway, the drinking age got raised immediately.

Re:So fucking what?

[SteevR]

I'm not a complainer, but the sexual content in Titanic warranted an R rating judging by how the MPAA rates many other movies. Its an issue about inconsistancy and vague standards, which can be and are bought off.

Re:So fucking what?

[Jonny_eh]

Maybe you should've SAID the movie that you were using as an example? See what being unclear does? I doubt I was the only one that was mislead by your post!

This is slashdot, not Jeopardy.

Re:So fucking what?

[Darby]

Well, thanks for the *very* informative answer.
Consider my curiosity satisfied ;-)

Re:So fucking what?

[killjoe]

Note that I was modded down to zero for taking a position that was in opposition to the current administration.

Re:So fucking what?

[initialE]

They do it so that people can invent their own sexual positions, instead of copying it off the screen

Re:So fucking what?

[Phroggy]

Obvious, When you believe in Jesus (aka Aslan), you can kill without shedding blood ('cause Jesus/Aslan died for your sins).

I find your implication offensive.

By the way, in the movie they specifically mentioned bloodshed being a requirement to satisfy the witch's demands, they just didn't show it, because that would have gotten them a PG-13 rating.

Re:So fucking what?

[M1FCJ]

I find religion and religious nutters offensive to my tastes and ideas. So what? What about my feelings and rights?

Re:So fucking what?

[Secrity]

I was in the Air Force in the late 1970's and in the Army National Guard in the 1980's. The military installation commander is essentially like a town mayor, the difference is that he is not elected and he only has to answer to higher authority. The result is that the installation commander has wide discretion about defining what is legal or illegal on base as long as it does not conflict with higher US federal and military authority. In the US, military installation regulations try to harmonize with local civil law. This can lead to odd installation regulations; one Air Force base had regulations that required that men in civilian clothes wear and prohibited men from wearing tank top shirts (there was an exemption for the base gym and swimming pools). If I remember correctly, US DOD and/or USAF regulations used to specifify that the installation commander was given the authority to set the base drinking age. I have seen cases where certain driving laws are different on-base from what they were off-base. US federal laws, military laws, and military regulations apply to military personnnel on military reservations; state and local laws do not apply to military personnnel on US military reservations unless the federal or military authority wants them to.

OH NO

[matr0x_x]

Now that the film is rated 17+ all America's 13 year-olds are going to download it and watch it behind their parents back...

Re:OH NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig sucks. Stop using Slashdot as a Google-bombing service.

Re:OH NO

[hunterx11]

Don't worry--all of a poster's links have rel="nofollow" unless they have a karma bonus.

Re:OH NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good. But to see "Linux" on the same page as a slimy marketing thingy, it's like he's sticking an icicle straight into my heart. (Geek melodrama... ;-)

Stuck in paradox!

[whois_drek]

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" and has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA.

Brain...stuck...in...paradox. Must...make joke about Soviet Russian movies rating YOU...to abort...

Re:Stuck in paradox!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one :)

There's been a shortage of soviet jokes in the recent past.

Perhaps slashdot should offer a quick-comment feature where users can select from a variety of lame jokes which they think are still funny. This way we can absolutely guarantee that their creativity neurons won't fire-up.

Re:Stuck in paradox!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps slashdot should offer a quick-comment feature where users can select from a variety of lame jokes which they think are still funny.

Soviet Russia jokes ARE still funny... in Japan.

Re:Stuck in paradox!

[SamSim]

It's a good job it has a rating now. Previously, trailers ended with the announcer going "This Film Is Not Yet Rated is not yet rated."

a pr for a movie that is airing in fall 2006?

[Comsn]

thanks for the almost 1 year heads up!

Re:a pr for a movie that is airing in fall 2006?

[thparker]

thanks for the almost 1 year heads up!

It will air on IFC in a year. It premiers at Sundance in a few weeks.

Re:a pr for a movie that is airing in fall 2006?

[Linker3000]

Simple: It leaves enough time for /. to get in a few dupes!

Give this man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give this man a medal. One more medal and you'll get that promotion from Captain Obvious to Major Obvious (or Rear Admiral Obvious if you're a navy type.)

Seriously what good does it do to re-state the assertion made in the article in a non-funny manner? Not quite funny enough to mod funny, not quite informative enough to mod informative. Why is there not an (Obvious, -1) moderation?

Re:Give this man...

[IvanTheViking]

My apologies folks. I posted pre-morning coffee.

Re:Give this man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! Give us "Obvious" moderation. And "Unfunny" and "Misinformed" while you're at it.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Would we rather have the government providing ratings, like in the UK? Didn't think so. Let the industry take care of it. Or set up a website called "metaratings" and let the collective viewing consciousness rate films. Or something.

Just don't complain too much, lest your Senators hear.

Ratings

[Da3vid]

Ratings haven't been around for very long. The process isn't perfect and its not very consistent. Steven Spielberg has had a lot of influence on the system, even going so far as being credited with creating the PG13 (with the Temple of Doom) but with rating creep, PG13 films are getting more and more "graphic violence" and it takes some pretty hot material to make a film go from R to NC-17. Now, we don't know what the film has, but apparently it has "some graphic sexual content." That doesn't sound very serious. Now, there are plenty of movies with pretty graphic content that received the R rating (Scary Movie, Saving Private Ryan, etc). It definitely does sound suspicious, doesn't it? The next question is, why would the MPAA try to censor the film? The thing is that the MPAA ratings system is completely voluntary. The film doesn't have to be submitted to be rated, it can be released without it; however, the problem is that the lack of a rating hurts revenues, so while it isn't a law to rate the film, its nearly a necessity.

-Da3vid-

Don't show NC-17s?

[taskforce]

Here in the UK we have a much harsher rating system which is actually enforced by statue law; our ratings go 12, 15, 18. (years old) From working at a theatre once and seeing how the ticket sales go, a theatre not showing an 18 movie would be complete suicide here.

Re:Don't show NC-17s?

[RPoet]

Here in the UK we have a much harsher rating system which is actually enforced by statue law

Kramer: Anyway, it's been two years. I mean isn't there like statue of limitations on that?
Jerry: Statute.
Kramer: What?
Jerry: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue.
Kramer: No, statue.
Jerry: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.

Re:Don't show NC-17s?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 18 certificate isn't the same as NC17 - most of the films that get rated 18 in the UK recieved an R in the States. NC17 is equivalent to the British R18 ("can only be sold in licensed porn shops") rating.

Re:Don't show NC-17s?

[LFS.Morpheus]

Maybe the laws in the UK are engraved in stone. Hard to repeal that way, though.

Expected?

[dada21]

I'm sure the movie producers wanted this rating. It generates news, for sure.

Movie ratings are a great way to use free market provisions to set rules without force. The theaters aren't required to enforce the ratings guidelines, and my local theater actually regularly disregards them based on the values in my specific community.

The whole ban on NC-17 movies seems pretty ridiculous. Our mall theater follows the ban, but I do recall one or two NC-17 movies in our smaller theater (I can't remember which films they were though). They're still in business, which is the free market telling the owners that what they did wasn't disliked by their customer base.

Re:Expected?

[MuckSavage]

No way. They're probably in tears right now.

An NC-17 rating means you won't make shit at the box office. Straight to dvd for you!

Re:Expected?

[fishbowl]

>An NC-17 rating means you won't make shit at the box office.

Only if you were originally headed for the mainstream box office in the first place, which this type of film is clearly not. All over liberal-land, there are independent theatres that run what they damned well please. Since they aren't in bed with any of the big syndicates, they don't have to follow any rules aside from the laws of their community. (Film ratings are not law, contrary to popular belief.)

The film in the article was never headed for mainstream multiplex cinemas in suburban malls to begin with. The filmmakers were creating a controversial film and knew it. An NC17 rating just builds more controversy, and lots of people will hear about it as a result. It won't "keep it out" of the repertory houses. The Loft Cinema in Tucson will probably run it, and I'd expect it to run at places like the Bijou on the Oregon Coast, or at the Inwood in Dallas, there's a ton of places like that, that always run stuff the big chains don't, whether because of controversy or because whatever mainstream audiences hate or fail to understand. (Consider anything by Peter Greenaway... never saw any of his films on the marqee at a mall, but he still had pretty good distribution!)

The filmmakers aren't upset. They probably don't even care. I expect they think of themselves more as operating outside the machine that includes Hollywood, Awards, and mainstream distribution, and are even proud of that.

When?

[itistoday]

TFA does not state when this will be played. Anybody know?

Re:When?

[Flounder]

According to AICN (yeah, I know a really "reliable" source of news)...

premiere at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and air on IFC in Fall 2006

Article on AICN at http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21980

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume I don't have to mark this down or anything because surely it will dupe on the homepage once there as an air date.

nc-17

[slashdotnickname]

I'm a big movie buff, and watch at least 3 a week... so I've seen a lot that were originally labeled NC-17 at the box office. My general impression of these movies is not favorable though, as most seem interested in just exploiting the shock value of sexual or violent actions. Can anyone think of any NC-17 (or greater!) movies that are on par with some of the classics (story-wise) out there? I know movie tastes are very subjective, but I'd like some suggestions as I travel the lesser-known roads of the movie landscape.

Re:nc-17

[Warlock7]

The first NC-17 film, Henry & June, has a very good story. While it utilizes some heavy eroticism, it in no way received it's rating due to "shock value". It is an intelligent and well written film.

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Try "Sex and Lucia" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254455/), if you can get an uncut version in the US. It contains vast amounts of nudity and sex, but still has (IMHO) a very good story and a female perspective (which "real" sex films haven't).

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really the wrong question to ask. Try this instead: How many of the "classics" were intended, and would have been better, if the producers hadn't been forced to cut them down so that they would have a chance to become one of the classics (get distributed)?

How many half-decent movies would have been classics if they hadn't recieved the same treatment?

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big movie buff, and watch at least 3 a week... so I've seen a lot that were originally labeled G through R at the box office. Can anyone think of any G through R movies that are on par with some of the classics (story-wise) out there? I know movie tastes are very subjective, but I'd like some suggestions as I travel the lesser-known roads of the movie landscape.

Most movies suck, no matter their rating.

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Midnight Cowboy was rated X when it came out.

"Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!" and "Bad Education" got an NC-17. I'm personally not the biggest Almodovar fan, but he is considered a world class director. He's also probably the best example of someone who isn't really trying to shock the audience.

Bad Lieutenant has some heavy "catholic" themes, although most people dismiss it a s a shock movie.

Re:nc-17

[tylersoze]

Requiem for a Dream was released as NC-17 I believe. I assume for just that sex scene near the end. And of course, South Park and Team America (for marionette sex!) had to be cut down to get an R rating. One of the changes to the South Park movie was changing horse sex to a german scheisse video, yet that's much better.

Re:nc-17

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm not going to bother trying with classics, because everyone has such a subjective opinion of what is "classic" and what is "crap". However if you want to see how silly the ratings can be, I have an easy starter:

For this we'll be using the movie American Pie. If you've seen it, but not for some time, then perfect. In that case go rent the unrated and the theatrical (R-rated) versions. Watch the unrated version first. See if you can point out, from memory, what is different. My bet? You might get one scene. Then go and watch the theatrical version. You will be amazed at the trivial changes.

So what's the cause? Well the unrated version is the orignal cut, as the director intended it. However, when it was examined they were told an NC-17 rating would be hung on it. That would have killed the movie, thus they made cuts until the ratings board was satisfied. However you'll find the cuts and changes are very minor. There's not some amazing, steamy sex scene that was taken out, just some minor alterations and cuts.

Another movie that you can't see the difference, but can hear about, it Fight Club. Again, rated R, and there's only a theatrical version out there. However on the commentary track the director talks about scenes that needed alterations or cutting for ratings boards, and things he wanted to do but knew he couldn't get away with in an R film.

One big one didn't involve nudity at all, just violence (minor spolier warning). In one part of the movie, one of the main characters goes past what he's supposed to in a fight, breaks the rules, and really beats the fuck out of a guy. It's an important part of the story, showing him losing control and going to far, so in the orignal cut is had lots of the guy getting smashed, clearly beyond any reasonable point. The ratings board said that was unacceptable and it would get an NC-17, so the director modified it to include more reaction shots from the group around the combatants showing horrified reactions. That was fine and is the version in the movie, however testing with audiences (Fincher does lots of test runs on movies) showed that they were much more disturbed by the new footage with the reactions.

Now in the case of Fight Club, I can say for certian that it isn't about the shock value of the violence. The violence is an essential element of the story, and in that scene in particular it is essential that the audience member feel the beating is excessive, feel it's gone on way too long. I won't go in to detail as why to try and not ruin the story, but the director and actors have an excellent comentary track where they analyze the story and what it means (Edward Norton in particular does a good job explaining it near the end). It's not a shallow shock film, it is a truly excellent movie.

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicks with Dicks volume 37, of course.

Re:nc-17

[Just Some Guy]

A Clockwork Orange was originally rated "X" in the USA.

Re:nc-17

[Flyboy Connor]

Kubrick's Lolita was banned in quite a lot of places, for the suggestion that an adult man had sex with a 14 year old girl. Not that that scene is in the movie, or even explicitly talked about.

Re:nc-17

[Anonymous Coward]

easy. fight club

Re:nc-17

[ArmyOfFun]

Irréversible is a movie which has two scenes which are very graphic. I don't think it was rated in the US, but it would without a doubt earn a NC-17 rating. I saw it in an art house theater and the ticket seller actually warned me it had extremely graphic scenes in it! The scenes in this movie are graphic because they're integral to the story; they're not in there for shock value. In fact, one of the graphic scenes helps explain the brutality of the other scene. If those two scenes were shot/edited to get an 'R' rating, I wouldn't have had nearly the strong emotional reactions I had to the story and characters in the film. I wouldn't call Irréversible a 'classic', though I'd say it's a good movie and one I'll never forget. I highly recommend a rental (if you can find it) if you're looking for something 'different'.

Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[thomasoa]

I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.

Re:Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[Koragnar]

Because that looks real good for a theater's rep. Tonight the theater is playing: MARCH OF THE PENGUINS NARNIA HORNEY TEEN SLUTS XXX!!! Doesn't really attract the family-movie goer.

Re:Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried searching for more info on this, but my proxy won't list local papers that carry advertisements for move theaters that show NC-17 movies.

Re:Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.

Yet you see ads for the decidedly NC-17 act of joining the army/marines/navy everywhere.

Sex, bad... learning to become a killing machine, not so bad.

God bless America.

Re:Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.

How is life in Salt Lake City?

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like this site, and you think another is so much better, what are you doing here in the first place? Your opinion is incredibly boring, your comments are nothing but an annoyance, and honestly, nobody cares what you think.

Who are you? You're nobody.

Fuck off.

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[Anonymous Coward]

it ain't dead until netcraft confirms it!

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[isd_glory]

It might have been on digg, but was there actually any discussion of the matter?
I'd rather be a little behind the times in news, if I can get some meaningful comments beyond: "LOLL, the MPAA is so gay!!"

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[Random Destruction]

then get your ass back to digg, troll.

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Digg is for headlines early and often, slashdot is for conversation. It's not an either/or scenario. Digg has the most awkward and useless comment system imaginable populated almost entirely by 12 year olds. Slashdot has at least as many 12 year olds, but it has a much better method of dealing with them so that actual adults aren't afraid to comment. I'll often see something on digg and look forward to seeing if it makes Slashdot simply because I know the comments will be worth reading. If digg implemented a decent comment system like slashcodes then it would probably start attracting a better class of comment. Until then, it's just another RSS headline feed for me and not a "community".

Mmm... press...

[scaryjohn]

The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content" and will likely limit the movie's distribution, as many theater chains will not show NC-17 movies.

It's an independently released documentary. For fuck's sake, that pretty much limits its distribution to places that would show it irrespective of its rating already. Hell, the new rating may open its distribution circle to the kinds of theatres Pee-Wee Herman frequents.

Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Movie theatres? Hah! Who's got the torrent? My BT client let's me download NC17.

Graphic violence

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said before, but as a european I am regularly shocked by the graphic violence in american films and astonished at their insane prudery about sex. There are countless films where people get their fucking heads blown off, yet they don't even feature a normal slow kiss.

I've never actually _been_ to america, so like a lot of europeans, most of what I "know" about america comes from Hollywood: so, americans, what the HELL is really up with you? I can't imagine it's remotely healthy to fill your kids heads with such violence, yet hide from them a normal and necessary emotional (and biological) act?

Re:Graphic violence

[TychoCelchuuu]

There's also tons of movies that feature a normal slow kiss, yet they don't even feature one "fucking head" getting blown off. So I guess we're even.

America might be overly violent and prudes when it comes to sex, but they see Europe as weakling hedonistic-pansies. It goes both ways, man. You can't understand why we fill our kids' heads with violence, yet hide them from sex, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that repressed violence any more than it repressed sex. You see how backwards we Americans are about sex: imagine if we were like that with violence too.

You have to do more than just rail against what America is like right now. The same views you find completely irrational when applied to sex, you think ought to be applied to violence. We're crazy over here in America, yes, but you European chaps are just as weird. Just in the opposite way.

Re:Graphic violence

[cnerd2025]

I am an American currently living in the states but I have lived in Europe. Most of the junk that Europe hears about America isn't true. We don't eat our children. ;-) Well, that's an exaggeration, but most of the video clips and information about what you get is either yellow-journalism or just hollywood garbage. I can tell you two facts: a) 80% of Americans are not "cowboys" like Bush and b) 0% of America is like Hollywood portrays it. Hollywood is filled with the most outspoken, rich know-it-alls in the country. They make movies that usually have some sort of political propaganda value (such as "Day After Tomorrow"). America definitely has its share of problems, and Hollywood is one of them. The MPAA monopolizes the movie industry and ensures that no one can challenge it. In fact, the very act of assigning ratings is very political. If a film is likely to make a good amount of money, the studio for that movie will use its influence to lower the rating (from R, which means kids below 17 must have an adult, to PG-13, meaning that anyone can attend). The movie Titanic, for example, probably should have been R, but since the movie cost so much to make and was likely to earn back a huge amount more, it was lowered to PG-13. NC-17 movies are a strict policy of no children attending. This documentary was likely given a high rating simply because it may not favorably shadow the MPAA. America was founded on rejecting the top-heavy authority, but today it seems that people are content in ignorance.

Re:Graphic violence

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be trying to present violence and sex as somehow equivilent and worthy of similar treatment. That's a bit worrying.

Sex is a quite normal and healthy activity. Extreme violence is not.

Re:Graphic violence

[Edmund Blackadder]

It is called capitalism. Teenagers are the biggest consumers of movies and teenagers like to see people get their heads blown off. Thats pretty much it.

Re:Graphic violence

[k_187]

I'd imagine that a lot of teenagers would also like to see people's naughty bits on film as well.

Re:Graphic violence

[Brandybuck]

The thing is, you can simulate violence, but it's pretty damned hard to simulate nudity. Real violence is shocking in the US, to the point that it will get you an NC-17 rating. Remember that Florida porn actress who got paid to get beaten up on camera? That's one film you'll have a hard time finding in the local adult video store.

Re:Graphic violence

[spauldo]

Well, if England hadn't forced the damn puritans out, making them come over here and set up shop, we'd probably be just fine. We had an anti-sex bais from the start. Burning people alive or pressing them under barn doors with large rocks was OK though.

If it wasn't for the catholics (Maryland) and episcopalians (southern states), and maybe a little bit of the quakers (Pennsylvania - they were prudish but didn't force their views on people as much as the puritans), we'd be in a right mess over here. The puritans may be (mostly) gone now, but their legacy lives on.

Re:Graphic violence

[PurplePhase]

Imagine you are watching a limp balloon.
The balloon starts to fill up, but it looks like it is getting too full.
Suddenly there is a break in the balloon and water comes pouring out of it, so you scramble and put a cork in it to seal the hole.
Briefly the balloon stalls, but eventually it starts getting larger again.
After staring at it a long time, another hole breaks and water pours out again. You pick up another cork and stop the water.
This happens several more times, and you learn to get anxious every time you see the balloon filling up again.
It happens irregularly, so you must be eternally vigilant, watching constantly. But at least you have an infinite pile of corks.

-- -- -- --
(YMMV) This is how parents treat their children in the U.S.A. - if there is an outburst, it is stopped. Angry, sad, even afraid and people can be judged to be too happy as well. It is disapproved-of, it is criticized, and it is outlawed. Unfortunately it isn't just parents, this treatment typically comes from everyone in a kid's life: siblings, teachers, classmates (even in your clique), relatives, the whole society.

Some (emotional) leaks are implicitly ignored or encouraged (1), and some are stoppered more harshly than others(2). People learn to favor certain stoppers and start applying them themselves(3).

For the U.S.A. I'll make some wild guesses about the break-downs of those 3:

1) Violence 75% Being Mean/lashing out verbally/emotionally 30%
2) Sensuality 80% Feminity(for males)/Masculinity(for females) 75% Homosexuality 95%(more severe but happens less often)
3) Obsessive/Compulsive* 95% (is there anything else?)

*O/S is split among the following (% of population): Consumerism 50%, Work 40%, Alcohol 40%, Food(eat/repulsed) 40%, Sports 20%, Religion 20%, Exercise/body image 20%, Games 15%, Politics 15%, Family/home 10%, TV/movies/Celebrities 10%, music 5%, Gambling 5%, Crime 2%, Drugs .3%, Spelling/Grammar .0001%, other 55%

Disclaimer: I was born in the U.S.A. and have lived here for > 30 years, but .. well I think I have some sense of the larger picture(s).

8-PP

Soccer moms.

[sound vision]

I won't have THAT kind of theate in MY neighborhood!

Won't Show?

[displaced80]

I had to look up what an NC-17 was, since I'm from the UK.

Broadly speaking, it seems similar to our 18 cert. In other words, a level of maturity reasonable for an 18 year old is required to see the film.

So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds? Does this not annoy anyone? The ratings system there seems to have been appropriated to decide what should be seen by adults, not what I'd imagine a ratings system's purpose to be: to highlught material which is perhaps not appropriate for minors

Just seems a little horse-before-cart to me. And more than a little Victorian. What I don't understand is why there isn't outrage over this sort of behaviour? Well, perhaps outrage is too strong a word. A broad assumption seems to be that here in Ye Olde Europe, we all live in nanny-states. But perhaps the nanny'ing pressure groups in the US need to be treated to a little more questioning, and perhaps brought down a peg or two.

Re:Won't Show?

[oclawgeek]

What do you expect of a nation that can't even properly spell theatre or colour? Our society has been hijacked by the mob -- an illiterate puritan mob.

Re:Won't Show?

[Rob the Bold]

So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds?

NC-17 is an "official" MPAA rating that replaced the "X" rating that was synonymous with "porn" in the US. Supposedly, it would allow erotic "Art Films" so be shown in places (Boston, Kansas, AMC Theaters) that wouldn't go for porn. As I recall, that was the way it was promoted when NC-17 rating was created. In practice, towns, theaters, etc., just viewed NC-17 as another name for "X" and nothing changed. Except of course there are far fewer XXX cinemas in the US than there were when I was younger, probably due to videotapes (and now discs and the net).

I guess it made a little difference, you can go to an art house to see an NC-17 film in most places. You don't need to visit the seamy side of town. But most chains ban NC-17 as a euphemism for "X". I also recall something about the "X" rating not being trademarked by the MPAA, and so it was used specifically for porn marketing.

Re:Won't Show?

[Chemical]

American spellings of those words are as such to be more phonetic. You can thank/blame Noah Webster for that idea. Think about it though. "Theatre"? Phonetically, it would be pronounced thee-tree. The spelling "Theater" is truer to how the word is pronounced.

Re:Won't Show?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Well first of all teenagers are the most desirable demographic for the us theatres. Second of all most theatres are architectually designed to allow everyone inside and let them roam (so that they buy a lot of popcorn, drinks, etc). If they have to screen an NC-17 movie they will have to separate off a specific theatre, and check ids there, which will screw up their whole business model, and cost them more money and prevent them from getting the popcorn revenues (which is where their profits come from).

If they architecturally design their theatre to have an "over 18" area, then the place will be automatically labeled a porn theatre and nobody will want to bring a date, or their kids there.

Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth. These groups have a lot of power in local politics in most medioum to small cities, so they can easily screw over any theatre that they deem to be pornographic. And for them NC-17 means porn ... for them even many R movies are porn. And they are not very smart so they are completely imune to any artistic effect a movie may have.

So the effect is that there onle a few theatres in the biggest cities of america which show nc-17 movies ... which are mostly foreign art films.

Re:Won't Show?

[Alien Being]

"...nanny'ing pressure groups in the US need to be treated to a little more questioning, and perhaps brought down a peg or two"

That could be tough because god works for *them*. Or do they work for god? I always forget which way that goes.

Re:Won't Show?

[Brandybuck]

Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth.

Warning! Your objectivity is showing!

Re:Won't Show?

[displaced80]

Cool, thanks for the info.

The link between NC-17 and X, historical or not, is a bit daft, surely?

To my unAmerican ears, it sounds like: "Any other rating, you're safe. NC-17? Well, that just might be PORNOGRAPHY!"

We've got the 18 cert to say "Make Up Your Own Damn Minds. If you're at least this old, you should be big enough and ugly enough to figure out if the film contains material you'd object to." Or, in their own words, "at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law."

Our porn (videos from sex shops... your average smut) gets an R18 (R for Restricted). But no film with plot, narrative, etc ends up with an R18. That cert's really only for crappy porn directed by the likes of Phil McCavity and Hugh G. Coque. So no big loss to the cinema-going public :D

Incidentally, does the MPAA have a site like that of the British Board of Film Classification? ((link)). The site gives a nice overview of what each cert denotes, and some nice stats going back to 1912 showing what certs were awarded to what films, and how many cuts were made to films (a reassuringly low number - 97% of films recent films have passed with no cuts at all).

Re:Won't Show?

[dswt]

> does the MPAA have a site like that of the British Board of Film Classification?

MSN Search (or that other engine) not working for you?

http://mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm

Re:Won't Show?

[displaced80]

*dodges sarcasm* ;-)

Sure, I found that, but I was looking for something more like what the BBFC shows on its site

(apologies for the links below -- I had to dig the relevant frames out of the original pages. BBFC say they'll have a redesigned site launching Monday, hopefully frameless!)

Year-by-year stats - number of works rated, percentage of those cut.
Search Works - by Type, Title, Director, Distributor, Cast and Free Text

...which returns information on the work such as this, instead of just a link to iMDB

Recent Decisions

Mostly, I'd be interested in stats from the MPAA similar to those in the first link.

Re:Won't Show?

[dvdeug]

What gives England the right to insist that the US conform to a standard of spelling that developed after we won our independence? It's not like one spelling is fundamentally more correct than another.

Re:Won't Show?

[FuroTheRed]

I think the whole nanny state bit (as far as media) comes from the fact that it's usually the government doing the rating. The MPAA is a private organization that works by consent of the studios and theaters, as opposed to a censorship body imposed from above.

Re:Won't Show?

[91degrees]

The same thing that gives us the right to insist you share our sense of humour.

Re:Won't Show?

[geekoid]

It is pathietic that some engaged in a conversation has 'look it up' thrown into there face. What happened to engaging ideas, and just communication?

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[TrappedByMyself]

I'd rather be a little behind the times in news, if I can get some meaningful comments beyond: "LOLL, the MPAA is so gay!!"

Yeah, here at Slashdot, the veteran readership can stretch "LOLL, the MPAA is so gay!!" out into a paragraph or two and get a Score:5

Those Diggers are such rookies.

Bourne

[EternityInterface]

I've listened to 1 director's comments. It was for the bourne identity. At one part he said he wanted more swears, but the pg13 rating only allowed 3 swears, and eventually he only ended up using 1. They still had more, but that was in german.

Oh, I was just listening to "An operator's manual" and there they censored bitch in sonofabitch, which seemed weird, as that is the (collection of words) I've noticed swears have been replaced with in movies, again and again.

I'll blame this all on the victorians, because they started it with fucking up the kama sutra. (The christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad {mr N})

Shortly after, in 1883, Burton's Kama Shastra society, a kind of sexual anthropological club, published the Kama Sutra for private circulation. The book caused such a furor in sexually repressive Victorian England (imagine, depicting women enjoying sex - the very idea!), that the book was banned and not published for public consumption again until 1963.

But even today, the legacy of Victorian censorship lives on. Many editions of the Kama Sutra still lack the full listing and explanation of the various sexual positions that the ancients knew -- rendering the dull pedantic translations that much more dull and lifeless. Furthermore, many of the inaccuracies of the "Burton" translation (for example, the pervasive bias against women asserting their own will and desires) still color modern editions of the text, prolonging our own cultural stereotype of the demure consenting woman and the lusty assertive man.

Note: the discovery channel allows porn and gore whenever since it's for "educational" purpose, which is the same reason (at least in sweden) reality-shows can show people in showers / bedrooms around the clock (the swedish word is "doku-såpor" - documentary soap-operas).

Re:Bourne

[Rob the Bold]

I'll blame this all on the victorians [a9.com], because they started it with fucking up the kama sutra.

I don't know if you intended that to be funny, but you're a riot, dude.

Re:Bourne

[EternityInterface]

Thanks.

"An operator's manual" = William S. Burroughs, The Operator's Manual, something, whatever.

Re:Bourne

[DeafByBeheading]

I've listened to 1 director's comments. It was for the bourne identity. At one part he said he wanted more swears, but the pg13 rating only allowed 3 swears, and eventually he only ended up using 1.

Yeah, self-censorship to achieve a certain rating is an interesting thing, in terms of the hoops you have to jump through. In "Be Cool", the main character references this when he says that if you want to avoid an R rating, you can only use the f-word once in the movie. He comments on this policy by saying "Fuck that!", and indeed, the movie is PG-13 (and there's no more swearing).

Examples...

[vloktboky]

The film explores the MPAA's own film rating system and "its profound effect on American culture." What better way to explore how MPAA rates movies then to show examples of past movies and discuss why these movies got their rating? I would imagine that the movie must cross basis with other NC-17 movies and because of the examples taken from these movies, it was promptly given an NC-17 rating. Don't they rate based on the worst part of the movie?

Slighty offtopic, but still...

[Dash_Rantic]

The little quote at the bottom of the page right now says: "X-rated movies are all alike ... the only thing they leave to the imagination is the plot." Now there's why many people do like X-rated films, and many don't... Seems like this film shall be one of the exceptions. -Dash

NC-17 and AO: the scarlet letters of entertainment

[Somatic]

Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?

It's a ceremonial black mark, just like the AO video game rating. Normal people understand that watching it/playing it won't cause their souls to turn black as sin, but it's enough to scare theaters away from showing it/Walmart from selling it.

I remember how the South Park movie originally got an NC-17. Didn't they make fun of the MPAA too? How odd.

In Soviet Russia . . .

[uujjj]

. . . movie rates YOU!

just thought i'd help you out.

Sortof

[goldcd]

We actually have a few more rating you skipped over there.

Uc - Universal (children) - Films specifically aimed at pre-school children.

U - Universal - Suitable for all.

PG - Parental Guidance - Might have some themes that might upset some children - but generally fine for all.

12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

15 - Must be over 15

18 - Must be over 18

R18 - Restricted 18 - Can only be purchased from certain outlets - it's porn.

The British system still has the weird bias towards violence over smut - but it's got a lot better over the last few years (BBFC replaced their chair with a slightly more enlightened chap).

A few years back R18 didn't exist - hardcore was either not available, or heavily cut. Nowadays pretty much everything can be released with a few notable exceptions (violence, non-consensual stuff etc).

www.bbfc.co.uk has a nice little breakdown of the above rules. Nice little note on the R18 page "These guidelines make no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual activity."

Good.

Re:Sortof

[Gibsnag]

Actually the 12 was "Must be over 12" then 12A replaced it with "Must be over 12 or accompanied by an adult".

Re:Sortof

[m50d]

12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

No, 12 was not allowed to be seen by under 12s at all, 12A is over 12s or under 12s with a parent. I presume they're now phasing out PG as it's actually a harsher rating than the "higher" 12A (legally, you can't let a 17 year old in to a PG film without a parent), and 12A certainly exists for videos.

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[ScaryFroMan]

Honestly, who reads Slashdot for the stories? A paragraph and a link is barely enough to garner almost a million members. It's the comments that people come back for, and the rating system does a pretty good job of leading you to the good ones. Sure, there's problems, but there's enough lively discussion for it be be ignored.

And what will I get out of watching this movie?

[Matt Ownby]

I already know the MPAA is corrupt and that rating systems are not a perfect solution. So what is the point of me going to the extra effort to try to view this documentary? Frankly, I think this news story is blown out of proportion because it implies that there is great value in viewing this documentary, a claim that I question.

Re:And what will I get out of watching this movie?

[fishbowl]

The people who made this film *want* controversy. The theatres that would not run it because of the rating, weren't going to be the market in the first place. Think the filmmakers know that? Getting an NC17 rating, and especially being able to spin it as political, will create more buzz and get more people into the theatres where this type of thing is typically screened, independent repertory houses, not the Century Multiplex at the mall!

I call a minor BS

[Khyber]

Blockbuster DOES carry NC-17 or unrated films. I just rented F3 (Frenzied Frustrated Female) which has NO RATING whatsoever from there.

On the other hand, Yes, most movies won't show an NC-17 movie. I used to work for Malco.

Re:I call a minor BS

[jZnat]

My guess is that anyone who's opinion would matter doesn't know what hentai is and the difference between that and normal anime.

Smoking at 16??

[Khyber]

And you say you live in the USA? Sorry. Federal and State law have limited the age to buy and smoke tobacco to 18. Can you point out where any state law supercedes the Federal law on this topic?

Re:Smoking at 16??

[ShyGuy91284]

Whoops, my bad. I don't smoke, so I wasn't really sure. I must have just gotten used to just seeing people smoke when they were 16 in HS because it was "cool" or to rebel. But either way, it seems to be one of the least-controlled "coming of age" rights, and ironically one of the biggest cash cows.

Re:Smoking at 16??

[hunterx11]

I doubt there's any federal law against smoking at 16, because it's legal in my state (Illinois) to smoke at 16; however, it is illegal to buy cigarettes until one is 18. I know this because the town adjacent to where I live has outlawed smoking before 18.

Conspiracy?

[billyradcliffe]

While it seems shocking and obsurd and screams "conspiracy" and the MPAA doesn't want this to reach a mass audience...step back a little. How many people do you know that would pay to see a documentary about the MPAA rating system at a theatre? While in recent past, the works of Michael Moore have gained much attention and reached a mass audience, documentaries still are generally not widely accepted by the masses. Sure, there are theatres which will not show this film now, but having had an R rating, would they een show it in the first place? Thus, the conspiracy theory becomes a moot point. This will be shown in indie theatres, where people who are actually into this kind of work (such as my self) actually go.

Re:Conspiracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

While in recent past, the works of Michael Moore have gained much attention and reached a mass audience, documentaries still are generally not widely accepted by the masses.

Excuse me, there's something wrong here... you talked of Michael Moore's movieditorials as if they were documentaries. Try not to make this mistake again.

Re:Conspiracy?

[aduzik]

I remember when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, there was a huge outcry from documentary filmmakers. Their grievance? Moore is not making documentaries, he's making editorial movies. And they were certainly right. Even though many of these filmmakers agreed with what Moore was saying, they still felt like he was usurping and bastardizing their artform. By the way, every now and then a documentary will become popular. Like this summer's March of the Penguins, which I haven't seen but have heard is really well done.

But you're right; my first thought when I read the headline was "conspiracy". Like any system that's so secretive, it can be as corrupt as it likes and no one knows about it. That's by definition. And that also just makes me want to see this film that much more. Now if only I knew someone who gets IFC; I'm not about to pay an extra $15 a month for digital cable no matter how good the documentary is.

Re:Conspiracy?

[fishbowl]

"Moore is not making documentaries, he's making editorial movies. And they were certainly right."

The distinction is arbitrary. All documentaries have "editorial" direction. Whether the movie is about surfing or wild birds, it will be full of opinion and various amounts of persuasive effort.

This film deserves a XXX rating

[Edmund Blackadder]

These fucking sickos want to expose young impressionable children to Kevin Smith. I was like 20 when i first saw chasing amy and i still have nightmares. Dont get me started on that bullshit filled 'religious' movie dogma. Specifically made so the biggest idiots on the planet would think that it is "sooo deep man" And really dont get me started on "so and so strike back" -- the movie where Kevin Smith spends millions of dollars and millions of hours of peoples time to complain about why nobody likes his other movies.

Oh yeah and there is the bennifer debacle, where Kevin Smith created the most overhyped actors in the history of civilization ... worked 24/7 to feed the hype machine, then he made 2 movies at the same time starring both of them in order to cash in on the hype ... and then when the whole world ran away from his movies in revulsion ... he pretended to be an innocent victim of the media.

Kevin Smith did one good thing he made clerks. It wasnt a brilliant movie but it was a pretty honest one, and it was about teenagers who were pretty much invisible to popular culture otherwise. So I give him props for that.

But after that he became the worst most disgusting self promoting asshole. He would put anything on screen if he thought it would get people to talk about him (lesbians, catholicism, mark hammil, more lesbians) and would use any way to get his fat ass on TV (this mostly included humiliating himself on jay leno). The only amuzing thing about him is whatching everything blow up in his face. And also reading his forum, the one he specificaly made for his groupies where he actually complains that the forum members do not kiss his ass enough.

I mean this guy is so much into self promotion that the only person worse than him in that regard is Steve Jobs. But at least Jobs has the good sence not to leave his movie company to the proffessionals, and not insert himself into each movie.

Re:This film deserves a XXX rating

[Roguelazer]

You're absolutely right. Movies, rather than being funny and entertaining, should only enforce good Christian morals. Movie directors shouldn't be self-promoting, but instead community oriented. Kind of like priests, only without the whole "anally raping alterboys" thing. Even if he's but one of the people involved in a movie, his involvement must mean that he, as an egotistical maniac, is attempting a huge publicity stunt, and therefore the movie has turned into a steaming pile of shit. We should work together and lead a charge to purge movies of all the sex, violence, and entertainment. Bring the power back where it belongs- The Church Channel.

Re:This film deserves a XXX rating

[mshurpik]

From user graham clarke's review of J&SB Strikes Back on imdb:

I was totally baffled by reading that certain gay groups took offence to this movie. It would seem to me a total misreading as well as a great deficiency in the humor department. Apart from the fact that Smith lampoons all and sundry, it actually struck me as a particularly gay friendly movie. The fact that a gay character sums the movie up as one big gay joke should be taken as a compliment more than anything else.

This would seem to confirm my suspicion that J&SB Strikes Back is a gay marriage movie. It would explain the total self-indulgence, horrible premise, and baffling number of major star cameos. I saw Jay and Kevin Smith in an interview about the movie and they were practically crying and hugging each other. Jay also calls Silent Bob his "life partner" in the film. How many hints do they need to drop?

There was no XXX rating

[DECS]

Originally the MPAA labeled movies G, GP (later changed to PG), R and X. There was a Catholic organization that rated films as well, labeling them with various levels of "reservation," and giving some an O for "offensive," that meant catholics weren't supposed to watch them. At one time, being labeled O meant a lot of people were not going to see your movie.

Indiana Jones III in 1984 got a new PG-13 rating to create something that sounded edgier than PG but not quite R, something that older teens could be expected to watch. It featured the scene where the voodoo guy rips out a beating heart from a living person and bites it.

Later, filmmakers asked for a renamed rating for "mature" subjects that were considered "more than R" to disassociate mature with the porn stigma attached to "X Rated"

So to accommodate mature, non porn films, the MPAA re-branded the X rating as NC-17, and some non-porn feature films actually got released as NC-17. Very few "X rated" mainstream films that had ever been released before. The X rating didn't necessarily mean sex and nudity, but in reality it generally did; when people heard X they associated it with hardcore porn. Before NC-17, films getting an X rating that weren't porn simply edited things down to get an R rating.

Porn theaters had long done the opposite: they marketed their content (much of which was not really feature length movies, but just sex, and so not even officially ever "rated") as "Triple XXX!!!" There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. That sink in yet?

Any theater choosing to show NC-17 movies would be risking the taint of being labeled a porn-house, likely incur the wrath and bad publicity of morality/family interest/religious groups, and for all that trouble only show limited run movies with a narrow appeal. How would that be a good business decision?

Theaters already are unlikely to show independent movies without guaranteed draws that deliver profits efficiently. If you are puzzled as to why a theater, and particularly a huge chain designed to make money fastest, would not (or rarely ever) show NC-17 rated films, then you must also be wondering why WalMart doesn't sell latex suits, dildoes and, buttfucking slings.

Re:There was no XXX rating

[Halfbaked Plan]

you must also be wondering why WalMart doesn't sell latex suits, dildoes and, buttfucking slings.

They sell cans of Crisco, though.

Re:There was no XXX rating

[Anonymous Coward]

Indiana Jones 3 was released in 1989. Indiana Jones 3 was released in 1989. Indiana Jones 3 was released in 1989. That sink in yet?

Ratings of Indiana Jones movies:
Raiders of the Lost Ark -- PG
Temple of Doom -- PG
Last Crusade -- PG-13

Generally when one is joining a sound of a vowel and a consonant, we use a instead of an. As in, "There is no such thing as a XXX rating" (since I have no idea why you'd say anything other than triple-X).

Re:There was no XXX rating

[ipfwadm]

Generally when one is joining a sound of a vowel and a consonant, we use a instead of an. As in, "There is no such thing as a XXX rating" (since I have no idea why you'd say anything other than triple-X).

What, you mean like possibly enunciating each X individually? As in "there is no such thing as an ecks ecks ecks rating."

Re:There was no XXX rating

[peter_gzowski]

There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating.

There is in the Maritime Provinces in Canada (repeat 3 times if you wish).

Re:There was no XXX rating

[DECS]

Are you imagining porno theaters are getting their stuff rated by Nova Scotia instead of the MPAA?

I'd imagine the NS censor counsel doesn't have the resources to sit through every hard core porn made, to determine whether it warrants a red stop sign or a purple triangle, but then again there probably isn't much else to do up there.

Re:There was no XXX rating

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the other reason for NC-17 is that the MPAA had trademarks on all the other ratings-but for some reason, didn't bother doing that with "X". Very much out of character for them to miss that valuable bit of IP! So to maintain any credibility for rating films beyond "R", they had to come up with a new adult rating code only they (MPAA) could apply. As for the theaters, there's two things at work: one is local ordinances banning minors (their main audience) from attending adult-rated films; the other is zoning ordinances that restrict the location of "adult" businesses to specific areas in the seediest parts of town. Thus, there is pressure on theaters to not show NC-17 films, hence pressure on studios to cut them down to an R rating.

Re:There was no XXX rating

[SurgeonGeneral]

Thanks for long windedly confirming what I said, i.e. that X-rated films were generally not porn but instead had the association because of the XXX mark.

Whether XXX is a real rating doesnt matter. Whether XXX is a real rating doesnt matter. Whether XXX is a real rating doesnt matter. That sink in yet? Its the association that consumer make that matters. This is what advet

And you say....

[Chmcginn]

Federal and State law have limited the age to buy and smoke tobacco to 18.

Buy, correct. Smoke, nope. It's perfectly legal, at least where I grew up (NC,VA,MD) for a parent or guardian to give cigarettes to a minor to smoke. Course, they still get in trouble for taking them to school... But a lot of my friends back home started smoking, quite legally, well before they were 18.

Re:And you say....

[spauldo]

In Oklahoma, it's illegal to possess or use cigarettes if you're under 18. The cops give the kids tickets for it these days. A parent giving cigarettes to his/her child is "contributing to the deliquency of a minor", which is a crime, although I think it's a misdemeanor.

It wasn't that was a few years ago. Back in the late 80's a friend of mine was prescribed cigarettes at the age of 14 for his stress. I'm pretty sure you can't even do that now.

Re:And you say....

[Chmcginn]

I'm always torn by this... I love the fact that each state makes up its own mind on so many issues (and I'm still annoyed over the whole federally mandated drinking age thing). But, seeing as how I move pretty often, I always end up spending a lot of time looking up strange stuff like this each time I'm moved to a new state. Well, being as that I quit smoking, I wouldn't buy my kids cigarettes, even if they were 16-18. But I'd feel like a seriously hypocritical bastard telling my kids no, if I still smoked...

Re:And you say....

[geekoid]

IT's an interesting situation.
My parents smoke, but always told us not to(and we don't).
My dad always said it was part of a social norm developed from before it was widle know to be bad for you.
He tells us that it is incredible addictive, and that if we start, we will probably do it forever.

This made it about the addiction , and not about being older and therefore OK.

Another point for 'talking to your kids' instead of 'telling your kids'.

Re:And you say....

[Khyber]

In this country's day and age, that won't happen. Even parents can get busted for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor.

Last Tango, Midnight Cowboy

[coyote-san]

Last Tango in Paris was originally 'X', certainly due to the depiction of anal sex.

Midnight Cowboy, as mentioned above, was also originally 'X'. Certainly due to the depiction of homosexual acts.

Today I think both have been re-released as 'R'. Possibly without any changes.

How did the original Star Wars get a G?

[Animats]

Most violent picture in history. Nobody had ever before blown up a populated planet on screen.

And it was rated G.

I was horrified at the time.

Re:How did the original Star Wars get a G?

[niall2]

Um.... StarWars was originally a PG movie.

Re:How did the original Star Wars get a G?

[slavemowgli]

It's about graphic violence, not violence per se.

stupid Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in Europe, sex is okay. Everyone's on the pill. No one gets married anymore. They average like half a kid per couple. That's why Europe's being completely overfuckingrun by foreigners. Europe is going to be a fucking extension of Asia and Africa within the next 10 years ago. No fucking thanks. I'll keep my country and it's silly insistence on things like family and sex meaning something more than a cheap orgasm. Europeans are so fucking "enlightened" they're going to enlighten themselves out of existence. Stupid fucks!

Re:This is just ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, it increases the chances that I watch it!

Why?

[Random832]

With a title like that, why did he submit it to be rated?

Put your tinfoil hats down?

[commodoresloat]

You're the one articulating a conspiracy theory that presumes the film producers engineered all this controversy in the first place. Personally, I think you're probably right about this, but it's a little rude to tell other people to put their tin foil away when your answer is a conspiracy theory that's even more convoluted.

Re:Put your tinfoil hats down?

[coolGuyZak]

it's a little rude to tell other people to put their tin foil away when your answer is a conspiracy theory that's even more convoluted

That's not conspiracy. That's PR & Marketing 101.

Re:Put your tinfoil hats down?

[7Prime]

Not to mention, a form of civil disobedience, or something like it (since this isn't a legal issue). Seriously, it's the same kind of thing as a black person, back in the day, drinking in a "white only" drinking fountain for the specific purpose of going to jail and raising public awareness as to how bad things are.

Frank Zappa did something similar, actually, not too long before he died. He released an album called "Frank Zappa meets the Mothers of Prevention", which was all about music censorship at the time when the music industry was currently going through the hearings with Tipper Gore. He put in one track that consisted of a goofy voice yelling, "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! ... SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX!" and one instrumental with the title "Alien Oriface". In this case, though, he released the album a few days before the advisory campaign got started, with the whole front of the album being one big advisory sticker.

Yeah, I think the film producers probably purposefully put in content to get it rated NC-17. I haven't seen it, but I bet it's something like, "And here's an example of material that will get you banned..." followed by goofy sex scene or over-the-top violence. Sure it's a PR stunt, but that's also the point of the film; raising public awareness. Also, irony is a great way of getting across you're point. It'll probably work too.

ok

[sabit666]

DUGG!! eh.. wrong website again :P

Kevin Smith, Mat Stone?

[red5]

He describes Kevin Smith and Matt Stone as: "two of my personal favorites"

Maybe he's just upset that he won't be old enough to watch it when it comes out. Just make sure mommy and daddy get that IFC subscription.

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[meringuoid]

Slashdot has at least as many 12 year olds, but it has a much better method of dealing with them so that actual adults aren't afraid to comment. I'll often see something on digg and look forward to seeing if it makes Slashdot simply because I know the comments will be worth reading.

'Tis true. We gripe and moan about Mods On Crack, about the occasional abuse of the Bitchslap, about the ACs and the trolls, and I fondly remember the 50+1-1=49 thing, but then you look elsewhere. Read the +4 and +5 posts here and though you'll see a lot of /. groupthink you'll also get a much higher concentration of decent analysis and opinion. The moderation system here is actually a rather good Sturgeon filter, bringing the ratio of crap down from 95% to... oh, maybe 70 or 80?

Off-topic: Normativness as 'morality'

[Simon Brooke]

Oh, come now. This isn't morality; it's prejudice and spite masquerading as morality.

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.

No, definitely not. Not as a generalisation. A kid is better off being raised by happy, low stressed people in a stable relationship. Biological relationship simply does not come in here. It's always been 'a wise child who knows who his father is' - infidelity is a fact of life in all communities and at all periods of history. Kids grow up just fine raised by cuckolds, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, adoptive and foster parents. Biological relationship really isn't critical. Stability is critical. It may even be possible that it's important for children to have access to adult role models of both genders, which, if true, would be an argument against gay people adopting kids. But biological parents? No.

2. Society wants kids to be well off.

Little evidence of that. One fifth of US children are below the poverty line (1998 data); and, before you accuse me of being down on the US, the situation here in Scotland is also bad.

3. Using tax laws and so forth, we can encourage families to stay together.

That's pretty naive. If a relationship isn't working, it's not very likely that people are going to stay together for a few hundred dollars worth of tax allowance. And it's not in the interests of the children that they should. Few things are worse for children than growing up with their parents locked into an abusive or disfunctional relationship.

4. A gay couple, collectively, can never produce offspring of their own.

My wife, after she left me, lived in a homosexual relationship for eight years. Why should her son (who wasn't mine - see one above) suffer financial penalties because of his mothers choices? Wouldn't it have been better for him if that relationship had stayed together?

5. If you allow gays to be legally married, they enjoy the benefits which were put in place for the sake of keeping families together, which is fundamentally unfair to single people and common-law marriages, who also do not enjoy said benefits.

If the benefits are for raising children, give those benefits to all people raising children (and not to, e.g., married couples who are childless). If childless married couples get the benefits, don't pretend they've got anything to do with children.

When you grow up, you'll find that live is much more complex (and much more painful) than you possibly imagined it could be. And with luck you'll learn to be a bit more tolerant of people who aren't like you.

Re:Off-topic: Normativness as 'morality'

[M1FCJ]

dammit, where are the bloody mod points when I need them.

Re:Off-topic: Normativness as 'morality'

[Golias]

Oh, come now. This isn't morality; it's prejudice and spite masquerading as morality.

First of all, I never said morality had anything to do with this. Quite to the contrary, I believe I was pointing out that this was all about money.

Secondly, the rest of your post is just knee-jerk hyperbole. I never said it was a valid argument. If you had bothered to read and comprehend my entire post before lashing out at me, you would recognize that I'm not anti-gay marriage. Not even a little bit. I was merely laying out what the case was and pointing out that religion and "morality" have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Specifically, opponents of government recognition of gay marriage believe that the expansion of the definition of marriage would eventually result in economic forces which weaken traditional families. You are free to make the case that this isn't really such a bad thing, but they are on pretty solid ground when they say so. Society is currently heavily weighted in favor of the nuclear family, and any change to marriage laws would change that.

The only room for debate is on whether that's a good thing or not.

Re:Off-topic: Normativness as 'morality'

[mjh]

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.

No, definitely not. Not as a generalisation. A kid is better off being raised by happy, low stressed people in a stable relationship. Biological relationship simply does not come in here. It's always been 'a wise child who knows who his father is' - infidelity is a fact of life in all communities and at all periods of history. Kids grow up just fine raised by cuckolds, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, adoptive and foster parents. Biological relationship really isn't critical. Stability is critical. It may even be possible that it's important for children to have access to adult role models of both genders, which, if true, would be an argument against gay people adopting kids. But biological parents? No.

You'd think, but there might be some evidence against this. Read this article and see if there's anything in there that might cause you to rethink. At least if you consider that in the general case, children experience the divorce of their biological parents. This is very bad for children. But of course, it's not much of an argument either for or against gay marriage. It's just an argument that suggests that (in the general case) it's better for biological parents of children to stay together and stick it out, even if those parents aren't happy about it.

What about american TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an outsider i'm a bit confused about the ratings you see in the upper corner when you watch a show on US TV (PG and so on).

What kind of fascist organisation have the power to tell the people what is apropriate viewing?

Re:What about american TV?

[aduzik]

It's the fascist organization that decided to develop a voluntary system of television ratings before the government established its own censor office to do that for them. While it's certainly not a good thing, it would have been a lot worse if the government took it over.

Similar experience in Mexico

[Spy der Mann]

Here we had a movie called "La Ley de Herodes" (Herodes' Law), it was about politicians and how the party in power was so corrupted, etc. etc.

(Informational Note: "La ley de herodes" is a century-old mexican adult saying. It goes like this: 'O te chingas o te jodes'. A literal translation would be: Either you get f***ed, or you get f***ed. In other words, you're f***ed anyway. But it also could mean "either you bribe, or get f***ed", since the spanish word 'chingar' (which is a bad word, btw) has around 50 different meanings, depending on the context).

Anyway, this "La Ley de Herodes " movie was censored by... guess who? The government. This only caused a political scandal, and the movie became so famous it ended up being shown in theaters anyway.

Something tells me the ratings film's intention was exactly this one - to get censored by the MPAA.

Never thought I'd ask for this...

[AvantLegion]

.... but, can we get a dupe of this article, come fall 2006 when it actually matters? At least close enough to where I can set my TiVo to record it.

Re:NC-17 and AO: the scarlet letters of entertainm

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, as a Brit, this makes no sense. We have the "18" certificate over here. 18s are shown a lot. As are 18-cert games, you can get GTA: San Andreas aplenty at your local Blockbuster. Is this just crazy censorship in the the "land of the free" again?

about your proofs

[Creepy Crawler]

Interesting what I read about .999(infinity) being equal to 1 .

I saw this same thing from another perspective though, which does go against what you show.

1: First, let us define a number that is transfinitely large. Lets call this number A. It has ...9999999 forever.

2: Now that we have infinitely large number A, let us take an inverse of said number. We now have 1/A .

3: 1/A represents an infitessimal number. This number is the smallest number greater than 0 . John Conway, inventor of Surreal Numbers, deems this number called Iota. Iota represents a single point in a line graph depicting numbers.

4: Since Iota is a value, and that value is exactly one point, (1 - Iota) equals .999999(infinity). (.999(infinity) - iota) would then lead to .9999(infinity)8 .

Re:about your proofs

[SamSim]

We're going way off topic here, but in response to what you said: we are dealing here with the real numbers. The real numbers do not include infinity, or transfinite numbers, or infinitesimals, or Conway's surreal numbers. In the real numbers, it can be proven that there is no smallest number greater than zero.

Once you start including surreal numbers then such crazy things like transfinite numbers and iota and stuff like this CAN exist. But continuing to represent numbers with decimal expansions in this situation is dangerous at best. Surreal numbers and so on rather complicate matters; to address such issues in my article would confuse people and cloud the issue.

Re:about your proofs

[slavemowgli]

That's non-standard analysis, though. If you do standard analysis, "infinity" is not a real number, so you can't take its inverse. (You might, on occasion, use a definition like "1/\infty = 0", but that's just a convenience thing really.)

In standard analysis, 0.999... equals 1 for the same reason that \sum_{i=0}^\infty 1/2^i converges against 2, for example - and that already shows why it's actually a good thing that 0.999...=1, too. Non-standard analysis is an interesting topic, too, of course, but it's important to realise that it's a different thing form standard analysis (hence the name) and will thus give different results, too.

Re:about your proofs

[Creepy Crawler]

I dont like this "non-standard analysis".. Math should give same results no matter which way you do them. Whether it's an alternating series, infinite series, or a set number, they should give same results.

Lets say we completely toss Conways ides aside. Lets go back in time. Before calculus, before most modern mathematics. Let us go back to The Elements.

Def 1: A point is that which has no part.
Def 3: The ends of a line are points.
Def 4: A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

Lest to say, a traditional Euclidean line would never end, but we believe Def 3 reffers to a line segment, which does have 2 endpoints.

Now, we can take a line segment (0) ______________ (1) and label the beginning as 0 and the end as 1. This we shall call 1 unit.

We know that 0 is the start of a point, and 1 is the end-point. As defined by def 4, all the points on the line segment are equadistant from the points next to it.

There are an infinite amount of points in a line, but each point is some distance from its neighbor, albeit infinitely small. To say one point is the same as a point next to it is illogical. From that conclusion, it could be said there is no distance from 0 to 1, because they all are the same point. We know, from visuallizing that this is an erranous answer. Simple observation shows that false.

Well...?

Re:about your proofs

[SamSim]

I'm not sure what definition 4 means, but and "all the points on the line segment are equadistant from the points next to it" is meaningless. No two points can be said to be "next to each other" because there is always a third point between them.

To say one point is the same as a point next to it is illogical.

Yes, but this is irrelevant because 0.9999... and 1 aren't "next to each other". They are the same point.

By the way, beware of proving mathematical things using diagrams. An unimaginable number of fallacious proofs arise from this.

Re:about your proofs

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bother arguing with him, he's as clueless as they come and you're wasting your time.

There's my next project!

[Wabbit Wabbit]

Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.

Hmm...

*runs to get video camera*

MPAA

[CookieJago74]

Anybody got a torrent?

Soooo....

[sh4na]

... does that mean you dislike Kevin Smith? I'm sure he's pretty distraught about that :p

Re:Soooo....

[Edmund Blackadder]

you know what... i know you are being sarcastic, but I bet he is very distraught about it. I mean the whole Silent bob and jay strike back movie was about Kevin Smith being pissed about people flaming his movies online. He could not handle it so made a whole movie about it.

So yeah, I would not be surprised if he is reading my comment and steaming about now. And thinking about getting his revenge by making a $50 million movie making me look bad.

That's it

[goldcd]

Knew I'd not got it quite right.

Up yer fukin' arse, MPAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twice. With a ball-bat.

also OT: Gender

[David Rolfe]

I agree with your sentiment. Just a nitpick:

It may even be possible that it's important for children to have access to adult role models of both genders,

Fortunately, gender isn't biological so it is possible for two males (or two females) to express both common genders. I understand that the distinction between sex and gender isn't prevalent outside of anthropology, but I do think it's worth paying more attention to. Especially if we're all "nerds".

In addition to your comments, adoptive parents (anecdotally) have it harder-off than "normal" parents even when they are a male-female couple. Adoptions don't happen "by accident" -- well very rarely: baby on doorstep? basket in the reeds?-- and as such, adoptive parents may often do a better job raising children. Adoptive parents are typically in mature, stable, committed relationships/marriages before they embark on the months- or years-long process of adoption (sadly for Golias' axiom #1, there is no such requirment for beginning the months-long process of pregnancy). Full disclosure: my wife was adopted, I was raised by both biological parents, my mom's parents divorced.

If only divorce was still illegal! For the kids! HA!

[rant] Sigh. "Think of the children" arguments are so tired. Mostly because they are more often than not red-herrings. State involvement in marriage isn't for the children (well not any more than taxes or wars are for the children, i.e., so far removed as to be meaningless). Should the government be involved in who you can date, love, procreate with, child-rear with, etc.? I wish Uncle Sam could stay out of my relationship and out of my bedroom. Ironically, most people agree. Somehow the freedom haters keep influencing law (inflammatory language used sarcastically).

Cheers.

Re:also OT: Gender

[mjh]

If only divorce was still illegal! For the kids! HA!

[rant] Sigh. "Think of the children" arguments are so tired. Mostly because they are more often than not red-herrings. State involvement in marriage isn't for the children (well not any more than taxes or wars are for the children, i.e., so far removed as to be meaningless). Should the government be involved in who you can date, love, procreate with, child-rear with, etc.? I wish Uncle Sam could stay out of my relationship and out of my bedroom. Ironically, most people agree. Somehow the freedom haters keep influencing law (inflammatory language used sarcastically).

You might want to read the book in this article before you claim that those arguments are tired. Other than that, I also wish that the government would lose its involvement in a great number of things.

Re:NC-17 and AO: the scarlet letters of entertainm

[Red Alastor]

To me, as a Brit, this makes no sense. We have the "18" certificate over here. 18s are shown a lot.

I live in Quebec and it makes even less sense to me. We have 4 ratings : G, 13, 16 and 18.

G is general, not a lot of violence, 13 is your regular shooting people and blowing stuff up, 16 is lots of gore and you can only get an 18 rating with porn.

All those ratings are mere suggestions except for 18 which are really restricted to 18+. This mean that anybody can get into a theatre and we don't care how old the are.

Other provinces have the exact same rating system as the US.

Blockbuster

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster does carry unrated versions of things, but usually only for major films that don't have much in them, like Blade 3 or King Arthur. I'll be very curious to see if they decide to carry this movie, however.

Congress wants to prevent IFC from showing it, too

[aggressivepedestrian]

Congress is trying to regulate cable, just like they regulate regular TV. Senator Stevens is the big gun behind it. What the hell is wrong with Alaskans? Can't they find someone sane to send to Congress?

Like a Bullfrog

[Anonymous Coward]

I htink you are referring to this...

Jay: Oh, all right. Well, first, I want you to tongue my bung, while you juggle my balls in one hand, and play with my asshole with the other, but don't stick your finger in. Then I want to pinky you while I stick in your fuckin' friend's brown, while Silent Bob watches, and fuckin' spanks it in a Dixie cup. After that, I want to smell your titties for a while, and you can pull my nutsack up over my dick so it looks like a bullfrog. Then I want you to fuckin' flick my nuts while your friend spanks me off in the same Dixie cup that Silent Bob jizzed in. Then, we throw the Dixie cup out.

OT: "Morality comes from God"

[David Rolfe]

I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality

I'm not saying that religion isn't a source of morality for some, but you said that right wingers insist you can't ave morality without religion. I have never seen anyone, right or left, proclaim that morality can not exist without religion. That's the proof I'm looking for.

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169079&cid= 14096206 (maybe go up a few from here)

I was having a discussion here where this guy basically posits that there is no morality anywhere that isn't God's; that other people's moralities are derivative of that God regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

I may be "misremembering" the conversation though, forgive me for not re-reading it (I'm at work :) Anyhow, he's not a religious nut or anyhting, a very reasonable and thoughful guy, that's just his belief. I enjoyed talking to him.

Re:Why No -NC-17? They're not "terrorists"...

[davidsyes]

They're "terrists" also known as "tear-wrists. Stop misunderestimating me....

Why do they hate the Enterprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they shunning the NC-1701?
Damn. Maybe I should get a life like Shatner suggested.

Rick DeBay

doesn't compute

[Anonymous Coward]

So are 12 year olds and younger always escorted? Or isn't a 12-y.o. seeing in passing a 15 rated a problem?

If not, why is it a problem for a 15 y.o to see an NC17 in the samescenario?

Re:doesn't compute

[Anonymous Coward]

There (usually) aren't laws enforcing the rating system.

As the previous post mentioned, there are a lot of conservative extremists with an abnormal level of political influence, and having kids wander into an NC-17 film is exactly the sort of thing that will stir up a shitstorm and get almost all of our politicians pandering to these nuts and demanding laws to criminalize any theater that allowed kids to slip into an NC-17 movie, which would mean turning theaters into a regulated industry with mandatory age checks for everything and architectural redesign to separate ALL of the film rating levels.

So theaters self-censor to avoid drawing protests by the nutjobs, and thus to avoid politicials taking an active intrest and passing all sorts of stupid laws. It's a weird truce. The industry avoids anything that might be too controvercial that would raise news stories, and everyone pretends that the industry self-rating system actually means something. The "PG Parental Guidance" and "PG-13" "R Restricted" ratings do not have any force in law over here like they do in the UK. In general the "No Children NC-17" rating doesn't have force in law either.

'X' is not a rating

[geekoid]

the MPAA doesn't rate 'X'. I don't even think porn movies use the MAPP rating at all.
You only need to be rated to get circulation amongest main stream cinimas.

I wonder why it's nc-17 and not nc-18?

not to be confused with NCC-1701 - god only knows what kind of stuff would go on there!

Isn't this a big non-story...

[Kjella]

...if the entire point of the film is to show what the MPAA won't let pass for an R rating, then *drumroll* it won't get an R rating! You don't really need to find a conspiracy here, because they quite clearly intentionally aimed for this. I mean if you didn't do that, what would happen? Make an R-rated movie and put up a sign "anything more explicit than this, we can't show you?" Huh?

OFFTOPIC: reply to old post about P2P 2.0

[danila]

In these old posts we spoke about calculating the "random song that I would like".

Incidentally, a few days after having this discussion I accidentally stumbled upon a very interesting project - Music Genome Project and the Internet radio based on that database that streamed random music similar to what you vote up.

It is amazing. I didn't expect this functionality to already exist in some form. Looks like the opening of the media is on schedule. :)

With zero distribution costs consumption of and payment for the media are bound to separate.

Re:OFFTOPIC: reply to old post about P2P 2.0

[Alsee]

Yes, I had Pandora in mind while I wrote about computers predicting what people will like. I was amazed at some of the selections Pandora played for me after I put in just one song. It started pulling up obscure artists I like that I didn't think anyone had ever heard of before, and in a radically different musical genre at that.

I think for a "basic station" that you will like it is good to put in a "normal" song from the middle of your target music genre, but a far more interesting/exciting choice to to make an "exploratory station" by putting in some oddball song outside your main genre, some unique song somewhere entrirely different, one that you just happen to really like anyway. That sort of station may be more hit-and-miss, but the hits can be quite striking.

I also discovered a couple of interesting things about Pandora. For one thing it downloads normal MP3 files to you, and stores them in the Windows Temp folder. If you want to keep a copy of a song all you have to do is copy the file out of the Temp folder and rename it as an MP3. I don't recall the exact file names for certain at the moment, but I remember they started with "A" and ended with a "dash number" and no file extention. Something like Access-1 Access-2 Access-3. Note that the LAST file in this sequence is usually the NEXT song, one that has not played yet. Most of the time the currently playing song is the next-to-last file. It preloads a song while the current one plays. If you skip between radio channels each one will have a pre-loaded song, which can make it a little tricky to figure out which numbered file is what song (unless you just renaming them to MP3s and check them one by one with some other player).

I also found that if you locate your Macromedia Flash folder, you can go down a few more folder levels to find where the player saves its tracking data. If you delete this folder then it "forgets" that you have already used up your limited time trial. Instant reset. On the other hand Pandora is pretty amazing, and paying for a year of full service looks like a worthwhile investment.

Each radio channel only allows you to press "skip" a certain number of times (stupid RIAA restrictions on written into law to restrict net-radio). If you you create a new channel with the exact same settings, the new channel will have it's skip count reset to zero.

-

Making Divorce Illegal

[David Rolfe]

First, I can't believe I read that whole article. What a blow hard Card is.

This is what I take away from it: "It is essential in a decent society that divorce be possible, when it is truly needed." but in addition, we need some kind of scarlet letter for the divorcée and 'divorcer', maybe a fantastic D.

In the end, you totally missed my point. So I'll recap before I abruptly end this discussion (because I'm not going to argue about it). Making divorce illegal is fucking retarded even if it's wrapped in the flag, or "for the kids", or the cause du jour. But first, I'll recap some "for the kids" arguments that are tired:

Libraries have to be censored -- for the children. CDs have to be stickered and restricted by law -- for the children. TV, video-games, and movies need to be restricted (by law!) -- for the children. Boobies and especially sex have to be hidden -- for the children. More helmet laws -- for the children. More firearm licensing and regulation -- for the children. Less integration in schools -- for the children. LESS GAY MARRIAGE -- for the children. That's what this thread was about... if you even read it. Golias posited that gay marriage is bad for the children. Are any of these "for the children" no, you could probably replace just about every argument "for the children" with "because we don't trust parents" (and by extension "because we don't trust anyone to do what we think is right").

So -- if we can't have gay marriage, because "the children" will only have one gender role-model (false premise) then we can't have single parent families. Divorce leads to single parent familes. Ergo, if we can't have gay marriage we can't have divorce (false conclusion). Hence the sarcastic remark to outlaw divorce you know "for the kids".

Wow. I've already said more than I wanted to.

So to clarify even further, I originally said: "Adoptive parents are typically in mature, stable, committed relationships/marriages before they embark on the months- or years-long process of adoption (sadly for Golias' axiom #1 [All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents], there is no such requirement for beginning the months-long process of pregnancy). Full disclosure: my wife was adopted, I was raised by both biological parents, my mom's parents divorced."

My mother wouldn't have been better off if one of her parents killed themselves to escape their marriage. So yeah, I agree with Card to some extent, people do make mistakes.

Until there are (scary, scary, brave-new) laws to license and regulate who can become fertile, who can mate, and who can birth we are going to just have to deal the best with can with "bad" families.

I'm not an absolutist, so we can just agree to disagree right now. Sorry this turned out so rantish. It would be pretty ironic if this post makes google's first page results for "for the children". Man, I'm in a foul mood.

CAP Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Now granted this guy is a complete whack-job, I do like the concept provided.

Basically, capalert.com provides ratings for movies based on a mathematical formula. While there are some flaws in what this particular website considers to be worthy of a mark-down, the concept is pretty sound. Make the system less subjective, and you make it less imperfect.

Then the movie rating would include an overall score and an individual score in each category which would allow parents to make a more informed decision.

only in america

[blackest_k]

In the uk the rating system is a little different we have 18 15 12 ratings.

Blockbuster basically carry main stream cinema releases an 18 certificate is not a problem... but
never seen a porn movie in a blockbuster's store but then i haven't in a HMV or other mainstream outlet.

I think thou porn films get regulated to licienced sex shops.

could be wrong never really felt the urge to wander into one probably coz it feels like its the domain of the dirty mac brigade, healthy sex is more your ann summers
which is very much mainstream