Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the defining-irony dept.

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."

5 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. LOL, Cinemas not showing a film? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Biased? by IvanTheViking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  3. Why No -NC-17? by SlashdotOgre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)?

    --
    Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
  4. Re:Gee.. what a shock. by Flounder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  5. Don't show NC-17s? by taskforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)