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.

[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.

May I be the first to say..

[Flounder]

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

Optioned yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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?

[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.

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.