Badmovies.org Forum

You know, these guys keep on shocking me lately. Makes me wonder if the current head of the MPAA might know a thing or two.... hmm.... Here's what I just read on IMDB:
I have absolutely no problems with seeing more (or rather any) NC-17 flicks in theaters. Its the one rating for a film that gives me a warm, gooey feeling inside.  :teddyr:

I agree.  What's the use with having the rating if no one ever shows movies with it?  That and I'm getting a little tired of films cutting out scenes so they can make an R rating, then reposting them later on in a special "unrated" DVD. 

Think he'll meet with newspaper, TV, and radio station owners and convince them to carry ads for NC-17 films? One of the reasons exhibitors have balked at carrying films with that rating is that many wouldn't run ads for those films in the past. Theater can't publicize a film they carry, they have trouble getting butts in seats and people to buy snacks, they lose money on said film.

I'm all for people making films the way they way and being able to get them released. But "NC-17" has been the kiss of death for so many films before, and didn't solve the problem created when the MPAA failed to copyright the "X" rating years earlier. If this effort can liberate the rating to be used the way it was intended great, but I'll believe it when I see it. I notice he's encouraging independent filmmakers to go for the rating.


Nah, they'll just turn "Unrated" DVD releases into "NC-17" releases, and add other extra footage to get the "raw", "unrated", "beyond NC-17" version "they don't want you to see." The same old hustle with new names.

it started with movies that were originally put out and cut up by the MPAA (60's, 70's and 80's)and after years when the release the dvd they said hey! we got some extra stuff the fans would enjoy  not to mention a bunch of stuff that was cut out, and that was cool. but now every goddamn movie that comes out on dvd now, UNRATED! TOO SHOCKING FOR THEATRES! and all we get is about 2 seconds more of some blood or dialogue. one instance that i myself was most dissapointed at was the unrated cut for AVP, here i am all p**sed off that it was pg-13 and they didnt show anything and they announced and unrated cut and i was ecstatic. i brought the dvd home to find that all that was included was a godamn extended opening sequence that wasnt even good! point in turn im all for NC-17 cause then when they come to dvd they more than likely wont be boasting the unrated jive cause all the good stuff is already there.


im getting a little tired of R's getting cut to PG-13!

What's funny is that the NC-17 was created for legitimate films that exist in a realm between X and R, mainly films with explicit sexual content.

But newspapers still treat it like an X rating and won't advertise for it.

Technically, NC-17 is X. 

The MPAA was upset that the porno industry latched on to the "X" rating and then the public automatically thought of porn whenever they saw a film that was rated X.  They decided then to change the rating to NC-17 to keep down the confusion.

maniac was released as X rated and it was billed with porn flicks, but it clearly stated that there was no explicit sex just gore.

I'm sure that the ratings system in the states makes perfect sense to you guys, but it just seems all over the shop from here.

I mean, ours seems so simple:

G for general viewing

PG for parental guidence [for films just a touch 'badder' than your usual kids film.]

M for mature audiences

MA 15+ [for those bad ass films that don't justify a higher rating but are pretty nasty anyways]

R 18+ [for those, obviously, older than 18, and those films of a highly mature nature, either in violence or theme]


I think it's fairly straightfoward.

Do you think the system, disregarding the whole NC-17 problem, works in the states?

Generally, the idea of classifying movies based upon
1) age appropriateness for children (sub 18 year old) or
2) just as a cautionary flag for those who have a moral code that forbids gratuitious sex/violence
is ok.  It probably isn't a good idea for a five year old to see Showgirls or Blue Velvet or Death Race 2000.  I think the implementation is not well executed.  Blazing Saddles (at least my DVD cover) has an R rating.  Now, there is a scene of Cleavon & Gene smoking a joint, but the violence is really cartoonish, and there's no overt sex scene.  There is liberal use of the word "n****r" (and cuss words) but really it is used ironically and Chapelle's Show has just as much.  Defintely a much milder film than Showgirls.
The problem is that when you start classifying movies, it really is subjective, and limits get pushed over time.  Still, I think there should be a voluntary system in order to differentiate between The Little Mermaid and Fritz the Cat.

Oh no Showgirls 2 just popped in my head AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH make it stop. But seriously it's about time they are using the rating more maybe some studios will grow some guts.

Showgirls 2 Mwahahahahahaha!

Seriously, that is a movie that could improve with a better writer; rather than have something where everyone is angry with everyone else all the time, make it a movie where a plucky stripper with a heart of gold achieves her dream of being a topless dancer in a major Las Vegas show -- all with the help of her friends.

^ and maybe we can cut down on the nudity have have it marketed as a heart warming family film right?  :bouncegiggle:

A lot of great films are put out straight to DVD because of ratings issues, either that or go through the disgrace of being cut down for John Doe and his family of Latter Day Saints. Take away the stigma and let movies make money with the rating.