Badmovies.org Forum

Tonight I went to blockbuster, seeing as I had avoided that place like the plague since I acquired a late charge there 2 years ago (the sad part is it was only 4 bucks--and i still didn't want to pay it, damn nazis).  I was feeling generous and curous since I hadn't been there in so long.  I originally went in there to check out the horror and (you can make fun if you want) old wrestling ppv's.  Well they had ONE ROW of horror, it was a small row, just one sided.  And they had 3 wrestling tapes.  I was p**sed, but I was reminded why I didn't go there (well besides being cheap).  It was not a lost cause, because I did pick up a copy of John Water's "Female Trouble" for 3 bucks.  And now those nazis at blockbuster will never get my 4 dollars for my 2 yr old late charge.  MUHAHAHAHA!!

Still laughing evily,
Deena

The Blockbuster in my area carries a good selection of horror on DVD.  All of the VHS tapes have been phased out since DVD is pretty much the way to go and will generate more revenue than VHS.   My view on wrestling PPVs is the same as my view on anime or UFC tapes.  I don't watch em, so I really don't care if they are carried or not.  Plus, Blockbuster is going to make most of it's rental revenue on new release titles and DVDs.  

Oh, and as for not paying off old late fees from Blockbuster, beware.  If the fee is over a certain amount and not paid off in a certain time frame, it gets sent to a collection agency.

Not to mention that they won't arry NC-17 movies and that they influence studios to create toned-down versions of some movies so as to maintain their 'family' image. :-/

Well, except when they carry the  "unrated" versions of certain DVDs....like American Pie 2 and Road Trip.  Oh, and that one movie that I will probably pronounce wrong...Y Tu Mama Tambien or something like that.

Just call it "Yo' Mama" and the clerks will know what you mean.  Honest.

Every Blockbuster I've seen has no no horror selection at all. They have this thing I call a "Wes Craven and some other crap" section and that's it. Screw their family image.

I think the most entertaining part of working at a video store is the incorrect title names that a customer will give you when looking for a movie...For instance, a customer will ask if you have a movie in stock...Instead of giving the right title, something more creative will spill out of their mouth.  Examples I've heard:

The Shimmyshank Redepention

How Stella Got Her Grove On

The Movie With the Two Fairies In It (This was an old man asking about the movie "The Birdcage")

I know I've heard a lot more, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

Standing a long line, paying some 4 bucks a pop for some DVDs I could only keep for 36 hours or so, I heard someone in the line grumble "I have one word of advice for everyone here, NETFLIX."

Once upon a time I was a member and, upon returning home, rejoined.  Monthly flat rate, all the DVDs I can watch, whenever...no regrets, no money or time wasted.

And they have a better selection as well.

Well, the Blockbuster by my house has the "Movie Pass" deal, where you get two movies, DVD or VHS, out at a time for a flat rate.  Essentially the same as Netflix, depending on how much you pay.

I use both services.  Netflix for the obscure titles, and Blockbuster for the big new releases.

I think their "marginal" selection gets smaller all the time, especially with their larger DVD selection.  But I wouldn't say that completely.  The one by my house gets some strange older movies on DVD.

I also believe they have some sort of deal with Lion's Gate in stocking their crappy horror movies.

Now if you want to complain about their strong-arm business tactics, well then I'm all for you.

That arm might be getting a tad weak.  Blockbuster is one of the many companies that over expanded in the 90s and is bleeding cash.  Store closings and downsizing are expected, too many outlets too close together.

Heck, even McDonald's is having troubles.

I'm just happy for the little mom and pop video store here in town, Plan 9 Video, they have the best obscure movies.  As for my old wrestling unsavory habit, maybe lack of access will break me of it (although I did just buy 2 ecw dvds)

Deena

Blockbuster sucks, but Hasting rules.  

Hasting here is about four times bigger than Blockbuster. It is cheaper too.

The only thing I ever liked about blockbuster was the video game contests they had in the mid 90's.  I got a free trip from them to florida for the world championships for winning the sega genesis contest for the state of South Dakota.  Thing is there were only 3 blockbusters in south dakota at the time so I didn't have many people to beat.  On the other hand I've never rented from them much because I have always liked the local rental places that had more interesting movies and a better selection (they didn't have one million copies of every new release like blockbuster does but I can live with that).

I boycotted blockbuster for the most part. Most chain video stores have ripped me off one way or another. One didn't specify the return date changing to noon vs. midnight (meaning they didn't alert customers of the change) and I racked up alot of late fee's...i contacted the company and they never did follow up. Some places i've gotten tapes recorded over used tapes (watching mission impossible was a nightmare since i could hear the audio for a show about sea otters mating)

You guys outta try netflix.com. You learn real fast places like that have better deals and far more choices. Not to mention there isn't the added pressure of having to watch the movie in 36 hours and not having enough time for multiple viewings. I guess people still like the old fashioned way of going to the store, but there really isn't a need for it. They never carry the movies you want and have 300 copies of bad flicks

I use Blockbuster for one thing only: Blockbuster Favorites. They have a deal, where for only $9.99 a year, you can rent two movies for the price of one, so long as they both have been out on video for a certain length of time. I've used that system to get caught up on all the "classic" movies I have missed seeing since I've only been really interested in movies for about that time. At the minimum, I was watching two movies a week for only $2.12. I steer clear of both DVD's and new releases, because VHS is cheaper, and I feel that if any new release is worth watching, it'll still be around in a couple of years for me to watch when it costs less to rent.

But as for the "horror" section, it's basically a disgrace to be called a section of a Movie Store. About the only thing they have there that is even remotely b-movie related are their kung fu movies interspersed in the action section. They have a surprising number of them considering it's Blockbuster. However, if I want something unique, I go two blocks down and visit the ultimate "Video Review." a store three times the size of Blockbuster with a horror and sci-fi section that would drop the jaw of even the most seasoned movie veterans. The price for rental is the same, but you can only get one movie. But it's worth it. I haven't been to Blockbuster in a couple of weeks, and have been spending my time at the other place, where people care. It's nice to have that.

-Scottie-

I ain't gonna make fun of you for looking for wrestling tapes/DVDs. I have some obscure ones myself...
XPW tapes, ECW tapes/DVDs (including bootlegged PPVs), WWE/WWF tapes (including bootlegged PPVs), WCW tapes (including bootlegged PPVs), NWA:TNA bootlegged PPVs, Primal Conflict's only episode on TV, FMW tapes/DVDs, the "Best of Backyard Wrestling" series (volumes 1-4), and a backyard tape of me and my friends.

f**k Blockbuster. I used to go to Video Mania, a local store in my town (and I was friends with the owners, so I was aiming at Video Mania for my first job), but then they shut down due to Blockbuster moving into town, as well as Hollywood Video coming in.

Now I don't mind Hollywood Video (aside from their dumbass enforcement of the MPAA fascist rating system), but it doesn't have that same "feel" that Video Mania did. Sure, a larger selection, and you get to keep the movie for 5 days instead of one, but it doesn't have the same feel to it.

One thing that really bugs me about Blockbuster is that there is usually not only a long line, but also a hassle of some sort. For example, renting from a different location never seems to be a smooth as it should be.

Another example happened a couple of months ago, when I went with a friend to rent something. We went to the Blockbuster nearest my house, not his usual store. After much fussing around and a phone call, it was determined that he had a late fee at the other location. They suggested that he could pay it right there. Unfortunately, this had happened to him once before, and the payment was not recorded at the other store, so he was charged twice. He told this to the cashier, and the following exchange took place:

Cashier: "But I have the manager of the other store on the phone, and he'll change it."

Mike: "It's happened to me before."

Cashier: "But I have the manager on the phone."

Mike: "That's what happened last time."

Cashier: "But I have the manager on the phone."

Mike: "I told you....."

And so forth.

Another peeve of mine is that the staff are apparently required to say hello when you walk in. This is a nice thing. It's the snarky comments they make if you don't return the greeting that bother me. They didn't mean it in the first place, but I'm an a***ole if I don't say it back. I'm sorry, but the way my local store is laid out, the hello usually comes from over my shoulder and across the room. I'd feel pretty stupid stopping and turning around to acknowledge an insincere greeting from a complete stranger across the room. Maybe I'm antisocial.

Then there is the pitiful selection, since Blockbuster took it upon themselves to be all things to all people. With merchandise, snacks, equipment and accessories, videos for sale, video games for sale and rent, movies duplicated on VHS and DVD and a hundred copies of practically every new release, they have virually no selection. The store looks impressive, until you see how much space is actually left for rental DVDs (or VHS if you prefer). They need to either build bigger stores, or set some priorities.

What selection they do have is arranged terribly. I've noticed that sci-fi, horror and anime are now simply thrown into the action section, like they don't merit sections of their own. There are so few, maybe they don't.

What really bugs me is that since I moved to my current house, the most convenient Blockbuster is probably the lamest one in the entire city.

Thankfully, there is still an independent store downtown that puts them all to shame. They get most of my business.

The last time I went to Blockbuster, about two summers ago, it was a really hot day (even for July in Columbia).  I was sweating just walking the block to the store.  I spent  about 30 minutes or so trying to find something decent (according to my tastes, which seem out of place at BB).  Anyway, I wasn't a member, so I went to the counter to sign up.  They were out of forms, and could not just sign me up right there!  Bad selection I can deal with, cutting down movies irks me to no end, but I'll look for movies they wouldn't edit.  Bad service?  I am out of there.

Fortunately Columbia does have a few good independent stores, though there was amurder a couple of months ago outside of my usual store.

Blockbusters is simply evil.  To edit films is bad enough BUT NOT TO INFORM YOU (on the box or elsewhere) is 1984 at its most insidious.

I have been actively boycotting Ballbuster for 5 years and I feel good about it. The whole mega-corp thing is a personal irritant of mine. I shop at the local grocery story when I can, I only eat fast food if there is absolutely no alternative, I even buy local or microbrew beer. I actively think about how to avoid giving money to large organizations

When I was finishing up school a few years ago, I took a summer job at Blockbuster, thinking it'd be a good place to work and brush up on my movies. It was not the entertainment Mecca I had built up in my mind, by any means. One co-worker asked me what my favorite action movie was. When I answered "Hard Boiled", he looked at me like I was growing orange warts out of the top of my head.

Most days were spent putting the horror movies (extremely pitiful selection, as most other posts have already mentioned) back in order because they were always scrambled up on Friday nights. Having an anal-retentive supervisor didn't help - He was one of those folks who needed everything in its exact place or the world would come to a grinding halt.
Someone mentioned the "greeting" thing. Yes, Blockbuster does have a policy that you need to greet a patron when they come into the store, and also when they leave. Please. If a recently divorced guy comes into the store and rents 4 Shannon Tweed movies at once, I don't think he wants to start a conversation about it when he arrives, and CERTAINLY not when he's leaving. Some things are better left unsaid.
Hollywood video is better on so many levels. The sci-fi selection alone is worth the visit.

Blockbuster CARDS ME!!!!!!!! they dont let me rent RATED R MOVIES!!!!!! thats how they get their chuckles ya know!!! I'm 20!! TWENTY!! and the only thing good about being 20 is that i can rent and go see rated r movies and NC 17 movies! and they always card me when i have no proof of age! they called MY MOTHER ONCE!! I have to bring my mom with me to get movies!  any other video store would gladly rent out pornos to me even if i insisted i was 13!!

DEATH TO COCKBUSTERS!!!

love colleen

>any other video store would gladly rent out pornos to me even if i insisted i was
>13!!

So, what kind of pornos are you renting? :)

Okay, one more time:  Blockbuster does not "edit" movies.  It makes a deal with the studio, and the studio gives them an edited version.  And if you have trouble telling the difference between "Unrated" and "R-Rated" on the back of the box (or, in the case of Requiem For a Dream, right there on the front), you should lay the blame at the feet of your elementary school teachers.

A longer rant on the same subject:
http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/goodies/blockbuster.html

I find that to be a distinction of no difference.  Either "we'll only carry a movie if we can edit out the naughty bits" or "we'll only carry a movie if you edit out the naughty bits" results in an edited movie due to a Blockbuster decision (and I do think it is different than a studio--which paid for a movie to be made-- editing a director's cut).  

I will decry such a decision, though I won't advocating use of force against it, as they probably would in France (where, IIRC, the director holds final say over a movie--by law).  However, if I rent a movie, I assume it is the version released by the studio, unless it says otherwise (e.g. "director's cut"), cutting down a movie, without informing me ahead of time, I consider to be fraud.

raj wrote:
>
> I find that to be a distinction of no difference.  Either
> "we'll only carry a movie if we can edit out the naughty
> bits" or "we'll only carry a movie if you edit out the
> naughty bits" results in an edited movie due to a Blockbuster
> decision (and I do think it is different than a studio--which
> paid for a movie to be made-- editing a director's cut).

I see.  Are you also up in arms about airline versions?  TV-edited versions?  The R-rated/unrated disparity?  Is it also similarly evil when the theatrical distributor comes back and says, "This'll get an NC-17 -- edit it down to an R or we can't distribute it"?


> I will decry such a decision, though I won't advocating use
> of force against it, as they probably would in France (where,
> IIRC, the director holds final say over a movie--by law).
> However, if I rent a movie, I assume it is the version
> released by the studio, unless it says otherwise (e.g.
> "director's cut"), cutting down a movie, without informing me
> ahead of time, I consider to be fraud.

Go to Blockbuster and find me an movie edited from the theatrical version that doesn't say so on the box.  Go ahead.  I'll wait here.

I think I'll be waiting a long time, though.

Nathan

Good point about speaking with our wallets, but complaining with our mouths can encourage others to do likewise, and let the suits know what to do if they want our money.

Personally, I think the idea of giving the public what they want is a chicken-and-egg thing. These days, it's very hazy whether something is made available because people are buying it or people are buying it because it's what is being offered. Are we telling the studios, distributors, networks and video chains what's good, or are they telling us because the people in charge have become so arrogant they think they know us better than we know ourselves?

I also feel that people are a little too quick to buy into the thinking that something intelligent, original and different won't make decent money. Not so long ago, independent filmmakers disproved it on a regular basis, producing good movies that got reasonably wide release and made money. Hollywood, seeing that their ideas were good, followed suit, giving us some great movies. Now, the people with vision are largely shut out of the market, and the mainstream movie industry is stagnating, creatively speaking, because they seldom try anything unproven.

Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
> raj wrote:
> >
> > I find that to be a distinction of no difference.  Either
> > "we'll only carry a movie if we can edit out the naughty
> > bits" or "we'll only carry a movie if you edit out the
> > naughty bits" results in an edited movie due to a Blockbuster
> > decision (and I do think it is different than a studio--which
> > paid for a movie to be made-- editing a director's cut).
>
> I see.  Are you also up in arms about airline versions?
> TV-edited versions?  The R-rated/unrated disparity?  Is it
> also similarly evil when the theatrical distributor comes
> back and says, "This'll get an NC-17 -- edit it down to an R
> or we can't distribute it"?

I avoid airline versions.  TV versions do say they are edited.  Besides, both times I'm not paying for it (I don't reserve an airline seat based upon what movie is showing, usually I read.)  I do think it is bad when the distributor demands an edit, but such is the nature of the business of Hollywood movies.

>
> > I will decry such a decision, though I won't advocating use
> > of force against it, as they probably would in France (where,
> > IIRC, the director holds final say over a movie--by law).
> > However, if I rent a movie, I assume it is the version
> > released by the studio, unless it says otherwise (e.g.
> > "director's cut"), cutting down a movie, without informing me
> > ahead of time, I consider to be fraud.
>
> Go to Blockbuster and find me an movie edited from the
> theatrical version that doesn't say so on the box.  Go
> ahead.  I'll wait here.
>
> I think I'll be waiting a long time, though.

As I said, I think it is fraud if they don't inform me.  If they do say "this has been edited" then it is not fraud, but I won't watch it.  I haven't been to BB for years, in part
because of their editing policy (and it is THEIR policy, no matter whether they do the edit or they demand the studio makes the edit.)
> Nathan
>
>

Believe me, as someone who has worked at Blockbuster for way too long, I can tell you firsthand - on the side of the rental case, next to the title, it will tell you if the movie is dubbed, subtitled, or an unrated or rated version.  For instance, the side of the case will say - American Pie 2 - Unrated version.  Or - Showgirls - R version.  And the cover box will also have some kind of explanation of that fact, although it is sometimes harder to find.

I think with the advent of DVD, Blockbuster is loosening it's policy.  At my store, we carry the unrated versions of such diverse films as "Embrace of the Vampire", "Road Trip", "American Pie 2" "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" and we also carry "Last Temptation of Christ" which was a title that Blockbuster refused to carry for quite some time.  We also carry "Wild Orchid" but I honestly couldn't tell you what version or what rating it has.  The only remotely mainstream movie that we got a rated version of in the last three years, that I can think of, would be "Requiem for a Dream".  And I had no interest in seeing it, so I didn't find out about that fact until some time after it was released.  Most of the toned down versions of films we get are some series of skin flicks made by Playboy, and we carry the R-rated versions.  Stuff like "Sex Court" and "Married People, Single Sex".   And I really don't feel like we're harming the director's artistic integrity over carrying the R-rated version of his soft-core porno.

Well Andy, that there is a hell of a can of worms you've opened up there and I could write a dissertation on the subject.

First off and perhaps the most controversial aspect of this discussion is the symbiotic relationship between audiences and the entertainment industry. Ultimately they can only sell what people are willing to buy. However, advertising as non-political propaganda can shape what people are willing to buy as such issues of quality ebb and flow as each force organically effects the other.

Second: creativity, uniqueness and originality are by nature not quantifiable. Money is the essence of quantifiable. There is an inherent conflict between the two. It’s true the creative freedom give rise to the best opportunity for something truly extraordinary, but it is also inherently experimental and as such more prone to failure than success. Any production company will go bankrupt if their failure to success ratio drops much below 50%. Quantifiable entertainment requires operating within known parameters. If you know people like a given actor that gives you a knowable quality to the investment. If you know more people can watch a PG-13 film than an R or NC-17 that too creates a chance to improve your return on your investment. Money is interested in it’s own propagation not that of quality. A part of this fact is that there are quite simply fewer intelligent people than average or less making us an undesirable market demographic. Ultimately it safer to produce crap that adheres to the research numbers than to go trial and error with creative genius. Voting with your wallet is the only vote profit driven industries will ever hear.

Third: raw probability. The old adage remains forever true “90% of anything is crap” Simple fact of the mater is, in the trial and error world most efforts will fall short of extraordinary. We forget those less successful efforts while those which capture a place in our psyches remain through time. Thus are perspective is warped. Were not suffering through any more substandard product now than we ever were within an oscillation of the symbiotic relationship mentioned in item one. We always fee like the present is worse than the past because the disasters of the past fade from the collective consciousness.

Personally, I do think that it's a lousy practice for distributors to shut out a film because it's rated NC-17. Once upon a time, legitimate movies like A Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy were rated X, and still got distribution, critical acclaim, and awards. Today, those films would have to be cut in order to go anywhere except straight to video. Unfortunately, too many people have gotten it into their heads that "for adults" equals "porno," and use the NC-17 as a label to dismiss it as such.

Plus, there's the fact that the MPAA is a non-government group with biases up the wazoo. When Robert Rodriguez' "El Mariachi" was rated NC-17, he asked the studio why the much more violent Reservoir Dogs was rated R. The response: "Oh, it's a Miramax film. The MPAA loves them."

Objectivity and people are two words that all too rarely have anything in common. If I was on the MPAA I know my leniency or strictness would probably be dictated by my mood and personal standards. If I had seen a glut of violent films to judge my tolerance for violence would change over time. If I had to review one too many sexual thrillers I might give a relatively mild film an R rating faster. I don't know I think the whole rating system is awkwardly applied

well none! butt im just saying!

edward penishands or the layin king cos they sing vagina matata


love colleen

Funk, E. wrote:
>
> Well Andy, that there is a hell of a can of worms you've
> opened up there

It's a gift  :)

Seriously, I'm not sure we really disagree on this. My complaint is not that Hollywood doesn't take chances. Of course they don't. I'm just suggesting that by creating a climate in which independent films seldom get a wide release, they have lost the people who took the chances for them, and gave them proven ideas. Meanwhile, the tried and true is getting more and more stale.

I agree that we have very selective memories, and only the best is remembered, but when theatres are so full of remakes and adaptations of 30-year-old TV shows, that fresh ideas are in shorter supply than they used to be, or at least fresh ideas that have been sufficiently proven. Sure, plenty of really creative  independent films fail to make a lot of money, but when these films don't have an opportunity to succeed, everyone loses out on the knowledge of which ideas do appeal to the mainstream.

We're definately on the same page and you'r right that we've entered into a period of movies where people like Peter Jackson whould never get discovered because of the the current dynamic that exists between distribution and production. However, this will change, when the should be blockbuster starts failing to bring in much more money than a fly-by-night indie the industry will again cull the wasteland that is indie film making for the next big thing the next unknown that'll breathe life into the industry. We've watched the populare music industry go from cookie cutter to avant guard to cookie cutter more than once over time.

Also, The technology need to make projects with quality production value is dropping daily making indie production easier. There will be a revival of good film making I sure of it.

Wow, this is gonna p**s you off Paquita.  I'm 16 and they never card me.  I rent about three R rated or unrated movies at a time and they just take my money with a smile.

Not to be nitpicky, but I never could understand why Blockbusters can't alphabatize the movies. Sometimes I find more H's way over in the L's. usually it's just a big mess, which frustrates me since most of the movies I rented were small titles which means there's only one copy I had to spend 15 minutes staring at the shelves looking for. Nothings changed, I went back this past weekend after many years. The line went to the back of the store, couldn't find anything and even tho i get to keep my movies for a week I still figure they're goign to try and find some way to screw me. %-/

>I see. Are you also up in arms about airline versions? TV-edited versions? The

There's a difference. As someone else pointed out, you're not paying to see movies in those situations, but you DO pay to rent movies at Blockbuster. Also, Blockbuster is forcing many small video stores out of business, so that you often have no choice but to rent from them or another similar chain.

>R-rated/unrated disparity? Is it also similarly evil when the theatrical distributor
>comes back and says, "This'll get an NC-17 -- edit it down to an R or we can't
>distribute it"?

Yes, it is. The ratings are supposed to be an advisory, not a tool to force studios to censor movies.

>Go to Blockbuster and find me an movie edited from the theatrical version that
>doesn't say so on the box. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Some people aren't aware of the differences between versions. Someone looking to rent Showgirls might not even remember what the theatrical version was rated, or they might not know to check the rating because they don't expect a video store to be carrying censored copies of movies (regardless of who did the censoring).

>For instance, the side of the case will say - American Pie 2 - Unrated version. Or
>- Showgirls - R version. And the cover box will also have some kind of
>explanation of that fact,

You mean somewhere on the case it will say something to the effect of "This is not the version that was in theaters", or "Censored version created especially for Blockbuster"?

>I think with the advent of DVD, Blockbuster is loosening it's policy.

Are they willing to carry NC-17 movies now?

>Most of the toned down versions of films we get are some series of skin flicks
>made by Playboy, and we carry the R-rated versions.

And what makes Blockbuster think that people who would want to rent these videos would want to see a specially censored version of them? If I were going to rent a 'skin flick', it wouldn't be for the plot or the dialog.

>If I was on the MPAA

You have to be a parent to be a member of the MPAA. At least that's what I've always read, since the ratings are supposedly intended for parents.

>well none! butt im just saying!
>
>edward penishands or the layin king cos they sing vagina matata

EP always sounded interesting. I've also had an urge to see Buffy The Vampire Layer...

>Not to be nitpicky, but I never could understand why Blockbusters can't
>alphabatize the movies.

The first video rental store my family got a membership at (way back when video tapes were enough of novelty to justify renting them on a regular basis) didn't even have the movies sorted by type, everything was just thrown in together. Except for the adult videos, they were on the other side of the store.

>For instance, the side of the case will say - American Pie 2 - Unrated version. Or
>- Showgirls - R version. And the cover box will also have some kind of
>explanation of that fact,

"You mean somewhere on the case it will say something to the effect of "This is not the version that was in theaters", or "Censored version created especially for Blockbuster"?"

No, I mean that somewhere it will say it is rated R.  Rated R movies are the "hardest" rating that Blockbuster carries because of their "family video store" image the like to maintain.  However, lately, they like to carry the "unrated" version of DVDs like The Sweetest Thing, Road Trip, Y Tu Mama Tambien, ect.  They can get away with doing this since these versions haven't been rated by the MPAA and can just stick a youth-restricted viewing sticker on them, like they do with anything not rated by the MPAA.  


>Most of the toned down versions of films we get are some series of skin flicks
>made by Playboy, and we carry the R-rated versions.

"And what makes Blockbuster think that people who would want to rent these videos would want to see a specially censored version of them? If I were going to rent a 'skin flick', it wouldn't be for the plot or the dialog."

It's the same reason people watch the Cinemax movies on late-night television.  The versions we carry are the same that play on there.  And believe me, there are plenty of men - married, single, old, young - that rent these softcore R dick teaser movies.  With the advent of the Internet, cable, and adult movie stores, I'm not really sure why though.  I guess for some guys, all it takes is a bare pair of fake boobs and a lame softcore erotic storyline to get their jollies.

Sounds like a problem that's just particular to that store.  Our store, everything is kept in a loose alphabetical order.  Our's is pretty close to alphabetical, but it's impossible to keep it exact, since it changes every Tuesday, and you have to follow a certain merchandising scheme of how many cases go on a shelf and how they are to be arranged.

>No, I mean that somewhere it will say it is rated R. Rated R movies are
>the "hardest" rating that Blockbuster carries because of their "family video
>store" image the like to maintain.

Some people aren't aware of this or that studios create special R-rated versions of some videos just to make Blockbuster happy.

>It's the same reason people watch the Cinemax movies on late-night television.

Because there's nothing else on, the movie is there and you don't have to pay anything extra for it? That's the only reason I've watched them.

>The versions we carry are the same that play on there. And believe me, there
>are plenty of men - married, single, old, young - that rent these softcore R dick

That's just sad. Not that they rent skin flicks, but that they'd pay money for the same softcore crap they can see on any pay channel.

JohnL wrote:
>
> >I see. Are you also up in arms about airline versions?
> TV-edited versions? The
>
> There's a difference. As someone else pointed out, you're not
> paying to see movies in those situations, but you DO pay to
> rent movies at Blockbuster.

And you get exactly what you're paying for.  The version of the movie is marked clearly on the box, just like the title and other salient information.  I don't think that the basic skill of reading the English language is too much to expect of the average renter.
>
> >R-rated/unrated disparity? Is it also similarly evil when
> the theatrical distributor
> >comes back and says, "This'll get an NC-17 -- edit it down
> to an R or we can't
> >distribute it"?
>
> Yes, it is. The ratings are supposed to be an advisory, not a
> tool to force studios to censor movies.

Wait -- so who's the big ee-vil in this case?  When a distributor comes back and says, "Sorry, NC-17 doesn't play well in Des Moines, we can't distribute anything above an R or we'll lose money" -- are they somehow being evil by (gasp) trying to stay in business?

>
> >Go to Blockbuster and find me an movie edited from the
> theatrical version that
> >doesn't say so on the box. Go ahead. I'll wait here.
>
> Some people aren't aware of the differences between versions.
> Someone looking to rent Showgirls might not even remember
> what the theatrical version was rated, or they might not know
> to check the rating because they don't expect a video store
> to be carrying censored copies of movies (regardless of who
> did the censoring).

Oh, come on.  Anyone who remembers Showgirls remembers it entirely because of it being the first theatrically-distributed NC-17 title in a decade.  There's a point at which you should assume some minimum of intelligence in the renting public.

And there have been enough R-rated vs. unrated versions of movies around that anyone who doesn't think to look at their box is an idiot.  If you want to criticize Blockbuster for not wholly accomodating the idiot demographic, well...

> >For instance, the side of the case will say - American Pie 2
> - Unrated version. Or
> >- Showgirls - R version. And the cover box will also have
> some kind of
> >explanation of that fact,
>
> You mean somewhere on the case it will say something to the
> effect of "This is not the version that was in theaters", or
> "Censored version created especially for Blockbuster"?

See above note on fully accomodating idiots.  (And by the way, these versions are rarely created exclusively FOR Blockbuster.  The first place I saw a rated version of Showgirls was on the shelves of Hollywood Video.)

> >Most of the toned down versions of films we get are some
> series of skin flicks
> >made by Playboy, and we carry the R-rated versions.
>
> And what makes Blockbuster think that people who would want
> to rent these videos would want to see a specially censored
> version of them?

Probably the fact that, um, PEOPLE RENT THEM.  And come back and RENT SOME MORE.

You seem to think that Blockbuster doesn't know how money gets into its cash drawer.

Nathan

Hmmm. On one hand, the average movie renter lacks the intelligence to enjoy something new and different, and can't be expected to notice anything outside the Hollywood mainstream. On the other hand, this same person is supposed to be aware of different versions of the same movie, carefully read labels and understand the rating system. Seems kind of contradictory.

I know reasonably intelligent people who regularly confuse R and NC-17, and one who thought that unrated was a tamer version "because there was no need to rate it." I have one friend who pretty much chooses his movies based on the box art. All of them can appreciate a well-made film.

>
> Hmmm. On one hand, the average movie renter lacks the
> intelligence to enjoy something new and different, and can't
> be expected to notice anything outside the Hollywood
> mainstream. On the other hand, this same person is supposed
> to be aware of different versions of the same movie,
> carefully read labels and understand the rating system. Seems
> kind of contradictory.

I don't think that the person looking for nothing out of the mainstream is going to be the one who is p**sed because the difference between the R-rated and unrated versions of Dead Alive wasn't spelled out with big neon letters.

The big theatrical releases for which Blockbuster and other rental outlets have carried variant versions, either tamer (Requiem for a Dream) or wilder (American Pie, Soul Survivor) had big broad banners across the front, either proclaiming them "Edited Version" or "UNRATED -- Not Seen in Theaters!"

Aside from having a Blockbuster clerk standing at the customer's elbow speaking in small, easy words, what more could they do?

> I know reasonably intelligent people who regularly confuse R
> and NC-17, and one who thought that unrated was a tamer
> version "because there was no need to rate it."

So now your complaint isn't against Blockbuster, it's against any video distributor who puts out an "Unrated" version that doesn't have a big explanatory footnote, "This means more breasts"?

 I have one
> friend who pretty much chooses his movies based on the box
> art. All of them can appreciate a well-made film.

I'll let you discover the wonderful straightline/punchline effect of these last two sentences on your own.

Nathan

One point was made earlier in this thread that kind of got overlooked that I think is rather important:

All of the pro-Blockbuster posts seem to have an underlying assumption that people have choices -- that if you don't want to rent at Blockbuster, go somewhere else.

Well, for an ever-increasing number of people, there is nowhere else to go.  In too many towns and neighborhoods, big chains like Blockbuster have pushed out the smaller, more idiosyncratic (sp?) mom-&-pop stores.  Those at the mercy of a lowest-common-denominator corporate mentality like Blockbuster's can't vote with their pocketbooks (as the old phrase goes) -- they're simply stuck.  

I'm lucky -- I happen to live somewhere where my video rental choices range from the predictably bland to the  downwright goofy.  But not everyone is so lucky.

Agreed in all regards.  As someone who is probably meant to be identified by the "pro-Blockbuster" description, I need to clarify:  I am NOT pro-Blockbuster.  I don't rent there.  I haven't for years.

But if you're going to criticize them, for heaven's sakes, criticize them for REAL reasons, not the misapplied label of censorship or the charge of "editing" which is so far from reality as to be almost comical.  If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it merely embodies the general evil inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.  It's not the player, it's the game; Blockbuster merely plays the game well.

Nathan

And that's why capitalism sucks!

*ducks*

8-P

No ducking required.  Capitalism, at least as presently constituted hereabouts, sucks mightily.

I could write a lot on this subject, I recently DID write a fair chunk in one of those cross-blog discussions, so I'll just refer any interested party to what I already wrote:
http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/weblog/archives/00000095.html

bash them for good reason?

how about being put in to collection for $11 for a fee that wasn't more then 2 weeks old

Blockbuster sucks for anything but J6P

Well, if you're going for a larger-view critique, the power that a Blockbuster wields does influence what gets made (to the detriment of original filmmaking) -- just like the power that a McDonald's wields influences (whether directly or indirectly) the farm and agricultural policy not only of the U.S. but of poor nations where their currency is so immediately needed that the long-term damage to the environment of providing for a McDonald's (i.e., clear-cutting forests for cattle grazing lands, etc.) has to be ignored.

The power of a Blockbuster's can mean either that less adult (adult in the old-fashioned sense of "for adults") and challenging films will be made, or, if made, will not get into wide home distribution.

But this kind of stuff's been a problems since the inception of mass (as opposed to rich-patron-supported) media.  In the 30s through the 50s it was organizations like the Legion of (So-Called) Decency influencing what films got made and what could be shown in them.  

Even as everything changes, nothing changes.

Oy.  Don't get me stahted.

Blockbuster is just another corporate giant.  I don't expect it to tend to my viewing tastes, because mine falls outside the tastes of mainstream movie watchers.  Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store.  With the sheer amount of movies released (more movies are released on a weekly basis now than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what movies to carry.  Sure, people in this thread have complained about the lack of horror movies that Blockbuster carries.  However, working there, the only time I hear this complaint from a customer is around Halloween when everyone wants to rent horror movies.  In the years I've worked there, I can safely say I'm the only person that rents the cheesy horror, sci-fi, and blaxploitation movies at our store (besides one or two disturbingly creepy lonely men that I would rather not put myself in the category with)  and that's no exaggeration.  Blockbuster carries what it assumes will bring in the most number of rents.  Sure, I would salivate if it carried a larger selection of cheesy horror and science fiction films.  But, my tastes are in the minority and are not what are going to bring in the bucks.   Blockbuster's target audience is that towards the mainstream.  Is that a good thing?  Not for me and you.  However, it works for them and it works for the family or couple coming in to rent the "hottest" new release on a Friday or Saturday night.  It's just the nature of the beast.  

As for lack of choices, I think that point could be made for a number of services.  You don't see Mom and Pop grocery stores, drug stores, barbershops, and pizza parlors like you used to.  That's just how corporate America is now.  People have given up personal service and friendliness for conveniance and speedy service.  I don't have any other choices when it comes to my cable service, and it's just something I have to live with.  I would love to be able to get VH1 classic and be able to watch Hall and Oates music videos all day, but my company doesn't carry that channel.  Does it suck?  Sure.  Is it something I can live with?  Yeah.  My life isn't really that much worse off not being able to rent "Madman" on DVD.

You make a good point, but I think the problem is that Blockbuster's bottom line is not the quality of films it distributes.  Since it's a company on the stockmarket, (BBI or BBE or something like that) Blockbuster Video has only to answer to it's stockholders.  Everyone involved is only concerened with the bottom line, which is profit.  They couldn't care if they put a Carrot Top movie out on the shelves, as long as it rents good.  And believe me, it's way more profitable for them to invest in a crappy movie like Eye See You, with a name-recognizable star in Sylvester Stallone than a challenging, thought-provoking independent movie with "no one" in it.  You may think that I'm giving the public way too little credit, but after working there for a few years, I know what's going to rent out.  Most people tend to go for star name recognition or what they've heard by word-of-mouth.  Blockbuster knows that too, so that's what they give a wider distribution to.  I have seen an encouraging trend in that they are giving a little wider distribution to certain independent movies, that I've really enjoyed.  "Double Whammy" is a recent one that comes to mind.  I thought it was an extremely funny and intelligent movie.  Although, now that I think of it, it probably got that distribution because it features Elizabeth Hurley (and one of her nipples) and Dennis Leary.  Still, an excellent movie though.

Nathan hit upon a point. I don't think the executives of major corporations are plotting the down fall of quality in America. They are profit motivated which means they are driven by forces as basic as mating. Get as much as you can for as little invested as you can. Charge as much as you can get away with for the product that's going to sell the most. Pay your employees as little as you possibly can work them as hard as you are able. Buy in bulk.

Universality create comfort and a consistent product is easiest to achieved by eliminating variables. Thus the easiest food to sell nationwide is the blandest. the movie that's easiest to sell is the one that's least controversial. Big = bland

It's the mega-corporation nature of it that I avoid. I vote with my dollar by consciously trying to spend it locally as much as possible. If I don't want my world to homogenize I need to support as much local color as I possibly can.

I do NOT (repeat NOT) support terrorism or violence, but I have to admit it brought a smile to my face when some torched the Walmart that was being built on Height Street. A lot of the neighborhoods have passed ordinances against large chain restaurants and stores in their area. Where I live now there is no Blockbuster OR Hollywood Video We have 3 locally owned and operated video stores. I know the owners by name. It is possible to hold Starbucks and Walmart at bay, but you have to actually change your spending habits to do it and then back that up with legislation and local action.

Of course the bottom line is the only motivator.  But that's the problem -- even the moguls of Old Hollywood at least paid lip service to "noblesse oblige" -- that is, their desire to serve up a certain amount of 'edifying' fare.  (Whether they actually did so is another topic entirely.)  In our time, that sense of obligation from the powerful to the powerless (nebulous though it may have been) has completely evaporated.  Even the lip service is gone.

What's the answer?  Revolution?  Passive resistance?  Apathetic capitulation?  A Darwinian scramble where we all climb over each other's bodies to grasp at the crumbs being brushed off the table? (I believe the last is called "supply side economics".)  I don't know.  I just can't see the growing inequality in the system (which is what this discussion comes down to) going on forever without something in society cracking wide open.

As I've said before, it all comes down to what your metaphor for society is, a jungle or a family...

Yet another random topic waxes philosophical :-)

I agree. As our society stratifies the wealthy begin to view the working class as more of an inconvenience than a necessity of economics. We go from a society based on growth to one based upon stagnation. The wealthy want more, but they no longer want to have to work for it themselves so they start cannibalizing the economic infrastructure that made their wealth possible. Eventually they so undermine the social environment around them that it destabilizes and you’ve got yourself martial law followed by a nice little revolution.

"He who has the gold makes the rule." At first gold is made by ambitious and industrious people. Later their children inherit the gold and with it the right to make the rules. The problem is there is nothing genetic about being a good ruler so you get an atrophy of leadership. That incompetence causes friction between classes “The I was born rich so why the f**k should I have to be responsible with/about it. It’s my BIRTHRIGHT.” The same historical model that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic and the monarchy of France apply to corporate America. The titles and apparent governing mechanism change, but the rolls do not. Every Senator is a millionaire. Over 500 members of congress ran companies and bankrupted them! By the people, of the people, for the people is becoming by the rich, of the rich, for the rich.

>Wait -- so who's the big ee-vil in this case? When a distributor comes back and
>says, "Sorry, NC-17 doesn't play well in Des Moines, we can't distribute anything
>above an R or we'll lose money" -- are they somehow being evil by (gasp)
>trying to stay in business?

No, the entire ratings system is evil for keeping NC-17 movies out of the theaters. Do you think anyone really did any research to see if NC-17 movies would make money or if people would protest them? The MPAA said that NC-17 was equal to the old X rating, and all theaters, newspapers and magazines heard was NC-17 = X rated. Theaters refuse to play them, newspapers and magazines refuse to advertise them because they don't want to be known for showing/advertising X-rated movies. Never mind that NC-17 movies aren't the same as porn, that's how most people see them. As far as I know, the only 'research' on NC-17 was the release of Showgirls, a really crappy movie that just about everyone hated. Everyone looked at the box office results of Showgirls and in their single-digit-IQ brains, the failure of Showgirls was directly the result of the rating. This is because studios and such can't judge quality.

>Oh, come on. Anyone who remembers Showgirls remembers it entirely because
>of it being the first theatrically-distributed NC-17 title in a decade. There's a point
>at which you should assume some minimum of intelligence in the renting public.

Pick 10 people you know, who are just average movie viewers, but reasonably intelligent people, and ask them what rating Henry & June had. Please post the results.

>See above note on fully accomodating idiots. (And by the way, these versions
>are rarely created exclusively FOR Blockbuster. The first place I saw a rated
>version of Showgirls was on the shelves of Hollywood Video.)

Same difference, another faceless chain store...

>If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it merely embodies the general evil
>inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.

Of the small video stores that used to be in this area before they were all forced out of business by the big chain stores, they all used to carry adult videos in the back. And by adult, I don't mean the Skinemax crap, I mean full, uncensored pornos. This is in the suburbs and there were never any protests or picketing that I knew of. Since these stores did a decent business and there's clearly a market for more adult stuff (as demonstrated by people renting the tame stuff at BB), why don't they carry fully X-rated movies? For that matter, do the people in charge really think their profit margin would take a nose-dive if they carried the few NC-17 movies that have been released? If it's just a matter of the rating on the side of the case, are they really going to have people picketting the store if the Showgirls box says NC-17 instead of R? Neither is supposed to be rented to anyone under 18 anyway, so what's the different? Is the box art more explicit for the NC-17 version? Have teenagers suddenly developed the ability to view video tapes by simply touching them?

>Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store. With the sheer
>amount of movies released (more movies are released on a weekly basis now
>than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what movies to carry.

Then why doesn't Blockbuster just refuse to carry movies like Showgirls? This is just my opinion, but I think they're hoping that people will just overlook the rating so they can look like they carry everything without most people realizing that they're getting censored versions.

JohnL wrote:
>
> >Wait -- so who's the big ee-vil in this case? When a
> distributor comes back and
> >says, "Sorry, NC-17 doesn't play well in Des Moines, we
> can't distribute anything
> >above an R or we'll lose money" -- are they somehow being
> evil by (gasp)
> >trying to stay in business?
>
> No, the entire ratings system is evil for keeping NC-17
> movies out of the theaters. Do you think anyone really did
> any research to see if NC-17 movies would make money or if
> people would protest them?

Okay, let's just refute your case here with your own sentence a little further in the same paragraph:

> Never mind that NC-17 movies aren't the same
> as porn, that's how most people see them.

So you're saying here that it's the people themselves who equate that rating with porn. Then you're saying it's the ratings system is the evil one for assigning the rating.  Do you see any problems here with your line of thinking?

> As far as I know,
> the only 'research' on NC-17 was the release of Showgirls, a
> really crappy movie that just about everyone hated. Everyone
> looked at the box office results of Showgirls and in their
> single-digit-IQ brains, the failure of Showgirls was directly
> the result of the rating. This is because studios and such
> can't judge quality.

So you're saying that Hollywood, the gigantic marketing machine that it is, did NO other market research aside from looking at the one movie's returns?  Please, you're embarrassing yourself.  Hollywood markets, focus-groups, and polls EVERYTHING.  Just because no one told you about any market research is scarcely enough credible evidence for its absence to base a case on.

> >Oh, come on. Anyone who remembers Showgirls remembers it
> entirely because
> >of it being the first theatrically-distributed NC-17 title
> in a decade. There's a point
> >at which you should assume some minimum of intelligence in
> the renting public.
>
> Pick 10 people you know, who are just average movie viewers,
> but reasonably intelligent people, and ask them what rating
> Henry & June had. Please post the results.

Why are we suddenly talking about a different movie?  We were talking about Showgirls, I think you recall, and you were contending that most people were unaware of the rating.  What bearing could the rating of Henry & June possibly have on this discussion?

> >See above note on fully accomodating idiots. (And by the
> way, these versions
> >are rarely created exclusively FOR Blockbuster. The first
> place I saw a rated
> >version of Showgirls was on the shelves of Hollywood Video.)
>
> Same difference, another faceless chain store...

Which just proves my point -- it's NOT Blockbuster that you've got a problem with, it's mass-marketing as a whole.

> >If Blockbuster is evil, it's not particularly so -- it
> merely embodies the general evil
> >inherent in the for-profit-only capitalist corporate culture.
>
> Of the small video stores that used to be in this area before
> they were all forced out of business by the big chain stores,
> they all used to carry adult videos in the back. And by
> adult, I don't mean the Skinemax crap, I mean full,
> uncensored pornos. This is in the suburbs and there were
> never any protests or picketing that I knew of. Since these
> stores did a decent business and there's clearly a market for
> more adult stuff (as demonstrated by people renting the tame
> stuff at BB), why don't they carry fully X-rated movies? For
> that matter, do the people in charge really think their
> profit margin would take a nose-dive if they carried the few
> NC-17 movies that have been released? If it's just a matter
> of the rating on the side of the case, are they really going
> to have people picketting the store if the Showgirls box says
> NC-17 instead of R? Neither is supposed to be rented to
> anyone under 18 anyway, so what's the different? Is the box
> art more explicit for the NC-17 version? Have teenagers
> suddenly developed the ability to view video tapes by simply
> touching them?

As has been explained before, it's all a question of image.  To compete with a Mom'n'Pop store, Blockbuster tries to cultivate an image of "even more family-friendly" than the family-owned outlet.  It tried to avoid controversy and give nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.  

> >Blockbuster has a limited amount of space inside each store.
> With the sheer
> >amount of movies released (more movies are released on a
> weekly basis now
> >than ever before), Blockbuster has to make a choice what
> movies to carry.
>
> Then why doesn't Blockbuster just refuse to carry movies like
> Showgirls? This is just my opinion, but I think they're
> hoping that people will just overlook the rating so they can
> look like they carry everything without most people realizing
> that they're getting censored versions.

Okay, you're really losing me.  What are YOU saying that the reason Blockbuster carries rated versions is?  (I refuse to use the word "censored" here, because the connotation is that they're taking it upon themselves to bowdlerize the work of a third party without consent, which is very obviously NOT what is going on.)  You're discounting all possible market-driven rationales, which are the reasons that a mega-corporations do ANYTHING, so are you ascribing it to some kind of neo-fundie conspiracy?  A hidden agenda to intentionally de-breast every movie they can get their hands on?

Look to any huge corporation, and you'll find the same marketing strategy:  APPEAL TO THE MIDDLE.  The most profitable part of the bell curve is the crest of the bell.  Blockbuster's fine-tuned their market approach to appeal to the mainstream, and they find that avoiding anything which might offend anyone is a part of that strategy.  Blockbuster is the counterpart to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.  They target the widest possible demographic, and let other retailers fight over the scraps.

Nathan

Too true.  Okay, now I'm depressed for the rest of the day...

Hey Nathan:

Keeping banging your head against that wall and you'll get a headache ;-)

It's that Quixotic idealism in me.  (Or Male Answer Syndrome, one or the other.)

Don't despair. It is an avoidable historical trend. Every time the economic model changes (for example from mercantile to industrial) the new services and skills need to capitalize on that change causes the rise of a middle class and creates fluidity between classes. There are smaller versions of this phenomenon as well such as the opening up of the Louisiana territory or the various gold rushes. If these economic changes happen BEFORE the economic infrastructure collapses from excessive skimming by the wealthy then the bloody revolution can be avoided. Otherwise look to our neighbors in South America to see our future. Military dictatorships and wealthy people living in armed compounds.

Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
>So now your complaint isn't against Blockbuster, it's against any video distributor
> who puts out an "Unrated" version that doesn't have a big explanatory footnote, "This means more breasts"?

Actually, I never complained about the editing or the labelling. My only beef is with the poor selection and service. This was simply an example of someone for whom a label would mean very little, and was part of a larger argument. The big problem with responding to one sentence at a time is that they get taken out of context.

> I'll let you discover the wonderful straightline/punchline
> effect of these last two sentences on your own.

Not sure what's funny about it. These people know nothing about movies, they aren't big film buffs, but they do enjoy a good movie when they see it, including some very non-mainstream stuff. If it were properly released and promoted, they'd rent it. That was my point.

So, how's the skiing in Utah this year?

Fine, if you like rocks.

No thanx, got plenty in my highball glass. So all this snow we got in the Sierra's didn't make out there I take it?

>So you're saying here that it's the people themselves who equate that rating with
>porn. Then you're saying it's the ratings system is the evil one for assigning the
>rating. Do you see any problems here with your line of thinking?

No, the *PEOPLE* who run theaters, the *PEOPLE* who run newspapers, the *PEOPLE* who run magazines etc. I couldn't think of a blanket term to include all of the above, so I wrote "people". Now that you mention it though, NC-17 does have a stigma with some of the viewing public, which is a result of the theaters, newspapers, and magazines treating it as if it were equal to porn.

>So you're saying that Hollywood, the gigantic marketing machine that it is, did
>NO other market research aside from looking at the one movie's returns?
>Please, you're embarrassing yourself. Hollywood markets, focus-groups, and
>polls EVERYTHING. Just because no one told you about any market research
>is scarcely enough credible evidence for its absence to base a case on.

And a good portion of their polling probably was done to theater, newspapers and magazines asking if they would play or advertise NC-17 movies, to which a majority probably said no. Any polls and focus groups that involved the average movie goer were probably skewed by the fact that theaters, newspapers and magazines treat NC-17 movies as being equal to porn.

 See how that works; The MPAA said that NC-17 was equal to the old X rating before it became used exclusively for porn. What most people hear is "NC-17 = X rated", and everyone knows X rated = porn, therefore to a lot of people NC-17 = porn. Theaters won't show them because they equate NC-17 with X, the general public looks at movies theaters won't show NC-17 movies and thinks "See, NC-17 is the same thing as porn, why else do you think theaters refuse to show them?" It becomes self-fulfilling.

>Why are we suddenly talking about a different movie? We were talking about
>Showgirls, I think you recall, and you were contending that most people were
>unaware of the rating. What bearing could the rating of Henry & June possibly
>have on this discussion?

Because you argued that Showgirls was such a high-profile movie that anyone who wasn't a complete moron would immediately know that the R rated version wasn't the same one that was in theaters. So, I picked a difference movie that a person might run across in Blockbusters. They might search it out because of Uma Thurman or they might just pick up the box and like the description on the back. The official release of Henry & June is NC-17, but it's an obscure enough movie that most people probably won't know that. So how are otherwise intelligent people who might want to rent this movie supposed to know that the R rated version isn't the full version?

My challenge stands, ask 10 people you consider intelligent enough to be capable of knowing what they're renting at Blockbuster, but who aren't movie fanatics, what rating Henry & June originally had. Without giving them any indication what their choices are, let me know what percentage of them don't have a clue that it's supposed to be NC-17.

>Which just proves my point -- it's NOT Blockbuster that you've got a problem
>with, it's mass-marketing as a whole.

It depends on the choices the company makes, but mostly, yes. And before you ask, no, I don't have a membership with any of the chain video stores. I used to rent from a small local store, but it went out of business when Starship Video moved in across the street.

>As has been explained before, it's all a question of image. To compete with a
>Mom'n'Pop store, Blockbuster tries to cultivate an image of "even more family->friendly" than the family-owned outlet. It tried to avoid controversy and give
>nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.

What happened to providing better service and a bigger selection?

>Okay, you're really losing me. What are YOU saying that the reason Blockbuster
>carries rated versions is? (I refuse to use the word "censored" here, because

Because if they didn't carry movies like Showgirls, they'd get a reputation for not having what people are looking for. They also don't want to carry NC-17 movies, so they carry R rated versions and hope that most people are too stupid to realize that they're getting a cut-down version.

Do you really think anyone says "Hey, let's go rent Showgirls, but not the NC-17 version, let's get the R rated one!"? No, Blockbusters hopes that people looking to rent Showgirls or any other movie that was originally NC-17 will come to their store and rent the movie without checking the rating.

>that a mega-corporations do ANYTHING, so are you ascribing it to some kind of
>neo-fundie conspiracy? A hidden agenda to intentionally de-breast every movie
>they can get their hands on?

No, I think they made a decision to not carry NC-17 videos without even giving them a chance. Did Blockbuster ever carry NC-17 films and then remove them from the stores when too many people objected? Or did they simply decide right from the start that NC-17 = porn and not even consider carrying them?

>of the bell. Blockbuster's fine-tuned their market approach to appeal to the
>mainstream, and they find that avoiding anything which might offend anyone is a
>part of that strategy. Blockbuster is the counterpart to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.

Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the difference?

"Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the difference?"

Well, the fact that they are produced by Playboy is pretty covert.  The movie company that produces them is called "Eros pictures" or something like that.  If you look at the back of the box, the only real indication you get that Playboy had any hand in the making of the movie is a tiny little rabbit head, somewhere where the credits are listed.   I'm not sure if all of them have it, or if it's something that they still even do.  So, Eros Pictures is a part of Playboy, or is Playboy.  Something like that.  They are indeed put out by Playboy though, as I've seen them listed in the Playboy catalog, except they push the unrated versions (of course).  The difference between these videos and the NC-17 one's?  Simply put, the ratings.  Since these videos are indeed rated R by the MPAA, they are safe.   Blockbuster won't carry anything rated harder than an R (X or NC-17).  That's the difference.

TC wrote:
>
> Simply put, the ratings.  Since these videos are indeed rated
> R by the MPAA, they are safe.   Blockbuster won't carry
> anything rated harder than an R (X or NC-17).  That's the
> difference.

Makes sense. Make the rule as easy to apply as possible, so nobody has to make any decisions. This sex film has an R rating, so it's OK. That thriller is NC-17, so it's not. Anyone giving it even a little thought would see that it makes no sense, but the point is that the rule is designed to be applied without anyone having to think.

Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
> family-owned outlet.  It tried to avoid controversy and give
> nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.

Well, they gave me a reason not to walk through the doors. I think that's what I find most offensive - to them, I'm nobody.

JohnL wrote:
> Because you argued that Showgirls was such a high-profile
> movie that anyone who wasn't a complete moron would
> immediately know that the R rated version wasn't the same one
> that was in theaters. So, I picked a difference movie that a
> person might run across in Blockbusters. They might search it
> out because of Uma Thurman or they might just pick up the box
> and like the description on the back. The official release of
> Henry & June is NC-17, but it's an obscure enough movie that
> most people probably won't know that. So how are otherwise
> intelligent people who might want to rent this movie supposed
> to know that the R rated version isn't the full version?
>
> My challenge stands, ask 10 people you consider intelligent
> enough to be capable of knowing what they're renting at
> Blockbuster, but who aren't movie fanatics, what rating Henry
> & June originally had. Without giving them any indication
> what their choices are, let me know what percentage of them
> don't have a clue that it's supposed to be NC-17.

"Supposed to be."  That's right, God wants it to be NC-17, and anything else is an affront.

First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you heard of the movie Henry & June?"  Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything about it, and who was in it?"  And if they remember neither of those things, how do I count that in my averages?  Does it matter?  They pick up a box, they see that they're getting an R-rated movie.  Does the fact that it there was a different version of the movie released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a lesser product?  They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box.  And with most people, all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off the box anyway.

> >As has been explained before, it's all a question of image.
> To compete with a
> >Mom'n'Pop store, Blockbuster tries to cultivate an image of
> "even more family->friendly" than the family-owned outlet. It
> tried to avoid controversy and give
> >nobody a reason not to walk through the doors.
>
> What happened to providing better service and a bigger
> selection?

Obviously it's not as big a deal to most consumers as you think, or else people wouldn't be throwing enough dollars at Blockbuster that it can outcompete the Mom'n'Pops.  The things most people rent -- the forty-copy new releases -- don't NEED great selection or customer service; the average renter can walk in and find the five shelves of J-Lo's latest just fine on their own.


> >Okay, you're really losing me. What are YOU saying that the
> reason Blockbuster
> >carries rated versions is? (I refuse to use the word
> "censored" here, because
>
> Because if they didn't carry movies like Showgirls, they'd
> get a reputation for not having what people are looking for.
> They also don't want to carry NC-17 movies, so they carry R
> rated versions and hope that most people are too stupid to
> realize that they're getting a cut-down version.
>
> Do you really think anyone says "Hey, let's go rent
> Showgirls, but not the NC-17 version, let's get the R rated
> one!"? No, Blockbusters hopes that people looking to rent
> Showgirls or any other movie that was originally NC-17 will
> come to their store and rent the movie without checking the
> rating.

Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one everyone's seen, and it says "R-rated version" right there on the front.  Wanna check it out? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6303913903.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif  Somehow, these are the same people who are supposed to respond to "Unrated Director's Cut" on the cover, but when it says "Director's R-Rated Version," you want me to assume that suddenly people don't see the words.  (Oh, wait -- I made a valid point concerning Showgirls, so I imagine you're going to change it to another movie now.)

> >that a mega-corporations do ANYTHING, so are you ascribing
> it to some kind of
> >neo-fundie conspiracy? A hidden agenda to intentionally
> de-breast every movie
> >they can get their hands on?
>
> No, I think they made a decision to not carry NC-17 videos
> without even giving them a chance. Did Blockbuster ever carry
> NC-17 films and then remove them from the stores when too
> many people objected? Or did they simply decide right from
> the start that NC-17 = porn and not even consider carrying
> them?

According to people I know who have worked for Blockbuster, it was entirely a position of IMAGE.  They wanted to appear family friendly to the people who weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway.  These words are sounding familiar; how many times have I typed them now?

> Then why do they carry the Playboy videos? Aren't there
> people who are offended by anything produced by Playboy
> simply because of the company's image? If they can carry an
> entire line of Playboy videos, even if they are R rated, how
> much difference can a handful of NC-17 movies make? Most
> people equate the Playboy videos with porn, so what's the
> difference?

The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's Wet'nWild" type that have the rabbitears on the front cover.  They're marketed by the Eros label, and you have to look really close at the fine print on the back cover to see that Eros is an imprint of Playboy.  As I've said before, and I'll apparently have to say several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.

Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions and changing of movie titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever point you may have had to begin with.  You want to restate it, taking into account what's already been discussed here?

Nathan

Not nobody, just not a big enough demographic to go after.  You occupy the same position at McDonald's, at Wal-Mart, at any mega-corporation.  They cater to the predictable mainstream and leave specialty retailers to mop up the leftovers around the edges.

But since you already knew you weren't mainstream, you shouldn't be offended when they acknowledge that.

Nathan

But since you already knew you weren't mainstream, you shouldn't be offended when they acknowledge that.

Bingo -  I don't shop at Blockbuster, not because I having anything against them, they simply don't carry much of what I'm interested in: Sci-fi, Anime and some horror.  They target a certain audience and I'm not it and I know that and they not that so who cares?  

But I'm a nobody to them, but we're all nobodies to them anyway.  At the numbers they are talking about in terms of populace, they can only do like Hari Seldon's Psychohistory; people can only be treated as populations statistically, not as individuals.  I'm a nobody at Blockbuster and so are you, but then I'm a nobody at Wal-Mart and Mc Donald's and I actually fit in their targert group.

I don't think Blockbuster has any great moral or ethical consideration in themselves for what they rent or don't rent out.  It's the perception of what they rent and how that plays to the majority of their customers that they think about and care about.  Apparently, it works

And even if someone at Blockbuster  did sit down and decide "we're not going to show NC-17 movies because we think they are morally bad", so what?  It's their store, they can rent out what they want and if nobody likes it and they fail, that's their problem and everyone likes what they do offer and they succeed, that's the American Way.

Hmm Nathan, I'm actually very pro-Capitalism
(I've been job interviewing in Toledo the last few days, so I wasn't able to keep up with the thread.)

I actually have no objection to Blockbuster editing the movies (or demanding studios edit, if they want BB to carry their movies).  (Well, I do, but it is on a purely philosophical level)  That is capitalism, as is BB running Mom & Pop stores out of town-- it just means people need to support those stores enough to keep them in business, I do and don't go to BB for many reasons (bad selection, desire to support other places, et al.,).  Netflix is a great way to get around BB.  

My only objection is that most people, when the rent a movie, expect it to be the same as it was in the theater.  Obviously they should read the box to see if it is the same.  Usually "Director's cut" or "Unrated version" is a bonus, you get more.  But if a movie gets edited down, that should be stated somewhere on the box so people now that it isn't the theatrical release.    If BB does that (I don't go there so I don't know) then fine, there is no fraud.

>"Supposed to be." That's right, God wants it to be NC-17, and anything else is
>an affront.

To anyone who doesn't like others deciding what they can and can't see, yes it is.
Studios already bow down to the holy MPAA to get their movies blessed with their stamp of approval, because NC-17 movies are un-distributable and now when a studio does release an NC-17 movie, you have to go out of your way to see it uncut because Blockbuster and the other idiotic chain stores exert enough influence to force the studio to release an R rated cut of the film. You can't just go to a different store either, since Blockbuster not only competes with smaller stores, it intentionally tries to force them out of business.

Yes, I know, this is business, but intentionally putting small stores out of business is an incredibly sleazy business practice.

>First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you heard of the movie Henry
>& June?" Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything about it, and who
>was in it?" And if they remember neither of those things, how do I count that in my

You don't ask them that. That's the whole point. You claimed that most intelligent people would be able to look at the rating on the case and know what version they were getting.

>averages? Does it matter? They pick up a box, they see that they're getting an
>R-rated movie. Does the fact that it there was a different version of the movie
>released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a lesser product?

Would it make it a lesser product if I sold you a book with 3 of the chapters ripped out of it? How about a copy of Romeo & Juliet with the whole ending removed so that it seems like they ran away together and lived happily ever after?

>They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box. And with most people,
>all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off the box anyway.

So as long as people don't know there's more than what they're seeing, it doesn't matter whether or not they get everything that others have gotten?

Going back to the book example, it would be ok for a book store to sell novels with entire chapters missing as long as the people buying them weren't aware that those chapters existed? Oh, and as long as they had some kind of a rating on the back, even though most people wouldn't know that it meant chapters were missing...

>Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one everyone's seen, and it
>says "R-rated version" right there on the front. Wanna check it out?

Despite what you might think, there are probably *SOME* people who don't know that Showgirls was NC-17. There are probably some people who would see that and think it was the spiced up version.

>Position of IMAGE. They wanted to appear family friendly to the people who
>weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway. These words are sounding familiar;

And how exactly does carrying a handful of NC-17 movies make the store unfriendly to families? Are NC-17 movies like Showgirls known to attractive large crowds of sleazy guys in raincoats? Do child molestors like to hang around the NC-17 movie section? Has there been a high incidence of overly macho guys picking up NC-17 movies and yelling across the store "I found that titty movie that everyone was talking about!!!"? Are teenagers likely to go to school and tell their friends "You're not going to believe this, but Blockbusters is carrying NC-17 movies! That's real porn!!!"?

What exactly is it about the type written characters "NC-17" that turns a video store from a family friendly place into a dangerous pit of sin?

>The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's Wet'nWild" type that
>have the rabbitears on the front cover. They're marketed by the Eros label, and
>you have to look really close at the fine print on the back cover to see that Eros
>is an imprint of Playboy. As I've said before, and I'll apparently have to say
>several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.

And carryng a line of videos with scantily clad women in lingerie on the covers and titles like Web of Seduction project a family friendly image because they're only rated R, whereas Showgirls being NC-17 just screams PORN?

Do they have the Eros videos next to the Disney section because they're so family friendly?

>Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions and changing of movie
>titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever point you may have had
>to begin with. You want to restate it, taking into account what's already been
>discussed here?

That Blockbuster along with others who do the same things, is a bad company because they intentionally force small stores out of business, so that you'll have no choice but to rent from them, where you may or may get the same movie as you saw in the theater since they use the threat of not carrying a video to get studios to sell them specially censored version of movies.

JohnL wrote:
>
> >"Supposed to be." That's right, God wants it to be NC-17,
> and anything else is
> >an affront.
>
> To anyone who doesn't like others deciding what they can and
> can't see, yes it is.

Then you're screwed, because any time you watch any movie, someone else is deciding what you're seeing.  Any time you listen to music, someone else is deciding what you're hearing.  Any time you read a book, someone else is deciding what you're reading.  The only way to get around this affront to your person is to make your own movies, perform your own music, and write your own books for yourself.

> Studios already bow down to the holy MPAA to get their movies
> blessed with their stamp of approval, because NC-17 movies
> are un-distributable and now when a studio does release an
> NC-17 movie, you have to go out of your way to see it uncut
> because Blockbuster and the other idiotic chain stores exert
> enough influence to force the studio to release an R rated
> cut of the film. You can't just go to a different store
> either, since Blockbuster not only competes with smaller
> stores, it intentionally tries to force them out of business.
>
> Yes, I know, this is business, but intentionally putting
> small stores out of business is an incredibly sleazy business
> practice.

This is agreed.  Capitalism without conscience is bad.

> >First, I'd have to ask 10 intelligent people, "Have you
> heard of the movie Henry
> >& June?" Then I'd have to ask, "Do you remember anything
> about it, and who
> >was in it?" And if they remember neither of those things,
> how do I count that in my
>
> You don't ask them that. That's the whole point. You claimed
> that most intelligent people would be able to look at the
> rating on the case and know what version they were getting.

Wait -- the whole point?  You asked me to find out, out of ten people, how many know what the rating on the movie is without looking.  Somehow it's irrelevant how many of them have actually heard of the movie before?  You're really confusing me.

> >averages? Does it matter? They pick up a box, they see that
> they're getting an
> >R-rated movie. Does the fact that it there was a different
> version of the movie
> >released theatrically somehow make the one they're holding a
> lesser product?
>
> Would it make it a lesser product if I sold you a book with 3
> of the chapters ripped out of it? How about a copy of Romeo &
> Juliet with the whole ending removed so that it seems like
> they ran away together and lived happily ever after?

As long as it said "Happy ending version" on the cover somewhere, go for it.

> >They're getting exactly what they're reading on the box. And
> with most people,
> >all they know about Henry & June is what they're getting off
> the box anyway.
>
> So as long as people don't know there's more than what
> they're seeing, it doesn't matter whether or not they get
> everything that others have gotten?

I really don't understand your reasoning.

> Going back to the book example, it would be ok for a book
> store to sell novels with entire chapters missing as long as
> the people buying them weren't aware that those chapters
> existed? Oh, and as long as they had some kind of a rating on
> the back, even though most people wouldn't know that it meant
> chapters were missing...

Guess what, doofus.  They have those.  It says "abridged" on the cover.  People of reasonable intelligence knows what that means.  Is picketing Readers Digest Books the next on your social-conscience agenda?

> >Despite the fact that the cover is different than the one
> everyone's seen, and it
> >says "R-rated version" right there on the front. Wanna check
> it out?
>
> Despite what you might think, there are probably *SOME*
> people who don't know that Showgirls was NC-17. There are
> probably some people who would see that and think it was the
> spiced up version.

Well, by all means, let's gear our society for the most ignorant lowest-common-denominator, because the assumption of a modicum of intelligence might offend the idiots.

> >Position of IMAGE. They wanted to appear family friendly to
> the people who
> >weren't going to be renting NC-17s anyway. These words are
> sounding familiar;
>
> And how exactly does carrying a handful of NC-17 movies make
> the store unfriendly to families? Are NC-17 movies like
> Showgirls known to attractive large crowds of sleazy guys in
> raincoats? Do child molestors like to hang around the NC-17
> movie section? Has there been a high incidence of overly
> macho guys picking up NC-17 movies and yelling across the
> store "I found that titty movie that everyone was talking
> about!!!"? Are teenagers likely to go to school and tell
> their friends "You're not going to believe this, but
> Blockbusters is carrying NC-17 movies! That's real porn!!!"?

Look, I don't know what little world you live in, but I DO know people who would rather rent from stores where they know their little kids can't wander over and look at the covers of the "Playboy's Girls of Summer" series, and their teenagers can't "accidentally" rent the unrated cut of a Surrender Cinema skinflick.  I'm sorry if those people don't live in your universe.

> What exactly is it about the type written characters "NC-17"
> that turns a video store from a family friendly place into a
> dangerous pit of sin?

If you can't understand the power of image yet, I'm not sure anyone can explain it to you.

> >The Playboy videos they carry AREN'T the "Playboy's
> Wet'nWild" type that
> >have the rabbitears on the front cover. They're marketed by
> the Eros label, and
> >you have to look really close at the fine print on the back
> cover to see that Eros
> >is an imprint of Playboy. As I've said before, and I'll
> apparently have to say
> >several times before it sinks in, it's a matter of IMAGE.
>
> And carryng a line of videos with scantily clad women in
> lingerie on the covers and titles like Web of Seduction
> project a family friendly image because they're only rated R,
> whereas Showgirls being NC-17 just screams PORN?
>
> Do they have the Eros videos next to the Disney section
> because they're so family friendly?

You know what?  Trying to impress a point upon your brain really isn't worth the effort.

> >Look, with all of the dithering and changing of questions
> and changing of movie
> >titles and whatnot, I've completely lost track of whatever
> point you may have had
> >to begin with. You want to restate it, taking into account
> what's already been
> >discussed here?
>
> That Blockbuster along with others who do the same things, is
> a bad company because they intentionally force small stores
> out of business, so that you'll have no choice but to rent
> from them, where you may or may get the same movie as you saw
> in the theater since they use the threat of not carrying a
> video to get studios to sell them specially censored version
> of movies.

Bully for you.  You've discovered Marketing 101.  Pat yourself on the back before you go back to fuming about the unfairness of the world.

I'm done here, folks.

 Careful what you say about Blockbuster! They must have an extensive network of spies and leg-breakers. The bastards once tracked me from Jacksonville NC to Okinawa, Japan, for a 7 buck late fee!!! So...not only do they suck...but they're brutal, efficient, and omni-present. Much like the Spanish Inquisition!!! Tell your friends...V for victory!!

>Then you're screwed, because any time you watch any movie, someone else is
>deciding what you're seeing. Any time you listen to music, someone else is
>deciding what you're hearing. Any time you read a book, someone else is
>deciding what you're reading. The only way to get around this affront to your

True, but I see a difference between editing decisions made before something is released and a store that will only sell/rent a further edited version of the officially released version.

>Wait -- the whole point? You asked me to find out, out of ten people, how many
>know what the rating on the movie is without looking. Somehow it's irrelevant how
>many of them have actually heard of the movie before? You're really confusing
>me.

The officially rating on Henry and June is NC-17, any other version has been edited down.

A person walking through Blockbuster browsing the shelves might see it sitting on the shelf and decide to rent it.

Since that person had never heard of it before and doesn't know that it was officially released as NC-17, the R rating on the box does nothing to tell them that they're getting a tamer version than the official release. Even if there's a banner proclaiming "R rated version", without any other evidence, they might even think that the movie was originally PG and that they're renting a spiced up version.

Why does this matter? Because movies are the only media I can think of where if you're not careful, you can end up with a specially edited version where the only indication is a couple of letters on the packaging. (see below about books).

>I really don't understand your reasoning.

You were the one who said that it didn't matter if the person renting a movie knew it was supposed to be NC-17 or not, they see they're renting an R movie and that's what they get. In other words, if someone isn't aware that they're getting a censored version, then it doesn't matter that it is censored. In other words, it's ok to give people a less than complete copy of something as long as they're not aware that they're missing out on parts that were normally supposed to be included. So it would perfectly ethical to sell someone a copy of Romeo and Juliet with the ending missing and let them think they're getting a complete copy as long they don't know there's more to the story.

>Guess what, doofus. They have those. It says "abridged" on the cover. People
>of reasonable intelligence knows what that means. Is picketing Readers Digest

Not the same thing at all. In the first place, you argued that any intelligent person would be able to look at the rating on a movie at Blockbuster and know exactly what they were getting, even if they had no clue that the R rated movie they're renting was originally rated NC-17. Second, "abridged" is a little different than simply putting a letter rating on a book, not to mention that abridged versions of books are uncommon enough that you normally don't have to worry about getting one by accident.

Now, can you name me one bookstore chain that makes it a habit to carry specially edited versions of mainstream novels? That has Stephen King books with the profanity edited out? That will sell you a copy of 9 1/2 Weeks with the naughty parts missing? In fact, can you name me a single book that ANY of the chain bookstores will only sell in an "abridged" form because selling the normal version wouldn't fit their 'family friendly' image?

>Well, by all means, let's gear our society for the most ignorant lowest-common-
>denominator, because the assumption of a modicum of intelligence might offend >the idiots.

How is it a measurement of intelligence to automatically know what rating a movie is supposed to have and whether an R rating means that the movie was edited down from an NC-17, or spiced up from a PG?

Ok, let's try this; You're wandering down the isles of Blockbuster with a friend who you can't convince to avoid the place, and he picks up the box for a movie called Cold Sweat. It's rated R, but I once saw it with a different rating. Is he standing there holding spicier version than what I saw, or is that one missing some scenes? I assume you don't consider yourself ignorant, so please tell me what the R rating on this movie indicates.

>Look, I don't know what little world you live in, but I DO know people who would
>rather rent from stores where they know their little kids can't wander over and
>look at the covers of the "Playboy's Girls of Summer" series, and their

But those same people don't mind if their little kids wander over and look at the covers of the Eros videos. I guess that's ok, because they carry the 'family friendly' R rating and only have the women on the covers wearing 'family friendly' lingerie.

>teenagers can't "accidentally" rent the unrated cut of a Surrender Cinema
>skinflick. I'm sorry if those people don't live in your universe.

No, but they can 'accidentally' rent the unrated versions of other movies, since Blockbuster apparently has no problems carrying unrated videos.

>If you can't understand the power of image yet, I'm not sure anyone can explain it
>to you.

What I can't understand is how the characters NC-17 on the cases of a handful of mainstream movie is less 'family friendly' than an entire shelf devoted to softcore porn.

You've still never explained how the Eros videos are 'family friendly' despite the fact that they're softcore porn put out by Playboy (no matter how obscure the connection to the company is), but NC-17 versions of mainstream movies aren't 'family friendly'.

Yes, I understand that it's what the company decided, but most decisions are made for a reason. I want to know how it was decided that carrying NC-17 movies would give their stores a non-family friendly image.

>
> Yes, I understand that it's what the company decided, but
> most decisions are made for a reason. I want to know how it
> was decided that carrying NC-17 movies would give their
> stores a non-family friendly image.



http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Ratings/Two/index4.html

>http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Ratings/Two/index4.html

Thanks. I wasn't aware that Donald Stupidmon had anything to do with Blockbuster not carrying NC-17 movies. Still, I don't think very highly of them just giving in to that fruitcake's demands. Maybe they would have lost some business, but they should have told him to go f*** himself.