>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
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
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.