\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I agree with you for the most part. However, some "unrated" versions are simply unrated because the revised edits were not resubmitted to the MPAA (the unrated extended cut of Underworld comes to mind).
|
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
|
Originally Posted by SD_Brian
Now if someone could just explain why Blockbuster continues to ban NC-17 movies while they readily stock unrated versions of movies that were theatrically R-rated (despite the fact that the unrated footage often had to be cut in order to avoid an NC-17 rating). So, in effect, they'll rent out NC-17 movies as long as they're not actually rated NC-17. It's zany double standards like that that have made the ratings system completely irrelevent.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
But do they still ban them?
There are so few NC-17 rated films that it isn't an issue. |
|
Originally Posted by SD_Brian
AFAIK the NC-17 ban is still in effect but, when I have been in their store, I HAVE seen unrated versions of pretty much everything. The reason you see so few NC-17 movies is because it's a commercial kiss-of-death to release a movie that way. Most movies that would qualify for an NC-17 are now being released as Unrated. I believe it IS up to the local stores to arbitrarily pick and choose which unrated movies they will stock and which they will only carry the R or PG-13 version. What it all boils down to is that filmmakers who play by the rules and actually DO submit their movies to the ratings board and accept the NC-17 verdict get the shaft and have to prepare an R-Rated cut for Blockbuster.
Actually, it's unfair to single out Blockbuster since Wal-Mart, Target and Hollywood Video have the same asinine policies. The real head-scratcher is that, as long as the unrated version only includes more gore and violence, it seems to be okay. If the unrated version is more sexually explicit, that's a no-no. |
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
|
Originally Posted by PaulDA
I boycott Blockbuster specifically because of their asinine policy regarding NC-17 films.
|
|
Originally Posted by JohnRice
You surprised Mike?
|
|
Originally Posted by JohnRice
I'm not defending BlockBuster, but do you also boycot the 99.9% of theaters who also refuse to show NC-17 movies? It's an industry wide hypocrisy.
|
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
|
Originally Posted by JohnRice
I'm not defending BlockBuster, but do you also boycot the 99.9% of theaters who also refuse to show NC-17 movies? It's an industry wide hypocrisy.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
The problem with the NC-17 rating is that it hasn't been tested, studios have never really used it. So, to blame Blockbuster or anyone else is kind of pointless.
Look at SHOWGIRLS, the only mainstream film that was ever given the rating. It was a terrible film, yet it played in multiplexes. Today you can find it for sale in your local Circuit City and Best Buy. CC had a big display standee when the special box set was released. Wal Mart may not carry it, but do they carry anything outside of the top 50 DVDs? Have you ever found a Criterion film there? Same with Blockbuster. In the age of Amazon and Netflix, does anyone really rely on them for all of their films anyway? I watched LUST, CAUTION last night (the NC-17 version from Netflix). Would your average Wal Mart or Blockbuster fan be interested in buying or renting it? No. It is a specialty film. They wouldn't sell many copies. Blame Paul Verhoeven for screwing up the only chance the rating had, not the video stores. |
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it meant to roast in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
Wal Mart may not carry it, but do they carry anything outside of the top 50 DVDs? Have you ever found a Criterion film there?
|
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
The problem with the NC-17 rating is that it hasn't been tested, studios have never really used it. So, to blame Blockbuster or anyone else is kind of pointless.
|
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
|
Originally Posted by PaulDA
Blockbuster announced they would NOT carry such films before the first one hit the cinemas. They opposed the very purpose of the rating. Because of that, few studios wanted to "offend" the largest rental retailer and the rating was never given a fair chance. It is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE to blame the sanctimonious twits who run Blockbusters (not that I have much respect for the sheep that followed suit).
|
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
But Blockbuster has every right not to carry it. Can you go to your local grocery store and buy an R rated magazine like Playboy? I know most of my newstands don't even carry it. So, why shouldn't a video store have the same option, to keep material they may find offensive off the shelves? Remember, back in the 80's, you had religious groups boycotting 7-11's for carrying adult magazines. Blockbuster was thinking in a business sense. They didn't want the hassle.
As for them carrying R rated versions of NC-17 rated films, that is part of their contract with the studio. Often times, they make deals with video companies to carry all their releases. If they won't carry NC-17, the video company wants the revenue from the store so they make an R rated version. |
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
|
Originally Posted by PaulDA
"Unrated" films were almost unheard of then--they came about as a response to NC-17 boycotts. It still makes no difference. They claimed to be upholding "moral values" and that was a crock of bovine excrement. They paid lip-service to the knee-jerk reactionary crowd without thinking through the implication of their policy. It was a short-sighted (especially for the "moral values" crowd) and stupid policy.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jon Martin
Not quite. There were unrated films in the 80's. It was the independent films that weren't submitted to the MPAA. Blockbuster wouldn't carry them.
|
| But this whole new wave of unrated films isn't a way to get around the NC-17, it is a marketing ploy. Most unrated versions of R rated films would still get the R. They are just preying off the audience who think they may not be getting the R. BB would carry these. |
) simply reinsert the scenes they were REQUIRED to remove in order to get an "R". As such, they would have been NC-17 (if the rating were still viable, rather than a technicality).Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.
