Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution", Which Version? - Page 2

Jon Martin · 02-25-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulDA

You are still missing the point of my criticism. NC-17 was actually a reasonably serious attempt by the MPAA to create a category that would not stifle filmmakers while also making it EASIER to block those under 17 from seeing certain films. This is something that a "moral values" supporting company like Blockbuster, if sincere about their stance, should have SUPPORTED, not opposed.

Why would you expect Blockbuster, a company that bills itself as "family friendly" to endorse an adults only rating?

And again about the unrated issue, this is a marketing issue. They are often under contract to buy from the studios all the titles they release. In the 90's they even sued Miramax because they were releasing many inferior direct to video films that they were obligated to buy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulDA

As for the "unrated" films--many of the ones I've seen (often the only versions available on home video

) 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).

That isn't what happens with the majority of films. Unrated films essentially incorporate deleted scenes, and try to pass it off as something else. If a film, whether G, PG, PG-13 has scenes added back into it, without being resubmitted to the MPAA, it is an unrated film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulDA

It is clear you don't have any objections to Blockbuster's policy (nor am I likely to convince you, at this point) but you don't appear to be addressing the heart of my criticism--namely the hypocrisy and short-sightedness of the policy. The right to pursue the policy has never been in question.

It's not that I don't have objections, it is just that Blockbuster doesn't matter to me. I've been with Netflix for years. They carry everything. My local BB store closed a year or so ago, I haven't rented from them since the 90's.

But I constantly see them being the target of topics as to "Why the NC-17 rating doesn't work".

The target should be the studios. They rely too much on BB and multiplexes and those under 17 so that it doesn't make economic sense for them to release films with the rating.

Thomas T · 02-25-2008, 01:26 PM

After I saw Lust, Caution in theatres, I came out of the cinema scratching my head. THIS was an NC-17 film? I didn't find anything in it that hasn't been seen in an R rated film. What it boils down to is the hypocrisy of the whole MPAA ratings system. Lust, Caution was a small, independent film with no stars in a foreign language. You can bet your last dollar that if Lust, Caution was a $30 million budget film financed by a major studio with Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts in the leads, it would have gotten an R rating.

PaulDA · 02-25-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Martin

Why would you expect Blockbuster, a company that bills itself as "family friendly" to endorse an adults only rating?

I don't have to expect it to do so to be critical of it not doing so, especially as it has been inconsistent in its adherence to the stated reason for not endorsing the rating.

Quote:

And again about the unrated issue, this is a marketing issue. They are often under contract to buy from the studios all the titles they release. In the 90's they even sued Miramax because they were releasing many inferior direct to video films that they were obligated to buy.

That isn't what happens with the majority of films. Unrated films essentially incorporate deleted scenes, and try to pass it off as something else. If a film, whether G, PG, PG-13 has scenes added back into it, without being resubmitted to the MPAA, it is an unrated film.

IF they were consistent, though, they would NOT carry any unrated film that would garner an NC-17 if it were submitted to the MPAA. That they don't do so is more hypocrisy.

Quote:

It's not that I don't have objections, it is just that Blockbuster doesn't matter to me. I've been with Netflix for years. They carry everything. My local BB store closed a year or so ago, I haven't rented from them since the 90's.

But I constantly see them being the target of topics as to "Why the NC-17 rating doesn't work".

The target should be the studios. They rely too much on BB and multiplexes and those under 17 so that it doesn't make economic sense for them to release films with the rating.

They are the topic of such discussions because they fired the first volley against the rating, did it knowing it would sabotage the rating (were even proud to do so), have hypocritically circumvented their own policy's stated justification and cowed the studios into abandoning the rating. I don't have anything to do with Blockbuster either (they haven't seen a dime from me since they instituted their policy) but I was originally responding to the question of why I boycott Blockbuster. Usually, I give no thought to Blockbuster whatsoever.

Jon Martin · 02-25-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas T

After I saw Lust, Caution in theatres, I came out of the cinema scratching my head. THIS was an NC-17 film? I didn't find anything in it that hasn't been seen in an R rated film. What it boils down to is the hypocrisy of the whole MPAA ratings system. Lust, Caution was a small, independent film with no stars in a foreign language. You can bet your last dollar that if Lust, Caution was a $30 million budget film financed by a major studio with Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts in the leads, it would have gotten an R rating.

Actually, LUST CAUTION was financed by Focus, a division of NBC / Universal Pictures. It was Ang Lee's follow up to the multiple award nominated BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. So, it was hardly a little independent.

And Tom ran into ratings trouble with EYES WIDE SHUT.



Skin Chooser:	Contact Us - Advertising Information - Home Theater Forum - Archive - Top