Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Jeff Jacobson, Jan 25, 2006.
Though it is a publicity stunt, the point is valid.
it works, I am curious to see the film now.
A lot of good films had their box office take curtailed by the numbskulls at MPAA. Whale Rider comes to mind-rated R because a character in the movie smoked a joint! Roger Ebert may be well past his prime as a movie critic but he's eloquently railed against these idiots for years.
Whale Rider was PG-13, but it still did deter business.
The MPAA can not be trusted anymore, it's not something that has a film-goers best interests in mind anymore.
I read about this elsewhere. They justifed it by saying the movie effects them directly.
Now I know what my argument will be when I'm busted for movie piracy now
Let's be fair to the MPAA, if someone made a movie about your job and how your doing it wrong, you'd want to see it. So I really can't blame the MPAA, whether I agree with there methods is another story.
Awesome, awesome, awesome. Bastards. If only their cash didn't trump morality in our government. . .
That's not relevant. They had the movie -- it's not like they had to copy it to see it.
The MPAA made a copy to use as evidence in case they sued the filmmakers for violating the privacy of the ratings board members, which makes it a valid exception to the copyright law. So yeah, I'm thinking publicity stunt.
And they couldn't buy a copy? Like they want the rest of us to do?
Still doesn't make the statement that they'd "want to see it" relevant.
Christopher put it best -- couldn't they just do what they expect everyone else to do?
I do think that the MPAA is villified a bit too much. I mean, what do they do? Watch a movie and put a rating on it. It is a subjective job.
If you are over 18, and not a parent, the MPAA shouldn't mean much to you.
While it will be interesting to see this film, I think that often attacks on the MPAA are just to get publicity.
That's a theory put forth - that making copies for the head of the organization is "acceptable". Would that theory hold up? Probably not if the judge read the same article, which notes they made a copy for their boss to watch (they don't mention making copies for their lawyers).
On the face of it, they put themselves above the law because they were really interested in the film.
Oh, I don't know. Back in the eighties when I worked at an art house theater, it was so predictable that any independent films or foreign films would receive much harsher ratings than commercial films. They really ramped up the ratings if any characters were realistic gay characters.
It wasn't clear to me if the MPAA were simply trying to protect the major American distributors from competition from smaller American distributors, or if they were trying to prevent foreign production companies from getting American dollars, or if they were simply a bunch of old bigots.
I hope this film will shed some light on their strange practices.
I don't know if the MPAA is still doing that, by the way, because now that I am older it is not relevant to my life. But if they are, they should be stopped. They have an obligation to be impartial, and they certainly were not in the eighties. At a minimum, the members of the rating board should not be anonymous - their writings and statements from their careers should be on record for examination by the public and by filmmakers.
They do a whole lot more than that!
Sure it does. Ratings have a direct effect on how well a movie will do at the box office. Drop from R to PG-13 and you're almost guaranteed to make more money. So a great movie might be cut up just to receive a better rating. Or the director might make creative decisions, not to make the movie better, but to make sure the movie gets the proper rating. It happens all the time.
I rarely visit Aint It Cool News but Wired had a link to this review; it is an in-depth preview of the film, worth reading if you can't wait to see the film yourself.
Although with WEDDING CRASHERS and 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, that isn't really the case anymore.
I don't know that you can really extrapolate a trend out of two successes.