MPAA finds itself accused of piracy (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Silverman]

Who knows how much money those films would have made if they'd been PG-13?

 

[Jason Hughes]

Couldn't these dumbfucks go watch it at Sundance? I'm pretty sure Jack Valenti has connections that could get everybody at the MPAA tickets...

While I do strongly dislike the MPAA (mostly because of their ridiculous inconsistantcy) they are WAY better than the alternative - the government rating movies. Seriously, which would you prefer? The current system or having some religous nut in DC tell you what you can and can't watch (think the Cap Alert nutjob in charge). Ugh.

The MPAA was created in part to ward off such scenarios.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

And they're also constantly trying to stop people from recording TV shows. First by trying to make VCRs illegal when they were first introduced, and now with the Broadcast Flag.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Hey, the City of Dallas had its own Film Ratings board for years. How would that be, every major city with its own system and review board? Let a little competition into the marketplace. "This is a G in LA, and a Class II in New York, and an L in Chicago, and has been denied a certificate in Miami." And I think the Catholic Decency League still reviews films. There were some interesting movies produced in Dallas in those years -- although they did award Z an "X" rating, resulting in massive confusion. [In Dallas at the time, it was considered left-leaning and subversive because of its unflattering portrayal of the Greek fascists!]

 

[Will_B]

I can accept the MPAA's existence, but now that they exist, they should make their judges known, a la the Supreme Court hearings. The reason being, filmmakers need to be able to challenge unfair ratings. If a film gets a harsh rating, and the director suspects it is because of a bias on the part of the judges regarding the content, what recourse does he or she currently have to hold up that judge's bias to the light? (Maybe the film will answer that, no point speculating here)

 

[Robert Holloway]

As a European I never cease to be amazed at how the MPAA and America as a whole lives in fear of the female breast.

Rob

 

[Robert Anthony]

One of the premises the movie is built on is that such a scenario was never really all that close to becoming reality. It sounded good but wasn't really going to happen. Valenti CONVINCED everyone it was a foregone conclusion and got his power. He's compared to Robert Preston in "The Music Man" a couple times, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Jon Martin]

Didn't they already rate it? I read a few weeks ago they gave the film an NC-17. So, they have probably already seen it.

 

[TravisR]

I'm kinda going off topic here but the problem with the NC-17 rating is that it is instantly viewed as pornography. If NC-17 was looked at by the general public, theaters and media as "This movie is made for adults" instead "This movie has tons of sex", NC-17 would just be another rating. Unfortunately, some theaters won't carry and newspapers/magazines/TV stations won't run ads for a movie that is NC-17 so the studio needs an R so they can make money. If NC-17 was an 'acceptable' rating to the masses there wouldn't be a problem if a movie got that rating.

I don't blame the MPAA because the people can't understand what NC-17 actually means.

 

[Ike]

Many publications and TV stations refuse advertising, most large theater chains refuse to show them, and most large rental and retail chains refuse to stock NC-17...this isn't due to public pressure. The MPAA is a censor board, plain and simple.

 

[TravisR]

I acknowledged that NC-17 rated movies can't get ads, etc but when did the MPAA start setting the policies of newspapers, movie theaters, or rental chains? The MPAA knows what happens when a movie is rated NC-17 but those policies have nothing to do with them. Those policies are set by those theater chains or news media or video stores. The MPAA created the NC-17 so movies wouldn't get stuck with an X rating (and be automatically looked at as porn), it's not their fault that people can't differentiate between X and NC-17.

 

[Jon Martin]

But that isn't true. They don't censor films, as far as the ratings go, they just say what ages are appropriate to see it. That isn't censoring.

If publications do refuse to carry advertising, chains refuse to show, they are the ones censoring, not the MPAA.

Blockubuster and Wal Mart may not carry them, but in todays age of Netflix and Amazon, that isn't that big of a problem. Wal Mart only carries the best sellers. You can't find Criterions or most smaller classic films there, so the fact they don't carry NC-17 rated films is a non-issue.

Most films given the NC-17 are so called art and foreign films that never would get a wide release if they were given the R. And, in some cases, it actually helps them. The only Almodovar to ever hit multiplexes in my area was TIE ME UP TIE ME DOWN, one of his lesser films, but because of the rating, it was a much higer profile film.

There really has been only one attempt at releasing a mainstream NC-17 rated film. That was SHOWGIRLS. It played all the multiplexes in my area. Today, you can find it on shelves at all Best Buys and Circuit City (I think it was even advertised in last weeks circular).

The studios just have to learn to not be afraid of the rating, like in the MIDNIGHT COWBOY days. But in today's environment, where the 15 year old is the most important demographic for Hollywood, that isn't likely to happen.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The studios' fears are perfectly justified -- it's the fears/ prejudices of the retailers and multiplexes that have to change.

 

[Jon Martin]

But, as I stated, the fears are being overdone. Many major chains WILL show a mainstream NC-17 like SHOWGIRLS and Best Buy and Circuit City (two of the largest DVD retailers) will carry it.

But they haven't attempted it with any other mainstream films. They are afraid of something that hasn't been tested.