DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 73109 on May 30, 2011, 09:19:44 PM

Title: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: 73109 on May 30, 2011, 09:19:44 PM
I'm currently watching this film and I'm getting more and more pissed as time goes by. I wouldn't have an issue if it was not for the fact that movies are cut to get R rating when a possibly much better film will have an NC-17 rating. I never understood why these assholes couldn't get together in a building, watch a movie, rate the "badness" on a scale of 1-10, just for the parents to see, and let the parents decide after that.

Anyone else see this documentary?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: WDADU on May 30, 2011, 09:45:43 PM
Yes. And I will post my full review soon. Too tired to so so at this point. But I love this documentary on both an entertaining level and a film student level.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: zxlkho on May 30, 2011, 09:47:30 PM
I've seen it. It was great.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Quadrochosis on May 30, 2011, 09:54:47 PM
Never saw it.. what's it about?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: zxlkho on May 30, 2011, 09:59:35 PM
Never saw it.. what's it about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_film_is_not_yet_rated
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: 73109 on May 30, 2011, 10:00:58 PM
Never saw it.. what's it about?

It's all about how we are the bitches of the MPAA.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: tjanuranus on May 30, 2011, 10:36:52 PM
Yeah good movie!
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: TL on May 30, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
It's quite good. Very eye opening as to how fucked up the American film rating system is.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: orcus116 on May 30, 2011, 11:20:37 PM
I agreed with the film's message but their method of basically stalking board members was kind of fucked up. It was fun to watch but it wasn't a very professionally executed documentary. It felt like a sleazy TMZ piece at times.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Ultimetalhead on May 31, 2011, 09:23:41 AM
Lat recommended that I watch it, and I don't regret it. It's crazy how secretive they are.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 09:26:04 AM
Serious question--not intending to troll or crap on the film if others like it:  What exactly is so wrong with the MPAA's rating system that this film needed to be made?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: skydivingninja on May 31, 2011, 09:35:58 AM
Haven't seen it yet, but according to wikipedia here are some issues:

-The board that rates movies is, according to the MPAA, made of parents with children aged 5-17 and do not serve for more than five years.  Apparently this is far from the truth.
-Board members do not receive any kind of training.
-Treating scenes of homosexuality much harsher than those of heterosexuality
-Discrepancies between how independent films are rated versus hollywood films

Sounds like an interesting watch.  Is it on Netflix?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: tjanuranus on May 31, 2011, 09:38:52 AM
Serious question--not intending to troll or crap on the film if others like it:  What exactly is so wrong with the MPAA's rating system that this film needed to be made?

They are costed independent film makers money and in some cases careers.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: orcus116 on May 31, 2011, 09:49:45 AM
Serious question--not intending to troll or crap on the film if others like it:  What exactly is so wrong with the MPAA's rating system that this film needed to be made?

A quick example would be that a very slight shot of a woman's bush caused one movie to jump from R (guaranteed theater run) to NC-17 (never going to get into theaters). The producers argued but the panel really had a problem with just that one scene.

The whole point of the movie is going to show that the current rating system is going so far out of its way to castrate movies "for the kids", movies that they shouldn't even be seeing in the first place, that it's ruining the artistic merit and enjoyment of the film for the ones they were really made for: adults.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: XJDenton on May 31, 2011, 09:57:30 AM
Well from what I understand the film wasnt attacking the rating system so much as how it is unequally enforced, with some discepancies between similar levels of content (eg violence being more acceptable than sexual content of a similar maturity).

That said, one of the main failings of the system in my opinion is the lack of a proper "adults only" certificate. All film certificates in the US apart from NC-17 (which noone makes films for as it's basically commercial suicide) contain the implicit assumption that children will be seeing the film (even R allows anyone in so long as they accompanied by an adult) and thus restricts the content to such a level.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Sigz on May 31, 2011, 10:42:49 AM
Haven't seen it yet, but according to wikipedia here are some issues:

-The board that rates movies is, according to the MPAA, made of parents with children aged 5-17 and do not serve for more than five years.  Apparently this is far from the truth.
-Board members do not receive any kind of training.
-Treating scenes of homosexuality much harsher than those of heterosexuality
-Discrepancies between how independent films are rated versus hollywood films


That's a decent summary. It's not so much about the ratings themselves, but that the process for rating them is pretty biased/subjective.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2011, 12:16:45 PM
I agree that the whole ratings thing is pretty silly, but I think the bigger problem is that we've accepted that an NC17 rating is suicide.  Why?  My beef is with the theaters that refuse to show them.  If the problem is that they're afraid uptight republicans will picket them, then I guess I can understand that, but I always thought it was strictly an economic decision. 

I view this as very similar to the V-Chip (which I wholeheartedly supported).  Give mindless parents the ability to let Uncle Sammy raise their kids if that's what they want.  If you can easily prevent kids from seeing any nudity or non-badass American violence, then the rest of us should be able to watch whatever the hell we want without any interference from puritanical cretins. 
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: lordxizor on May 31, 2011, 12:30:19 PM
That said, one of the main failings of the system in my opinion is the lack of a proper "adults only" certificate.
How is NC-17 not a proper adults only rating? The probelm as I see it is not really with the ratings, but the fact that theaters don't show NC-17 movies with any regularity because there's not enough business to justify it in a lot of cases.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2011, 12:42:48 PM
Just saw it.

I liked about.......75% of it. Everything except for the whole undercover spy stuff was great, Parker, Smith, Aranofsky and the other film makers really had amazing insight into the double standards in film ratings. I didn't care for the undercover spy stuff because at that point it seemed to turn into a Michael Moore film who's point was more "GOTCHA!" than anything else. If they just stuck to the interviews and compilation stuff, it would have been perfect.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 12:49:02 PM
Serious question--not intending to troll or crap on the film if others like it:  What exactly is so wrong with the MPAA's rating system that this film needed to be made?

A quick example would be that a very slight shot of a woman's bush caused one movie to jump from R (guaranteed theater run) to NC-17 (never going to get into theaters). The producers argued but the panel really had a problem with just that one scene.

The whole point of the movie is going to show that the current rating system is going so far out of its way to castrate movies "for the kids", movies that they shouldn't even be seeing in the first place, that it's ruining the artistic merit and enjoyment of the film for the ones they were really made for: adults.

I'm not disputing that the rating system is flawed--perhaps even badly so.  But with the examples you gave (and others in the thread), I just keep asking "so what?"
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2011, 12:51:00 PM
Serious question--not intending to troll or crap on the film if others like it:  What exactly is so wrong with the MPAA's rating system that this film needed to be made?

A quick example would be that a very slight shot of a woman's bush caused one movie to jump from R (guaranteed theater run) to NC-17 (never going to get into theaters). The producers argued but the panel really had a problem with just that one scene.

The whole point of the movie is going to show that the current rating system is going so far out of its way to castrate movies "for the kids", movies that they shouldn't even be seeing in the first place, that it's ruining the artistic merit and enjoyment of the film for the ones they were really made for: adults.

I'm not disputing that the rating system is flawed--perhaps even badly so.  But with the examples you gave (and others in the thread), I just keep asking "so what?"

I agree the whole bush thing isn't too huge, since seeing her bush isn't exactly pivotal to the plot. But they talked about other movies where they wanted to get rid of extremely important scenes because they happened to be sexual. Or one movie that got an NC-17 rating despite being no more crude or obscene than other movies that were R rated, simply because it was about lesbians and not straight couples.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: ReaPsTA on May 31, 2011, 01:10:42 PM
I'm not disputing that the rating system is flawed--perhaps even badly so.  But with the examples you gave (and others in the thread), I just keep asking "so what?"

From a business perspective, the MPAA is one of the most effective tools the big studios have to lock out competition.

When Trey Parker and Matt Stone submitted their independent film Orgazmo to the MPAA, the film got an NC-17 for scenes of nudity (which for what it's worth barely amount to anything offensive).  They asked the MPAA what to change for an R rating, and the MPAA said they were merely a ratings board, and that giving suggestions would make them a censorship organization.  Since Orgazmo was made before digital editing, Parker and Stone decided not to spend the large amount of money necessary to recut the film merely hoping to get an R rating.

Fast forward a couple years to the South Park movie.  They submit the film to the MPAA and get an NC-17.  Again, they asked what to change, and the MPAA gave them a very specific list of reasons why the film was rated NC-17.  Even so, as the movie got within a couple weeks of release time, the rating didn't change.  So essentially one of the movie's producers got on the film with the MPAA and "convinced" them to change the rating.

When Orgazmo was an edgy film that could take business away from the studios, the MPAA shut Trey and Matt down.  When they were working for the studios, the MPAA eventually caved to them.

Another obvious reason the MPAA sucks is reducing R-rated films to PG-13.  This is a getting a little less bad than it was even a year ago.  Slowly studios are starting to realize that just having an R-rated gritty film will give you business.  But movies have become stupidly sanitized in the name of getting teenagers into the theater.  Think about Terminator 2, Total Recall, or Die Hard without the proliferation of our favorite word (fuck) and the blood and guts.  If you want to see an even more specific example of why forcing films to be PG-13 sucks, watch the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard.  I'm not sure how tangibly different it really is, but the extra bloodiness and filthy language make it a noticeably more engaging movie.

And then there's the lack of transparency and qualification in the organization.

I agreed with the film's message but their method of basically stalking board members was kind of fucked up. It was fun to watch but it wasn't a very professionally executed documentary. It felt like a sleazy TMZ piece at times.

This was actually my favorite part of the movie.  Anyone on the internet can compare parts of different films to show the MPAA's inconsistent standards (though not necessarily as well as TFISYR).  But actually investigating who the board members were to prove they're basically a group of random people and rattle the MPAA's cage a bit was AWESOME.  And it gets to the real heart of why the MPAA sucks.

Being a middle-aged man/woman with kids doesn't even necessarily qualify you to raise kids, let alone make potentially multi-million dollar decisions about movie ratings.  And the intentionally obfuscated nature of the process means it can't really be challenged.  The MPAA is designed to purposefully stunt artistic expression and reduce freedom of commerce, and the studios want it that way.  And then I go to PG-13 movies and see violence and sexual content I'd never want my hypothetical 13-year-old kid to see anyway, so it's serving these nefarious (I know that's a terrible and cheesy word, sorry) secondary functions at the expense of its primary function.  Everything about the MPAA is wrong.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: TL on May 31, 2011, 01:10:48 PM
That said, one of the main failings of the system in my opinion is the lack of a proper "adults only" certificate.
How is NC-17 not a proper adults only rating? The probelm as I see it is not really with the ratings, but the fact that theaters don't show NC-17 movies with any regularity because there's not enough business to justify it in a lot of cases.

Part of the problem is that they can be extremely vague, and sometimes provide no details whatsoever, as to how they arrived at a certain rating, especially when it comes to independent films. They may just tell you 'we're rating your film NC-17', and refuse to give you any details. If you want a lower rating, you have to guess and hope you make the right cuts.

They can also be very hypocritical and unreasonable. For example, the film 'Blue Valentine' was originally given an NC-17 rating in the US, in spite of being more tame than many R rated films. Eventually, with heavy studio pressure, they knocked it down to an R. Here in Canada, the same version that received an NC-17 in the US was initially given a rating of 14A.

Basically, the problem is that it provides yet another huge roadblock for independent films, and can actually be flat out discriminatory in some cases. Sure, it may not be right that NC-17 is basically a kiss of death, but it is, and they've undeservingly given it to some films while knowing that.

Edit: They also have no real concept of context. I mean, we're talking about the people who gave 'The King's Speech' an R rating for language (again, 14A here, 13+ in Quebec). While an R rating isn't really a problem, I doubt anyone too young for the kind of language used in the film would want to see it anyway, and if they did, they're probably mature enough that it isn't a problem.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 01:22:02 PM
I'm not disputing that the rating system is flawed--perhaps even badly so.  But with the examples you gave (and others in the thread), I just keep asking "so what?"
[Long, informative post]

Thanks for taking the time to type that out.  I guess I'll just bow out of the discussion, because even after reading that, my reaction is still, "yeah, but so what?"  :lol
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: ReaPsTA on May 31, 2011, 01:26:34 PM
I'm not disputing that the rating system is flawed--perhaps even badly so.  But with the examples you gave (and others in the thread), I just keep asking "so what?"
[Long, informative post]

Thanks for taking the time to type that out.  I guess I'll just bow out of the discussion, because even after reading that, my reaction is still, "yeah, but so what?"  :lol

Hmmm......  Not necessarily because of my post, because there have been other good ones in this thread, but I'm surprised a little by your reaction.  This sounds more condescending than I'd like, but how much are you interested in movies in a broader sense?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 01:30:20 PM
I don't mean for it to sound condescending.  I'm just saying that none of the things mentioned in this thread really matter much to me. 

As far as how much I am interested in movies, I guess "somewhat" is the best answer.  I enjoy a good movie, and I have a decent-sized DVD collection.  But I don't even try to watch everything that looks like it might be interesting.  And I don't get heartburn over not being able to watch a movie because it didn't get made or whatever.  If someone has a great idea for a movie, but it never gets made or marketed, I'm really not phased by that much at all.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: ReaPsTA on May 31, 2011, 01:35:35 PM
As far as how much I am interested in movies, I guess "somewhat" is the best answer.  I enjoy a good movie, and I have a decent-sized DVD collection.  But I don't even try to watch everything that looks like it might be interesting.  And I don't get heartburn over not being able to watch a movie because it didn't get made or whatever.  If someone has a great idea for a movie, but it never gets made or marketed, I'm really not phased by that much at all.

I think that's the key sentence.  I'd like to live in a world where Orgazmo might have made money at the box office.  And for some reason I feel personally bothered when filmmakers invest tremendous time and money into a project only to be told they can't make anything back fiscally or emotionally because the MPAA decided their film shouldn't be in theaters.  But there's merely my perspective, it's not necessarily for everyone.

Quote
I don't mean for it to sound condescending.  I'm just saying that none of the things mentioned in this thread really matter much to me. 

This makes me feel like I said something unintentionally insulting.  If I did that, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Ultimetalhead on May 31, 2011, 01:36:37 PM
Bosk: I didn't really get the point of the movie either before I watched it. I was in the exact same boat as you. Just watch it.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: orcus116 on May 31, 2011, 01:39:54 PM
bosk just wondering, your stance is more of complete apathy as opposed to "well they shouldn't have made the movie vulgar in the first place if they wanted it to be seen", right?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 01:40:10 PM
Quote
I don't mean for it to sound condescending.  I'm just saying that none of the things mentioned in this thread really matter much to me.  

This makes me feel like I said something unintentionally insulting.  If I did that, I'm sorry.

???  I'm not sure where in my posts you are getting condescension or that I am insulted.  Neither are the case.  I came into the thread basically saying, "This doesn't seem important to me, but it seems important enough to lots of others that I feel like maybe I might just be missing the point, so can someone shed some light?"  A few people, including you, have done so, and I still find myself saying, "I don't really have a dog in this fight at all, so I'll just bow out and let the rest of you discuss it."  What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: ReaPsTA on May 31, 2011, 01:42:16 PM
A few people, including you, have done so, and I still find myself saying, "I don't really have a dog in this fight at all, so I'll just bow out and let the rest of you discuss it."  What's wrong with that?

Not much of anything.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 01:46:26 PM
bosk just wondering, your stance is more of complete apathy as opposed to "well they shouldn't have made the movie vulgar in the first place if they wanted it to be seen", right?

Correct.  I mean, don't get me wrong--I think you have probably read enough of my posts in P/R to deduce that I think society is better off without vulgar movies.  But, yes, my stance is that it just doesn't matter much to me.  If a wonderful G-rated movie never got made or marketed because of the MPAA, I still wouldn't really be bothered.  

As far as the rating system as it applies to me, I find it useful.  I know, for instance, that if a movie has an R rating, my kids aren't going to see it right now, and I might not want to see it either.  PG-13, probably not.  So it is easier to cull out movies.  And if something gets culled out that shouldn't, again, I don't really care.  What I find even more useful than the basic rating system is the recent trend to list what content might potentially be objectionable ("violence," "language," "nudity," etc.).  I don't know if that is an MPAA thing or just arose as a trend, but I like it because I find that it generally helps in making those decisions about whether it is appropriate for kids (or for me, for that matter).
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: tjanuranus on May 31, 2011, 01:51:28 PM
bosk just wondering, your stance is more of complete apathy as opposed to "well they shouldn't have made the movie vulgar in the first place if they wanted it to be seen", right?

Correct.  I mean, don't get me wrong--I think you have probably read enough of my posts in P/R to deduce that I think society is better off without vulgar movies.  But, yes, my stance is that it just doesn't matter much to me.  If a wonderful G-rated movie never got made or marketed because of the MPAA, I still wouldn't really be bothered.  

As far as the rating system as it applies to me, I find it useful.  I know, for instance, that if a movie has an R rating, my kids aren't going to see it right now, and I might not want to see it either.  PG-13, probably not.  So it is easier to cull out movies.  And if something gets culled out that shouldn't, again, I don't really care.  What I find even more useful than the basic rating system is the recent trend to list what content might potentially be objectionable ("violence," "language," "nudity," etc.).  I don't know if that is an MPAA thing or just arose as a trend, but I like it because I find that it generally helps in making those decisions about whether it is appropriate for kids (or for me, for that matter).

Yeah but the rating system is based on a false sense of morality and hyprocacy. You can show all kinds of violence but if you saw a naughty word or show a breast it's BAD. There is a film that really get's to the heart of the problem with the american rating system and hollywood in general called Funny Games. Brilliant film by Michael Haneke.

Also its BS that pepoles art can be stifled because of a few idiots who think they know what morality is or what children should see.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Gadough on May 31, 2011, 01:58:49 PM
Funny Games is an incredible film.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: King Postwhore on May 31, 2011, 02:00:23 PM
I think the ratings only affect 17 and up but it does affect R rated movies.  The more they do this, the more people will watch HBO releases like Game Of Thrones. Is it such a injustice?  I just think it's more of somebody pushing their morality on me and when your 17 you should be able to choose yourself or let a parent make the decision.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: zepp-head on May 31, 2011, 02:01:53 PM
I agreed with the film's message but their method of basically stalking board members was kind of fucked up. It was fun to watch but it wasn't a very professionally executed documentary. It felt like a sleazy TMZ piece at times.

I agree with this.  

The film made its point, but it fell into the same thing that keeps me from watching most documentaries, meaning there was no such thing at even an attempt of neutrality.  The film would have real audio from phone calls, but would animate the person on the other end of the line to be rolling their eyes and things like that.  I understand that the guy who made it was pissed off, but come on, be fair.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2011, 02:03:45 PM
I agreed with the film's message but their method of basically stalking board members was kind of fucked up. It was fun to watch but it wasn't a very professionally executed documentary. It felt like a sleazy TMZ piece at times.

I agree with this.  

The film made its point, but it fell into the same thing that keeps me from watching most documentaries, meaning there was no such thing at even an attempt of neutrality.  The film would have real audio from phone calls, but would animate the person on the other end of the line to be rolling their eyes and things like that.  I understand that the guy who made it was pissed off, but come on, be fair.

That's why I think that part should have been left out, however if you look at the majority of the film, which is the interviews or compilations, then it really does a good job.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Gadough on May 31, 2011, 02:05:51 PM
Sounds like an interesting watch.  Is it on Netflix?

It is!
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2011, 02:09:12 PM
Yeah but the rating system is based on a false sense of morality and hyprocacy.

No, I get that.  But even that being true, it doesn't bother me because (1) movies aren't important enough for me to get worked up over it, and (2) as I said above, although the system is flawed, for whatever reason, it is still useful.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Gadough on May 31, 2011, 02:17:03 PM
It's just the principle of the thing Bosk. That's it. It doesn't directly affect me, and to be honest, I don't care all that much either. But I understand why this is a problem and why something should be done to fix it.

At the very least, people need to be made aware of the situation, which is why this film was made.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: orcus116 on May 31, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
And why that board of all boards needs to remain anonymous.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: sonatafanica on May 31, 2011, 02:44:00 PM
it's a pretty bodacious film.


it would be pretty cool if they got a few artists on the board somewhere.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: TL on May 31, 2011, 03:18:07 PM
As a complete contrast to the MPAA, I absolutely love Quebec's film rating board.
There's a high degree of transparency, and they actually seem to account for context. Their ratings are G, 13+, 16+, and 18+. 18+ is extremely rare when it comes to theatrical films. G and 13+ are far and away the most commonly used ratings, with many films that are rated R (and even NC-17) in the US receiving a 13+ rating.

It's crazy, it's like someone actually designed a film rating board for the real world! They actually trust people to think and use their own judgement.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
As a complete contrast to the MPAA, I absolutely love Quebec's film rating board.
There's a high degree of transparency, and they actually seem to account for context. Their ratings are G, 13+, 16+, and 18+. 18+ is extremely rare when it comes to theatrical films. G and 13+ are far and away the most commonly used ratings, with many films that are rated R (and even NC-17) in the US receiving a 13+ rating.

It's crazy, it's like someone actually designed a film rating board for the real world! They actually trust people to think and use their own judgement.
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that Canadians probably aren't as horrified at the prospect of their child seeing a nipple as Americans are.  Just a hunch.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: tjanuranus on May 31, 2011, 03:26:53 PM
As a complete contrast to the MPAA, I absolutely love Quebec's film rating board.
There's a high degree of transparency, and they actually seem to account for context. Their ratings are G, 13+, 16+, and 18+. 18+ is extremely rare when it comes to theatrical films. G and 13+ are far and away the most commonly used ratings, with many films that are rated R (and even NC-17) in the US receiving a 13+ rating.

It's crazy, it's like someone actually designed a film rating board for the real world! They actually trust people to think and use their own judgement.
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that Canadians probably aren't as horrified at the prospect of their child seeing a nipple as Americans are.  Just a hunch.

Nipple = Children scarred for life, doomed for a life of prison sex.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: skydivingninja on May 31, 2011, 05:18:08 PM
I agreed with the film's message but their method of basically stalking board members was kind of fucked up. It was fun to watch but it wasn't a very professionally executed documentary. It felt like a sleazy TMZ piece at times.

I agree with this.  

The film made its point, but it fell into the same thing that keeps me from watching most documentaries, meaning there was no such thing at even an attempt of neutrality.  The film would have real audio from phone calls, but would animate the person on the other end of the line to be rolling their eyes and things like that.  I understand that the guy who made it was pissed off, but come on, be fair.

That's why I think that part should have been left out, however if you look at the majority of the film, which is the interviews or compilations, then it really does a good job.

Agreed on both points.  The re-enacted phone calls were the most annoying point of the movie for me.  I did like the Private Investigator thing though.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: mrjazzguitar on May 31, 2011, 08:01:27 PM
Yeah but the rating system is based on a false sense of morality and hyprocacy.

No, I get that.  But even that being true, it doesn't bother me because (1) movies aren't important enough for me to get worked up over it, and (2) as I said above, although the system is flawed, for whatever reason, it is still useful.

So what? Who cares?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: 73109 on May 31, 2011, 09:06:31 PM
See, with me being such a cinephile, I find it awful that some movies out there were never made because of this bogus rating system. That's my deal. That's why I admire dudes like Kubrick who were all "Yeah, I'll take that X rating...bitch."
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2011, 09:22:27 PM
That's why I admire dudes like Kubrick who were all "Yeah, I'll take that X rating...bitch."

Have you seen Eyes Wide Shut? It was pretty drastically changed for the rating.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: 73109 on May 31, 2011, 09:25:22 PM
Yeah, I know. I was talking about ACO. And I've seen EWS in its original form, and then I've seen the edited scene. The only different was they digitally put dudes in in some of the orgy spots. That is another thing that the movie talked about. The way the movie was edited, you could still see the chick screaming, moaning and rocking, but you couldn't see the guy thrusting...and that somehow makes it ok.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2011, 09:30:55 PM
Yeah, I know. I was talking about ACO. And I've seen EWS in its original form, and then I've seen the edited scene. The only different was they digitally put dudes in in some of the orgy spots. That is another thing that the movie talked about. The way the movie was edited, you could still see the chick screaming, moaning and rocking, but you couldn't see the guy thrusting...and that somehow makes it ok.

Where can I find the non edited version? I have the kubrick boxset, is it in there?
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: JustJen on June 01, 2011, 06:36:21 AM
The movie ratings system does almost nothing when you consider that most children/teenagers/whatever get their "entertainment" from the internet and late night movie channels, not in movie theaters.

A parent should allow or not allow their 18 and under children to watch certain programs on tv and access certain information on the internet. Until a parent is already proactive about those things, I don't want to hear them bitch about things shown in the theater, which should be even easier to limit their child's access to.

Or to put it another way --

As long as 14 year old kids are freely googling "two girls one cup" or "how to make a bomb" what is the difference if a film with the word "fuck" or a naked set of breasts is released with a rating that would allow them to see it?  OH NO THEY MIGHT LEARN HOW TO MAKE LOVE CREATIVELY AND EXPRESS THEMSELVES.


Here's another thought.... we rate sexuality harsher than violence, yet more 16 year olds are getting pregnant/getting girls pregnant than committing violent crimes. Maybe we should just let them learn about sex. ZOMG THE CRAZINESS

I loved that scene from "The People vs. Larry Flynt" where he shows that film compilation and asks "is this obscene? or this? or this?" while comparing images of lovers in an embrace compared to images of dead people and soldiers with guns.

I know I'd rather have my kids learn about love and sex than killing and fear, but you know, thats just me.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: lordxizor on June 01, 2011, 06:43:50 AM
I know I'd rather have my kids learn about love and sex than killing and fear, but you know, thats just me.
The crazy thing is that most Americans would probaby agree with you. Once again, a very vocal minority is driving things. I've never understood why conservative Christian types are all for guns and killing, but are afraid of sex. Believing that sex before marriage is wrong is all fine and good, but not wanting your kids to know anything about sex is just wierd.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: zepp-head on June 01, 2011, 07:45:40 AM
Yeah, preferring to see violence over sex is quite an interesting decision that most people seem to be in favor of for some reason.  Seems a bit demented to me.

On topic: while flawed, I think we can all agree that the ratings system in place now is infinitely better than the one it replaced.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: TL on June 01, 2011, 09:13:53 AM
I like Kevin Smith's interview in the film;
About how a mother was freaking about because she didn't want her 16 year old daughter to see a movie where one of the female characters talks about masturbation. How Smith is just like "Do you really think that's anything new for her? She's 16".

As has been said, it's especially silly in this day and age, where most kids have seen far more explicit material online by the time they're 12 than they'll ever see in a theatrical film.
Title: Re: This Film is Not Yet Rated
Post by: lateralus88 on June 02, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
So guys, remember that time when movie theaters became really over-regulated with policies that aren't actually relevant in the legal system and just cause more harm than they do good?

Oh right.