Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

MiraJeff only has PG-13 sex with THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, not NC-17 sex!!!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. MiraJeff has recently seen Kirby Dick's THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. We've had lots of reviews of this flick on this site, including my own, and most have been super positive, including my own. MiraJeff's review isn't negative, but he didn't love up on it as much as I did. I can totally relate to having something built up so much that even if it's really good and you like it a ton, it still never hit that high water mark you expected it to. However, I still think the flick is a little better than MiraJeff does, but I do agree that the MPAA discussion is only just begun with this film and I'd love to see a documentary that really shows how the MPAA screws over indie films and the vendettas they have against certain filmmakers. Anyway, here' MiraJeff! Enjoy!

Greetings AICN, MiraJeff here with a look at Kirby Dick's incendiary documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated. For those of you unfamiliar with the hypocrisy of this country's motion picture rating system, TFINYR takes an in-depth look at the mysterious organization that is the MPAA, or the house that Jack Valenti built as a response to communism in the 1950's. The film has a very specific agenda, to clarify what the ratings exactly mean, and to reveal the identities of the top-secret raters who make up the MPAA and its appeals board. Dick has chosen a fascinating topic; self-imposed, government-sanctioned censorship in what is supposedly a free country. But his film loses focus and puts too much weight in revealing the names of the formerly nameless. By providing the identities of the raters, Dick isn't actually doing anything to change the way things are. This isn't Michael Moore investigating the deplorable ranks of America’s health care system. The MPAA is just as mysterious now as it was before I saw the movie, but now I know who works there. The point is, so what? There is no point to the movie besides illuminating a company's employees, who do what they do because it's easy and they get paid fairly well. The film seems to take unusual pleasure in vilifying them, helped in no small part by Dick's curious but necessary decision to hire a private detective to spy on the raters as they enter and exit the MPAA's Hollywood fortress. These are just ordinary people who happen to work a not-so-ordinary job and the film seems to mock them for eating at fast-food joints and, oh my God, whispering during their private lunch conversations. I don't think it's that these people think they are talking about confidential information so much as they're just discussing their professional lives which are no one else's business but their own.

The film does a commendable job of explaining how the NC-17 limits marketing and advertising and significantly affects a film’s commercial success. And what’s interesting is that a movie’s chance for commercial success is severely limited because of how the FCC and theater owners regard the NC-17 rating, not because the public perceives it as a cinematic stigma. The FCC won’t allow ads for NC-17 movies to be shown on TV, and that’s why 95% of America has never and will never hear about this movie, which, no surprise, is rated NC-17 as well. Theater owners don’t want to be held financially responsible for taking a risk on a movie that only adults are allowed to see. The NC-17 rating might help a film get some controversial press, but it definitely adversely affects its box office haul, if only because of the significant audience it starts out not being allowed to have.

The re-enacted phone conversations with Joan Graves and one of the MPAA’s lawyers give Dick’s claims some context because it allows the other side to respond. The lawyer actually hangs up on Dick at one point and Graves dodges questions like Ahnuld dodged bullets. She does not make the MPAA look very good and I think one objective that Dick has accomplished is using the film as a mirror to hold up in front of the MPAA so they can see how foolish they look. I think that if half the number of people who saw Pirates 2 saw this movie, there would be a public outcry for the MPAA to change or disappear altogether, but the sad truth is that very few people overall will see TFINYR or even have the chance to see it and in the end, the MPAA and its moronic ratings system will remain the same.

Dick himself comes across a bit limp if you ask me. I would’ve liked to have seen Dick get a little more involved in the detective work, and a little more animated. He seems really laid back and subdued on camera and I just wanted to see some of the fight in him. Documentary filmmakers don't all have to be wonderfully charming, charismatic, thought-provoking guys, but as far as I'm concerned, Dick is certainly no Timothy Treadwell or even Brian Herzlinger, and his film is certainly no Murderball or Devil and Daniel Johnston either. If you’re a documentary filmmaker, I think your responsibility is to either educate or entertain, and while TFINYR does both of those things, it doesn’t do either one of them particularly great. Granted, my expectations were high coming in and the film did manage to make me think, which is more than I can say about most of this summer’s excuses for movies, but when the lights came up, I was left wanting a little bit more. As it stands now, TFINYR is an interesting, amusing look at the ridiculousness of the ratings system and it works as entertainment because of its presentation, which includes Dick's perfect casting/hiring of a lesbian private detective and her young, nubile partner, and the willingness of controversial filmmakers to provide colorful commentary that could potentially threaten the treatment of their next film by the MPAA.

The highlights of the movie are definitely these filmmaker interviews which include John Waters, Kimberly Pierce, Jamie Babbitt, Atom Egoyan, Alison Anders, Wayne Kramer, Mary Harron, Maria Bello, Darren Aronofsky, Matt Stone, and of course, Sir Kevin Smith. I’d like to give a quick shout out to Michael S. Patterson who provided the music that really gave the film its energy. Although TFINYR is a crowd-pleaser for sure, it seems resigned to coast on the controversy it has created, and the nature of the material just doesn’t pack the wallop that documentaries of late have had.

Lastly, as the person who actually types up the MPAA’s weekly decisions on Thursdays at Variety, I can personally attest to their utter ridiculousness. Can someone please outline the difference for me between nudity and brief nudity? Strong violence and pervasive violence? What exactly is a mature thematic element? And as unclear as the actual language behind the rating is, it’s ultimately pointless, because it is by definition, behind the rating. People don’t read or care about why movies are rated the way they are, they only care what the huge friggin’ letter on the screen is. And although I don’t normally do this, the letter I’d have to give this film is a B. It’s a solid movie that’s worth checking out, especially if you’ve ever been denied entrance to a movie because of your age, but overall, a missed opportunity to really expose the system and rally for ratings revisions.

That’ll do it for me, folks. I’ll be back very soon with reviews of The Quiet and Looking For Kitty which both open this Friday in select cities. I’m also working on a couple of script reviews including Charlie Wilson’s War by Aaron Sorkin, and a massive preview of this fall’s TV lineup. I’ve watched about a dozen pilots so far and I have to say, Sorkin’s Studio 60 is by far the best. ‘Til tomorrow (hopefully), this is MiraJeff signing off…

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 30, 2006, 3:10 a.m. CST


    by AshleyMonday

    Can't wait to see this...

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Not first

    by Phategod1

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 3:32 a.m. CST


    by hotsoup99

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 3:52 a.m. CST

    Well written review

    by PurityOfEssence

    A rarity these days.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Every movie fan should see this movie...

    by DOGSOUP

    ...and then start talking about it. The movie won't change anything itself, but moviegoers who discuss the subject in detail just might.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 6:58 a.m. CST

    The MPAA discussion is meaningless!

    by chrth

    Theatre-going will soon die. Everyone will order movies direct to their home theatre so they can watch it in the comfort of their home with cheap soda and popcorn. At that point, the MPAA becomes irrelevant.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    why would anyone want miraZOMBIE!

    by kidjingo

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 7:21 a.m. CST

    kidjingo you are begging for a JUGG FUCKLING

    by ZombieChrisReeve

    As the zombie embodiment of Chistoper Reeve, I can respect your zombie tenacity, but this is getting old. So cut it out before JuggFuckler or Demon Dave show up.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 7:22 a.m. CST

    So why does the movie get an NC-17 rating?

    by DarthMartel

    I'd love to hear the argument for an NC-17 rating on this one. I haven't seen it so, I can't say for sure. But, if there aren't women walking around bucked nekkid the whole movie giving happy endings to the film makers or guy's whipping out their tallywhackers everytime the MPAA is mentioned then why would it elicit an NC-17 rating?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 7:53 a.m. CST

    "Dick himself comes across a bit limp"

    by minderbinder

    No comment on it, just wanted to highlight that statement since it amused me.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 8:11 a.m. CST

    "Free country"?

    by HillaryLovesMe

    The US is not a free country, and hasn't been for decades. Despite all the whinings from the Left, and all the idle boasting from the Right, the US economy is not capitalistic. The US government is not federalist (i.e., freedom-oriented); if anything, it is heavily democratic (i.e., tyrannical). As a libertarian, I'm tired of the pleasant delusions by other ideologues about the state of the Union. We Americans are tyrannized up, down, left, right, and backwards and forwards. Oh, the imagery. Anyway: Note the irony of the reviewer complaining (with good reason) about the fascistic nature of American movie industry. It's clear that if the MPAA didn't exist, then the government would probably directly step in to censor movies just as it does for TV. But note the reviewer's passive praise of Michael Moore, someone who probably dearly wishes for more government intervention -- an odd stance to take, considering that government intervention as censorship is WRONG WRONG WRONG, but government intervention as "progressivism" is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. But then again, no one can seriously accuse either liberals or conservatives of consistency. ("Shameless hypocrisy" neatly describes both major ideologies.) Between leftist hypocrisy and rightist hypocrisy, American freedom gets ground to dust. Liberals need to accept that they can't whine about preserving e.g. the freedom of the press and at the same time demand more restrictions on economic activity (in the name of "progress"). Conservatives need to accept that they can't whine about preserving economic freedom and at the same time demand more restrictions on activities between consenting adults (in the name of "virtue"). Will either side wake up and smell the consistency? Unlikely. But one can still hope (until that gets outlawed too, by both "sides").

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Right, theater is dead ... so are concerts ...

    by falawful-314

    and live sporting events, and opera. Actually, TV killed the movies decades ago. I mean, who'd go see a movie in a theater when "Star Wars" is shown on prime time television for free!?! Sorry for the snark, but exactly how many times are we going to predict the demise of theater? People can blow out their speakers listening to CDs, pre-programmed to play whatever track they want in whatever order. YET concerts still sell out at outrageous prices, even factoring in the crazy cost of a beer and the absurd traffic and parking problems. WHY? Why, goddamn it!?! Because people like to feel like they're going OUT somewhere, having fun outside of the house, not being total shut-in lame asses. Crazy-cool home entertainment systems are all fine and good (especially for the upper-middle class ... and, um, the very rich), but aside from new parents and uber geeks, it's not going to change the fact that "going to the movies" has little to do with the quality of the screen and sound system, and A LOT to do with being a normal member of society. That doesn't mean the industry won't change. Industries tend to do that. They seldom up and disappear because people discover (who knew?) that they can entertain themselves at home the other six nights of the week.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Actually falawful I'm leaning towards chrth on this...

    by brycemonkey

    I'm sure that there will always be a place for cinemas but even as a real movie 'fan' I haven't watched a movie in theaters since the LOTR trilogy. So that's what? 3 years? I admit it is for a variety of reasons but certainly one of the main ones is I can buy the movie and watch it at my convienience. You can't really compare a film with live sports or music as, in my opinion, crowd participation in that setting is good. However, I don't want 300 drunk crackers cheering while I try and watch a movie.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Listen to brycemonkey, for he speaks truth

    by chrth

    Of course people will still go to the movies, but it'll be like dollar theatres. There are very few movies that are made enjoyable by seeing it with a crowd. Even films like LOTR are better at home. There's Something About Mary and Pulp Fiction are the only 2 films I've seen in a theatre where I thought it was better in the theatre than at home. And in the case of the latter, when I saw it the 3rd time, the theater was mostly empty and it wasn't made better by the experience. So even the films that are better as a group experience will be less worthwhile because fewer people will be going to them--they need a packed house for the energy. So I stand by my statement. Media (ie CDs, DVDs, etc) is doomed, moviegoing is doomed.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    I don't want to fall back on the "you guys have never

    by I Dunno

    had dates" cliche but most people who go to the movies go just to go out and go to a movie. That's why shitty movies do so well. Most people don't care if a movie sucks or not. In fact, most of the time they expect it. It's about going out, something to do after dinner, maybe get blown during the boring parts. So you geeks can sit in that egg Darth Vader lives in and watch all your movies on your $200,000 system alone with your cock out but the actual theater going experience isn't going away. Anyway, why IS this tahing rated NC-17?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 9:59 a.m. CST

    That could be funny or relevant, I Dunno, except for

    by chrth

    the fact I've been married almost 8 years. Of course, it's arguable that the situations are similar.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Theatres won't die

    by DJSpoonfed

    The last time we went to the theatre to see POTC, there was MASSIVE, I mean a 45 minute wait for that "Kill John Black" or whatever fucking movie it was. I don't go to theatres because it's always jammed full of fucking people that I despise. As well, POTC had been open for like a month, and it was STILL tough to get seats after showing up a half hour early. People go out for the sake of going out, and that won't stop. Remember, very few people, while able to AFFORD to home theatre, don't actually know how to use the damn thing.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    I Dunno: Really? People go to movies expecting...

    by brycemonkey

    them to be shit? I'd never go to see a bad movie on purpose (even if the promise of oral sex during the slow scenes was on the table. SW 1-3 would average 14 blow jobs per movie. Wow I just invented a new time measurement sytem. BJPMs! Cool. I digress...) What was I talking about? Oh yeah, if you could make a 1 or 2 person home cinema and put it in a Vader Egg you would make millions! Fact.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    I think most of the people going to films

    by chrth

    Are teenagers/college-aged or parents with kids. I don't know anyone in my age group (early 30s) that go to the movies, even those that are single, when they go on dates, will usually just do the dinner thing. I'm not sure if there's a way to stop parents w/ kids from going, but I can see a day when teenagers/college-aged stop going once the technology gets more widespread (dude, let's go to Jack's place and watch the film).

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Also remember, the studios are a factor here

    by chrth

    The studios might stop exclusively putting the films in theatres. If torrent, piracy, etc. gets too out of control, they might say 'screw it' and just do Direct-To-TV on release day (while doing a simultaneous release to theatres for those who can't get blowjobs at home).

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:10 a.m. CST

    I Dunno is right about this

    by Lost Prophet

    People go out because they like going out. if your assertion was true then no one would go to the pub as we can all buy beer from an off license and drink at home. People do do this (obviously) in the same way that they park off on a sofa and watch DVD's. But we do also go out. BTW if Star Wars 1-3 was about 14 BJPM then Superman Stalks was about 50. I was in pain when I got home. Why is this NC-17? does anyone know?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Saw a Commercial for this last night

    by Quiddity

    ...So if this is rated NC-17, and they dont' allow NC-17 films to be advertised on TV... How did this get aired?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST

    There's a huge diff between a pub and a movie theatre

    by chrth

    In a pub you can meet and talk with people; the drinking is usually secondary to act of socializing. You can't do that in a movie theatre (well, you're not supposed to do that in a theatre). All you can do is stare blankly at the screen for hours. Socializing is secondary to the movie itself.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:13 a.m. CST


    by brycemonkey

    sorry, I'm going to start marketing my time measurement system to be mandatory on the back of the box. Rated: R for violence and nudity. BJPMs 3 (the better the movie the lower the BJPMs). Time scale is also a factor. It used to be that a movie would hit cinemas and then 3 years later you'd see it on cable. Now withing a few months you can (for the price of 2 cinema tickets) buy the movie plus extras. Just saying is all.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Brycemonkey, we can extend the concept to other things

    by chrth

    How was the President's speech last night? Oh, it was about BJPM 7

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    lol... people would be torn between the search...

    by brycemonkey

    for BJPM Zero (perfect entertainment) and the tradeoff of not getting any oral sex :-)

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST

    It'd be interesting on applying the BJPM to Porn

    by chrth

    Are you talking about the movie itself, or the watching of the movie? And what about applying BJPM to sex (which is a form of entertainment)? I think in that case BJPM 5 is Perfect Entertainment.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST

    I know that drinking is secondary to socialising

    by Lost Prophet

    but the point I was trying to make was that it is meant to be an entertaining experience- I originally wanted to use concerts as an example, but falawful already had. What about applying the BJPM concert to things that we hate? films are one thing, but there is countless stuff that we have to do that is just tedium and deserves a pay off. For example, if the missus makes you go shopping. This is a shit experience, so surely the more misreable time that you have the higher the BJ quotient- (It becomes Blow Jobs Per Experience). Mind you, this can be applied all over the place- commuting to work, filling out tax returns, work, to name but a few. This is the most brilliant idea ever. (Outside of Juggfuckling, obviously.)

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    But again, movies are the only socializing experience

    by chrth

    where socializing is forbidden (concerts are somewhat forbidden, but tailgating negates). If I had the choice of going to a theater or staying at home to watch the same film, staying at home is a better social experience. As for BJPE (I like 'experience', I was going to say 'event', in any case it's BJPE), we need to establish an organization dedicated to measuring BJPE. I humbly volunteer.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    again, the difference is between an active and

    by Lost Prophet

    a passive experience- and socialising takes place before and after the event. Seeing it in a theatre can make you feel more a part of the experience, hence my mistake with that steaming pile of excrement Superman Returns. I have sent you a ticket to the start of the queue for wmploymwnt with the organisation dedicated to BJPE. It starts at the South Pole.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:56 a.m. CST

    You can have the before-and-after socializing at home 2

    by chrth

    Besides, for most groups it's 'Want to go see a movie?' 'Sure why not' followed by 'What'd you think?' 'Meh'

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST

    aren't you packing for the south pole?

    by Lost Prophet

    Sure there is that Dialogue, but people still go.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 11:02 a.m. CST

    We might as well be living under Nazi rule

    by performingmonkey

    Except it isn't Jews being killed or anything like that, it's twisted around somewhat to suit the needs of the U.S. and Israel. This country is not built on freedom, but racism and oppression of the highest order. But keep the voters happy and no-one will, I mean no-one important will care. Also, if you think your vote counts for fuck all you're wrong. Has this received a NC-17 rating just because it's showing the MPAA in a bad light, or is there actually anything in the movie that warrants that rating? If so, why couldn't that offending material have been taken out, delivering an R-rated cut that could be distributed fairly and seen by a hell of a lot more people? Fuck them.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 12:07 p.m. CST

    "Now I know who works there. The point is, so what?"

    by Kasch

    Considering that all the MPAA raters are big-dog studio executives and movie theater owners, I think that speaks volumes. Is it any wonder why Hollywood movies get more passes than the indie guys?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Theaters aren't going anywhere. Face facts, people.

    by Chastain-86

    Beyond the social aspect, there's one other nugget of wisdom you're all overlooking. Movie theaters thrive on the young. If you're complaining "I haven't seen a movie since LOTR RAHR RAHR RAHR!" you're likely missing the point. Movie theaters make their money on patrons under the age of 35. My parents haven't seen a movie at the theater since "Platoon", and I seriously doubt the movie industry has missed them. Why would they? Movie theaters will be around as long as we continue to make children who grow up to be teenagers that need places to take their first dates. Simple as that, though I guess I can't blame many of you being unfamiliar with the concepts of "social interaction" and "first dates".

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Not really Chastain...

    by brycemonkey

    (Apart from the fact that we&#39;ve gone over this ground already. <sigh> ) but if the only purpose of movie theatres is so that teenagers have somewhere to take their first dates then that is another reason I avoid them like herpes. Are you saying that you like to hang out in that environment? You are without doubt a perverted sexual predator. Shame. On. You.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Chastain-86 nails it ... swish ...

    by falawful-314

    Aside from the whole "you&#39;re all virgins, I get all the play" bullshit (hey, I&#39;m still giving you props on your argument). The prize demographic is 15-25 (or something like that), which is why Bill O&#39;Reilly is crying in his talking points when he sees Keith Olberman & Comedy Central hording the young crowd while he&#39;s "not spinning" for the Retirement Home denizens. ... but I digress. The reason people will keep going to theaters, aside from the fact that not everyone can AFFORD your fucking "state of the art" soundsystem, is that most of us would rather NOT feel like trolls slouching around on our asses every Friday night. It&#39;s not even about socializing exactly, at least not in the "crowd participation" mold - although it helps a hell of a lot for a good action or comedy flick - but about being a member of society. As you age, get married, settle down, have kids ... those things become less important. You don&#39;t have the energy. You have a built-in "audience" to hang with at home. But cinema&#39;s core consumer group remains, looking for something "to do" on a Saturday evening that involves walking out the front door.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Thanks Falawful. And brycemonkey...

    by Chastain-86

    ...nowhere in there did I say I like going to the theater. I&#39;m 31 myself, married for 7 years, and the father of a 2 year-old. My movie theater days are basically over. But what I&#39;m not going to do is complain that movies aren&#39;t being made for me anymore, or that theaters suck. In the same vein, I&#39;m also not going to complain that MTV doesn&#39;t show videos anymore. Neither is marketed to me any longer, and I&#39;ve come to terms with that. The question is... why haven&#39;t you?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    NC-17 documentary?

    by One Voice

    This has nudity, sex and bad language? Or are the MPAA bullying a film which calls it as it is. You don&#39;t get this shit with books or plays, or even music... so why should a movie be treated any different to any other pervasive art form. Pathetic.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 1:30 p.m. CST

    I suppose that is true... I haven&#39;t bought the new

    by brycemonkey

    Paris Hilton LP either so it&#39;s not all bad. And dude, married at 24? No wonder your life was over Too Soon! :-P Stop being so mellow, go out and beat on some teenage punks up for having their music too loud. I know you want to...

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST

    One Voice: It does smack of shit doesn&#39;t it?

    by brycemonkey

    I used to get extremely worked up over censorship. In the UK it used to be worse with the ratings people just banning outright anything they didn&#39;t approve of (Nevermind giving it an R or NC17). Thankfully this has changed now due to human rights and European Law etc. so at least they now have access to film that was previously banned. The poor uptight Brits can even get hardcore porn now wich (until very recently) was illegal :-)

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    From all indication

    by Falcon5768

    its the Ratings Board bullying the film. There is very little that is questionable aside from the board it&#39;s sef and their religiously faciest actions.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Is this still going to play on IFC?

    by TheMatarife

    If it is, can coax give us a heads up ahead of time so we can set our Tivos, VCRs, etc?

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 2:48 p.m. CST

    somewhat agree

    by Kevin Bosch

    It was kind of visually and thematically uneven and rambles at times, but still an important film. The point of exposing the MPAA raters, who are kept secret, is because so much, including people&#39;s careers, lie in the hands of these unknown people. They aren&#39;t elected or even apointed based on experience, but simply hired, usually based on nepotism. It&#39;s revealed that even though they&#39;re supposed to be rating the films for the benifit of families and children, most of them didn&#39;t even have children or had grown children. The part that really pissed me off was when a former MPAA rater they interviewed, who was fired for suggesting improvemnts to the system, revealed that sometimes the review board would rate a film something, then Jack Valenti or whoever would just give it a different rating.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Why this was rated NC-17...

    by Kevin Bosch

    It shows many cut scenes from other movies that had to be cut to avoid NC-17 ratings. Sex, violence and language everywhere. Hense, NC-17 rating for this movie. It was a smart move on their part. The last part of the movie is the filmmaker submitting the movie to the MPAA for a rating, and the asinine process he has to go through. Technically, the film is not-rated, because he added all those scenes after getting the rating, then didn&#39;t resubmit it.

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by ldm882

    Is it true the FCC doesn&#39;t allow NC-17 movies to be advertised on TV? That must be recent, because I remember seeing Showgirls ads on TV when it came out (and in fact, I really only remember that because I was like, hey, that&#39;s the first time I&#39;ve ever seen a commercial for a movie that says NC-17 at the end.)

  • Aug. 30, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST

    It&#39;s not that the FCC doesn&#39;t allow it...

    by Kevin Bosch

    ...some TV stations will refuse to have them. NC-17 movies carry such a stigma, station owners are afraid of the backlash they will get from people who like to complain about these things. The real problem are the theaters that refuse to book NC-17 movies for the same reason. That&#39;s what truly makes NC-17 movie unmarketable.

  • Aug. 31, 2006, 12:25 p.m. CST

    one thing that gets me

    by itanshi

    how come there is no talk of velvet marriages? Hollywood blacklisting of those they morally don&#39;t agree with? at least angelina is allowed to be bisexual... hmm. hollywood and the mpaa are the same, right?

  • Aug. 31, 2006, 2:34 p.m. CST

    You proved my point, brycemonkey

    by I Dunno

    If SW1 sucked, why did you expect SW2 and SW3 to not suck? Therefore, why&#39;d you see them? :P I&#39;m off to Home Depot to get stuff to work on that Vader egg.