|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 9, 2020 23:55:30 GMT
All I can say is that I don't have an issue with it and i don't see how there are many R-rated movies pandering to children. It is probably because I am from the U.S. It all feels normal to me. I have made a slight edit to the start of the previous post. I don’t have much of an issue now as hard R rated stuff is stronger, it’s just that now, many of these hard R’s should be NC17. It also almost seems pointless to complain about in an age when children have easy access to hardcore porn and everything else on the internet. This is in part the fault of the parents themselves. My parents were very good at keeping me from watching stuff they didn't think was appropriate when I was a teenager. I was finally allowed to watch any R-rated movie when I was 15. My Aunt on the other hand had no issue with allowing me and my younger brother watching any R-rated movie after we were 10 years old. We would spend a lot of time at my Aunt and Uncle's house during the Summer.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 10, 2020 0:13:41 GMT
I'd recommend The Handmaiden (2016) but apparently that's just marked as unrated.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 0:39:10 GMT
As far as I can tell NC-17 is mostly for explicit sex and graphic nudity. NC-17 for violence alone is rare. Natural Born Killers came close. Eyes Wide Shut is an R that probably should have still gotten the NC-17 rating even after the editing. Sometimes the quality and austerity of the production can determine what a film gets away with. I have never seen the R version of EWS. Internationally, it went uncut. It was R18 in both Oz and NZ. That was part of the reason for the inception of NC17, to take strong sexual content films away from the stigma of X rated titilation films. It didn’t make much difference. Hills Have Eyes and Last House On The Left reboots as horror, had to have snips made for an R in the graphically violent parts. Sook seemed absurd, like only one quick reaction shot being allowed to say a torture scene, rather than 2. Interesting to know that about The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left remakes. Those are more brutal than most R-rated movies.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 0:56:55 GMT
It also almost seems pointless to complain about in an age when children have easy access to hardcore porn and everything else on the internet. This is in part the fault of the parents themselves. My parents were very good at keeping me from watching stuff they didn't think was appropriate when I was a teenager. I was finally allowed to watch any R-rated movie when I was 15. My Aunt on the other hand had no issue with allowing me and my younger brother watching any R-rated movie after we were 10 years old. We would spend a lot of time at my Aunt and Uncle's house during the Summer. Yes, parental responsibility plays an important role and often goes neglected from my observation. That is why if more hardcore violent films were NC17, even the parent wouldn’t be allowed to take them in. Well in the cinema anyway, access online is different story. I worked in cinemas for 23yrs. We had a hell of a job at times trying to stop kids sneaking into films with age restrictions. No ID, NO admission had to be the hard line, even if the kid did look old enough. One kid once called me an arrogant dick and said he was going to go into the cinema he wanted. I just told him go ahead. I was both duty manager and projectionist that day. I told him I wouldn’t start the movie until he left and that he would then have contend with the other patrons in the cinema then.... ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/rofl.png) Not just online either. The distinction bit silly imo, because the parent can just let their kid watch whatever they want when the movie comes out to rent. I think the ratings really only work as warnings for the parent on what they will allow their children to watch. These days if the parents cares at all they have easy access to find out exactly the reasons certain movies are rated what they are rated. It isn't difficult.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 1:00:46 GMT
Interesting to know that about The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left remakes. Those are more brutal than most R-rated movies. Yes and regarding the content of these films, R or NC17, both versions were high impact content not suitable for kids, even younger teens. That is why is seems ridiculous to rate a film R, just because of a few utterances of f<>k. These films do not belong in the category as Hills or House. Plenty of US R rated films are M in Oz. Only a recommendation suitable for mature audiences and no restrictions. A bit of language is not an issue or worth restricting for. Some parents are REALLY touchy though. This all seems to stem from how U.S. society was in the earlier 20th century. How married people sleeping in the same bed was a no no in movies and "Franky My Dear, I don't Give a Damn" had people raising a fuss. I had very religious neighbors who wouldn't even let their kinds watch most PG movies.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 1:29:50 GMT
Some parents are REALLY touchy though. This all seems to stem from how U.S. society was in the earlier 20th century. How married people sleeping in the same bed was a no no in movies and "Franky My Dear, I don't Give a Damn" had people raising a fuss. I had very religious neighbors who wouldn't even let their kinds watch most PG movies. Times change and along with it morals and mores. I do feel there does need to be a more accessible delineation though in the US ratings system. Is consumer advice even paid heed to by many. That is a disclaimer, or caveat, to at least counter any complaints. I think many people ride blind and if they want to see a film they will, regardless of rating. They will just base it off who’s in it, the genre it is and some parents may take their kids to films not even aware of the rating. If a film is R and the parent asks for one adult and 2 children, nothing is going to be said due to the guidance being permitted. The complaints may come after. I had one parent complain to me about Poseidon after he walked out with his kids because of the intense disaster content. I had to point out that the film was rated M, suitable for 15 and over and that the consumer advise was contains disaster themes. I suggested he take notice of these things before making a decision on what films to take his children too. That is the fault of the idiot parents. This is a big issue I have with complaints about violent video games etc. It is the parent's responsibility. I think that the rating system is fine as is, though I might have certain nitpicks. You can't get everything perfect. It is probably more accurate in some other countries (Canada for example), but it isn't so off in the U.S. that it is bothersome imo. Parents need to parent. Anything else is scapegoating. It also depends greatly on the parent. As I said before, there are some parents who will watch The Hills Have Eyes with their children, even after having watched it first. I think this is bad parenting, but it is reality. To blame the movie industry for this is laziness. At the same time I don't have too big of a problem with your opinion here. My opinion is just different enough that I think it is worth pointing out the differences.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 1:54:59 GMT
That is the fault of the idiot parents. This is a big issue I have with complaints about violent video games etc. It is the parent's responsibility. I think that the rating system is fine as is, though I might have certain nitpicks. You can't get everything perfect. It is probably more accurate in some other countries (Canada for example), but it isn't so off in the U.S. that it is bothersome imo. Parents need to parent. Anything else is scapegoating. It also depends greatly on the parent. As I said before, there are some parents who will watch The Hills Have Eyes with their children, even after having watched it first. I think this is bad parenting, but it is reality. To blame the movie industry for this is laziness. At the same time I don't have too big of a problem with your opinion here. My opinion is just different enough that I think it is worth pointing out the differences. Many may complain without having seen the film, but question why films with vile content are made in the first place which in some instances, does give them exposure to children and moreso now. Thing is, responsible adults shouldn’t suffer for irresponsible ones. We get used to our own environments and I could point out the contradictions and hypocrisies of my own countries ratings system when comparisons get made. The other thing that makes no sense to me, is why one country will determine a film suitable for one age bracket, when another will determine a different guideline. It is the same damn film and content. It’s like saying some kids in one country are more precious over others and can’t handle something, while others can take it. I am not opposed to a one world rating system, the rest is all compartmentalised bureaucracy. Anybody who asks why do certain films get made in the first place is laughably naive. As for the second paragraph, there are far bigger differences between countries than the movie rating system. It almost seems insulting discussing such a minor issue when far more important issues exist, within the same country and between countries.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 2:09:29 GMT
Anybody who asks why do certain films get made in the first place is laughably naive. As for the second paragraph, there are far bigger differences between countries than the movie rating system. It almost seems insulting discussing such a minor issue when far more important issue exist, within the same country and between countries. What issues are you referring too? Peoples basic needs are all the same and as I pointed out, the rest is all governmental and institutionalised establishment bureaucracy. Pointing out the contradictions, hypocrisies and absurdities is all tied into the bulls<>t. It all operates on the same sphere. I am referring to the stuff you just mentioned above. I don't even know what you are talking about with basic needs. What does that have to do with the movie rating system? Maybe I missed something. Also, what do you think the Government is made up of? Lizard people? The Government is made up of human beings. Contradictions, hypocrisy etc. is just part of our nature as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 2:37:18 GMT
I am referring to the stuff you just mentioned above. I don't even know what you are talking about with basic needs. What does that have to do with the movie rating system? Maybe I missed something. Also, what do you think the Government is made up of? Lizard people? The Government is made up of human beings. Contradictions, hypocrisy etc. is just part of our nature as far as I can tell. Look, the bottom line is, the ratings system in the US could do with an overhaul. As for the rest, I don’t mean to confuse you, but we were discussing the dynamic of film ratings and the hypocrisies when compared to others. Your lizard people analogy is just bizarre. I am honest enough to say that I just don't understand your point still then. At this point you have just confused me. The wiring gets mixed around in my head a lot of times.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 2:58:16 GMT
I am honest enough to say that I just don't understand your point still then. At this point you have just confused me. The wiring gets mixed around in my head a lot of times. I can only express from my own perception. I have always been fascinated with censorship and film ratings. It just makes no sense to me when countries, especially western ones and are all founded from the same cloth, take a different guideline and approach to what is deemed acceptable and to what age bracket, when it is the same film. The sociology surrounding it is weird. I used to get very frustrated when I would see a US production, detect the cuts to suit the US R rating, when those cuts could have been left intact when working in with another classification system around the world. We were held ransom to US censorship and then sometimes further more our own. That goes for everybody and that is something that often gets ignored or overlooked by many people during arguments. I don't find the stuff you think is weird to be weird. I am not trying to be annoying, but I still don't get what you are saying. Maybe it is because I don't care about movie ratings. You find the sociology weird because you aren't from the west. To us it is just normal.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 10, 2020 4:43:08 GMT
That goes for everybody and that is something that often gets ignored or overlooked by many people during arguments. I don't find the stuff you think is weird to be weird. I am not trying to be annoying, but I still don't get what you are saying. Maybe it is because I don't care about movie ratings. You find the sociology weird because you aren't from the west. To us it is just normal. I live in Australia. That is a very westernized country. My comparisons are being made more between countries like NZ, Oz, UK and Ireland. Canada appears to have different film classification ratings depending on its province, which further adds to the hypocrisy. Quebec may have a film rated at 14A and the rest of the provinces at 18A. The UK was always very tight and stringent.
The first and main point I raised, was why distributors and exhibitors in the US have/had issues with a film being rated NC17? Asinine arguments I heard, was that it was because people would associate them with porn when that is bollocks. Any little amount of research would provide evidence as to what the film is about, be it a violent film, a sexual film, or both. Yet they would have deserved their NC17 rating and didn't need trimming down to a more accessible R, just so kids under 17 can see them with an adult. It comes down to pandering to kids again for many films they shouldn't be seeing in the first place depending on age.
Rambo Last Blood was R in the US and R18+ only in Oz for High Impact Violence. A new innocuous dramedy called Made In Italy with Liam Neeson has about 10 utterances of f<>k in it. No sex or violence. It is rated M in Oz with advise 'coarse language' and yet anyone can see it, but R in the US for language. Seems ludicrous that a graphically violent film like Rambo, and a warm and friendly film like Made In Italy share the same category of rating in the US and all due to silly guidelines about how many times the F word can be used in a PG13 which is what this arthouse circuit type of film really need be rated.
You have taken it to a level that I no longer even have an opinion about. That isn't to say that I don't find the above information interesting if it is in fact true. I'll take your word that it is true. All I can say now is that you find this stuff way more worth thinking about than me.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Sept 10, 2020 11:18:48 GMT
I had no idea Lust, Caution (2007) was NC-17. It got a 16 rating in my country (the equivalent of R in the US).
It's my favourite Ang Lee movie, and one of the few movies I can think of where the graphic sex scenes are actually appropriate to the plot and not just gratuitous or included for shock value.
|
|