|
Author
|
Topic: Is violence a factor for NC-17?
|
Pyromaniac
|
posted 01-29-2000 02:43 PM
I heard "Saving Private Ryan" should of got
NC-17. The fact that it didn't, makes me wonder. |
Sam
|
posted 01-29-2000 06:46 PM
That's cuz of the director that made it... If it was some lesser-known director it would've gotten an NC-17. |
Ivan
|
posted 01-29-2000 09:53 PM
Actually, if Im not mistaken, he had to cut some stuff out to avoid it. Had to do it in From Dusk Till Dawn at the end. •¿•
( ¬ ) |
Critter
|
posted 01-30-2000 12:39 AM
Yes violence is a factor. Anything that anyone could consider offensive is a factor. Remember that at one time, the inside of a woman's thigh could not be shown on a film. Baywatch proves that times change, but shuch things are still taken into consideration. Violence is a big consideration. There are a lot of people that are running around saying that if little Johnnie sees violence in a film, he will become violent. Personally, I have seen a lot of films, and tape of people being killed, but have yet to kill anyone. They want to blame the films for the way the kids act, instead of taking responsability for the way they raised them. Sorry, but that is a personal pet peive. I guess that I'm too much of an old fart, and had my butt busted too many times to act up the way a lot of the younger generation does.------------------
Rex Winfrey
Critter Creation Shop
|
sparkybus
|
posted 01-30-2000 01:13 AM
not sure whether or not this is relevant, but...the original robocop had to be cut down in certain violent scenes to avoid an X, yes X!!! rating. odd, but true. check out the unrated version of robocop on DVD to see for urselves. |
Craig
|
posted 01-31-2000 12:17 AM
I got that version on DVD and it is pretty nasty. The comentary talks about all the cut out scenes. They cut out a part where Murphy's arm gets completly blown off by a shotgun. The first ED-209 scene has extra (I mean extra gore) in it also. I think movie violence is cool because you know that no one is getting hurt. And my kill record is still at 0. ------------------
Send My Regards to the Kaiser
--From the Movie Oscer-- |
crazy lou
|
posted 01-31-2000 02:18 AM
clerks was originally NC-17 too. to much vulgarity, so they toned it down reluctantly.BTW, the movie itself cost about 26,000, and getting the right for the soundtrack cost MORE, about 28,000 sad isnt it? better find some people in bands to do original music for your movies, thats what i'm doing, they give me music, and i give them props ( i dont mean the movie kind) later
Tom |
Edward Scissorhands
|
posted 01-31-2000 08:51 AM
Wasn't Robocop made in 1990? If so, it couldn't get the X rating. The X rating was removed in '89 and replaced by NC-17. |
ebrigman
|
posted 01-31-2000 10:26 AM
Robocop was made in 1987... |
ebrigman
|
posted 01-31-2000 10:30 AM
and Depalma's scarface in 1983 was originally given an X... by traditional Hollywood standards Schindler's list would have gotten an NC-17... but as the board has shown many times... it uses the rating as a judge of quality or importance as well as contentin 1969 after Midnight Cowboy won the oscar... its x-rating was removed and replaced with an R... after all X rated movies can't win awards |
Ivan
|
posted 01-31-2000 12:01 PM
yep. Its like grading your own test. you'll give it whatever you stinking want to...well, more like grading a friends test...but...right. |
AmerikanDirector
|
posted 01-31-2000 05:47 PM
Yes,
CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1974) had an original X rating for violence and rape. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER was rated NC-17 for it's "too realistic" violence.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was cut in a lot of places.
STRAW DOGS (which is little known about) got and original X for violence too. IMHO, more director's cuts should be released!! And if I ever make a movie, that someone wants me to tone down to an R, I am not going to do it! I won't ever cut my masterpiece! (I am working on a horribly graphic war film at the moment...some parts are worse than SPR, I would get a definate NC-17!) -AD |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 02-01-2000 05:38 PM
They shouldn't've cut "Eyes Wide Shut." It wasn't in Europe, why was it here? |
Movie_Maker
|
posted 02-02-2000 11:56 PM
Why do movies even have ratings, if you want to see a movie you should be able to see them (Well maybe except for pornography), I think World empire films said something about opening a theater without restrictions?
I don't know....Just blathering I guess.... |
sparkybus
|
posted 02-03-2000 01:04 AM
to answer that question: movies have ratings for 2 main reason: because the government feels certain films should have ratings forbidding certain younger people from viewing them, and secondly, and more reasonably, to inform the viewer of the content of the movie. |
Lab Rat
|
posted 02-03-2000 03:41 AM
Here in Canada, we actually have a more easy going rating system, or I suppose it works out the same in people's minds in the end. Movies in the U.S. that are rated R are only rated 14A here. I think it means anyone under 14 must be accompanied by an adult. Very few are rated NC-17, and maybe we don't even have R. What does the NC stand for anyway? |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 02-03-2000 08:07 AM
No children. |
ebrigman
|
posted 02-03-2000 10:27 AM
Jack Valenti said that the only people who should care what movies are rated should be parents with children...By the way the Supreme Court has ruled that what may not be obscene to an adult audience may legally be obscene to an audience that is not of age... |
Actor
|
posted 02-03-2000 12:40 PM
The government has nothing to do with the ratings. The MPAA is an entirely private entity and compliance with its code is strictly voluntary. Legally a theatre can show anything it wants as long as it is not "obscene", and the supreme court has ruled that "obscene" is determined by community standards. That means that what is OK in Las Vegas, NV could be obscene in Drumright, OK.Eyes Wide Shut was altered, not cut, for US distribution. Stanley Kubrick himself made the alterations. Potted plants were strategically placed between the audience and the actors with a computer, a technique which is starting to be called "the Austin Powers solution". |
Micah
|
posted 02-04-2000 05:46 PM
AmerikanDirector thats what you say now but when your a poor indie maker and you get your big break I think you will do different. yes if we all get power and money then yeah we're going to tell the studios to take their idea and shove up their ass. but untill we have fame power and money I think you will let them do what ever you want for a check for .5 million dollars.Thats my thought but if you always do that then your no going to make it in hollywood. Micah
------------------
" If the milk turns out
to be sour, I ain't the
kinda pussy to drink it.
Know what I mean? "
Lock, Stock and 2 smoking barrels.
|
reserviordog
|
posted 02-06-2000 01:22 AM
Just to clarify something here, Clerks did, as Crazy Lou pointed out, originally receive an NC-17 rating. However, not a single frame was cut before the MPAA reversed their decision to give the film an R. I'm sure part of it depends on what kind of mood the board is in when they watch the film. |
