NC-17 Turns Twenty

Is the claim that the movies would have had a better box office turn out f they were rated "R" ?

Yes. When it was created, it was seen as a way for movies that explore more adult-oriented material to be seen by adults. It was created as an opposition to the "X" rating which was co-opted by pornography.

In practice, though, any movie that was slapped with an NC-17 rating was typically not pushed by the studios and distributors. It became a scarlet letter. Filmmakers were encouraged or coerced into either editing the film down to ensure an "R" rating or releasing it without being rated.
 
NC-17 is freakin' weird man. It's such a taboo rating. Films over here are rated 18 all the time.

Yeah, I don't really get it either… but maybe it's a US v Europe thing - violence in films/TV never seems to be much of a problem in the states, yet you accidentally show your nipple on live TV and shit kicks off. 18 rated films over here are bound to have a smaller audience than 15 rated ones, but I don't think they've ever been seen as unusual.
 
It simply astounds me that in "PG-13", we can show countless people shot to death, but a naked body makes something "R". And in "R", we can show realistic, torturous, graphic murder, but if a love-making session gets just a little too-steamy, it's "NC-17". Those historical puritan roots just don't seem to go away.

Has anyone seen "The Sponge Bob Square Pants" movie? Holy hell that movie is violent. And I'm not talking Looney Toons silly oversized guns that make someone's face black. I'm talking about people fighting, and beating each other up. Everybody blamed Marilyn Manson for the tragedy at Columbine. I blame Sponge Bob.
 
Everybody blamed Marilyn Manson for the tragedy at Columbine. I blame Sponge Bob.

:secret:
SpongeBob's first air date was a few weeks after Columbine.


in "PG-13", we can show countless people shot to death, but a naked body makes something "R". And in "R", we can show realistic, torturous, graphic murder, but if a love-making session gets just a little too-steamy, it's "NC-17". Those historical puritan roots just don't seem to go away.

It's a crazy world out there, for sure. :)

It doesn't help that the rating system by the MPAA is just stupid & arbitrary... but other countries do have different rating systems that reflect something more localised. Probably considered stupid & arbitrary in their areas by their citizens, too.

Where I grew up, I *think* the very first R-13 film to carry that designation was The Blue Lagoon. In the US, I'm pretty sure it was Temple of Doom that started that whole ball rolling.

It really is an odd situation. America is also just really really REALLY diverse. It's a huge republic.
 
:secret:
SpongeBob's first air date was a few weeks after Columbine.

:lol: I was speaking figuratively, but I love that you did the research.

Memory serves me correctly, yes, "Temple of Doom" was one of the first, if not the first PG-13. And it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. That dude tore a freaking heart out, before dropping him into a lava pit. Whoa, that's pretty violent. But if we would've seen some naked titty, that's "R"? Absurd.
 
:lol: I was speaking figuratively, but I love that you did the research.

Memory serves me correctly, yes, "Temple of Doom" was one of the first, if not the first PG-13. And it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. That dude tore a freaking heart out, before dropping him into a lava pit. Whoa, that's pretty violent. But if we would've seen some naked titty, that's "R"? Absurd.

Yeah, but you've got to understand that tearing someone's heart out before dropping him into a lava pit is a perfectly normal, natural thing for a human being to do, whereas seeing a lady's breast is… oh.

I don't know as much about the MPAA, but the BBFC seem to do a pretty good job for the most part (perhaps not with video games, but that's a completely different topic). What I do dislike are the parents who think it's acceptable to show 7/8 year old kids 18 rated horror films; or even worse, the ones who seem to think that because they don't want their kids to watch it no one should. A ratings system is a great idea, but as soon as people start talking about banning films I get a bit uneasy: if you don't want to watch a film, piss off.
 
I don't know as much about the MPAA, but the BBFC seem to do a pretty good job for the most part (perhaps not with video games, but that's a completely different topic). What I do dislike are the parents who think it's acceptable to show 7/8 year old kids 18 rated horror films; or even worse, the ones who seem to think that because they don't want their kids to watch it no one should. A ratings system is a great idea, but as soon as people start talking about banning films I get a bit uneasy: if you don't want to watch a film, piss off.

Have to agree with you, the BBFC do a pretty decent job.

In a side note I was surprised that The Social Network got a 12A rating rather than a 15. I would have thought that the language and drug use would have been enough to get it 15. But whatever, that's not a big deal...
 
Memory serves me correctly, yes, "Temple of Doom" was one of the first, if not the first PG-13.
I think it was actually Red Dawn. But yes, Temple of Doom was right on its heels.

As for the NC-17 rating, I seem to recall a story about how it was Henry & June (and Paramount behind it) that won the push for the new rating. Just before that, a much smaller company called Miramax tried to lobby, unsuccessfully, for the same thing when they wanted to distribute Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! in the US.
 
I'm a bit shocked that the movie KIDS wasn't on the list.

the MPAA needs to get their heads out of their asses. How is fucking worse than blowing the head off of someone? If I had a kid I would perfur that they see loving going on over killing.
 
Back
Top