If this movie was released today it would receive a NC-17 rating. Skits "Eyewitness News" and "Catholic High School Girls in Trouble" would have to be cut to get an "R" rating. You can't caress a breast in an "R" rated movie, but you can dismember a body in vivid detail. It seems we have become more (instead of less) sexually repressed in the last 30 years.
shareWhen I saw KFM growing up, this was as close to me as porn, lol. That couple making out during the newscast was pretty close to soft core porn in the days before Cinemax.
sharelife in nazi america
----------------------------
The only way out is through.
Yet here in Australia it's only rated M15+(Recommended for mature audiences 15 years and over)
shareJust to set the record straight, and since someone wondered, the PG-13 rating was really created as an overreaction by the MPAA to please. Movies like "Poltergeist," replete with a man pulling his face off in front of a mirror, and "Raiders of the Lost Ark," having Nazis melting and exploding everywhere, both rated PG in 1982, caused a backlash of mommies and daddies (though mainly mommies I suspect) crying, "That's too violent for my Junior!" while Junior's in the background listening to Ozzy and biting the heads off whatever small rodents therewith.
So, in 1983, the MPAA added the "13" to the rating, giving strict guidelines as to what was and was not allowed. (I know this because I wrote a letter to then-MPAA President Jack Valenti requesting the altered parameters; in short, do you really think this solves the problem? was my main question.) Incredibly, there actually are a certain number of times the F-Bomb can be uttered in a PG-13 movie (twice) -- someone sits around and counts this? -- a limit on nudity (no full-frontal, and only for 90 seconds total) and of course, subject matter (you don't see anyone trying to make "I Spit on Your Grave" PG-13 for a reason... but give 'em time).
If I'm not mistaken -- I'm not gonna look this up, either, it's off the top of my head, so if I'm wrong I'm sure one of you nice lot will correct me -- "Dreamscape" was the first PG-13 movie to be released, in 1984, though once it was the new hot-button rating ALL movies, it seemed, were so rated.
But you're all right, America loves its exploitation, big guns, big boobs, big explosions... we're proud of it, and all the rest of the world is weird because they don't think the same Puritanical way we do.
It should be noted, however, that pornography is the only multi-billion-dollar industry in America which no one ever supports if asked. You are a pervert for watching people have sex here; and it is not entirely clear if having sex at all is legal, for that matter.
But we do make really awesome, loud movies.
Good thread. I have been on a ZAZ DVD kick lately. By the way, I think the first PG-13 rated film was "Red Dawn" in 1984.
IMDb no longer gets my endorsement.
Yeah--"Red Dawn" was the first PG-13 movie released. "Dreamscape" was made BEFORE "Red Dawn" but released after. The PG-13 rating seemed like a good idea at the time...but it doesn't work now. PG-13's have gotten ridiculously tame over the years. A movie that came out in 1985--"Just One of the Guys" has plenty of female nudity (and not quick shots either) and explicit sex talk and got a PG-13. Today it would be slapped with an R quickly. There are exceptions (like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the last "Star Wars" movie) but most of the movies deserve no more than a PG.
shareThe "F" word was used about 5 times in Hero and that was rated PG-13
Ezal: Smokey, buy me a 40oz for my birthday.
Smokey: Today your birthday?
Ezal: What's today?
As previously stated, the number of times F-Bombs could be used in PG-13 movies was based on the initial prerequisites, which I received from the MPAA in 1984. Obviously, as times change so do the ratings; the original "Friday the 13th," given an X at first until trimmed to an R, would today still be given an R, but the uncut version (which I have seen) would also be. Film is just another form of art, after all, and throughout history art has been censored; but as public mores change, so does the censorship. A few years back, when I saw the "My Bloody Valentine" remake in 3-D, the gaping chest cavities and explicit pickaxe murders would NEVER have been released rated when the original came out in 1981, I realized as I watched. (I was lucky enough to have seen "Re-Animator" in a theatre when it was released unrated in 1985 because the MPAA would have X'ed it out; that was one of the best cinematic experiences I ever had, a great movie that the whole audience was into -- and today, it would be a soft R.)
So, back to the topic, NC-17 is an unnecessary rating, it would seem. I would question the motives of someone who wanted to bring small children into what is known to be an explicitly violent/sex-filled/gory film, but since these little darlings are going to either see it on cable/DVD/internet/phone anyway, the whole ratings SYSTEM seems unnecessary, ultimately. It should be the parents' responsibilities to decide which movies are appropriate for their children, but it is easier to blame filmmakers (artists) for challenging what is normal and inspiring others to follow. QED.
A lot of pontificating and name calling (Nazi America?) - Question - Has any adult who has posted NOT been able to see any movie he wanted to because of a rating? Anyone? (crickets chirping) Would you say that a 13 year old should be able to walk into a bar and order a shot of whiskey? After all it's the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children drink, not the bartender nor the distillery. Children are not simply small adults. Society has deemed them worthy of special protection - even against their own immaturity. They cannot purchase spray paint at Walmart, cigarettes, carry a concealed weapon, vote, drive a commercial vehicle, run for federal political office, etc. So stop the B.S. If you want to demonstrate how liberal and enlighted you are, talk about how you watch PBS 24 hours a day because that's the only place with "quality" films.
shareMovies are altered or not funded because of ratings, so there have probably been plenty that we haven't been allowed to see. Parents should have the option of "G"-rated movies, but everything else should be unrated. Content modified to meet ratings actually ends up being more perverse than honest depictions, like here where the filmmakers had to cut a scene of implied cunnilingus and instead show unnaturally breast-centric sex.
sharejmo, isn't PG enough for those people?
bummer! now all of our garbage is gonna go to waste - The Goode Family
The OP is wrong. See Antinchrist.
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
[deleted]
[deleted]
"You can't caress a breast in an "R" rated movie"
This is complete nonsense.
"Full Body Massage?"
- - -
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."share