MovieChat Forums > Orgazmo (1998) Discussion > How did this get an NC-17?

How did this get an NC-17?

posted 11 years ago by Sheldom
12 replies | jump to latest

Except for some dildos/vibrators, there was literally no nudity in this movie, the dialogue wasn't even coarse in it's depictions of sex. It should've been a soft R rating too! mean compare this to some of the sex fuelled comedies that get the R in recent years and it's child's play. There's no reason this should've gotten an NC-17. Blatant R.

Having said this, I didn't really enjoy the movie all that much, but I do think it warranted to at least get a wide release and make it's money back.

[–] GruesomeTwosome 11 years ago

Yea, the NC-17 rating still befuddles me. For a movie set in the porn industry, it's actually really tame with the sex and nudity. I only recall one VERY brief shot of one of the porn actresses' breasts, which are quickly hidden from view when a porn actor comes into frame and his ass blocks the view of the woman.

But yea, there's obviously some raunchy sexual dialogue here and there but most R-rated comedies that come out these days are much, much more raunchy than Orgazmo.

Fighting the frizzies, at 11.

[–] epiphone20 10 years ago

The makers mentioned it being an independent flick. The indies tend to get screwed when it comes to ratings especially when they don't have the money to cut and send it back in for another rating.

---
"Slip your mind? Forget he was in there with a g--damn hand cannon?" -Vincent Vega

[–] preppy-3 10 years ago

They did appeal the NC-17 and cut the film but the ratings board wouldn't budge. So it was released cut and unrated. I think the full NC-17 came out in 2005 on DVD.

[–] christopher-townsend44 10 years ago

I understand why its 17 its very sexual very sexual pornographic atmosphere tone and dialogue.

[–] lebowskithedude 10 years ago

There's movies that show actual sex and get an R. It never fails to amaze me. This is a soft R, at least by the standards of Trey Parker's other movies. Especially with all the R-rated comedies today, this one is barely raunchy.

[–] Multiglobal 10 years ago

I've read somewhere that it was because they said the term DVDA, which was considered pornographic. Somewhat similar to Clerks originally getting an NC-17 because of Randall ordering adult videos in front of a kid, although it was much milder in this case.

Otherwise it could have just been to mess with them for having porn stars in a mainstream movie.

[–] akwave 10 years ago

Trey Parker said in the commentary that it was because of the T-Rex scene.

[–] GruesomeTwosome 10 years ago

Wow, really? That would be pretty insane if that's the case. Neither Trey Parker nor the fat T-Rex woman are nude, they're not even doing a sex scene since they're both clothed and basically "dry humping", and T-Rex's dirty talk isn't even profane, she keeps saying "Fudge me!" and not "f-ck". MPAA is f-cked up, man. That scene isn't even close to being NC-17 worthy.

Fighting the frizzies, at 11.

[–] JaeBianca 9 years ago

Except that it is technically a depiction of beastiality, even though it is obviously simulated.

[–] BanzaiTron 8 years ago

Films with erect male genitalia and even showing semen these days get R. Yeah its kind of weird this got at NC-17. Its actually quite tame for that rating.

This will be the only comment or reply you'll get. Like I give a sh!t about YOUR interwebz opinion.

[–] ManuelManipulation 8 years ago

I recently saw 2010's I spit on your grave and was amazed that was rated R, and this as I'm watching this on cable see no reason for NC-17

[–] EleazarHisSon (769) a year ago

Trey said in an interview in the 90's that he just believed it was because it made fun of religion and the MPAA raters had a Christian bias.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DGgTOAoM6Tc&t=15m50s