my gosh, not that many movies have a pussy in them. I really couldn't believe it when I saw the blonde Princess girl's pussy at the end. how did they get away with that??? usually they show a bush if they show a woman full frontal in a movie.
sharePlease you could hardly see anything... It was a dark shadow. No different from seeing a butt in a cartoon like the simpsons.
shareWhat do you mean "get away with"? This movie was not made in Saudi Arabia.
share[deleted]
obviously you don't know how it works in Hollywood because apparently they did get away with it.
shareyou're wrong, I do know how it works in Hollywood and that's why I said how did they get away with that as the way that Hollywood works is they can't usually show pussy in a big, Hollywood movie.
shareyou're wrong, I do know how it works in Hollywood and that's why I said how did they get away with that as the way that Hollywood works is they can't usually show pussy in a big, Hollywood movie.
no, you are wrong and you don't know how Hollywood works as usually they can't get away with showing pussy in a big, Hollywood movie. proof of this is by knowing the history of pussy in movies which I know and you do not. 90% of all the big, wide theater released Hollywood movies that have ever been made do not have pussy in them.
you did not show me how I am wrong. they got away with it because they found a loop hole in the acceptability law of the movie rule book. that is why I said how in the world did they get away with that pussy shot at the end because it is so rare for them to find a way to get around this rule. plus, to say that they got away with it means that they found a way around this rule so that is not mainly and usually how it works in Hollywood.
If the movie was rated PG-13, perhaps you could say, "they got away with" something.
90% of all the big, wide theater released Hollywood movies that have ever been made do not have pussy in them.
to say that they got away with it means that they found a way around this rule so that is not mainly and usually how it works in Hollywood.
10% of all r rated movies that make it to theater is not that many movies at all. maybe 50 movies a year and I don't see that many movies every year so I don't know about most of them. 50 movies a year isn't that many at all, especially considering how many r rated movies come out every year to theaters which is about 500. but I might be wrong about that, ok, so then you are reinforcing my point and making it even more valid, if I was wrong about 10%, it might be only 2%, which brings it down to only 10 movies a year. that's a tiny, tiny amount.
you're wrong it's not getting away with showing pussy if it's just a pg13 movie that has pussy in it, it's also getting away with showing pussy if it's an r rated movie that has pussy in it. you know how rare it is to see pussy in an r rated, non porn movie? it's so rare that even straight to video r rated movies that are not porn movies almost always don't have pussy in them.
you're acting like the MPAA can never make a mistake or never look past something on accident. or that they can't be coerced, or manipulated, or bribed into doing something for a director or producer or movie company. if it was really this way where they don't have the rule against showing pussy in a wide theater released movie then how come 98% of the time pussy is not in a wide theater released movie?
rule, law, this is all semantics. call it whatever you want, the only thing that matters is it's there. they set the law or rule.
that is the point. that the mpaa only allows it and breaks their law if they are coerced, bribed, or manipulated by a movie producer, director, or movie company. this is not just pussy this is also dick. both are only seen in 2% of all wide theater released movies.
there was nothing vague about her pussy. it was front and center, clear as day, right in front of your eyes in that scene. you see it quite clearly and in a quite detailed way.
you're not taking into consideration when you saw boobs in a pg13 movie. ever since the '90s started we have not seen any boobs in a pg13 movie. you haven't see any pubic hair in a pg13 movie since the '90s started.
that's not even what this is about. the mpaa is not about establishing guidelines by an informed consensus. they never do that. they set rules for movies in every rating and then they check to see if pussy or dick is shown and if either are then they get a not rated or nc17 rating unless the mpaa is bribed, coerced, or manipulated by a movie director, producer, or a movie company.
and the mpaa does more than just rate movies, they set rules for what can and cannot be shown in every movie whatever it is rated, if it is not a not rated or nc17 rated movie. they also watch the movies before they get released to make sure they dont' have pussy or dick in them if they are rated r or lower and they also see if any movie has something in it that is too risqué for it's rating. they always have to rate the movies that are not rated nc17 or not rated. and in order to do that they have to watch each and every movie that is not rated nc17 or not rated and find out what the appropriate rating is for every movie that they give a rating to.
no, you don't know how Hollywood works you fuc#er
fuc# you.
A bit of research may be in order. I suggest a trip to www.mpaa.org, www.filmratings.com, and www.carafilmratings.com, specifically www.filmratings.com/downloads/rating_rules.pdf. It's very clear how they rate films, but the actual scoring of rated films is less clear. Most specific content, including the appearance of genitalia, does not automatically qualify or disqualify a film for a specific rating. Although some extremes may, they aren't specifically listed in more than a general description, such as brief nudity, nudity, non-sexual nudity, and/or sexual context nudity. The mere appearance of "pussy or dick" [sic], does not automatically disqualify an R (or other) rating. Context and impact factors are equally important, as are many other factors considered. In most cases of the certified ratings, the factors considered are cumulative. "Brief nudity" may be allowed in a PG rated film, and "nudity" may be allowed in a PG-13 film, but those are not the only factors considered, and there is no single factor that requires a specific rating.
Also, having a film rated and certified by MPAA is a voluntary service paid for by whomever submits the film to be rated. Someone involved in the film's production/distribution sends a copy of the movie, along with a bunch of money, to the "raters". There is no legal requirement that a movie be rated, in any manner or by anyone, for any reason.
Quoted, in part, from the "Rating Rules" document linked above:
PG
There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity....
....may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category.
More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.
An R rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity....
no, you don't know how Hollywood works you fuc#er
fuc# you.