News:

3/7/05 Board opens.

Main Menu

The lame-ass MPAA

Started by Beef, August 23, 2005, 06:53:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Beefy

Two severed fingers and four thrusts.

Thanks again, MPAA, for being an arbitrary dictator of tastefulness.

Idiots.

The poster has been up for months now.  And as far as thrusting goes - well, as long as you aren't showing actual penetration, I don't see why this country continues to find concentual sex more obscene than someone getting their head blown off.

http://chud.com/news/4079

Bishamonten

Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 06:53:22 AM
Two severed fingers and four thrusts.

Thanks again, MPAA, for being an arbitrary dictator of tastefulness.

Idiots.

The poster has been up for months now.  And as far as thrusting goes - well, as long as you aren't showing actual penetration, I don't see why this country continues to find concentual sex more obscene than someone getting their head blown off.

http://chud.com/news/4079

Four thrusts?  What is he, superman?

ReBurn

Good thing I have someone to make decisions like this for me.  I know I can't be trusted to decide stuff all on my own.

I'm all for ratings and stuff, because they are a pretty good guide as to what I will take my kids to see.  But the MPAA should have no real power other than to issue ratings.  At least in my opinion.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 08:46:04 AM
Good thing I have someone to make decisions like this for me.  I know I can't be trusted to decide stuff all on my own.

I'm all for ratings and stuff, because they are a pretty good guide as to what I will take my kids to see.  But the MPAA should have no real power other than to issue ratings.  At least in my opinion.

I agree that ratings are good guidelines.  The problem lies in when the rationale behind the ratings isn't consistently applied across the board.  It's okay to show this violence in this film but not in that one.  It's okay to have this language in this film but not in that one.  The themes of that film are more mature than most Hollywood fare so we're slapping an NC-17 on it which is a commercial kiss of death.

ReBurn

Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 08:51:48 AM
Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 08:46:04 AM
Good thing I have someone to make decisions like this for me.  I know I can't be trusted to decide stuff all on my own.

I'm all for ratings and stuff, because they are a pretty good guide as to what I will take my kids to see.  But the MPAA should have no real power other than to issue ratings.  At least in my opinion.

I agree that ratings are good guidelines.  The problem lies in when the rationale behind the ratings isn't consistently applied across the board.  It's okay to show this violence in this film but not in that one.  It's okay to have this language in this film but not in that one.  The themes of that film are more mature than most Hollywood fare so we're slapping an NC-17 on it which is a commercial kiss of death.
You're right.  The MPAA tries too hard to make parental decisions with its ratings, and to that end it doesn't always apply the same standards across the board.  I don't disagree with the board that movies with overtly gratuitous sex and extreme violence need to have an NC-17 rating, but the standard should be absolute and not subjective.

On the other hand, filmmakers are constantly trying to push the envelope to see how far they can go with their artistic vision before someone pushes back.  I think that they have a responsibility, which they sometimes ignore, to keep in mind the interests of the people that will want to see their movies, not just those that the rules say can see them.  Kids are going to try their best to see movies that really aren't appropriate for their levels of maturity.  They'll use whatever means they can to get into them.  If the filmmakers want their movies to be a commercial success then they can't have carte-blanche to do whatever they want to and then turn around and say that they did it in the name of art.

I don't believe for a second that the problems beginning for Saw II all come down to a simple conflict of the director's artistic vision versus a powerful moral minority.  If that were the case then the possibility of an NC-17 rating wouldn't be as big of a deal, because the art would still be accessible, just not as much so.  The filmmaker wants an R rating so he can make as much money as possible, which is his right.  But in order to make the money he has to work within the system.  The system isn't always fair but it works well enough when it needs to.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Bishamonten

Many films stop being about vision and artistic value when they aquire a producer and/or a distribution company with a heavy hand( see Mirimax )

Beefy

The Saw 2 thing is B.S. because the poster they are taking issue with has been up for months now.  Why change your mind retroactively?

ReBurn

11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Mr. Ubiquity

why cant we all just get along.... :???:
"if I wank to it, will u feel disgusted or flattered or a perverse combo of both?"

Beefy

Quote from: Marixis on August 23, 2005, 12:42:52 PM
why cant we all just get along.... :???:

Because Jack Valienti is the spawn of Lucifer.

Mr. Ubiquity

"if I wank to it, will u feel disgusted or flattered or a perverse combo of both?"

ReBurn

I thought that Spawn was a pretty decent bonus character in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 01:10:43 PM
I thought that Spawn was a pretty decent bonus character in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2.

I hear McFarlane is still pushing for a movie sequel.

Beefy

Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 01:12:52 PM
Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 01:10:43 PM
I thought that Spawn was a pretty decent bonus character in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2.

I hear McFarlane is still pushing for a movie sequel.

Which I hope would then get slapped with an NC-17 and fail miserably.

ReBurn

Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 01:12:52 PM
Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 01:10:43 PM
I thought that Spawn was a pretty decent bonus character in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2.

I hear McFarlane is still pushing for a movie sequel.

Which I hope would then get slapped with an NC-17 and fail miserably.
I thought the first one kinda sucked, so I don't know that an NC-17 rating would make all that much difference.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Mr. Ubiquity

Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 01:15:41 PM
Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Beefy on August 23, 2005, 01:12:52 PM
Quote from: ReBurninator on August 23, 2005, 01:10:43 PM
I thought that Spawn was a pretty decent bonus character in the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2.

I hear McFarlane is still pushing for a movie sequel.

Which I hope would then get slapped with an NC-17 and fail miserably.
I thought the first one kinda sucked, so I don't know that an NC-17 rating would make all that much difference.

Probably.  rating only seem to signify something grossly overdone.  Doesnt mean the movie will be better or not.  First one did seem a bit lame..  But then melinda Clarke.... *hot*
"if I wank to it, will u feel disgusted or flattered or a perverse combo of both?"