U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2018, 09:13 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 976,274 times
Reputation: 951

Advertisements

Yeah I guess. I don't quite get the concept of how some of the movies are rated NC-17 either. For example, is the movie Kids (1995), was rated NC-17. Basically a have to spoil a bit of the plot to explain why.

A teenager around the age of 17, likes to deflower younger teen girl virgins, around 13 years old for example, and he goes around deflowering a few, and he gives them HIV as a result. The movie also depicts the teens on drugs, and there is a rape as well.

Now this movie was rated NC-17. However, a lot of parents in America do not want their kids having sex and doing drugs right? If Kids was given a PG-13 rating, it would do nothing but scare the living crap out of kids when it comes to the idea of having sex or doing drugs. So it would actually cause 13 year olds to become scared and abstain from sexual and drug activity.

So wouldn't you want a movie like that to be PG-13 to scare kids out of doing it, since that was the movie's intention as a cautionary tale? But the movie gets an NC-17, and the movies warning to teens is lessened, cause no one under 17 can see it.

So I do not quite understand the parental logic there.

 
Old 02-02-2018, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Maine
15,092 posts, read 19,732,985 times
Reputation: 17201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
So I do not quite understand the parental logic there.
This is the MPAA. You are looking for logic where none exists.

A main character who smokes? Rated R!!!

A main character who shoots 27 people by the time the credits roll? PG-13. Maybe even PG if he wisecracks enough.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 07:11 AM
 
6,243 posts, read 1,515,119 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
This is the MPAA. You are looking for logic where none exists.

A main character who smokes? Rated R!!!

A main character who shoots 27 people by the time the credits roll? PG-13. Maybe even PG if he wisecracks enough.
The thing I find most strange about this, people seem to be totally fine with a Govt agency basically determining/ censoring morality. Its still common practice for the FCC to monitor tv and movies for 'inappropriate material'. Since when did so many people accept govt censorship like this, especially in the modern world?!! I would think there would be 1000s of people calling for an end to all this.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,856 posts, read 51,350,636 times
Reputation: 27735
The MPAA is not a government entity. Never was. It is in place to PREVENT a government crackdown, and run completely within the industry.

Over-the-air television and radio are available to anyone of any age. Some restrictions are not only reasonable but required to protect, but enforce laws. With no restrictions on content, child porn could flood television, sedition could be encouraged on talk radio (well, maybe that already is happening...), and propaganda used to re-write history.

Movies, up until the advent of the VCR, were a closed container. People had to pay to get in, which constitutes a contract where they AGREE to what is being shown. Broadcast doesn't have a container by definition.

Simply put, there is no socially responsible reason to show three year olds material that can traumatize them for the rest of their lives or inculcate a sense of normal to things that are anything but. I've seen some pretty sick "parents" bringing pre-teens to films so disgusting that it amounted to a form of child abuse.

Make no mistake, I am against censorship - in what ADULTS get to see. By age eighteen, they need to be able to take what the world dishes out. Kids though? Their values and moral systems are just being formed. Screw that up and you get criminals and molesters and worse.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 01:03 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 976,274 times
Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
This is the MPAA. You are looking for logic where none exists.

A main character who smokes? Rated R!!!

A main character who shoots 27 people by the time the credits roll? PG-13. Maybe even PG if he wisecracks enough.
I thought smoking got a PG-13, since a lot of PG-13 movies will say "Rated PG-13 for smoking", but I've never seen a movie rated R for smoking. Skyfall got a PG-13 and there is smoking in that for example.

Funny how smoking gets a PG-13 now, as any child can see people smoking outside of buildings, all the time really.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 08:05 PM
 
239 posts, read 120,638 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
I thought smoking got a PG-13, since a lot of PG-13 movies will say "Rated PG-13 for smoking", but I've never seen a movie rated R for smoking. Skyfall got a PG-13 and there is smoking in that for example.

Funny how smoking gets a PG-13 now, as any child can see people smoking outside of buildings, all the time really.
No movie, as far as I know, has ever been rated R, or even PG-13, just for tobacco usage, though that could be listed in the rating description of a stronger-rated movie if other material is present. Until fairly recently films could be rated G while depicting smoking. Now I think that tobacco usage usually merits a PG rating.
 
Old 02-03-2018, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
20,597 posts, read 25,654,327 times
Reputation: 8109
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post

Canada has been largely the opposite, where sexual expression was not repressed, and violence was. In growing up in Vermont, it was fascinating to watch the censorship on television, where a bare breast or two would be shown on the Montreal (and Toronto?) stations - channels 6 and 12. They would clip out the gratuitous violence. The same movie, shown on U.S. television (channels 3, 5, and 8) would have the violence but not the breasts. I suspect the French influence was a driving factor, as obviously Quebec would also have Catholic censorship in some fashion.

.
I guess this was some time ago.

Starting in the late 70s (when I was kid) and up to today, Canadian TV networks operate in the following way in terms of censorship:

English-language stations follow American censorship practices for American shows they broadcast. Which means people getting their heads blown off in prime time is OK but no boobies. This includes the English language Montreal stations as well.

French-language stations follow the "nudity and sex are more permissible than violence" rule. That doesn't mean there is no violence on those stations, of course. But African kids' cartoons where you see breasts and penises are perfectly ok at 9 am on Sunday morning, for example.
 
Old 02-03-2018, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,856 posts, read 51,350,636 times
Reputation: 27735
It was. I'm older than dirt. I remember my dad getting the first television in the neighborhood.
 
Old 02-04-2018, 02:16 AM
 
239 posts, read 120,638 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
It was. I'm older than dirt. I remember my dad getting the first television in the neighborhood.
Wow, so I guess that would have been the mid-to-late 50s? I imagine television came to Vermont a bit later than states with large metro areas, though I may be completely wrong.
 
Old 02-05-2018, 03:21 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,856 posts, read 51,350,636 times
Reputation: 27735
WCAX was started around 1954. IIRC Channel 6 from Montreal was visible next, but it may have been due to a better antenna my dad used. 12 wasn't available until the 1960s. Almost everything except WCAX could be subject to interference "beat" from the low flying DC-3 passenger planes reflecting signals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top