How come Americans do not take the NC-17 rating seriously? (Hollywood, scenes)
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.
I'm not sure about that. There have only been 5 G-rated moves since 2010 to break $100 million domestically. And all time without inflation, the highest grossing G-rated movie is The Lion King at #19 on the list. And there are only 3 G-rated moves in the top 50. And only 5 in the top 100.
Top 100 all-time highest grossing domestic release
5 rated G
29 rated PG
60 rated PG-13
6 rated R
In this chart, the R rating doesn't look much better, but it has gotten more popular over time, it just levels off. IF you look at the number of movies that have made at least $100 million at the domestic box office, there have been 41 G-rated movies make that compared to 160 R-rated movies. Considering most G rated movies are animated and those often cost more to make, it makes the G-rating look less appealing.
But this is about NC-17. The highest grossing NC-17 movie in the US is Showgirls which made just over $20 million, putting it at 3,290th place on all-time highest grossing movies. And it's often considered one of the worst movies ever made.
It's interesting how a movie like Gone with the Wind was rated G, since it has a lot of things in it, which people would not consider to be G rated now, such as having to amputate a dying man, or a husband wanting to have sex with his wife, even though the wife doesn't want to and he just carries her up the stairs anyway, and she struggles to get out.
As for Showgirls, I read that it actually got a theatrical release for an NC-17, but was Showgirls the acception to the rule, of all NC-17 movies? And if people do not want to go to the theater to see sexual content, compared to at home, then why did so many people go for Showgirls? Makes me think there is a large built in audience that would go to the theater to watch porn if it was available.
I'm not sure about that. There have only been 5 G-rated moves since 2010 to break $100 million domestically. And all time without inflation, the highest grossing G-rated movie is The Lion King at #19 on the list. And there are only 3 G-rated moves in the top 50. And only 5 in the top 100.
Top 100 all-time highest grossing domestic release
5 rated G
29 rated PG
60 rated PG-13
6 rated R
In this chart, the R rating doesn't look much better, but it has gotten more popular over time, it just levels off. IF you look at the number of movies that have made at least $100 million at the domestic box office, there have been 41 G-rated movies make that compared to 160 R-rated movies. Considering most G rated movies are animated and those often cost more to make, it makes the G-rating look less appealing.
But this is about NC-17. The highest grossing NC-17 movie in the US is Showgirls which made just over $20 million, putting it at 3,290th place on all-time highest grossing movies. And it's often considered one of the worst movies ever made.
G-rated movies can't make as much money if there isn't SOMETHING amusing for the parents since they have to sit through it with the kiddies. If it can go over the kids' heads but requires a PG rating, no one really cares any more. And kids continue to be exposed to more and more bad language, violence and sex through the years anyway, so why bother? I'm only being a little facetious.
As for NC-17 my opinion is that there is very little need for that added NC-17 material. It's easy to imagine the bit that's carved out to satisfy an R-rating. I'm not a child who has to literally see everything in order to understand something. My imagination can be much more vivid in many cases anyway.
But I feel that the NC-17 rating is unfairly given in movies for things that aren't even that graphic in content. For example, the movie Killer Joe (2011), was given an NC-17, and Mathew McConaughey on an interview, said the reason why it was given that rating was because of the chicken drumstick scene.
Now that was not a scene of graphic sex or violence, but if you take it out of the movie, you loose a very good moment, and something like that drumstick scene you have to see to absorb, and the imagination really can't fill it, I don't think. I feel that the MPAA overreacts on things like that, but lets all this worse stuff slide.
But I feel that the NC-17 rating is unfairly given in movies for things that aren't even that graphic in content. For example, the movie Killer Joe (2011), was given an NC-17, and Mathew McConaughey on an interview, said the reason why it was given that rating was because of the chicken drumstick scene.
Now that was not a scene of graphic sex or violence, but if you take it out of the movie, you loose a very good moment, and something like that drumstick scene you have to see to absorb, and the imagination really can't fill it, I don't think. I feel that the MPAA overreacts on things like that, but lets all this worse stuff slide.
The reason for the NC-17 rating is that the U.S. movie industry and U.S. movie consumers are hypocritical.
Movies where the body count is 100 within the first 20 minutes might get a PG-13 or R rating but ones with a suggestion of sex automatically get an R or NC-17 rating. Somehow, sex is worse than violence. Go wrap your head around that one
NC-17 doesn't mean anything to me one way or another. If a film looks interesting to me, I'll go see it no matter what it's rated, G through NC-17.
The reason for the NC-17 rating is that the U.S. movie industry and U.S. movie consumers are hypocritical.
Movies where the body count is 100 within the first 20 minutes might get a PG-13 or R rating but ones with a suggestion of sex automatically get an R or NC-17 rating. Somehow, sex is worse than violence. Go wrap your head around that one
NC-17 doesn't mean anything to me one way or another. If a film looks interesting to me, I'll go see it no matter what it's rated, G through NC-17.
yeah, no they don't. There is plenty of sex that stays in the R category.
I guess the show 'Outlander' would get NC-17? They shocked me with full frontal nudity on a man.
Not to mention the 'torture porn' but I pay no attention to ratings watching cable shows or movies. I am aware of their warnings and I'm like yeah, I know, language, sex, violence, etc, I know what I am watching lol.
But people go to the movies to see erotica before, like why is 50 Shades of Grey so popular? If it was rated NC-17, people still think they are getting sex and still go, wouldn't they?
The producers of the movies want a MUCH wider audience than the ones who would like more graphic sex. I have read complaints they don't even max out what they could to say 'R', but again I think that is to reach a wider audience.
Also, at least for the third and final one I read Dorner refused to do full frontal nudity.
As for NC-17 my opinion is that there is very little need for that added NC-17 material. It's easy to imagine the bit that's carved out to satisfy an R-rating.
And I feel the opposite: some movies (such as The Passion of the Christt and Saving Private Ryan) that SHOULD be rated NC-17 end up with an R-rating. The violent content in those films isn't gratuitous, but it is certainly extreme. If you had to be 17 or older to fight on Omaha Beach, shouldn't you have to be at least 17 to watch the fighting on Omaha Beach?
It's interesting how a movie like Gone with the Wind was rated G, since it has a lot of things in it, which people would not consider to be G rated now, such as having to amputate a dying man, or a husband wanting to have sex with his wife, even though the wife doesn't want to and he just carries her up the stairs anyway, and she struggles to get out.
As for Showgirls, I read that it actually got a theatrical release for an NC-17, but was Showgirls the acception to the rule, of all NC-17 movies? And if people do not want to go to the theater to see sexual content, compared to at home, then why did so many people go for Showgirls? Makes me think there is a large built in audience that would go to the theater to watch porn if it was available.
The only reason I ever really hear anyone talk about Showgirls anymore is because of how bad it is. It created this cult following of people obsessed with it being so bad. And I think that actually did drive people to see it, they actually wanted to see if it was as bad as people were saying it was.
Well it has the cult following now, but why is it that theaters were willing to show Showgirls back when it came out, when they have a policy not to show NC-17 movies. Did the distributor convince the theaters that even though the movie is NC-17, that they have to show it cause it's so deliciously bad and people will love it?
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.
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.
