What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
169 Comments
- LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+156***** THE MPAA.
- hansblix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+137Ok, up here at the next light, I want you to take a Hard-R.
- DustinHill, on 10/12/2007, -6/+118Isn't there already NC-17? What's the use in making another classification? Movies now have to tell you why they are rated what they are rated. If someone walks into a movie that's rated R for scenes of graphic violence and torture and then gets offended it's their own ***** fault. All this will do is lower the distribution of already low distributed films.
Note to everyone else in this world: I DO NOT NEED PROTECTION FROM ART AND ENTERTAINMENT. - abid786, on 10/12/2007, -2/+91LOL...Speaking of '*****' the article says "F-word every three seconds". That sounds like a lot!
From this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_%*****%22 amazing article, we see that the highest FPM is 8.60+.
For an "F-word every three seconds" an FPM of 20 is needed. Thus, no film in that list really qualifies. - mariusaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+80Why? Rated R means RATED R. As in, Nudity and F bombs.
- kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+68I love films that get me Hard R.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67@Dustin
But the woman's nipple that is shown for one thirtieth of a second might offend you, even though you spent the first year of your life sucking on one. - BigMack9737, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60Can't wait to see "Die Hard 2: Die Harder - The Hard-R Version" on DVD.
- Bibimbap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59They should just call it "R-Tard" and get it over with.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57This is by far the stupidest thing ever. If the movie is already rated R, and children are already seeing it then changing the rating to a 'Hard-R' is not going to change whether or not kids are gonna see it. Besides a rating of R means 17 and older so basically the MPAA is just a bunch of *****.
***** you and kiss my pirate ass you sons of bitches at the bitchy MPAA. - sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41Die Hard 2: Die Hard-R?
- redneckblues, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_rating_sex.jpg
- krabat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34This Film Is Not Yet Rated
http://imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
A good film on how the ratings system works and how hilariously worthless it is. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Honestly, I don't think that anybody under the age of 80 is mature enough for these things. Think of the psychological damage that could ensue once a person under 80 hears the word '*****.' It is an extremely damaging word! We should put everybody that uses such horrible things in jail!
- bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Parents. But if you let your 6 year old see this movie, it has a lot less to do with it being rated R vs Hard-R, and a lot more to do with you being a ***** parent.
- jesuschrysler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27And there are still going to be "parents" taking their newborns and toddlers into Hard-R rated movies a la last night when I saw 300.
- sol1964, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Does anyone really take the MPAA ratings seriously?
- ryananderson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Reminds me of a quote I heard once - "You'll never see a nipple on American TV unless it has a bullet hole in it."
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Isn't this called NC-17?
Although I love the fact that Hard-R is strikingly similar to 'harder'. As in, like a hardcore sex scene. "Harder! HARDER!" Yeah, not really I guess. I tried. - brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19What's funny is... to get people to not see it the MPAA gave it NC-17 rating. What a bunch of *****. *****.
- thumperings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Obviously none of you have seen the movie "This movie has not yet been rated" I suggest you go downlo.. uhh go buy the DVD ASAP.
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Sounds like a programming language.
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Any nudity=Hard R
Kill Bill 1 violence=R - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hmmm... so many thoughts, how to sort thru them and sound sensible and not ramble.
First off, a Hard -R sounds like the NC-17, but without the absolute restriction on kids being able to see. On the surface this sounds good. An NC-17 rated film gives a parent no choice or say in the matter. If they think their kids can handle it, it doesn't matter. Also Movies rated NC-17 often will not be run in certain theatres, won't be sold or rented in certain stores, and can't even be advertised for in certain publications. The NC-17 is essentially a cudgle used to get filmmakers to change their film to what the MPAA thinks it should be. It takes the creative control away from the filmmaker by forcing them to conform to the MPAA's morals.
Second, who the ***** is the MPAA anyway? Well, you can watch Kirby Dick's movie "this film has not been rated" and you'll find out who there are, what they are, and why they are so secretive. The fact is that while having a new catagory of Hard R does indeed convey more detail, it reenforces the idea that all the MPAA is, is a group of people trying to inform the public, and which **reflects the value of American society**. This is hogwash. They are trying to **control** American values by controlling what American film viewers can see. They know that by rating a movie NC-17 they can kill a film unless the filmmaker relents to their wishes.
The MPAA is accountable to no one, and will not tell anyone what the standards are. Exactly how many ***** earn you an R? Will the word ***** snag you a PG-13? Will a sex scene where you see no penis or pussy get you an R? or because it's a 3some (and therefore is *unnataural*) do you get an NC-17?
If you ask me, the idea is great in theory, but it masks the true purpose of the board, and it still doesn't let anyone, not the film makers, nor the public know what the criteria is. So let's say Sin City 2 is rated Hard R or RR or whatever they end up calling it. By what method did the board reach the decision to give it that rating? we still don't know. Will theatres carry Hard Rs? Will blockbuster and Walmart carry Hard Rs?
unless and until there is more openess from the MPAA about them, their members, their process and purposes, I really don't give a rats ass about this. In fact, I actually prefer they keep things as they are, because if they do create the Hard R, then they get to keep being secretive and keep the independants film makers and film producers down, which is their true purpose. This attempt at creating openess is in reality an attempt to silence critics of the MPAA because of their CIA-like policies and lack of accoutability.
I do think that Kirby's film had something to do with this though, so mad props to him, but this is not a solution to the issues raised by his film.
you can learn more about the film and the MPAA here
http://www.ifc.com/films?aId=18019 - zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Look at it the other way:
New higher rating == Fewer scenes cut
Could this allow more nudity and violence in widely-distributed movies? - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Roger Ebert has been lobbying for something like this for awhile. The NC-17 rating (much like gaming's AO rating) is rendered pretty much pointless as it's too close to porn in the minds of most people. Few theaters will show NC-17 films so studios resort to pushing the R into harder territory making it a useless rating when it is as likely to encompass romantic comedies with a nude scene as it is to encompass a film with wall-to-wall killing.
- Scheissenegger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Would be nice if the made it so, that they'll need a rating for the rating icon (: The icon for sexual content in Holland is pretty disturbing)
- ForkySpoony, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Avester, did you even see 300? It had some breasts and bare chests but no genitalia, which doesn't exactly qualify as "full frontals several times". Plus, if the only reason you don't let your 10-year old see a movie that gory is because of a little bit of nudity, then I can't say I think very highly of your parenting skills.
- DDRRE, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@abid
FPM... lol
***** per minute - aikahanyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11We have a different (IMO, better) system in Canada: G, PG, PG-13, 14A, R, 18A. Most "soft" R-rated movies in the US are only rated 14A here, anything at a sort of medium level is R, and anything particularly hardcore is 18A or just A.
- Satertek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10NC-17 movies aren't sold by retailers like Wal-Mart. Releasing a big budget movie as NC-17 at present is financial suicide. The MPAA seems to be looking to name a new rating equal to NC-17...but not NC-17.
- MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Maybe the solution is to actually pander to the sexually repressed and have different catagories. X for sexual content. V for Violence, and L for land of happy puppies..
- dolemite01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I am all for little interference from any group rather it be government or MPAA, but I must admit this past friday night has me somewhat agreeing with what the MPAA is trying to do, albeit I don't like the method.
When I went to see 300 some people brought their teens with them, ranging from about 12 - 16 is what I could guess (different sets of parents), one set just happened to sit next to me, there were parts they would make their son turn their head, etc etc... after the movie I couldn't help but ask why they did they bother bringing their child to a Rated R movie, they simply said they didn't realize it was as bad as it was....
They might have been ignorant, but I tend to see where they are coming from, so many movies are rated R, from a movie that drops an F-bomb once, to a movie like 300, I would be for more that the theater include a one or two line as to why its rated R, such as with 300, R Rated: Strong Sexual Content, and Very Gruesome Violence
I believe that the Rated R rating is too widely used, this Hard R is just ignorant, let the people become informed better and make their own decisions... - Juntistik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you don't know how much the rating system impacts the movie industry, (mostly directors) watch the documentry This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Very excellent and tells you alot about the how the MPAA works and how crooked it is.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
Note: This rating will not help movies that orginally get the NC-17 rating. This just makes it worse. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8South Park: Bigger Longer & Hard-R
- Tetsusaiga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%2B%2B - bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@brendanc
Yeah, and then they re-cut it, telling us all about it! So the version we see really is unrated. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Dude, were you at that theater where the black dude yelled at a guy and almost attacked him after the black dude was asked to take his screaming kid into the lobby until she (the kid) quieted down?
...The guy who got yelled at was me. I missed most of Xerxes' first monologue. - starf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, R just requires a guardian for anyone under 17. Besides, the point of ratings should be for the viewers to discern, not an enforcement. If you don't care for the new ratings, then a hard-r or whatever they end up calling it would be the same as an r to you.
- juicebag, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12digg down mistalke
- Lane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5WTF happened to the rating system? remember when bond flicks had some chick naked leaning into a doorway saying "oh james" and the movie rated as PG? now you might as well not bother seeing anything under R or else its just a child's movie.
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So did they get rid of the NC-17 rating and just decide not to tell anyone?
- stephensoto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hard R is the new NC-17 :P
- giveer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually in Canada, our "R" rating is applied to less films than in the States, but our "R" rating *IS* what you would call a 'Hard-R'. A lot of films that get R's in the States get 14AA (14 with an adult) or 18AA(your 'R' equivalent) here. Only a few films get an 'R' - and when they do, no one under 18 is allowed.. and frankly, since I'm over 18, I loooooooooooove it that way.
- djAnakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is *****. The MPAA needs to get off it's high horse and realize that as adults, if we don't want to see nudity or torture or f-bombs every couple seconds, we wouldn't go see that movie.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Didn't anyone tell you? Boobies are evil. You shouldn't let your child see boobies. They might grow up to be... heterosexual.
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The trailer for 300 make it very clear how violent it could be. As did the reviews and general subject matter. It's simple. Before you take your kids to the movie, read the review to see just what kind of movie you're taking them to.
Really, rating systems and legislation (which this is similar to) are no replacement for responsible parenting. - loganhid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5the MPAA should be rated R for Retarted
- Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"to let parents know whether they are allowing their teenage children to see a 'soft R' or a 'hard R.'"
Oh you've got to be kidding me. A generic rating is not a substitute for parenting. If what your children is that important to you, then you have to pre-screen the film or use one of the many websites that currently exist that lovingly detail all the potentionally objectionable content and themes. Yet another rating is merely going to instill even more corruption and favoritism in an already ridiculous system.
An R-rated movie is not for persons under 17. At that point, they're not your children anymore. They can decide for themselves the content they want to see. If you're dragging your 13 year old with you to the movies based on a trailer that you hope isn't too racey, that's irresponsible. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Movie Ratings are such *****. They're completely arbritrary standards picked by a secret group of "average parents." Since no one knows who they are, there is no accountability and we all have to take the MPAA's word for it that these people really are parents.
There is also a double-standard when it comes to rating independent and major studio releases (major studios get preferential treatment, aka lower ratings). If a filmmaker wants to appeal an undesired rating, they have to go before a secret appeal board that includes two hand-picked Christian pastors (one representing Catholics, one Protestant). The MPAA and RIAA need to be abolished.
I suggest watching "This FIlm is Not Yet Rated" to see how full of ***** the MPAA really is. -
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 