Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I was watching Cold Mountain last night on DVD. I have to admit I was more than a little shocked at the whole love scene between Nicole Kidman and Jude Law. How does that qualify for an "R" rating? Looked like NC-17 to me. Or as they used to call em the big ole X-rated scene. I can rember when the Last Picture Show came out and peeps were all up in arms. I think the point I'm trying to make is, are their other people out there that think they have finally begun to go too far in what they are allowing to pass for an "R" rating? How did that detail that was shown in that scene add anything necessary the story line? I would like to keep this a mature discussion so those of you that cant control yourselves (ei: that scene was hot!! Nicoles t*ts were hot!! Judes ass was hot!!!) please move along because thats SO not what this thread is about k?

PS If the powers that be need to move this feel free.

I see your point relating to the "is that necessary to the storyline" part of it. The same goes for some teen movies out nowadays, but I won't get into that junk.

I am a big proponent of certain movies striving for the "R" rating, but for reasons other than sex. I feel that in certain movies a lot of the intensity and feeling are lost by production companies settling for a PG-13 rating to make more money.

To make a long rant short, here are examples, and ask and answer these six questions:

1) Would Braveheart have been as effective if it were PG-13 as opposed to R?

2) Would Kids have been as effective if it were PG-13 instead of not being rated (in some places)?

3) Would Starship Troopers (for more reasons than just the violence) have been as effective if it were PG?

4) Could King Arthur (coming out soon, rated PG-13) possibly lose some of its potential luster due to having toned-down battle scenes to avoid the "R" rating?

5) Would Darkness Falls have been better or worse if it had been bumped up to an "R" rating?

6) Could Lord of the Rings been more intense if it were "R"-rated? It certainly would have made less money as a consequence.

Also, regardless of how good it was, I was glad Troy had the guts to proceed into the Summer Movie process with its "R"-rating, while I was disappointed in The Chronicles of Riddick taking the sorry way out with PG-13, especially after the first one was rated R.

well I havent seen Cold Mountain, but when it comes to showing some skin, the Americans are way too "chicken". It is ok that someones head is blown to pieces but they yell up whenever a breast is shown. Guess we Scandinavians are a little more liberated in the view of showing some skin ...... and the lot . But if it have an R rating I dont see what the big deal is. If you watch a R rated film you now you are infor some scenes that might seem uneasy on some but hell you better be prepared because of the R rating

I must agree many times over... you know that seeing that sorta stuff here will make your eyes mush and fall out of your head, s'why the government is so protective of us

you guys missed my point altogether. My point is that I feel Cold Mountain should have been rated NC-17 considering what they showed in that particular scene. I mean I'm sorry but Nicole Kidmans bush, and the shot that certainly looked like penetration (if you know what I mean) were at bit much for an R rated film IMHO. I can handle and R for some violecne, sexuality, language and the lot it just seems we are pushing the envelope alot of the time, simply to get an R rating because and NC-17 is the kiss of death for a film.

You answered your own question:Therefore, why doom their film? Somehow, some way, it was rated R. It's not like it was rated PG-13 and it should've been NC-17. The only real difference between the ratings are that parents couldn't take their kids to see NC-17 movies (No Children Under 17), and R is Restricted to People under 17.. so if parents felt their kids could see that, then sobeit, I guess. Better money, better ratings.. it even got nominated for an Oscar or two if I'm not mistaken... if it were NC-17, would that have happened? Who knows, but someone must have had a good reason for making it R. Again, there's no real 'age difference' between R and NC-17. botankus also answered your question, unless you ignored his post.

hmmmm apparently I have to draw a picture...

IN MY OPINION THAT MOVIE AND A FEW OTHERS ARE INCHES AWAY FROM PORN AND THEREFORE DESERVE A STRONGER RATING.

just because it has high profile stars etc in it doesnt make it acceptable.
I dont think there is any way to make you understand where I am coming from because we are light years apart in age and life experience. But there are alot of people I know over 30 that felt the same way I did when they saw it.

and no botankus didnt....because with the exception of Fin...no one got the point I was trying to make.

haven't seen the movie yet.

IF the original thread starter, Jedi Priestess, is American, then finti answered your question too.

er I just said that and you made excellent points botankus, I'm sorry I didnt mean for you to think I didnt appreciate your imput. I agree with the points you made, it just wasnt the answer to the question I posed....maybe I should have found a better way to rephrase the Q.

It's not necessarily 'porn', but it could be considered 'artistic filmmaking', and age does not factor into this, sorry to burst your bubble.

Argh back to iggey with you. I dont know why you go out of your way to be such a huge pain in MY ass by being snide all the time but the facts are this

A. There are MANY MANY things in life where age and life experience DO MATTER

B. As a parent who has had high school aged kids trying to get into R rated movies this is NOT the type of movie I want them seeing.

C. You dont have kids that age, therefore you cant possibly understand this concept in the terms that I am addressing it.

D. Come back and talk to me when you have the experience to know what I am talking about.

hows that for a bubble burst?

Then the title of this thread is wrong. It should not be "The True Meaning of an "R" rating," because to discuss that would be the "meaning" of the rating, like what it stands for.

Yours should have been titled, "I went to Blockbuster to get Cold Mountain and they gave me Debbie Does Dallas instead--"

The only thing I meant is don't parade your "age" around, and expect to get special treatment. So you say you're 43, that's all good and nice, except nobody cares. How's my age showing? That you're "Oh ho, at least you're not 43 " posts get pretty irritating after awhile? Age doesn't matter, everyone has their own opinions, and they all equally count, no matter the age. This is a Community, not a "Join if you're 43 and proud of it" board. Oh my, then you go and edit your post...



So, you try your hardest to burst a 16 year old's bubble? How sad is this; you're a grown woman, or so you say, and you just sit here and expect everyone to agree with you. Welcome to the world, lady. Oh, and thank you for ordering your reasons into neat bullets, my meager mind cannot comprehend those big paragraphs you big old people write. Being a "high school aged kid" myself, I know that no matter what you do, your kids can see this movie if they really wanted to. Nothing any parent can do, unless they lock their kid in a room for the rest of their life, is going to prevent these horrible things you call sex and violence. If they're in High School, they should be almost able to see this movie on their own anyway, so don't put too much effort into stopping them.

You're right! I don't have kids that age! Good job, Captain Obvious, how many times have I heard that one? No matter how much you think your "experience" matters, your "experience" is seriously outdated. If you're 43, you were your kid's age in 1976 or so. Just in case you didn't gather, things have changed a bit between now and then. And if you're not willing to accept that fact, then that's your problem.
One of the many times you think that a few wrinkles on your face mean something. You could be an enlightened munk, or you could be a mentally ill senior, either way, you still can't judge and dismiss the opinions of others, especially those that are younger. And I told you before, don't make pointless triumphs of age being supreme, and I wouldn't go "iggey" on you. Not to even mention that you completely ignored the main part of my post, the part that was ON-topic. I'm not going out of my way to be "such a huge pain in your ass by being snide," much less you going out of your way to advertise your so-called age. I believe you that age sometimes matters and that quite a few things in life need the age and experience, but sitting on your ass, typing on a keyboard, discussing a vagina in a movie that you're mad at does not require lifelong experience. Now, when you can be civil and accept the views of others, and avoid parading your age as if it's a trophy of your excellence, you can come back and talk to me. Sorry if I burst your bubble, Grandma.

And to everyone else that's been posting on the topic, finti and botankus, I apologize that I brought the thread off-topic further than it was put.

fur further reference and cause I wanted to look things up...

G: General Audience. All ages admitted. This signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive for even their youngest children to see or hear. Nudity, sex scenes, and scenes of drug use are absent; violence is minimal; snippets of dialogue may go beyond polite conversation but do not go beyond common everyday expressions.

PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children. This signifies that the film rated may contain some material parents might not like to expose to their young children - material that will clearly need to be examined or inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly, horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels.

PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard.

R: Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

NC-17: No One 17 and Under Admitted. This signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of sexually-oriented language, or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or pornographic.




edit: cleaned up the mess I made with the tags

Therefore, it's up to the parents to decide whether they want their teens or children to see the movie. If they deem it inappropriate, then they simply don't allow their kids to see the movie, simple as that. The MPAA does this as their job, so they must know what's obscenely pornographic and what isn't. Thanks for finding that, yerssot, good info.

No problem. I'm done with the thread anyways. After all, I'm only 28, I've got fifteen years to go before I can start making legitimate posts, right?

I havent seen the movie, so i cant say how bad the scene was or it wasnt.

Generaly, Americans have an issue with showing some skin. And like botankus said, its ok for some guy's head to blow up to pieces, but it isnt alright for little skin.

Again, I havent seen the movie, so i dont know what the scene is like.

LOLOLOL good one... and yes I had actually already discussed that with Ush. I didnt mean you were not of age to post, I just get tied of a certain individuals smart assed remarks.... Try not to read into anything thats said between it and I. Its been a long standing diff of opinion in most things. But thanks to the rest of you guys for adding your thoughts. And thanks Yerrsot for finding that info. Sorry for not posting it clear enough. Oh and Im not grandma yet but I cant wait for the day!
JP

That is probably one of the stupidest things about this country.

It depends to me how long the scene is, porns are full out, a few seconds maybe even minutes I don't think constitues for a NC-17 rating.

And in my opinion I think gore, and blood, and the lot is much worse than some skin, that's just human nature, but blowing someone up isn't

And if the censor a few minutes of the scene (mind you I haven't seen it) what's next, censoring Sexual Reproduction videos in science and health classes

well now this is a good point. I hadnt thought of that. Good one

I didn't see cold mountain ... sensed the mushiness from a mile away...


I agree with the idea that R and NC-17 are very different.

do you think the kids says " hey ok I wont see it cause I wasnt allowed too" If you dont allow your kids to see a movie be sure as heel they will see it. Somehow forbidden fruit has always been more tempting for teens than the "safe " stuff. And unless as a teenyour big goal in life is to be the pope, teens will disobey they parents.

Yep; I meant that's as much parents can really do. The kids are going to see it if you want them to, or not, so there's not much sense in restricting them too much.

WOW, I guess I must have run a boot camp then. My kids didnt go anywhere without me knowing where they were. And there was many a time I made sure they were where they said they were going to be. The 2 times my oldest daughter skipped high school it was me that caught her, not the school. I pretty much told them both and will with the next one that as long as they lived under my roof they followed my rules. Now my son couldnt abide by that and got thrown out at the ripe old age of 15. He got to move back in 4 months later for another chance, got caught sneaking out again and he was done permanently. To this day the oldest thanks me for keeping her on such a short leash....she said she'd have probably been in all kinds of trouble. Note: not all children are like this. Probably 50% of em do as they are told by their parents, but the rest of em? They are under the impression that they are owed all sorts of things from their parents when in fact all they are owed is room and board and the benefit of their wisdom. But I digress, silver, I also hate the growing violence in movies and there are many times PG13 should have an R rating but then its all about making a buck.

You think your kids didn't go anywhere without you knowing where they were... But trust me when I say it's not hard to get around your parents asking where you're going. I don't do it much myself, my parents let me see R rated movies when they're around... But I know plenty of kids who have snuck into movies before. You think you know everything about your kids, but you don't. I'm not accusing you of being a bad parent, because you're only doing the responsible thing, which is to do your best to know where they are at all times. But there are circumstances when it's just not possible.

Anyways, IMO violence is much worse than sex. They teach kids about sex in school, anyways, so how is it any different to see it in a movie theater than in an educational video in a health class?

SO true, and not every parent can know where or what their child is doing 24-7, but trust me...I had a tendency to go above and beyond, I remember actually going into a party and dragging my oldest out because she had lied to me about where she was going. ANd that wasnt the punishment either. Funny thing is, growing up I swore I would be more lienent that my parents were with me, just didnt work out that way. I kept the no dating till you are 16 rule too!
And holy smoke what are they showing you guys in health class these days?

The more you restrict, the more they will rebel!

I was never restricted anything very muhc, but i also never did any of the shitty things, or lie my mother and i always trusted her she'll be cool if i really got into trouble.

Well, I haven't seen Cold Mountain, so I can't comment on that, but on the whole R-rated thing...

The thing with R-rated movies (at least in my area) is that you must be at least 17 to get in, if you're under 17 you must be with someone that's at least 21 (that part I find to be crap), and no one under the age of 6 is allowed in after 6 PM. So it's really up to the parents, even though any teenager with half a brain will know how to sneak into R-rated movies before they're 17 -- hell, I did it all the time. My friends and I went to go see Hannibal for either my 15th or 16th birthday and they didn't even ask us how old we were, and we didn't have an adult with us. My point is, is that teenagers will always be going to see R-rated movies, regardless of whether they have parental permission or not. It's just a thing that kids do. My mom was pretty strict, and she told me that I couldn't see Rocky Horror Picture Show until I was 17. Guess what, I saw it when I was 15 and it's one of my favorite movies, and she still doesn't know that I saw it two years before I was supposed to And I'm getting waaaay off topic but whatever. My point is, ratings are just suggestions. My mom gave me permission to see many an R-rated film before I was 17...and of course there are all the ones she told me I couldn't see but did anyway

And with nudity being such an issue...like has been said, that's natural, but people blowing up isn't. Yet what does everyone always make a huge deal over?

And thankfully I had health class two and a half years ago so I don't need to think about that anymore...

I agree 100% with that statement. It's okay to see horrible violence in an R rating, but oh no, god forbid they show two people expressing their love to one another. It's just foolish, and quite hypocritical.

who said that?

It's just the basic mentality of today. Everyone's okay with violence, blood and swear words in an R rated movie, but when people are having sex everyone goes nuts. When I have a child, I'd much rather take them to an R rated film that has nudity and sex rather then violence and gore and cussing.

Bingo! Nail on the head.

I am and have been for some time amused about how they accepted violence but not nudity and sex scenes in America.
One good example was Basic Instinct, I visited Arkansas in 1992 and talked about the movie. One of the dudes had spent the summer in Denmark and seen Basic there, he was soooo pleased with that cause he got to see parts of Sharon that he didnt when he watched the flick in Arkansas. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh another example was when I lived in Arkansas I brought a tape with Roger Waters(ex basist of Pink Floyd) called "The pros and cons of hitch hiking." The sleeve showed a nude girl(from behind) hitch hiking, in the US version the girls ass was cencored .
But again as of lately it seems like the flicks are getting more and more daring when it gets to show certain parts of the actors body. The US has come up to the level of the Europeans on what to show. Looks like actors/actresses with an attitude of never showing something might have problem getting roles cause the new trend is show something and get work, or stand fast and dont show........no work.
Examples here Meg Ryan and her role In The Cut, not that she hasnt shown things before but that has only been split 1/10 of a second glimps.

Going back a few posts ago about getting into R-rated movies, people have, and still do, buy tickets for, say, Star Wars at the box office and when they get to the corridor of theaters just simply walk into the theater showing the R-rated film.

They very rarely have ushers standing outside the theater, and it's usually for like the opening 2 nights of Freddy vs. Jason to get them to do that. And as far as dragging kids out of the theater, nope, they could care less about going to that measure for $7.00 an hour.

I still do that, too, but not for R-rated movies since I'm 28. Last year some PG-13 movie was sold out, so I bought a ticket for something else and just walked into the sold out theater. As far as taking someone's seat (which I didn't b/c they underestimated it), that's a different issue which doesn't need to be debated here, my point was buying and seeing films at the theater can be two different stories.

Jedi Priestess, even if your kids are grown I'm sure in their earlier days they've done the practice I've just described, especially since you said one of them lied to you about that party you dragged them out of.

there are ushers here in Norway, at least at the local theatres. And here the seats are numbered so your ticket asign you to what row and seat to sit you butt down in. This way they have total control. We have also screens that shows how many seats are left to each theatre in case you wondered if it is a waste of time getting in line. Me I buy all my tickets online then go tho the theathre and pick up hte tickets in asigned computers situated around the theatres

I don't think that the sex scene in Cold Mountain should be NC-17 rated well ok, it was a bit more than the usual nude stuff in such movies, but it really wasn't any worse than others

I generally disagree with the ratings and all, they do nothing, my parents allowed me to watch whatever I wanted and do my choices, and it didn't make me any less normal than other teenagers

In fact, I have a friend whose parents are very protective, and they always forbid her to do stuff, so when she grew up, she revoluted hugely to do whatever they didn't let her do.

It depends on the child's maturity, and the parents' judgement, ratings are silly imho (well, there might be some cases in which they are needed, but generally I think we can live without it). If a movie is NC-17 rated, a 15 year old will wait for it to come out in VHS or DVD and watch it no matter what

and agreed, better watch sex scenes rather than violence, at least it will affect you in a better way

FYI an R rating actualy means for 17+

just to let ya know

guess I have to see it now
Norway has 18 years as the highest ratring

Anyanka, page one:


nah beat you to it

I think England's system is much easier

We have

U rating - all ages admitted

PG rating - parent guidance

A12 rating - no children under 12 with out an adult admitted

12 rating - no children under 12 admitted

15 rating - no children under 15 admitted

18 rating - no persons under 18 admitted

pretty straight foward rules

just like the Norwegian ratings

Europien system is much easier and straight foward!

nah just the Norwegian

Fin you rabble rouser.......