Blue Valentine - Why the NC-17 rating?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ScaryGerry
Weinstein is challenging the rating and it's very possible the film will ultimately earn an "R". I'm just confused as to how this rating came about when there's not even nudity in the film...? Plenty of other films depict rape, incest and graphic murder, but still receive only an R rating. Two that come to mind off the bat, Precious and Hostel.

All that aside, the film looks great. Really dig that song Ryan Gosling sings in the trailer.

NemeBro
Apparently an "emotionally intense sex-scene."

Whatever that means.

Mr. Rhythmic
I've never heard about this movie until now, and I just watched a clip. Wow, this looks absolutely fantastic! The dialogue is absolutely incredible. Such a dark level of humor, and yet so light at the same time.
The acting seems really good as well. The leads have strong chemistry. I'm looking forward to this one.

MildPossession
Going by the reasons, it does seem rather ridiculous...

BruceSkywalker
movie looks like crap

SnakeEyes
Oh Bruce, always making me feel grateful that I'm not you!

This movie looks good, I've been looking forward to it for a long time. The MPAA is a joke and each time something like this happens I lose even more respect for them. I mean, I already have no respect for them, but I hate them more I guess each time they make asinine decisions. If you guys haven't already seen the doc "This Film is Not Yet Rated," check it out. You'll share my hatred.

Anyway, I'll definitely see this movie, I just want it to be released the way the filmmaker intended.

the ninjak
Looks formulaic.
Like the usual demonic marketing group sat there and earned their 150K by saying we need an edgy indy film.
Lets use the junky actor and the wife of the dead talent.
I don't watch movies to look at reality.
I watch them to expand and sometimes escape it.

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Oh Bruce, always making me feel grateful that I'm not you!

This movie looks good, I've been looking forward to it for a long time. The MPAA is a joke and each time something like this happens I lose even more respect for them. I mean, I already have no respect for them, but I hate them more I guess each time they make asinine decisions. If you guys haven't already seen the doc "This Film is Not Yet Rated," check it out. You'll share my hatred.

Anyway, I'll definitely see this movie, I just want it to be released the way the filmmaker intended.

well i gave an opinion about this film, you should realize that since 2004 people have to right to express an opinion of what they think.. you may love this and i may not.. it is simple as that.. if you want to make it something more, let me know and i will ask a global mod to stop by and perhaps have a chat with you

RE: Blaxican
Don't hate Snakeeyes for being an ass; that's just his way. Movies are srs business for him.

Mr. Rhythmic
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Oh Bruce, always making me feel grateful that I'm not you!

God forbid someone has a different opinion from you.

Mr. Rhythmic
Originally posted by the ninjak
Lets use the junky actor

At first it bothered me too, but he really pulled me in with his awkward charm.

dadudemon
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Oh Bruce, always making me feel grateful that I'm not you!

This movie looks good, I've been looking forward to it for a long time. The MPAA is a joke and each time something like this happens I lose even more respect for them. I mean, I already have no respect for them, but I hate them more I guess each time they make asinine decisions. If you guys haven't already seen the doc "This Film is Not Yet Rated," check it out. You'll share my hatred.

Anyway, I'll definitely see this movie, I just want it to be released the way the filmmaker intended.

I have seen that documentary. Nicely done at parts and obviously biased at others.


I did not see anything in that film that warranted an NC-17 rating, myself, which made the movie even more "lulz."

I've been wanting to boycott the MPAA rating system for a while. Any of the films I do will not be rated by the MPAA (assuming I even make it that far).


That said, the opinions (minus Bruceskywalker's because his and my opinions match up an huge majority of the time) of the film has got me interested. I'll give this a watch. It had better be worth it, damnit! mad

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Don't hate Snakeeyes for being an ass; that's just his way. Movies are srs business for him.

i do not hate snakeeyes, however it is disrespectful and uncalled for especially knowing that opinions will differ...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have seen that documentary. Nicely done at parts and obviously biased at others.


I did not see anything in that film that warranted an NC-17 rating, myself, which made the movie even more "lulz."

I've been wanting to boycott the MPAA rating system for a while. Any of the films I do will not be rated by the MPAA (assuming I even make it that far).


That said, the opinions (minus Bruceskywalker's because his and my opinions match up an huge majority of the time) of the film has got me interested. I'll give this a watch. It had better be worth it, damnit! mad


hey dom

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Don't hate Snakeeyes for being an ass; that's just his way. Movies are srs business for him.

Pretty much.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
God forbid someone has a different opinion from you.

You're always on my nuts.

Mr. Rhythmic
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You're always on my nuts.

You'd need some first.

SnakeEyes
Um, okay. You sure got me.

Impediment
I realize that SnakeEyes is only playing, but others, sometimes, don't.

Robtard
Haven't seen the preview, but reading about it on Wiki, it sounds like a pretentious piece of shit trying to be more than it is.

Also have a feeling this "NC-17, but wanting an R" is made-up shit to gather interest and boost earnings. IIRC, Basic Instinct had similar nonsense, when it was nothing more than the barest peak at Stone's semi-fuzzy tw-t. Big deal.

Mr. Rhythmic
Originally posted by Impediment
I realize that SnakeEyes is only playing, but others, sometimes, don't.

Ever heard of running a joke into the ground?

SimonComics
Originally posted by Robtard
Also have a feeling this "NC-17, but wanting an R" is made-up shit to gather interest and boost earnings. IIRC, Basic Instinct had similar nonsense, when it was nothing more than the barest peak at Stone's semi-fuzzy tw-t. Big deal.

But it isn't made up. If they get an NC-17, that's the kiss of death: few chains will carry the movie either in theaters or in rental stores. And the REASON for the NC-17 rating is garbage... part of the MPAA's usual "violence OK, sex bad" approach.

ScaryGerry
Originally posted by Robtard
\
Also have a feeling this "NC-17, but wanting an R" is made-up shit to gather interest and boost earnings. IIRC, Basic Instinct had similar nonsense, when it was nothing more than the barest peak at Stone's semi-fuzzy tw-t. Big deal.

Haha, I actually made the same argument, that the controversy might bring the film more attention. But I think Simon makes a good point, a lot of venues/stores will choose against showing it/carrying it, simply because of its rating.

Robtard
Originally posted by SimonComics
But it isn't made up. If they get an NC-17, that's the kiss of death: few chains will carry the movie either in theaters or in rental stores. And the REASON for the NC-17 rating is garbage... part of the MPAA's usual "violence OK, sex bad" approach.

My angle was that they won't get an NC-17; they know this and that it's just a ploy to garnish attention ahead of time, which will ultimately help sales once it's released as an 'R'. Weinstein has enough influence to make sure his film isn't NC-17.

You're dead right about the 'violence and sex' and the MPAA, you can show a man being gutting and cannibalized, but show a penis; you're doomed. But in the end, the MPAA does what the major studios tell them too/pay them off. We could both make a similar film depicting violence and sex, you from an small independent studio, me from one of the major ones, you'll likely get far harsher treatment for the same material.

SimonComics
Originally posted by Robtard
My angle was that they won't get an NC-17; they know this and that it's just a ploy to garnish attention ahead of time, which will ultimately help sales once it's released as an 'R'. Weinstein has enough influence to make sure his film isn't NC-17.

You're dead right about the 'violence and sex' and the MPAA, you can show a man being gutting and cannibalized, but show a penis; you're doomed. But in the end, the MPAA does what the major studios tell them too/pay them off. We could both make a similar film depicting violence and sex, you from an small independent studio, me from one of the major ones, you'll likely get far harsher treatment for the same material.

Well, Weinstein is CHALLENGING the rating -- which means they DID get it, and they're trying to get the R instead. The MPAA might say something if Weinstein was just plain fabricating the situation, and it's unlikely the actors would be so open about the whole situation if it was just some PR move.

Robtard
You're not understanding my angle, ie they're in cahoots.

SnakeEyes
I think your angle is kinda ridiculous, personally. Slightly more people might hear about this film now as a side-effect of the NC-17 rating, but I highly doubt it's at all deliberate. This isn't some big blockbuster film, it's going to get a limited release and the people who are going to see it already know about it. An NC-17 rating does nothing but hurt the film and the MPAA does this kind of thing ALL the time.

SimonComics
Originally posted by Robtard
You're not understanding my angle, ie they're in cahoots.

In what way does the MPAA benefit from being made to look bad, stodgy, and out of touch?

Robtard
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I think your angle is kinda ridiculous, personally.

I'm fine with that. You might even be right.

Originally posted by SimonComics
In what way does the MPAA benefit from being made to look bad, stodgy, and out of touch?

They're already seen as "bad, stodgy, and out of touch." Have been for decades.

SimonComics
They're already seen as "bad, stodgy, and out of touch." Have been for decades.

Yes, and.. why would they agree to perpetuate that?

It's just an angle that has nothing but cynicism as proof.

Robtard
Originally posted by SimonComics
Yes, and.. why would they agree to perpetuate that?

It's just an angle that has nothing but cynicism as proof.

And?

SimonComics
Originally posted by Robtard
And?

Therefore it's a crappy, baseless argument? That seems to be the natural conclusion to me.

Robtard
Originally posted by SimonComics
Therefore it's a crappy, baseless argument? That seems to be the natural conclusion to me.

Bet you feel better about yourself now.

SimonComics
Originally posted by Robtard
Bet you feel better about yourself now.

Just trying to figure out what exactly you're doing, going from "this is my argument" to "so what if my argument sucks?" to "don't you feel good about pointing that out?"

Not sure why you feel the need to be hostile about it. Just can't figure out the behavior.

Robtard
I-I'm the one being hostile here? LoLz.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.