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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.