35 years later and barely anything has changed. NC-17 is pretty much the X rating and movie theaters refuse to play them. Meanwhile movies have to get hacked to bits to avoid an R rating
In England there is the 18 certificate even though 17 can usually handle certain films. I saw robocop at 10 and it shook me to the core but didn't give me sleepless night
X was never registered by the MPAA and anyone could use it, if you couldn't afford to submit your movie to the MPAA or were worried about making cuts, you could use X as a free rating. Didn't have to mean it was for adults only, but this is largely why porno movies used it so freely. Midnight Cowboy wasn't originally going to get an X rating either, the producers pulled out of the MPAA process before it got what was supposed to be an R rating without cuts and self imposed an X. They got a lot of praise for a sort self censorship. When the movie won some Oscars, they re-released the film with an R rating without cuts. As they were never being asked to edit the film in the first place, it was all publicity.
It basically says "The Emperor Has No Clothes," or the MPAA's a lie or a fraud. 1. The members are supposed to be parents of minors. But some were parents of adults and some weren't parents. Others got the job because they were friends or neighbors of members, so probably think the same way. 2. There were supposed to be objective standards. But it's so highly subjective (and secretive) that movie-makers didn't know what scene(s) caused the board to give a higher rating, so had to guess what scenes to cut. 3. They were pro-studio and anti-independent films. The same scenes from an independent would get a higher rating. 4. They were prudes. Just talking about sex is enough to get the film a higher rating (R, X, or NC-17). Also, two people having sex face-to-face was more acceptable than face-to-back.
I remember that docu as being plain guffy, focusing solely on "who are these people that rate movies" and it didn't go into much detail as far the scope of the problem: Roger said more in 5 minutes During the 1995 National Press Club presentation than the movie did in an hour plus. It's a worthy subject for sure.
In September 1990, the NC 17 rating appeared as a substitute of sorts for the X rating. Did it work? Was it strictly enforced? Was it still a kiss of death for a movie?
I think the financial failure of Showgirls-a wide release and ironically one of the least erotic films ever!-killed NC 17 at least for big budget films. At age 19 I was carded going into Bad Lieutenant so I guess it was enforced when dicks where shown.
Same thing happened with other kinds of rated media. I hear games with the AO (adults only) rating almost never get made because they almost never sell.
EDIT: I just remembered that this video is around 3 years after PG-13 started. It's funny that they called it outdated seeing that PG-13 was new at the time.
Over here in Britain we have a similar thing to what they suggested. Our ratings are more severe, we have an 18 Rating wherein no one under 18 is allowed to watch the movie under any circumstances (though actual enforcement of this is subject to the area where the film is shown). We also allow movies rated 15 to get away with a lot more here, as many R-Rated movies in America, are Rated 15 here unless they’re Quentin Tarantino movies, or hardcore horror movies like the Halloween series. Frankly, I think ratings should be based on a case by case basis. You can’t really tie this into algorithms, and let’s not forget, ratings are a joke. Unless you really think Frozen is in the same league as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
Thankfully the 18 certificate never carried a stigma of being pornographic, so there was never a problem of getting cinemas to show 18 films or having them advertised. Probably because the BBFC gave porn films their own certificate, R-18, which clearly separates them from regular films. From what I gather, even though the MPAA changed the X to NC-17, it didn’t change the perception that they were pornographic and so cinema chains refused to show them and film studios carried on cutting their films to get R ratings.
The PG-13 rating has been used to keep adolescents from seeing movies about 11-year-olds. The latest, which should cause outrage over censorship, is the movie _Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret_ which was rated PG-13 about 11 & 12-year-old girls talking about and going through puberty, as well as the protagonist exploring religion. Clearly the MPAA didn't want children to see or hear it, much like those banning the book it was based on in the 1980s. I can imagine them not showing blood in the underwear (though they show blood on the dad's hand after he accidentally cuts it) and not showing the Playboy centerfold the girls were looking at to try to get a lower rating. But it still got a PG-13, and not too many parents took their under-13s to see it. Previously they gave the film _My Girl_ starring Macaulay Culkin about two 11-year-olds a PG-13, though the makers appealed and won.
Perhaps an R-rating doesn't hurt the horror-slasher film because its audience knows what to expect. But it severely limits box office of other types of films. It's also used for language, in the case of the movie _Air_ about Nike Air Jordans. That got an R-rating due to 36 F-bombs I counted on my second viewing. How many teens who might have been interested weren't allowed to see it because parents were worried there'd be nude and/or sex scenes?
Wow. How can anyone follow this with these two bashing 80s slashers and then going "you're hurting the artist". Makes no sense, but they're dead now. I liked these guys. They were weird.
How is there a correlation between this and their beef with slasher films? No respectable critic of movie review would have liked the slasher films of the 80s. It was pure exploitation. There’s nothing weird about that.
@@justinbergmans36 what is this based on? Your opinion? What is exploitation about 80s slashers movies? And don't just repeat what these guys say. I want titles and examples. I believe MANY of those movies were art.
@@DustinSteckler-lh6cb Exploitation as in they put in shock as much as they could get away with for the sake of shock, and not putting nearly as much care into the story, characters, or anything else. Every Friday the 13th movie is bad for that reason. They’re all the same. They only existed for cheap thrills, and even if they do thrill you, they’re entirely predictable and boring.
35 years later and barely anything has changed. NC-17 is pretty much the X rating and movie theaters refuse to play them. Meanwhile movies have to get hacked to bits to avoid an R rating
Then they tried to sell an "unrated version" on DVD, which may be more adult, or just a cash grab.
What ended up happening is post theater films are called “unrated” The entire problem is theater released movies and this can’t be fixed in America
They are absolutely censoring filmmakers "Sex bad, violence good".
2023 theres no ratings problems now. Not just for film but tv shows as well.
In England there is the 18 certificate even though 17 can usually handle certain films. I saw robocop at 10 and it shook me to the core but didn't give me sleepless night
X was never registered by the MPAA and anyone could use it, if you couldn't afford to submit your movie to the MPAA or were worried about making cuts, you could use X as a free rating. Didn't have to mean it was for adults only, but this is largely why porno movies used it so freely.
Midnight Cowboy wasn't originally going to get an X rating either, the producers pulled out of the MPAA process before it got what was supposed to be an R rating without cuts and self imposed an X. They got a lot of praise for a sort self censorship. When the movie won some Oscars, they re-released the film with an R rating without cuts. As they were never being asked to edit the film in the first place, it was all publicity.
This Film is Not Yet Rated is an excellent documentary on the MPAA
Yeah, it did pretty good on the whole MPAA thing
It basically says "The Emperor Has No Clothes," or the MPAA's a lie or a fraud.
1. The members are supposed to be parents of minors. But some were parents of adults and some weren't parents. Others got the job because they were friends or neighbors of members, so probably think the same way.
2. There were supposed to be objective standards. But it's so highly subjective (and secretive) that movie-makers didn't know what scene(s) caused the board to give a higher rating, so had to guess what scenes to cut.
3. They were pro-studio and anti-independent films. The same scenes from an independent would get a higher rating.
4. They were prudes. Just talking about sex is enough to get the film a higher rating (R, X, or NC-17). Also, two people having sex face-to-face was more acceptable than face-to-back.
Great doc, hands down!!!
I remember that docu as being plain guffy, focusing solely on "who are these people that rate movies" and it didn't go into much detail as far the scope of the problem: Roger said more in 5 minutes During the 1995 National Press Club presentation than the movie did in an hour plus.
It's a worthy subject for sure.
In September 1990, the NC 17 rating appeared as a substitute of sorts for the X rating.
Did it work? Was it strictly enforced? Was it still a kiss of death for a movie?
I think the financial failure of Showgirls-a wide release and ironically one of the least erotic films ever!-killed NC 17 at least for big budget films. At age 19 I was carded going into Bad Lieutenant so I guess it was enforced when dicks where shown.
@@lerm2866 I couldn't agree more with the dick part. Male nudity is so strictly penalized and frowned upon. I don't understand why.
Bec sex is taboo in America that's what
I mean it is unfortunately and still I think
The problem was studios were reluctant to use it.
The South Park avoided an X rating by deliberately only having 399 swears as opposed to 400.
Same thing happened with other kinds of rated media. I hear games with the AO (adults only) rating almost never get made because they almost never sell.
EDIT: I just remembered that this video is around 3 years after PG-13 started. It's funny that they called it outdated seeing that PG-13 was new at the time.
Roger looked very excited discussing the Angel Heart scene!
"Changing Values ..." That's not a good thing.
Gunner Palace is rated PG-13 and All of the Presidents Men is rated PG despite both movies have more than one F bomb used in them!!!
Over here in Britain we have a similar thing to what they suggested. Our ratings are more severe, we have an 18 Rating wherein no one under 18 is allowed to watch the movie under any circumstances (though actual enforcement of this is subject to the area where the film is shown). We also allow movies rated 15 to get away with a lot more here, as many R-Rated movies in America, are Rated 15 here unless they’re Quentin Tarantino movies, or hardcore horror movies like the Halloween series.
Frankly, I think ratings should be based on a case by case basis. You can’t really tie this into algorithms, and let’s not forget, ratings are a joke. Unless you really think Frozen is in the same league as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
Thankfully the 18 certificate never carried a stigma of being pornographic, so there was never a problem of getting cinemas to show 18 films or having them advertised. Probably because the BBFC gave porn films their own certificate, R-18, which clearly separates them from regular films. From what I gather, even though the MPAA changed the X to NC-17, it didn’t change the perception that they were pornographic and so cinema chains refused to show them and film studios carried on cutting their films to get R ratings.
10:21
*Gene:* I looked it up in your book. Your shriveled, floppy little pamphlet...
*Roger:* My hardback volume's enormous!
The PG-13 rating has been used to keep adolescents from seeing movies about 11-year-olds. The latest, which should cause outrage over censorship, is the movie _Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret_ which was rated PG-13 about 11 & 12-year-old girls talking about and going through puberty, as well as the protagonist exploring religion. Clearly the MPAA didn't want children to see or hear it, much like those banning the book it was based on in the 1980s. I can imagine them not showing blood in the underwear (though they show blood on the dad's hand after he accidentally cuts it) and not showing the Playboy centerfold the girls were looking at to try to get a lower rating. But it still got a PG-13, and not too many parents took their under-13s to see it.
Previously they gave the film _My Girl_ starring Macaulay Culkin about two 11-year-olds a PG-13, though the makers appealed and won.
And nowadays films often don’t go above PG-13
Bec it became a habit for the MPAA, lol, like the R back then, ironically in a way
You mean 272 times? The number of R rated movies released in 2021 versus 101 PG13 rated movies in the same year.
I feel like we're starting to see abit more R-rated movies in 2022 rn then last year in 2021 and 2020 specially
Perhaps an R-rating doesn't hurt the horror-slasher film because its audience knows what to expect. But it severely limits box office of other types of films. It's also used for language, in the case of the movie _Air_ about Nike Air Jordans. That got an R-rating due to 36 F-bombs I counted on my second viewing. How many teens who might have been interested weren't allowed to see it because parents were worried there'd be nude and/or sex scenes?
19:03 more like using the X rating as a threat, lol
That’s What he Meant to Say
Wow.
Filmmakers are just as shy to release G and, to a lesser extent, PG.
NC-17
This Was Before the NC-17 Rating Existed
I have seen some films that got the X rating that I did not think earned it
Atame! is one
Matador is another one
Wow. How can anyone follow this with these two bashing 80s slashers and then going "you're hurting the artist". Makes no sense, but they're dead now. I liked these guys. They were weird.
How is there a correlation between this and their beef with slasher films? No respectable critic of movie review would have liked the slasher films of the 80s. It was pure exploitation. There’s nothing weird about that.
@@justinbergmans36 what is this based on? Your opinion? What is exploitation about 80s slashers movies? And don't just repeat what these guys say. I want titles and examples. I believe MANY of those movies were art.
@@DustinSteckler-lh6cb Exploitation as in they put in shock as much as they could get away with for the sake of shock, and not putting nearly as much care into the story, characters, or anything else. Every Friday the 13th movie is bad for that reason. They’re all the same. They only existed for cheap thrills, and even if they do thrill you, they’re entirely predictable and boring.