The Nazi's @ The MPAA ~ "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"

[Reason]

http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70043954.jpg (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated/70043954?trkid=1211018)

I just watched a great documentary on the MPAA.

It covers how the process is completely secret, the voting members are secret, the appeal members are secret and how if they don't like anything in your movie they slap an NC-17 rating on it and it will never see the light of day.

Modern day censorship.

In the documentary they hire private investigators to find out as much about the MPAA and the people behind it as possible.

They also discover that there are two priests on the voting board for appeals...

Very eye opening documentary into the secret world of censorship that's happening right now as I write this.

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated/70043954?trkid=1211018

[Baptist]

Was eye closing for me. Our teacher played it in class and I closed my eyes half the time because of all the naked whores in it. Yes, there are still some of us who believe that it is wrong to look upon another woman with lust.

Other than that, it was very informative. I felt like it was a hit job on Republicans and Conservatives though, when in reality I'm sure that the left influences ratings and the industry more.

[angelatc]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies. I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot, and the OP's assertion fact that the NC17 rating is the kiss of death leads me to believe that I'm not alone in that.

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

[0zzy]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies. I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot, and the OP's assertion fact that the NC17 rating is the kiss of death leads me to believe that I'm not alone in that.

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

Lots of prudes here methinks. Internet may have changed the world but movies still belong in theaters and on video wracks. People don't go to the internet and watch movies, they go and rent it from netflix and watch it on their TVs or go to theaters.

[Reason]

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

Not having your movie in the theaters = monetary suicide.

[Slutter McGee]

Frankly, nudity is a hell a lot more likely to make me watch the movie. They provide me a good. Which might be seeing Angelina Jolie's breasts. I purchase that good by going to the theatre. I enjoy that good. I really do enjoy it, and a freemarket transaction has just been made. The MPAA, although not a part of government, is an extra step making it more difficult for me to pay to see Angelina's boobies.

Anything that disrupts the freemarket, or gets in the way of me seeing more boobies, cannot be a good thing.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[mczerone]

Anything that disrupts the freemarket, or gets in the way of me seeing more boobies, cannot be a good thing.

Thread winner.

An good job Baptist, practicing what you believe to be the righteous path. At least you didn't prevent others from having the opportunity to exercise their own self control.

[BlackTerrel]

I'm a big listener to Adam Carolla's podcast from ITunes.

Adam has said repeatedly that his recent movie "The Hammer" received an R rating which killed his movie. It has far less offensive content than many PG movies. He claims that this happened because the raters don't like him personally or his politics. He also said it is one of the least democratic processes around - you are given no explanation or appeals - they make their decision and that is it.

[KCIndy]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies.

Me neither, dammit!



I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot

I've never seen the need to have a plot if there's plenty of nudity! :p

[devil21]

I watched that doc a couple years ago. It's certainly not new, so yes it was rough on conservatives, particularly evangelicals but one must remember that the board is generally appointed in line with the idealogies of the party in power. The board is currently made up of a much more liberal mindset than when that documentary was made. In other words, even the MPAA is a political tool. The documentary explains all that pretty clearly.

[krazy kaju]

Frankly, nudity is a hell a lot more likely to make me watch the movie. They provide me a good. Which might be seeing Angelina Jolie's breasts. I purchase that good by going to the theatre. I enjoy that good. I really do enjoy it

haha! I bet you really do enjoy that good. Really enjoy it.

[WaltM]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies. I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot, and the OP's assertion fact that the NC17 rating is the kiss of death leads me to believe that I'm not alone in that.

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

you are right.

the whole film is a rant about how the filmmakers somehow believe they're entitled to having their film funded and respected. if they had money, they can make any film they want, not let it be rated, and not care about making their money back, but if they DO want release, publicity...etc they need to learn how to cater.

while it's probably unnecessary for the MPAA to have secret judges, it's nothing particularly wrong, though they may not represent all customers and all people, SO WHAT?

these filmmakers are the same people who will complain if their fans pirate their films, bypassing the rating and middlemen. yet they don't like it if their film has to be filtered and judged before it's sold.

altogether, these children forget there's an industry called porn if they really want to sell it.

[jmdrake]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies. I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot, and the OP's assertion fact that the NC17 rating is the kiss of death leads me to believe that I'm not alone in that.

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

I have to agree. Sometimes Hollywood throws in crap just to get past the "G" rating which is seen as being as much of a kiss of death as NC17. Take the little league football moving "The Little Giants". It's pretty clean except for one extended scene of two of the lead characters watching two other people french kiss and then having an explicit conversation about sex. Sure producers have a right to put that in a film, but why? It had nothing to do with the plot and the rest of the film was clearly aimed at little kids. Of course there is a free market (albeit overpriced) solution.

http://www.clearplay.com/

It's funny how the same movie moguls that want "free speech" didn't want people to have the right watch movies in their own home the way they wanted to. But thankfully Hollywood lost that lawsuit.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64125

[WaltM]

It's funny how the same movie moguls that want "free speech" didn't want people to have the right watch movies in their own home the way they wanted to. But thankfully Hollywood lost that lawsuit.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64125

No, they are not the same movie moguls.

Filmmakers want their message across, and money, so they want no rating or filters.

But raters who wish to protect people from profanity, nudity, obscenity, would like nothing better BUT the films editted and cleaned out, if it means more money, regardless of whether customers increase.

Ultimately, filmmakers oppose the cleaning and editted process because they fear it'll encourage and fund the arguments for further control (and in turn, mean less money for their obscenity). At the same time, they don't want another competing industry based on their "mistakes". If you paid filmmakers what they want for their movie, they dont care if you never watch it.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I thought the filmmaker didn't do a very good job of making his point. He spent too much time on the argument of "get off our backs, we're artists". What I found very interesting was the fact that the 9 big movie companies are in cahoots with the MPAA in deciding what goes in and what is taken out of a movie (even though the MPAA denies this). I think if the director of this film had really hammered home the point that the rating system is simply a gimmick to sell tickets and direct public opinion, he would have been more convincing.

[WaltM]

I thought the filmmaker didn't do a very good job of making his point.


He didn't.

He acted the whole as if everybody owes him something.



He spent too much time on the argument of "get off our backs, we're artists".


Yeah, nobody's on his back, you're trying to sell your film, so you listen to the man with the money.



What I found very interesting was the fact that the 9 big movie companies are in cahoots with the MPAA in deciding what goes in and what is taken out of a movie (even though the MPAA denies this).


There's no perfect world, if they're not in cahoots, you'll say they don't represent the companies enough. Buyers and sellers don't always need to be against each other, sometimes they can work together.



I think if the director of this film had really hammered home the point that the rating system is simply a gimmick to sell tickets and direct public opinion, he would have been more convincing.

if the rating system is to sell tickets, they'd have no complaint, they'd simply do what sells and keep making crap films. But they pretend like they don't want to make money, when that's in fact all they EVER care about.

how much do you want to bet that if you took away the money, they'd quit, and if you paid them enough, they'd quit too?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

how much do you want to bet that if you took away the money, they'd quit, and if you paid them enough, they'd quit too?

Some would of course, but an artist is always an artist and will always feel the need to create.

[angelatc]

http://www.clearplay.com/

It's funny how the same movie moguls that want "free speech" didn't want people to have the right watch movies in their own home the way they wanted to. But thankfully Hollywood lost that lawsuit.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/64125

The MPAA is actually an example of the free market at work. The ratings system was developed by a demand for it. If the artists were given free rein, nobody would even bother going to the movies any more.

I didn't realize that Clearplay existed. That's pretty cool. I wish I could run network TV through it too.

[jmdrake]

No, they are not the same movie moguls.

Filmmakers want their message across, and money, so they want no rating or filters.

But raters who wish to protect people from profanity, nudity, obscenity, would like nothing better BUT the films editted and cleaned out, if it means more money, regardless of whether customers increase.

Ultimately, filmmakers oppose the cleaning and editted process because they fear it'll encourage and fund the arguments for further control (and in turn, mean less money for their obscenity). At the same time, they don't want another competing industry based on their "mistakes". If you paid filmmakers what they want for their movie, they dont care if you never watch it.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. Here's what you missed.

It's funny how the same movie moguls that want "free speech"......

I'm not saying the MPAA and the movie moguls are the same people.

The same people that complain about the ratings system are the ones that complained about ClearPlay and successfully sued to get a similar service put out of business. (The other service was where you sent in your DVD and they sent you an edited one in return). ClearPlay won their legal battle (thank goodness). Once I buy something I should have full rights to do with it what I want. If I want buy DVDs and go skeet shooting with them that's my business. And your last sentence is clearly not true. If all filmmakers didn't care about what you did with the movie after you bought it, there never would have been a lawsuit in the first place. Some people are just control freaks.

[angelatc]

You didn't read what I actually wrote. Here's what you missed.

It's funny how the same movie moguls that want "free speech"......

I'm not saying the MPAA and the movie moguls are the same people.

The same people that complain about the ratings system are the ones that complained about ClearPlay and successfully sued to get a similar service put out of business. (The other service was where you sent in your DVD and they sent you an edited one in return). ClearPlay won their legal battle (thank goodness). Once I buy something I should have full rights to do with it what I want. I


There was a huge uproar when a video store started editing the sex scene out of the Titianic VHS tapes . They only edited the tape after it was purchased, and only on request, but the left had a stroke over it.

[MichelleHeart]

I think they're too liberal sometimes. I don't like swearing in PG movies. I've never seen a movie that *needed* to have nudity or sex in it to advance the plot, and the OP's assertion fact that the NC17 rating is the kiss of death leads me to believe that I'm not alone in that.

Screw the filmmakers and the "artists". There's a whole internet out there that allows them to distribute their films if they want to bypass the MPAA.

Seriously. I agree. Stupid vulgarians. I don't want to see swearing and nudity and excessive violence in anything I watch. That's why I don't really watch television or go to the movie theatre anymore. Not to mention that most of the writers, filmmakers, and actors in Hollywood are closet commies.

[silentshout]

Seriously. I agree. Stupid vulgarians. I don't want to see swearing and nudity and excessive violence in anything I watch. That's why I don't really watch television or go to the movie theatre anymore. Not to mention that most of the writers, filmmakers, and actors in Hollywood are closet commies.

Wow...anyway, i don't get why so many people are offended by nudity. But, whatever floats your boat.