Edited by - TonyC on 10/4/2006 1:27:56 PM

[Link]

FYI, it's my understanding that "X-rated" is not part of the Hollywood ratings system (they have no such category).
Rather, X-rated, XXX, etc., were creations of the adult industry itself.

Also, X-rated films are not even submitted by the studios to be rated in the first place.

Now, when a studio decides to release an "R-rated" version of a XXX movie -- say the R-rated version of Pirates -- they must submit the movie to be rated by the [invalid URL removed]Classification and Rating Administration (aka CARA) to legally use that rating designation.

[invalid URL removed]THE MOVIE RATINGS – FOR BETTER OR WORSE

[invalid URL removed]What Do the Ratings Mean?

[Link]

X was part of the MPAA system. The Academy Award winning film MIDNIGHT COWBOY got an X from the MPAA.

X never meant porn or sex. It meant adults only. Before the G,PG,R,X, there were lots of films that were rated adults only by the MPAA.

But the MPAA didn't trademark X, and when people started associating X with sex, pornographers started putting X and then XXX on their films. The MPAA abandoned X, replacing it years later with NC17.

Like the MPAA's X, NC-17 doesn't mean porn or sex, it means "this film is for adults only".

But that hasn't been the perception. The perception is that the MPAA is trying to sneak dirty movies by us by calling them NC17, when everyone knows that's just a Hollywood limosine liberal name for porn.

As a result, there is no functional adult catagory inside the MPAA system, so every film that is made that hopes to take advantage of the benefits of submitting itself for MPAA rating has to be made in a way that the MPAA thinks it's okay for children to see, as long as they're with an adult.

What that means is that a film like SHORTBUS goes out without a rating, rather than carry the stigma of NC17, and you can take your seven year old child to see SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

Stupid.

Edited by - TonyC on 10/4/2006 2:58:36 PM

[Link]

"Porn" as we know it exists because Hollywood won't create movies with real sex in them. Hollywood is too afraid of the sexual conservatives to risk losing theatrical distribution and mainstream video retail.

I'd like to know what movies Dances refers to when you say "unrated versions of hollywood movies that show oral sex, the penis and all." I don't know of any Hollywood movies in which the actors perform real oral sex on each other, and it's shown.

Getting an MPAA rating is all about theatrical distribution. If your movie is going straight to video, you don't really need a rating unless you're afraid Blockbuster won't take it because it's too adult.

The thing about those softcore Cinemax movies is that they're mostly straight to video, so they don't get an official MPAA rating. Or they are edited versions of porn from the porn studios, which are also straight to video and also not rated.

With all the controversy over NC-17, plus people's desire to see sexuality, I don't think NC-17 is a negative label. "Unrated" implies "artsy-fartsy" or "foreign" in the mind of Jane VideoRenter. But "NC-17" can translate into big rentals (in the stores that carry them). Viewers are looking for more and more extreme, not only in their porn sex, but also in their mainstream fare. That's why torture movies are so hot right now. "NC-17" may lose you theatrical distribution, but it'll make your video release hotter than hell.

The reason "Unrated" is used much more than "NC-17" is that movies that get "NC-17" (which a lot do) almost always get re-submitted so that it can get an "R". Directors and producers sign contracts saying that the studio agrees to distribute a movie only if it gets an R or below. Once the ratings board give you an "R", you can't use that "NC-17" anymore. So when the unedited video release comes out, you're only legally allowed to say it's the "unrated" version (or "director's cut", etc).

[Link]

Some thoughts:

It may very well merge some day. But not for the majority of movies. The majority of movie stars out there who would probably just not be comfortable with having real sex or showing their genitalia to the world.

Besides, wouldn't real sex in a movie take away the focus from the story? Of course, it could be done well. But often it would not at all be done well, and people would get... distracted to say the least.

[Link]

of course i could be wrong..

i'd rather stimulate your mind than emulate your purpose

[Link]

BigMatt: I agree about celebrities not wanting to fuck onscreen. BUT! I think there are some who would, plus porn valley has hundreds of porn performers just waiting for the job of "sexual stunt double" to be created on Hollywood sets.

I don't think showing real sex in a Hollywood movie would be so distracting as to make a viewer ignore the rest of the movie. What...do you think we'll see sex scenes in Hollywood movies and get so aroused that we orgasm then fall asleep in the cineplex?

[Link]

That's the difference between Hollywood and Porn. The difference of simulating the crime and committing the crime.

Which leads me to the thought of this. When will a person decide to take a chance and make a movie that shows sex explicitly? We as Americans are very prudish and sheltered. Like mentioned millions of times before. Its okay to show someone being maimed and disemboweled but don't show a boob or a vagina or a penis. Don't show sex. Though in spite of all this. I think porn is actually starting to branch out a lot more. Its not considered "evil" or "taboo" like it was 10 or 20 years ago. Its a billion dollar industry that is holding its own very well. Its almost completely taken over the internet. It is more accepted and recognized now then it was before. Still frowned upon by some, but accepted by most nonetheless.

[Link]

Anyway, what surprised me is how little that film has affected Sevigny's career. I thought she would be blackballed, but she keeps working.

Also, I'm shocked that this film is sold in regular stores. It's even available at the Post Exchange on military bases, right next to PG rated films.

About the scene in question, after several viewings I do think it was real, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was faked. It appeared to be a real penis, but Hollywood can make anything look real. My question is did he come, and did she swallow it? That is what the scene suggested.

[Link]

when they start filming in chatsworth instead.

[Link]