I think "Hard R" sounds better than NC-17. I agree that when people think NC-17 they are probably thinking of something much more graphic than what it actually means. "Hard R" should be a complete replacement of the NC-17 brand.

What about "Full Erection"? (That's an Al Goldstein Screw Magazine movie review score, BTW.)

Yes, Blockbastard has always had a policy against carrying NC-17 rated movies, which was one of the main reasons why more films aren't released with that rating. (Very few theaters actually have a problem playing them; I worked for 3 different companies and none of them had a flat-out ban on anything with the rating.) And "Unrated" editions are a loophole because Blockbastard DOES carry unrated versions- technically it doesn't violate their policy since they're not rated! This was apparent back when Andrew Dice Clay's concert movie "Dice Rules" came out with an NC-17 rating (for language, there's no nudity or violence in it, just a guy on stage saying obscenities) Blockbastard wouldn't carry it, even though they DID carry Andrew Dice Clay's HBO specials, which were basically the same thing except they weren't rated since they were never released theatrically!

The thing that pisses me off the most about "Unrated" DVDs is that most of them defeat one of the format's original purposes- to have multiple versions of a movie on one disc. Some like "American Wedding" do this, but most force you to choose one or the other, and in some cases you can't even get the theatrical version when the 'unrated' version is in widescreen but the rated disc is only foolscreen!

This point of view always seems a little naive to me when people express it. The MPAA is run by the studios and, to some extent, the theater owners. If the studios didn't want the movies cut down at all, they wouldn't use the MPAA to cut them down. (Ditto theater owners.) The studios are the ones who want to control their own near-monopoly by holding back indie movies (indie movies don't help because, generally speaking, the most explicit sex is also the most gratutitous to the movie). They use the MPAA strictly to show reactionary parents a quick and easy solution that "proves" that they're paying attention to prevailing morality.

It just seems strange to me when people act like, if it weren't for the MPAA, directors would get to release movies as intended. Most movies are more damaged by the studios -- especially test screenings -- than the MPAA.

It's only done by the studios because NC-17's bomb. It's because NC-17's don't hold up so well in theaters, and that there are theaters that won't play NC-17 movies, that the studios have to say 'no you need to cut it down to an R'. If it wasn't for the MPAA giving films an NC-17 rating, then the studio wouldn't have to react. And again, the MPAA isn't the end all when it comes to ratings. There are movies that are worse as R than some of the stuff they initially first time around give an NC-17 rating to.

Here's also something to think about with all those unrated editions. You never see one released with an actual NC-17 rating, do you? Yet we hear all the time about how NC-17's get cut to an R, then we get an Unrated DVD. Weird, eh? If we were seeing the director's intent on film, then we'd get a rated version on DVD none-the-less, wouldn't we?

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but yes I do agree unrated is a rather vague description nowadays with reinstated footage either being 'explicit' in content or character exposition, but yes, I would assume parents cannot find info on what added footage is comprised of - some studios do denote if it's graphic in content other's dont'. Parenting is hard enough, but I do think it would be better suited if studios stickered on "unrated" DVD of NC-17 content 'for mature viewers - adult content' on a more regular basis.

That's interesting, because I often see theater reluctance as a reason why NC-17 is largely a failure as a rating. I mean there must be some reason why films like Kids and Requiem for a Dream opted to be released theatrically as "Unrated" instead of with the NC-17 rating they earned. Is it possibly because of anticipation of the video release?

Yeah, I see how it can be a loophole to get the DVD into more stores, I just don't see how the end consumers could get confused into thinking that the Unrated editions are less explicit than the R-rated counterpart. And note that the FTC only checked up on Unrated DVDs of originally R-rated films. I think parents and stores are all intelligent enough to treat these Unrated DVDs to be at least equivalent to the original R-rating.

That's true of all alternate cut DVDs though: Director's Cut, Extended Cut, etc. Even the P&S issue has come up with other types of alternate cuts, like with Dances with Wolves only having the P&S version of the theatrical cut in print now.

The problem is that if "Hard R" is just a rebranding of the NC-17 rating, i.e. new name, same meaning, then it's going to run into the same problems that NC-17 ran into when it rebranded the X rating.

Also, if "Hard R" has the same rules as a regular R rating, what does it really mean? "Nobody 17 or under without a parent, and this time we really mean it"?

Maybe "Hard R" should lie somewhere in between, such as outright forbidding anyone under 13, but allowing 13-17 year-olds to see it with a parent.

Then the MPAA could start playing the fun game of subjectively determining the difference between "R" "Hard R" and "NC-17".

I caught a bit on the news this morning talking about the ratings system. It said some, instead of replacing NC-17 with a "hard R" rating, would like a new rating to fall in between PG-13 and R, it'd be something like PG-15.

That way, PG-15 movies would be the ones with milder violence and a few F-bombs and such (say, something like Children of Men) and R would be reserved for explicit violence and tons of swearing, and wouldn't be as strict as is has been (say, Saw III, The Departed).

NC-17, presumably, would still exist, but be mainly reserved for films with explicit sex.

Sounds like a good idea to me, as a horror fan. That way, movies like Saw III wouldn't have to be edited for theatrical consumption, and horror filmmmakers won't have to choose between making a neutered PG-13 version to make money or losing out on audience numbers by getting an R.

But, the burden all falls on the MPAA and with their track record of all-over-the-map subjectivity (just ask the South Park guys), who knows exactly what the difference between PG-13, PG-15 and R would be? Plus, enforcement would be a major issue as well.

I don't buy this statement. I don't think the MPAA deliberately rates indie films harsher to "hold them back." There are plenty of examples of studio films that at least initially get NC-17 ratings. Paul Verhoeven said in a recent interview that every major studio film he made initially got a NC-17 rating. With the proliferation of Unrated DVDs, we see that there are plenty of films that likely were rated harsher before editing. And if the MPAA were trying to keep indies down, there wouldn't be cases like Clerks, where they reversed their initial ruling and re-rated it from a NC-17 to an R without cuts, or Clerks II, where even Kevin Smith was surprised the original cut passed with an R rating.

The thing about the MPAA ratings that's discriminatory to indies is that while major studios have the money and resources to repeatedly re-edit and re-submit a film until it receives the desired rating, indies don't. Also the majors appear to get inside information, which significantly helps re-editing, information the indies can't get because the MPAA claims it doesn't do it for anyone, despite evidence to the contrary. Add in that the rating criteria is completely subjective, and that indies sometimes get harsher ratings simply because of themes instead of images or language, and indies do get the short end of the stick, although not in a deliberate, "keep them down," kinda way by the studios.

That's not really the MPAA's fault though. They just give the film the rating they feel the film deserves, they're not in charge of how the filmmakers react to those ratings.

It's interesting to note that the MPAA originally didn't think any rating above an R was necessary; it was movie theaters that pressured the MPAA into adding the X rating, later rebranded as NC-17.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_fi...iginal_ratings

Well, that determination is subjective, which is part of the problem with the MPAA ratings. It's really hard to say what is or isn't "appropriate" for a given age base, especially when the age bases are so wide as with the MPAA ratings.

The rating system is voluntary, and as such certain films voluntarily decide to not use the rating assigned to it, opting to go unrated instead. I know that for the film Orgazmo specifically the distributor decided to release it on DVD as "unrated" even though the cut provided in the film is the one originally rated NC-17. They did this because they can apparently get an unrated version of a movie into more retail outlets than an NC-17 version can.

Alternately, I've read that the MPAA rating applies to only the specific cut reviewed by MPAA's CARA, and that if even one frame (representing 1/24th of a second) is removed or change, the rating can no longer apply. This loophole has been reportedly exploited by major studios, who are required as members of the MPAA to use the MPAA rating given to a specific cut once it has been reviewed. They'll imperceptibly alter one frame of the film so that they can release it unrated, even though it is for all intents and purposes the same as the NC-17 cut.

At least at the beginning, unrated cuts were actually worth checking out since the directors weren't aiming to release a unrated DVD to maximize profits. Now its obvious that directors in the core genres (teen sex, horror, etc) are just filming scenes they KNOW won't make the R rated cut so they can sell another DVD.

It's not really an issue of what the footage is comprised of; for example, the original rating doesn't really tell you what the actual footage in the film is. All it does is give you a general idea of the age-appropriateness, along with a few vague content descriptions. However, I don't think that any parent is going to be confused into thinking that an Unrated DVD isn't at least as explicit as the original rated cut.

Can you find a DVD marketed as "Unrated" that doesn't at least imply that the footage is more explicit than the theatrically released rated cut?

The problem is that it's near impossible to say what constitutes "NC-17 content," since the determination of that is so subjective. For example, Clerks was originally rated NC-17 before it was re-rated without edits to an R after appeal. So one could say that the R-rated cut of Clerks contains NC-17 content, since it was rated that at one point. The only way to definitively say if a certain edit of a film is "NC-17 worthy" is to get it rated, which kinda defeats the purpose of the Unrated DVD to begin with.

Again, I don't see how anyone could see an Unrated DVD of an R-rated film and think that it's not going to be at least as explicit as the R-rated version. If parents are wary of the Unrated version because it might contain material that's too explicit, that's fine, they can go with the R-rated DVD that's always available.

I'm sorry but that kind of branding would be bogus and unfair to rate movies with a single rating just for content or genre for that matter. The point of the NC-17 rating was for all movies that had content unsuitable to those under the age of 17 - plain and simple.

It's just sad that big business has pretty much barred the release of films (comedy, drama, horror, action) that has extreme scenes warranting an NC-17 rating. Watch The Film Is Not Yet Rated at how much of a clusterfuck of a situation this has become. The films are rated for content, the studios wont release films that are NC-17 rated, because some markets, theatres, newspapers, video chain stores associate these films with past X-rated porn films which have every right to submit and accept said rating. Sadly I don't really see a real solution to this problem.

Here's an article about that story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2686959.shtml

Mostly parents complaining about the ratings not being specific enough.

This bit comes off as particularly naive:
It gives the impression that the author thinks the studios just pick the rating they want to release a film at, instead of going through an actual review and rating process. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" got a PG-13 because the MPAA rated it as such. I also didn't know that "sexual tension" and "bullets flying" was enough for an R-rating. Pretty much every James Bond movie ever made would've earned an R if that were the criteria.

The bit about the PG-15 rating is at the end, but it doesn't detail how the PG-15 rating would actually work. Would it be like PG-13, an age suggestion with no actual enforcement. Or would it have age enforcement like "Nobody 15 or under without a parent"? Would the R rating stay the same enforcement-wise? Without these specifics it's really hard to rate how valid a rating it could be.

but most studios do know if and when they release a restored unrated DVD that was spliced to tone down it's original content - they have to submit for a rating in the first place. If there's problems or splices needed it's documented. Anchorman is an example - they state the restored footage has stronger content than the theatrical cut. A director's cut of say Almost Famous has more footage but none that would have been elavated it to NC-17 status.

The marketplace has already solved the problem -- it found the UNRATED label to be the biggest seller. That's why such versions exist.

It's the FTC (and the moral fundamentalists who are urged by their leaders to petition and write to them) that see a problem where none exists. When one group looked at FCC compalints, for example, about 9 out of 10 were generated by one conservative group. Yet objections to say ... monopoly media ownership ... by a much more broadly-bassed constituency were rountinely ignored. So write the FCC and FTC and tell them to keep their hands off.

Personally once the FCC upped its fines on broadcast media (presumably to absolve parental responsibility) we should all see a V-chip rebate ... since that was the problem its was touted (and that we all paid for) to solve.

but on the whole, we are a society of children, who like to throw blame whenever it's not out fault. We need everything to spelled out, we need others to tell us whether or not something is good (or not) for us... no wonder our film industry and MPAA is such a joke and harbouring hypocristy. The FCC just tries to find something to complain about.

The FCC (and FTC, for that matter) has a full backlog of complaints -- telephone companies, cable TV pricing, corporate monopolies, et al ... (and it's a pretty long list). Indencency is just a smokescreen for the truly pisspoor job they're doing.

That's assuming all the restored footage was in a cut that they submitted. It's very possible that some footage was edited out of the film before being submitted for a rating. On the flip side, due to the relative freedom of the "Unrated" format, additional footage may be added to that cut that wasn't in any form of the edit before it was submitted for a rating.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out of the added/restored footage is more explicit than the original rated cut, and all the DVDs I've seen marketed as "Unrated" imply so. I'm just saying that basing the warning on whether or not the unrated edit would've received an NC-17 isn't workable in many cases, and considering the subjectivity of what "NC-17 content" is, not really relevant.

Okay, can you provide an example of a DVD marketed as Unrated where they don't say that?

Anchorman's a bad example anyway, since as an originally PG-13 movie it made since for them to include the tag that specifically said "not appropriate for younger viewers." Since most Unrated DVDs are of R-rated films, the original cuts were already "not appropriate for younger viewers," and thus that specific warning really isn't necessary.

Likewise, the Almost Famous Bootleg Cut wasn't promoted as "Unrated", even though it is. In addition, that film was rated R in its original cut, so parents should know that the Bootleg Cut is going to be at least as explicit as that version, and possibly slightly more so, so there's really no confusion there.

There is no need for a 'new hard R' rating, since it already exists!

Sin City
Planet Terror( from Grindhouse)
Hills Have Eyes
Saw 3
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Are a few recent films that are definitely 'Hard Rs'. All it implies is the film is slightly stronger than other R rated films. Stuff was still trimmed in most cases to avoid an NC-17. But more grisly material passed through than in the past.

If any of the above films were released in the 80's or 90's(or earlier). The MPAA would have cracked down more harshly on them with a huge amount of the explicit content slashed out.

Certainly the term "hard R" already exists, and certainly people realize that R rated movies can vary in terms of explicitness of content. What the proponents of making "Hard R" a rating want, however, is to actually quantify those differences and make them official. It's kinda along the lines of how PG-13 was created to differentiate between "regular" PG fare and material that, while technically still "PG" in terms of age restrictions, is a little more explicit and needs a stronger age recommendation.

hence why some studios just release a new cut sans a rating without having to go through the whole rating process again. A studio just can't apply a rating to a new version til it's re-viewed by the MPAA, just in case some of the content is in fact more severe than what is R-rating acceptable. Warner Bros. lawyers fought and won The Wild Bunch NC-17 rating on this ground, new footage was character exposition not restored violence. I don't see WB having any luck if and when the choose to release the uncut version of Ken Russell's The Devils though.

the horror genre in particular was at the MPAA's mercy. Countless horror films released from the major studios during the 80's were cut:

[It's kind of surprising to note though that Blue Underground's DVD edition of 'The Prowler' is the the unrated cut, but somehow still carries the MPAA R-rating. Was this resubmitted and found to be in the parameters of a R-rating??]


but violence for the most part nowadays is more accepted than sexuality. The MPAA during the seventies and eighties were more lenient towards sex than violence, hence why alot of smaller studio horror/gore flix were released unrated: no one under 18 admitted. However the trend's flipped with more sexually explicit films:

Shortbus
Irreversible
Happiness
Baise Moi

completely bypassing the MPAA altogether and self applying an adult only claimer for advertising purposes.

It probably also helped that, according to several sources, the "director's cut" is really just a restoration of the original theatrical cut, which was rated R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Bunch

It makes me wonder why the studio bothered re-submitting the film for approval if that was true though. Maybe they didn't realize that it was the same as the original theatrical cut until after the MPAA had rated the restored cut NC-17.

There's nothing in the MPAA's online rating database that says a new edit was submitted and rated. Likely they're using the original cut's R rating in violation of MPAA's rules, although it's unlikely that the MPAA will care or even notice unless someone brings it to their attention, which is unlikely to happen since as an originally R-rated horror film, it's unlikely a parent is going to unsuspectingly buy/rent this for their child.

It'd be interesting to compare those films theatrical releases and DVD distribution to that of something like The Dreamers, which was recently released with an NC-17 rating. I'd like to see if going unrated really has its advantages.

regardless of questionable content, I think I've read if a new cut of a film has any footage restored it must be submitted for a new rating, the prior rating becomes null, that is why the newer board members who saw 'The Wild Bunch: Director's Cut' for the first time found the violence NC-17 worthy.

In regards to 'The Prowler' I am sure there is some documentation on the MPAA's side that mandated cuts/suggestions were noted for the cutting of 'The Prowler', or in the case of the one of the scenes of the film: 'The Film Is Not Yet Rated' where one of the investigators finds and reads a Raters notes from an offical CARA (Classification and Ratings Administration) rater's form that's been thrown away. The book on the 'Friday the 13th Films and Phenomena' actually reprints a MPAA form that details in very specific detail what scenes were NC-17 in content - it's quite fascinating to read.

that would be interesting to find out. I would assume newspapers are probably more relaxed on films that have no official MPAA rating since there are some smaller studios that don't have the budget to submit all it's films for theatrical distribution. Just because a film goes out unrated doesn't mean it's strictly for adult audiences. Current indie films that are unrated include:

Into Great Silence
The Wind that Shakes the Barley
Boy Culture
An Unreasonable Man
The Page Turner

and others... it's the one's where there is explicit content where it's in their interest to advertise this "no one under 17 admiited" since they don't officially carry the MPAA's NC-17 rating, they are less in the cross fire.

The prior rating only becomes null if the film hasn't been released yet. Once released, any new version is classified and rated separately. Thus, if you check MPAA's online rating database for "Once Upon a Time In America," it'll come up with three entries for the film, even though each version is rated R.

For The Wild Bunch, the MPAA only lists one version, from 1969. If the MPAA viewed the "Director's Cut" as a separate cut of the film than what they originally approved, then it would have a separate entry. In this case however, the "Director's Cut" is the same as the edit that was originally released theatrically, which was rated R.

"What the studio released in '69 is what we see today as the director's cut."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

"Approximately 10 extra minutes were not technically additions in that they were all present when the film was [originally] released"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Bunch

It seems that the later shorter edit was never rated separately, as it only removed footage from the film, so it may not have had to be separately re-rated according to MPAA rules at the time. Nowadays even a shortened edit like the director's cut of Blood Simple gets a separate entry and re-rating. Or, the studio may have "borrowed" the rating of the original cut for the shorter cut (see below).

I'm not saying The Prowler wasn't edited down to reach an R rating. I was pointing out that no new edit of the film has been submitted and rated according to the MPAA's database. The only version that lists is the original theatrical version.

I think studios and distributors may "borrow" the original edit's rating of a film for a new edit more often than we realize. For example, when Monty Python and the Holy Grail was released as a SE DVD, it contained an extra 24 secs of footage, which technically makes a different version of the film, one that would have to be reviewed and rated separately from the original. However, MPAA's database only lists the original version. So for that SE version of the film, it appears that Columbia may have "borrowed" the original version's rating and used it for the new cut.

Advertising and exhibition venues are probably understanding of certain unrated films, especially if those are "unrated" because of cost issues with getting a rating, and not because of objectionable content. However, I'm more interested in whether or not they're more accepting of unrated movies that state "no one 17 or under admitted" than they are of NC-17 films, since the former is de facto NC-17 as well.