From NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/bu...3violence.html
Who would've thought that the MPAA would be the voice of reason for once? Every "Unrated" DVD I've seen has had a huge banner across the front advertising as such, along with some variation of "Too ____ for theaters!" on the banner. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the packaging is saying that the new unrated edit is at least as explicit as the original cut for R-rated films, and most likely more explicit than the original cut, especially for PG-13 rated films.

Also, I find it interesting that they quote a representative for theater owners complaining about Unrated DVDs. Do you think they have the best interests of the kids at heart, or are they more upset about potential customers deciding against seeing a film theatrically in favor of buying/renting the "real" version of the film on DVD in unrated form later on?

BTW, since the article doesn't actually quote the FTC in regards to Unrated DVDs, Here's what the FTC actually said:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.shtm
The FTC site also has a graph of the states and a link to the full report. Note that the percentage of minors able to buy Unrated DVDs is exactly the same as the percentage of minors able to buy R-rated DVDs. So it's not really a case of rating, but a case of enforcement.

Everytime I hear or read what someone else believes is best for my kids I turn blue!

How come no one sees what our kids eat at school? Wouldn't that be a tiny bit more important??

Pro-B

Of all the stupid marketing schemes used to trick people into buying a product, this is what they have time to complain about? How about the mislabeling of food products? Or going after Internet scammers?

And most of the unrated editions DO NOT contain "edgier" footage. Most of them really don't contain anything substantial at all.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - the whole "unrated" DVD thing is nothing but a big scam. All "unrated" means is that this particular cut of the film was not submitted to the ratings board.

I can understand the National Organization of Theater Owners bitching about the issue because of the above reason, but I'd think the FTC has more important issues to deal with than unrated DVDs (which, as mentioned, isn't much more than a meaningless marketing ploy most of the time). Idiots.

Fuck NOTO and the FTC. Keep your hands off my DVDs! Just enforce the movie & game sales laws/rules the same way as the cigarette sales laws....HEAVY FINES, and even jail time.
Hell, last night I got "carded" for buying some paint primer and a tube of model glue, and I'm 43 fucking years old. If they'd "card" kids who bought these restricted items there'd be no issue.
Do NOT take away my right as an adult to see what I want because Wal-Mart/BB/CC /etc will not police their own damned employees.

Tipper Gore (D)

And her husband was the one who pushed for a lot of animation in the 90s to be edited. It was due to policies he pushed in Washington DC that got Batman Beyond Return of the Joker cut (though it was eventually released in it's proper form, but rated PG 13).

It always amazed me the democrats were the ones who were at the forefront of censorship. It just seemed oxymoronic or something that liberals would want to restrict that area of our lives.

agreed, this whole thing is dumb.

Someone should make an "unrated" cut that contains almost an entirely different movie just to mess with people's heads. Not really relevant, but that's what I thought.

Why is this even an issue?

When I got my first "Unrated" DVD back in 1999 (American Pie) I knew back then the unrated bit was meaningless.

You could take a PG-13 movie and add a 3-minute hot air balloon ride to the movie and then release it on DVD as "unrated".

"Unrated" is just marketing.

The American Pie DVD actually had a lot of scenes that were cut to avoid an NC-17 rating.

Sometimes the Unrated DVDs serve a purpose, sometimes they don't.

At most I noticed a different pie humping scene. Yeah I know there was an extra minute or so of Nadia, but at the time all I noticed was the pie humping scene...which didn't exactly sell me on "Unrated".

Now the Criterion version of "Robocop"....that had some noticeable additions.

The sex book also had different pictures in it and some extended parts at the party. The point is, that is the version that the film makers intended to be seen, but had to be edited down to get an R-Rating.

American Wedding on the other hand felt like a cash in, for an unrated release.

Most horror films also need unrated discs, because a lot of them get edited for theatrical releases.

Well, if the movie theatres would actually play NC-17 rated films we wouldn't have so many unrated DVDs. They should blame themselves.

Every now and again you hear about the rumor of the creation of a new rating called a 'hard R'. Who knows if we'll ever see it happen or not, I doubt we will. But if things keep going they way they go, we might. There's such a wide range of things that we could see in an R rated film, so the idea has popped up a couple of times that the 'Hard R' rating might not be a terrible idea.

In the meantime though, this article is looking at all of this at the angle that an unrated film will really peak the interest of younger people who maybe shouldn't be watching movies like that yet. More marketable to younger teens like packs of smokes are. They're playing the 'we're worried about the parents' card here, so that some people may look at it from a parents perspective and go 'oh yeah, you're right, let's speak out against this now'.

Lame.

Lots of things are happening because people in business suits in an office want to complain. No longer does the system work in such a way where if people complain, THEN it's a problem. We now have professionals that are stirring up everything for us.

What's funnier is that Al's having a big music concert featuring many bands that Tipper would've wanted banned if they were around back in the '80s!

Now, now, Democrats and Republicans are both at the forefront of censorship -- it's an issue with bipartisan support. They just justify it differently. One says "it's for the children" while the other talks about "morality."

Chalk me up as another that agrees that the "unrated" DVD of a film is a huge marketing scheme. All it means, as someone said earlier, that this is a cut of the film that was not viewed by the MPAA, therefore this particular cut is "unrated." Which means, if there was a scene of two characters talking that was too long and edited out for time constraints, if that is put back in the film it becomes unrated. They use unrated to make it sound like your getting something you're not supposed to see.

All that being said, I always buy the unrated cut. Because, usually, the unrated cut is what the director originally intended the film to be, before the MPAA decided what wasn't good for me to see.

I am also a person that believes that movies should not have to be edited down to get released. Directors should submit the film, the MPAA should rate it and be down with it. The MPAA should not tell someone to cut their movie down because they just don't like it.

Don't get me wrong, I definately believe that there should be a ratings system. People should know what they are getting into before they watch it. I don't like the fact of the MPAA telling me what's good for me to see. If I don't like what I'm seeing, I will walk out.

In summary, a film should be released how a director wants it to be without any restrictions or editing. There should be a good ratings system in place so people know what they are getting into. And theater owners should screen better to make sure kids don't see what they're not supposed to. All of this will eliminate "unrated" DVDs.

Sorry for the rant.

...And God...And the Bible.

But does the MPAA really tell the directors what they can put in the movies? AFAIK, they don't. They are willing to give a movie an NC-17 rating if it is warranted, the director is under no obligation to back away and cut the movie down to appease them. However, most of the time, NC-17 is a kiss of death for box office dollars for some reason (I REALLY don't understand why...I mean, I realize that teens won't be seeing it, but why would it drive adults away?) and directors and studios don't want their movies branded with that rating if they are trying to reach a broader audience. So the cuts come and the movie gets resubmitted. But I've never read of the MPAA trying to censor directors or movies themselves.

True calhoun, but there's many times where the MPAA gets the finger pointed at them, and rightly so, because there are things that get an R that seem pretty harmless compared to a lot of other films that are rated R out there. 'R' is so broad. There have been instances where the MPAA has given something an NC-17 at first glance, and based on their official reasoning for a particular films rating as such... there appears to be other movies out there at an R rating already that offer worse things than what some of their pre-release ratings of NC-17 contain. They're contradictory at times. So although the MPAA doesn't really enforce what gets put in a movie or not, their inconsistancies make it pretty difficult for director's to keep in line sometimes.

But then again, the studios don't care. DVD's are killing and an unrated opportunity is pure profit for them.

I agree that studios have started exploiting the "Unrated" tag to market edits of films that probably wouldn't have been rated any worse than the original cut, although there are some legitimate uses of the non-rating to release the original cut of a film before it was pared down for an R rating.

However, my point, and the FTC's apparently, wasn't whether or not the Unrated DVDs are just a marketing scheme or scam. The point was whether or not studios are using them as a "loophole" to get explicit material into the hands of minors, by either confusing parents, making enforcement hard, or not revealing that the unrated cut has more explicit material than the original cut.

As the MPAA rep mentioned, all the DVDs marketed as unrated at least imply that they're more explicit than the original cuts, so I don't see how a parent could get confused and think that an unrated DVD is okay if they felt that the original rating for the film was too high for their child. And if they feel that an R rating is okay for their child but are wary of anything that might be more explicit, well, the original rated cut of the film is typically available separately. I really doubt a parent is confusing the "Unrated" cut of Land of the Dead as being the same as the latest Thomas the Train release, which may also be unrated.

As for enforcement, the FTC and others quibble about stores not being able to set rules for DVDs without ratings, but the FTC's own survey shows that unrated DVDs get sold to minors with the same frequency that R-rated movies do, meaning that stores that enforce the age restrictions for R-rated films manage to keep the unrated cuts of those movies out of minors hands as well. Again it's common sense: if the unrated cut is of an originally R-rated movie, treat the unrated DVD like an R-rated movie as well. Even if the unrated cut was actually reviewed and rated by the MPAA, the effect wouldn't change. Both NC-17 and R rated films wouldn't be sold to minors, and if an adult is there to buy the film, you couldn't deny either cut to the adult, even if the intended end viewer is a minor.

The MPAA doesn't tell anyone to cut their movie down. The MPAA functions pretty much the way you say it should. The difference is, that while the MPAA may be done with a film once it issues it's rating, the movie studio isn't. If the movie studio was aiming for a certain rating and didn't get it, they'll voluntarily (on the studio's part that is, although most directors are now contractually obligated to deliver an edit of the film that will earn a specific rating) edit down the film and re-submit it for a new rating.

Theoretically, the MPAA is only involved in rating the cuts they see, they claim not to provide suggestions on what to cut in order to earn a specific rating. However, in practice, major studios "somehow" manage to get their hands on the ratings board's notes on the film to see what the reviewers disapproved of, which significantly helps the re-editing process. People have criticized the MPAA for this underhanded practice for being hypocritical and discriminatory, since the smaller filmmakers don't have the clout to get their hands on these notes.

Add in that while a portion of theaters seem to be fine selling tickets to R-rated films to minors, most of them won't touch an NC-17 rated film with a 10-foot pole, and there's some problems with the current rating system, although not to the extent that RagingBull thought so. Unrated DVDs help reconcile the situation by at least ensuring that for certain films the director's originally intended cut is eventually made available to the public, although in all honesty a NC-17 DVD could perform the same function.

Does anyone know if certain retailers won't carry a NC-17 film but will carry the unrated DVDs? I'm thinking maybe Walmart and Blockbuster, but I'm not certain.

From what I understand, it's because many theaters won't exhibit NC-17 films, and a lot of advertising outlets won't run advertising for NC-17 films. Plus you have retailers like Walmart and Blockbuster that in general frown on the NC-17 rating.

It's not just a coincidence that many films that have or would've earned an NC-17 rating have been released to theaters as "unrated" instead. Ironically, these films have a better chance of distribution and exposure completely avoiding the MPAA rating system than using the NC-17 rating.

Most of this stems from the original stigma that the X rating had, which was originally intended for mainstream films but became associated with pornography. Since the NC-17 is just a rebranding of the X rating, a lot of the stigma still remains.

It didn't help that the one attempt at a major NC-17 release, Showgirls, was a critical and box-office failure, and that it helped perpetrate the image of NC-17 as being just one step away from pornography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_fi...laced_by_NC-17

Aside from the reasons above, don't completely discount the effect that the teen audience has on box-office, or at least the studio's belief that it does. These are companies that will cut down an R-rated film, which teens could in theory still see accompanied, to a PG-13 just to increase the potential audience for the film.

Ah, the old misnomer that Tipper was out to "ban" and "censor" music. The PMRC wanted warning labels or a rating system on music...they didn't seek to ban artists. We have a rating system for movies...they just wanted it extended to music. It really wasn't as evil as so many people would like to believe.