Why do the previews for Farenheit 9/11 say the film is not yet rated? The film was never not yet rated to begin with. It was deemed rated R then they appealed the decision and the MPAA still ruled it rated R.

Is this Michael Moore trying to trick people to come to the movie?

Well, at one point it wasn't rated (before the MPAA gave its verdict). Perhaps you saw an older trailer? I don't see how this would "trick people" to go see the movie, at any rate.

The rating wasn't finalized until tuesday. It got an R rating, but they appealed hoping for a PG-13, so they didn't want to advertise with the rating they had already received in hopes of getting the new one. Now that it isn't moving, advertisements will probably start showing the rating (although Moore is calling on everyone to ignore it).

I heard Moore when he was saying for everyone to ignore the rating, so when I saw a trailer today saying it wasn't rated I thought perhaps Moore was playing into that.

Considering the number of children I've seen at R-rated movies (stuff from Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Magnolia), it seems to me people have been doing that for years.

The rating was under appeal at the time the ads were made. This is standard protocol. Not every little thing around this movie requires us to don the tin hats.

I'm not donning the tin hat of a conspiracy nut. I was just wondering if this is a standard ploy for movie makers.

Yeah, but its not everyday that you have the filmmaker blatently say that if kids need help sneaking into the movie to let him know (Tarantino said something to that effect about Kill Bill Vol.1, but it was in more of a joking manner whereas Moore is serious about it).

And I just saw a commercial that had the R-rating on it.

I wouldn't call it a ploy.

I've seen the tag "This film not yet rated" on many, many movie previews that are shown on tv.
Until the rating is final, they add that line. Once the rating is final, you will see new previews on tv with the actual rating.

When the Harry Potter 3 trailer first hit tv, it had the "This film not yet rated" line. Its standard practice, I would imagine, and not meant to be misleading or dup people. It simply states a fact that in that point of time, the film doesn't have a rating.

Yes. It's amazing how much trouble people have in taking something literally anymore.

can't vote unless you're old enough to see an R rated film anyway - don't know why he cares so much about it.

Weren't you the one just talking in another thread about how indoctrination has to begin early for the brainwashing to be effective

I must be getting old; I can remember when an 'R' rating *attracted* the under 18 crowd. Why would Moore want a lower rating?

"standard ploy" ??

Please, take off the tin hat.....

I think it's because theatreowners in some towns can use it to keep people from getting in, particularly kids with strange haircuts and piercings. These are the same theatreowners who would turn a blind eye (or pluck it out) to let kids into Gibson's blood-orgy.

Moore is very aware that kids want to see this and will try to get in. But by forcing teens and gifted and talented students and A/V club types to buy tickets for Shrek 2 or whatever, the boffo box office may be affected. And there will be kids who are turned away from this, but not from any other R-rated movie. I know some might think this indicates a persecution complex or some kind of martydom syndrome, but I know small town theatre owners from way back. There is a selection process in carding - involving the movie, and the people seeking tickets. It ain't pretty and it ain't right. And it's one more reason why the MPAA is a joke.

Lehitra'ot.

Interesting. Please explain why this movie will attract "gifted and talented students" moreso than other students. Oh yes and please explain why the MPAA is a joke.

I was always under the impression that ratings were given as a way to inform people about the content of the movie. All indications seem to point to this film having very R rated content. Now, for some reason, because Michael Moore and certain people think it's important, it deserves a pg-13? If the MPAA gave this film a pg-13, THEN I would think they were a joke. If anything they're doing their job correctly right now.

I'm sorry, the MPAA has it's problems, but mostly to deal with adult films, NC-17 and the complete lack of a rating to deal with adult films. This...is a complete non issue, and it makes me roll my eyes everytime I hear about this issue. I don't recall Schindler's List, Passion of the Christ, or any of these other flicks walking off with pg-13 ratings just cause they were "important."

Seriously, if this film had such direly important information that everyone HAD to know, Moore would release this thing free. Movie theaters aren't exactly what I'd call the best way to reach everyone and make good political points, and blaming the MPAA for rating it according to its content and blasting them for it is beyond idiotic.

Didn't someone ask him to release it on the 'net for free when he lost distribution and was whining about his film "needing to be seen"? I thought his answer to that (or absence of) was classic. But no... it's not about the money.

Xhonzi

A theatre in Oakland is not enforcing the R rating and is letting any one over 13 in to see it. At least that is what the news showed this morning. The theatre has a whole anti-bush message on their marquee