Author Topic: (NEW Poll Added!!) New Movies/TV Shows we should keep an eye out for! (Read 1216433 times)

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #3475 on:** February 24, 2016, 07:56:05 PM »

But the submitting distributor is Warner Home Entertainment, suggesting this was the bluray release, not the theatrical.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #3476 on:** February 24, 2016, 09:23:47 PM »

The Avengers was originally rated 'R' due to the Coulson impalement scene.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3477 on:** February 24, 2016, 09:35:35 PM »

BlacknMild: Well that doesn't mean that they didn't know it would be R from the rating board reviewing the edit for the theatrical release. You don't get news stories about the initial ratings just the final. Or it just mean the the Home movie released the cut they already had for the home. Maybe one is cheaper to do than the other...and it could help the studio get an idea what needs to be taken out or revised?

Wah · « **Reply #3478 on:** February 24, 2016, 09:50:24 PM »

when u guys talk about R... It's so confusing because the Australian system is this:
G
PG
M
MA15+ (deadpool's here)
R
XXX(for porn)

so isn't America this?

G
PG
Pg13+
M
R

?

michaelbaysuperfan616 · « **Reply #3479 on:** February 24, 2016, 10:55:33 PM »

No Lucario, the US ratings are G, PG, PG-13, R, then NC-17.

G is General Audiences, PG is Parental Guidance Suggested, PG-13 is Parents Strongly Cautioned, R is Restricted to minors being accompanied by an adult, NC-17 is No Children under 17 admitted.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3480 on:** February 24, 2016, 10:57:50 PM »

Lucario: No it is

G
PG
PG-13
R
NC-17
X (Porn)

So R stands for under 17 restricted without an adult. So if you have a guardian and under 17 you can see it. NC-17 means No Children under 17 period. It doesn't matter if you have parents with you. X is strictly porn. So a movie could be NC-17 and not be porn. usually it is for drug use, violence, sexual situations and Nudity. In America you can get away with certain kinds of nudity, but there is a limit in R of what you can show. For example...Showing bush is OK, but if you show any spread legs you are moving to NC-17 territory fast. Nudity with sexual implications are moving to NC-17. However, to balance that you can get away with some nudity in PG-13 IF there is no sexual implications to the nudity. A perfect example to this is the movie Nell which has full nudity in the film, but never in a truly sexual situation and it is rather innocent.

Stogi · « **Reply #3481 on:** February 24, 2016, 11:11:13 PM »

Don't want to get into it, but showing people die in ridiculously heinous ways will rarely get you a NC-17 (like a dude getting sliced in half vertically), while showing a vagina is NC-17 everytime. It's a weird standard. American families are like, "Come on son, we'll go see this horror movie together." And a chicks head gets beaten to a pulp with a bat by a stalker and that's not even the worst scene. And then the movie next door, there's a scene where a woman is raped and it dares to show it and its fucking awful but her head still has the brains on the inside and the movie deals with the repercussions of that one scene and its NC-17 and thus will not be shown in pretty much any theater and it dies an obscure death.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3482 on:** February 24, 2016, 11:22:51 PM »

Hypotheliciously: I won't argue that. I think it is silly standard. I think it comes down to 2 things.

1) America is pretty uptight about sex. It is not nudity as I mentioned above, it is sexual nudity that is the big problem.

2) You could make the argument one is real and one isn't. What I mean is one is an act of special effects via computers or modeling...which although horrifying isn't real at all.

I would argue that you can tackling almost any subject without resorting to showing the violence or nudity and handle the subject matter maturely the thoroughly. I think the art of not revealing the gore or sexuality while showing the impact of it is lost.

Wah · « **Reply #3483 on:** February 24, 2016, 11:30:57 PM »

Make love not war!

Stogi · « **Reply #3484 on:** February 25, 2016, 01:41:32 AM »

Quote from: Spak-Spang on February 24, 2016, 11:22:51 PM

Hypotheliciously: I won't argue that. I think it is silly standard. I think it comes down to 2 things.

1) America is pretty uptight about sex. It is not nudity as I mentioned above, it is sexual nudity that is the big problem.

2) You could make the argument one is real and one isn't. What I mean is one is an act of special effects via computers or modeling...which although horrifying isn't real at all.

I would argue that you can tackling almost any subject without resorting to showing the violence or nudity and handle the subject matter maturely the thoroughly. I think the art of not revealing the gore or sexuality while showing the impact of it is lost.

I do like the classy transition. Bond movies have always done this well. And I won't argue that showing sex is necessary for many plot lines that did show tits or ass. But then I'd argue showing a guy get dicapited isn't either. We're just more comfortable with the latter. It's simply interesting. But isn't sex?

And just because I know something isn't real doesn't make it less visceral. Movies about the holocaust aren't real, but that doesn't make the violence any less visceral because it was real. Just because I know the actor didn't die, I know someone like them did. And on the other side you have that scene in Wolf of Wall Street where his wife is enticing him by spreading eagle, denying him sex but showing her nudity. Just because that would have been real, doesn't make their relationship or the movie any less of a farce. Yet I know this has certainly happened in history, so it feels like a cop-out. It would have made that scene even more hysterical, more real. And showing a jewish woman being shot point blank would have been real too.

I think we Americans are just uncomfortable with being aroused, especially in a group setting. We don't know what to do about it when we are. Or we do and it's in the privacy of our own homes. Yet I know for a fact people are aroused all the damn time. It's impossible not be with the media throwing every attractive person they can find at you and giving them cute or charming dialogue. It's monetized, but showing a couple in love and getting me to believe it is where we get uncomfortable. It's truly strange, because either way, its all a farce anyhow.

Stogi · « **Reply #3485 on:** February 25, 2016, 01:42:35 AM »

BTW I've never made this argument before but I think I did a good job debating why we need more vaginas on tv.

nickmitch · « **Reply #3486 on:** February 25, 2016, 10:54:11 AM »

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1 on February 24, 2016, 03:44:28 PM

The thing about this home release rating, is that it was done before the theatrical release of the film. Is that not odd?

I'm gonna say no. I'm sure the home release was being planned all along, and the studio was sending cuts of the film to the MPAA all along. They sent one lengthier version, got an 'R', and took it back to make it PG-13. Then Deadpool makes being R-rated trendy, so the Blu-Ray team decides, "Well, we were just gonna slap the original cut on there without getting it rated, but if we send it back to the MPAA, we might bump up sales by being able to say it's R-rated". Meanwhile the studio is trying to get their "soft" 'R' down to a "hard" 'PG-13'.

Plugabugz · « **Reply #3487 on:** February 25, 2016, 03:09:44 PM »

Just to sill out some blanks.

The UK system is:

U (universal)
PG
12A (12 and under can see these films with someone over 12)
12 (video ratings)
15
18
R18 (adult premises only)

Most films are deliberately targeted at 12A for more people to see. Deadpool, thankfully, was 15.

Blame Janet Jackson

ThePerm · « **Reply #3488 on:** February 26, 2016, 11:42:05 PM »

Jaws is rated PG. Despite people getting eaten up and all. I was surprised when the movie was over and the PG logo popped up. I was like "o rly?"

A Clockwork Orange was rated X

in the 70s X meant NC-17. A lot of movies that were X rated in the 70s are re-rated R.

I rate A Serbian Film Don't Watch it! Not because it's bad, its just that fucked up

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3489 on:** February 27, 2016, 02:54:20 AM »

ThePerm: Back when Jaws was released there was no PG-13 rating. It was G, PG, R. X.

So, the rating system has become more sophisticated.

ThePerm · « **Reply #3490 on:** February 27, 2016, 07:51:16 AM »

oh yeah, but it's still pretty funny. I'd still give it an R. A light R, But not a pg-13. 90% of the movie is pg. It's that last act that is R rated.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #3491 on:** February 27, 2016, 09:32:32 AM »

The ratings system is stupid and makes no sense anyway. They need to improve it or just get rid of it. PG and R only actually makes a lot more sense.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3492 on:** February 27, 2016, 09:50:16 AM »

Personally, I like the rating system now. Yes it is strict, but I would rather have a good idea what to expect from the movie before going in.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #3493 on:** February 27, 2016, 12:24:38 PM »

I like the fact that there are content descriptions now, so you can make a more informed choice.

Wah · « **Reply #3494 on:** February 27, 2016, 05:55:01 PM »

Australia always had that.

Plugabugz · « **Reply #3495 on:** February 28, 2016, 05:24:40 PM »

Quote from: Brandogg on February 27, 2016, 09:32:32 AM

The ratings system is stupid and makes no sense anyway. They need to improve it or just get rid of it. PG and R only actually makes a lot more sense.

Agreed. The Dark Knight should have been a 15 you want to know how i got these scars? in particular... but was rated 12A and along came a whole bunch of below-12 year olds with family to see it.

nickmitch · « **Reply #3496 on:** February 29, 2016, 11:15:41 AM »

The MPAA system is also kinda corrupt and hinders smaller films, per a documentary I watched one time.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #3497 on:** March 02, 2016, 11:02:18 PM »

Every system is corrupt, because people.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #3498 on:** March 15, 2016, 01:55:09 AM »

New Seth Rogen R Rated CG Animation

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #3499 on:** March 21, 2016, 09:27:51 PM »

another Supes vs Bats Trailer: Gotham

News:

Poll

New Mutants has been DELAYED yet again. When will it come out? Will it ever come out?

Author Topic: (NEW Poll Added!!) New Movies/TV Shows we should keep an eye out for! (Read 1216433 times)