Why is it so rare to find a film with an NC-17 rating?
Name a film like this
I seriously have never seen that rating in my life on a film
Distribution.
>>69155713
Because a wider audience means more money
Is X and NC-17 the same thing?
>>69155739
It's from the slightly censored version of A Serbian Film
>>69155713
Because theaters won't screen them.
>>69155748
>I UNDERSTUND HOW THE FILM INDEYSTRY WOURKS GUYSD
>>69155713
because movie theaters refuse to show NC-17 films
>>69155739
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
>>69155765
X was what they used before they adopted the MPAA ratings.
Not Now, John
Because they tried to run nc17 films in cinemas back in the 90s, all of them were terrible and didn't make money
>>69155790
>cliffhanger
fuckin wat
>>69155713
The ratings board is so lenient on what constitutes an R-rated film at this point there's no reason to push the envelope and make an NC-17 movie.
R-ratings can have full-on sex scenes just no scenes of penetration. If you're going for penetration you might as well have a fucking porno going on.
NC-17 is edgy as fuck and there's no reason to do one. It's the rating for directors completely unwilling to compromise.
>>69155791
Is there a difference between X and XXX? Is there a XX?
None of the major theater chains will carry nc-17 films. So trying to market an nc17 film would be a death sentence
In practice the MPAA gives out this rating as a negotiating tactic to the filmmakers to edit stuff out to get it down to an R rating.
>>69155922
X was an MPAA rating
XXX is just a generic term for porn.
>>69155713
I think Blue Valentine was NC-17. A Serbian Film is definitely NC-17, as is Shame.
>>69155894
>NC-17 is edgy as fuck and there's no reason to do one.
I disagree. With Blue Valentine and Shame the "graphic" sex scenes were necessary.
>>69155894
>It's the rating for directors completely unwilling to compromise.
They shouldn't have to. Have you seen the twats that rate movies? If not, watch this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
>>69155948
Why is blue valentine rated NC-17?
>>69155991
bagina
>>69155991
They specifically pinged it for an oral sex scene, and only because it was with a woman
>>69155991
I don't think it kept that rating because they disputed it, not sure, but it was initially rated NC-17 cuz there is a scene where gosling performs oral on the girl
>>69155991
from Wikipedia:
On October 8, 2010, Blue Valentine was officially given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA for American cinemas. This was due to a scene depicting cunnilingus. Gosling accused the MPAA of sexism and misogyny. "There's plenty of oral sex scenes in a lot of movies, where it's a man receiving it from a woman – and they're R-rated. Ours is reversed and somehow it's perceived as pornographic", he stated. The Weinstein Company appealed the decision and aimed for an R without any trims to the film, believing the prior decision would significantly harm the film's potential box office take in the United States. The company's appeal was successful on December 8, 2010, and the film received the desired rating. The film was given an uncut 15 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification.
>>69155991
I dunno but Gosling made a good point here
https://youtu.be/wrKPZUNMQ2s
>>69155739
They had a redband trailer for Kingsman on one of the movies I saw. It was all because Sam Jackson says "fuck" once or twice in it
>>69155713
they dont make money
>>69155713
Cause Americans are afraid of sex.
I think i've only seen one nc-17 film and it was Crash. It wasn't very good
>>69155922
That's actually why they changed the rating from X to NC-17. People equated the X rating with porn.
>>69157416
it was oscar bait and it got an oscar. i'd say it was pretty good. shit movie though.
>>69155713
This happened.
>>69157416
>>69157475
lol I can't discuss Crash anymore because of that Bullockshit
>>69157542
>wanting to discuss crash
>>>/reddit/
seriously though they'll discuss it with you
>>69155739
SHAME
Starring Michael Fassbender
>>69157416
Not that Crash. He meant Crash (1996)
X was an MPAA rating when they introduced the system in the 60's. There were several films in the early 70's that used the rating, some even won academy awards (midnight cowboy comes to mind). Fritz the Cat, the adult targeted cartoon takedown of hippie lifestyle, was also X. But after a few years the porn companies jumped on and turned the X rating into a joke, so the MPAA retired it and replaced it with NC-17 a few years later. The most notable NC-17 I'm aware of was Showgirls. But it ain't the 90's anymore and despite what this site thinks conservatism dominates and no one will touch anything that even might or has the possibility of being adult oriented. They are fucking Nazi's about it too, the first cut of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back got NC-17 because of some shit that would seem tame nowadays.
>>69155713
they arent profitable. I would imagine that most moviegoers are in the 8-14 age range
>>69157451
This.
The X rating was not trademarked, unlike the others, so over the course of the '70s, it got used to promote pron flicks that hadn't even been submitted for a rating. Eventually, XXX became associated with hardcore and X with softcore (AFAIK, there was never really a XX).
By the '80s, the MPAA had completely lost control of it, to the point where studios would rather release films unrated than with an X. So they ditched the X rating in favor of NC-17, which originally meant the same thing as R, except for the without the exception for accompaniment by an adult. In other words, you had to be 17 to get in. Later they changed it to 18 to get in, but kept the name (just changed the description accordingly).
In the early days, before the association with porn, there were some classic mainstream films that got X ratings. Midnight Cowboy even won best picture with an X rating (since re-rated R). A Clockwork Orange likewise had an X rating when originally released.
The first NC-17 film I remember getting much mainstream press coverage was Showgirls. Basic Instinct was originally rated NC-17, but slightly cut to get an R for theatrical release, with the uncut version reserved for home video.
>>69155713
Theaters don't like to play them because they typically don't sell. The rating turns people off, and parents don't want to let kids see it. Not saying it makes sense, but it's seen as a risk and companies do their best not to get the rating. It's about money
Found the cinefix episode about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L8cS2GcoWg
>>69157750
>they are fucking Nazi's about it too
Despite this, the South Park movie got downgraded from NC-17 to R without any cuts, just by the producers making some irate phone calls up the chain to the studio execs, who in turn presumably pulled some strings with the ratings board.
>>69155866
it can't be the Stallone one
>>69156086
To an extent, but it's not a sexism issue so much as it is an issue of morals. How is violence and murder and torture fine for an R movie but sex isn't? That should be the main point, but when you make it into an issue of sexism rather that just stupidity, you lose a lot of value in my mind.
>>69155713
They are Box Office bombs and generally are either small art films or just shit.
Only appeal for NC-17 rated things are when R-rated movies come out with "Uncensored" versions which would've been NC-17.
Usually it's just because there's too much gore or violence and they want to tone it down for a couple of scenes.
>dat one NC-34 film where you had to be 35 years old to see it
I wonder if it will ever be released to the public ?
>>69155772
He's not wrong you mongoloid
Saw 1 (uncut) was also NC-17.
>>69158698
Movies generally don't get harsh ratings due to violence. It's mostly due to things related to sex.
According to wikipedia, there have been three NC-17 rated films nominated for an Oscar:
-Henry and June (1990, the first film to receive the NC-17 rating, was originally rated X); nominated for best cinematography (lost to Dance with Wolves)
-Wild at Heart (also 1990); Diane Ladd nominated for best supporting actress (lost to Whoopi Goldberg for Ghost)
-Requiem for a Dream (2000); Ellen Burstyn nominated for best actress (lost to Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich)
>>69158698
>Usually it's just because there's too much gore or violence
Actually, sex or language have been the more common triggers. It's pretty damned hard to exceed the limits of R on violence. Gore maybe, but historically, the issue has usually been sex.
>>69158542
It is, it was edited to get an R.
>>69158900
Oh, and of these, only Henry and June was actually released in theatres with the NC-17 rating. The other two were edited down to R.
this one was originally nc17 but got an R release. Only one I know of and only one Ive seen
>>69159079
Bertolucci's The Dreamers (Eva Green's break-out performance) was released in both NC-17 and R versions. It's probably the highest profile release with that rating since Showgirls.
>>69155739
I once watched a movie called Crash that was nc-17 because I thought it was that sad one about people being shot and crying a bunch.
Needless to say I was very confused.
>>69159379
Oh I didn't realize it was already mentioned.
>>69155713
Theaters won't distribute it so it essentially means financial suicide.
>>69155790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsimulated_sex
Here's another list of movies that are too hot for TV.
>>69159492
>Wetlands
>2013
>Film by David Wnendt contains a real scene of masturbation and ejaculation by several men on twenty pizzas. The hired porn stars were used for shooting the scene.[125]
Fucking kek
i love jacking it to porn
>>69158626
No anon, it gains value.
When you accuse the MPAA of Sexism all of a sudden they have political pressure on their asses.
It's the 21st century, logic doesn't get anything done.
>>69159492
Unfortunately for anyone looking for pron, most of those scenes aren't half as hot as they sound.
Most of the scenes used porn stars, not mainstream actors for the unsimulated bits, too. In the U.S., SAG rules actually prohibit unsimulated sex scenes. Combined with their "global rule one," (which prohibits members from working on non-union films within SAG jurisdiction) this essentially means that only non-union actors can perform such scenes. Some mainstream European, Latin American, and Asian actors and actresses have done them, though.
The best known American actress to do it would probably be Paz de la Huerta, who had multiple unstimulated sex scenes in Enter the Void (which, as a French production filmed in Japan, would have been outside of SAG jurisdiction).
what about that girl from portlandia who sucked cock for real in an indie flick?
>>69157573
The Cronenberg Crash, you numbskull.
>>69155739
Pink Flamingos
Female Trouble
A Dirty Shame
Blue is the Warmest Color
Lucky Bastard
Killer Joe
Shame
Lust Caution
Orgazmo
Marriage 2.0
Swearnet The Movie
>>69160400
It's possible that Chloë Sevigny either isn't, or wasn't at that time, a SAG member, or isn't/wasn't a "Principal Member."
The rules allow (or used to allow) non-principal members (essentially second-class members with fewer protections and benefits from the union in return, I presume, for lower dues) to work on non-union films outside of the specific region of the country they were registered in. Since she is New York-based (at least she has lived and worked there for most or all of her career), and the film in question was shot mostly in California, that is also possible and seems more likely to me.
>>69160740
Do you even cinema?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/
>>69160618
>Marriage 2.0
Porn film staring porn actors. The NC-17 version is just a softcore edit.
>>69156086
Man does anybody have that video showing his shitty unrefined north-eastern accent is an affectation that has developed over the years? He used to have a pristine aristocratic Californian accent.
>>69155739
El Infierno
>>69155739
>he hasn't seen Showgirls
Are you some kind of a queerosexual?
>>69160888
For what purpose though? I've seen films more explicit than it and they got a pass. Must've been the American gun dealer and the bodies in the trash bin
>>69159547
It kind of makes one wonder if the Ninja Turtles would've jacked to it or puked. It'd be funny if some puked and looked at the others with disgust.
>>69160823
Oh I only saw the oscar winning Crash 2000-something and got confused as to why that movie would warrant an NC17 rating. I was 6 years old in 1996 so I would never have heard of the car sex movie.
>>69160989
It got NC-17 because of a wound fuck in scene.
>>69160925
Officially:
>some graphic violence and explicit sexual content
Profanity was probably an issue, too (can apparently also count towards sexual content, for some reason).
Unfortunately, the MPAA doesn't publish detailed explanations of their reasoning. In fact, they don't even always provide them to the applicants. Trey Parker supposedly never received any notes for Orgazmo (of course, with the MPAA, the name alone might have doomed that to NC-17).
>>69161012
sounds edgy
>>69155991
It WAS rated NC17 but the rating was lowered to an R on appeal
Most theaters will not show NC-17 films. Also why bother, R gives you so much freedom, you pretty much need to have full on gay intercourse to get an NC-17 or the most brutal torture imaginable.
>>69155991
MPAA is way harder on gay content. There is a good video on this showing movies that got NC-17 from gay sex (man+man or woman+woman) even though it was way more tame than heterosex in an R rated film. Just think about who makes up the MPAA, lots of Christian house-wife types. Also applies to threesomes I believe, they really hate threesomes.
I really wish I had some webms from Cronenberg's Crash. Where can I get some good ones?
>>69161655
>Just think about who makes up the MPAA, lots of Christian house-wife types.
Uh, no.
The MPAA is an industry association made up of the major film studios. Currently, the members are:
Disney
Paramount
Sony Pictures
Twentieth Century Fox
Universal
Warner Bros.
None of which are run by "Christian house-wife types." The days of films being censored at the behest of the Legion of Decency ended in the 60s.
>>69161655
There's no gay content in Blue Valentine, nor are there any threesomes.
>>69161926
Watch this documentary.
>>69155713
less people watches, doesn't make money.
>>69161964
>There's no gay content in Blue Valentine
Sorry, must be thinking of that depressing lesbian film with "blue" in the title.
>>69161968
The MPAA ratings boards are essentially focus groups, yes, but if you paid attention, you'd note that the appeals boards (where the real power lies) are made up of studio execs (there are clergy advisors on the board, but hey are believed to be non-voting members).
>>69155713
showgirls pretty much killed the NC-17 rating.
>>69160891
>Showgirls
My nigger, how wasn't this posted more.
>>69162288
It's been mentioned multiple times ITT.
But don't forget that it came out 21 years ago, was critically panned, and subsequently largely forgotten, and the average anon at this point may well be too young to know about it.
>>69162444
>1995 was 38 years ago
Time for a drink.
>>69162796
>tfw young anons watching Showgirls for the first time didn't grow up watching Elizabeth Berkley on Saved By the Bell.
>tfw Elizabeth Berkley will be 44 in a couple of months.
Yeah, better make it a double.
>>69162980
>tfw Leo hit that
His dick deserves an Oscar
>>69163457
To be fair, Leo has hit a lot more than just that.
>>69162980
Don't worry brother, it's going to be more than a double. It's always more than a double.
>>69160989
kys
The MPAA is shit
>far-superior Australian classification system, the best in the world, coming through
http://www.classification.gov.au
>>69160989
I was 3, and I have heard about it.
>>69163457
>if this didn't kill her career tons of a list actresses would be doing gratuitous nudity and unsimilated sex like it's nothing
>Deadpool comes ou
>rated R in murrica
>in my shitty country is rated the equivalent to PG-15 or someing like that.
why the land of the free can't stand some blood and swearing in their movies?
