posted 09-20-2000 01:23 PM            

---

The NC-17 rating was created so legitimate, "harder" movies would have a chance at success. It was supposed to provide an artistic alternative to the X-rating, but has it worked? When you see an NC-17 rating attached to a movie, what initial opinion do you have of that film?

IP: Logged

posted 09-20-2000 01:59 PM            

---

Well, I'm past the age where movie ratings matter legally. And since I'm rather shallow in that I often go to see movies because of who's in it rather than what it's about, I pay no attention to the ratings. If NC-17 means Mel or Heath or Roy Dupuis might get nekkid in it, I'm ok with that.

A different story are NC-17 movies that are advertised as PG-13's, like Nurse Betty for which I still want my money back.

IP: Logged

posted 09-20-2000 03:01 PM            

---

Unfortunately, any rating that's remotely related to the maligned X is going to get a bad rap. I remember when the first NC-17 movie came out. It was "Henry and June," a historical picture about Henry James. Even though I didn't give a rat's ass about Henry James, I was eager to see the movie just to see what an NC-17 movie had to offer. Of course, I was 17 at the time too

Maybe there need to be shades of R. R+ could be an edgy movie with lots of violence, nudity, etc. R- could be PG13 with a few more swears and a little nudity.

[This message has been edited by trustno1 (edited 09-20-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 09-20-2000 04:42 PM            

---

So how did you feel after watching "Henry and June"? I think I saw that too. Don't remember much about it though. Who's in it?

IP: Logged

posted 09-20-2000 05:01 PM            

---

I never saw it -- the inclination was there but the follow-through was nonexistent.

IP: Logged

posted 09-21-2000 10:09 AM            

---

So what was your first NC-17 movie experience? And what did you think of it?

[This message has been edited by jozeefine (edited 09-21-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 09-21-2000 10:18 AM            

---

No wonder I rarely see movies. To my mind, movies should consist of plot, character, and meaningful dialogue ..... not violence, nudity, and swears.

BBF

quote:

---

Originally posted by trustno1:
Maybe there need to be shades of R. R+ could be an edgy movie with lots of violence, nudity, etc. R- could be PG13 with a few more swears and a little nudity.

---

IP: Logged

posted 09-21-2000 02:49 PM            

---

It’s my impression that such a rating is both to warn viewers of explicit content as well as tantalize viewers who desire it. With human nature, off-limit signs such as "NC-17" and "Not Rated" tend to draw some folks like moths to a light...but, if I recall, the film ‘Showgirls’ was NC-17 and it had the popularity of a neutron bomb. Like a unfunny comedian with a foul mouth, the prurient factor of extra skin/sex apparently isn’t enough to salvage a bad movie.

Has the NC-17 rating worked? Probably yes on both counts - to warn some and to entice others. Improved the quality of movies? Like BBF, I'd have to say Nah.

IP: Logged

posted 02-04-2004 10:15 PM            

---

A thing that really bother me and a lot of other people about this "NC-17 issue" is that you can see 2000 people get mowed down with an AK-17, but you can see a natural human body. What do you ppl think?

IP: Logged