I'll get this film gets slapped with an NC-17...

[alphaboi867]

@Exapno Mapcase

There’s a huge difference between cable and network.

As I said, I’m not absolutely positive that no NC-17 film is ever advertised on network TV, but I’d need some better proof that Showgirls was.

I remeber seeing ads for “A Dirty Shame” on broadcast TV, just not in prime time.

[Walloon]

But none of your quotes or cites named even one newspaper with such a policy. That’s not evidence, that’s an unproved allegation.

Yes, I can cite major newspapers that have carried advertising for NC-17 movies between September 1990 and the early 2000s. How many, and which, major newspapers would be proof? May I suggest The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Chicago Tribune.

[Zebra]

I worked in a movie theatre when Showgirls was out and we ran that movie. The ads were in the papers. I don’t have copies of them to scan and show but I assure you, they ran.

The thing is, untill some movie comes out and is rated NC-17 and makes a huge ammount of money, the Hollywood studios won’t be interested. It’s taken a long time for R rated films to be big at the box office. Passion of the Christ is now the higest grossing R rated feature. It replaced Beverly Hills Cop, which held the record for about 20 years. Hollywood studios would rather put out pg-13 or PG films as they make more money. They don’t make more money because they can be advertised more, they just do.

Now is the other NC-17 story a myth as well? Do the leases from shopping malls forbid the playing of NC-17 product?

[Don_Draper]

@Exapno Mapcase

The reason is simple and straightforward: that’s the distinction that the vast majority of the American film watching public wants them to make.

You can decry that fact, or debate why that fact is true, but it’s an obvious fact. The MPAA would not last for a moment if it stopped making that distinction. And everybody in the MPAA and in Hollywood knows it, which is why they support the system.

Your rant isn’t against the MPAA: it’s against America. Good luck with that.

I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that. That reasoning sounds to me like the folks who in pre-civil rights days decried “I’m not racist, but we live in a racist society and I have to follow the rules so - no blacks allowed.” It’s passing the buck onto someone else for a decision you’ve made. If the American people really do object to certain content in films, then let them make that decision by not going to see the film rather than ensuring that films with that content aren’t made.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Art Vandelay

I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that. That reasoning sounds to me like the folks who in pre-civil rights days decried “I’m not racist, but we live in a racist society and I have to follow the rules so - no blacks allowed.”

I’m going to assume you’re just too young to understand how ludicrous and insulting that analogy is. If I’m wrong about your age, then this discussion is over for me.

If the American people really do object to certain content in films, then let them make that decision by not going to see the film rather than ensuring that films with that content aren’t made.

That would be a nice world to live in, but it bears no resemblance to my America. Not on this subject, and not on a hundred or thousand others.

The MPAA came about because government regulation was the alternative, not live and let live. As the current hysteria about porn on the Internet proves, as the hysteria about Janet Jackson’s nipple proves, as Wal-Mart and 7-11 banning Playboy proves, the American public is totally and eternally hypocritical about sex and nudity. The MPAA will live as long as nudity is banned on network television; i.e. as far as the eye can see.

Rant about it if you wish. Just don’t ever make the mistake of confusing this issue with one of governmental bigotry. They are not even close to the same thing.