«

Kill Bill Part 1 is the most violent movie I have ever seen. Blood
soaks the walls, the floor, even the camera at every opportunity. Kill
Bill is rated R. Amadeus was recently re-released on DVD and had one
scene where a main character bares her breasts. This new cut changed
its rating to R. According to the MPAA, the sight of a woman's breast
is just as dangerous to young kids as seeing a seventeen year old girl
disembowel a Japanese business man. The Motion Picture Association of
America rating system is broken.

Though violent, Kill Bill is an excellent movie and one that redefines
Hollywood. While I wouldn't recommend it for anyone under the age of
15, it is a movie that made our world a better place and definitely
needed to be made. If they had had their way, the MPAA would have
removed it from our culture, thrown it into Orwell's "memory hole",
never to be ever seen or ever heard of.

The MPAA is an organization who tells you what you are allowed to see.
They invented an NC-17 rating, a rating more appropriate to Kill Bill
than R, but because no theater in the country will show NC-17 rated
movies, no movie is ever released until it receives an R rating.
Material is cut out of the movie until it receives an R. In an
interview with Brian De Palma, he described the rating of Scarface.
One where it was cut and recut to take out the amount of bullets that
hit the clown in the nightclub shoot out. Eventually De Palma
threatened the MPAA with lawyers and the movie was shown as-is. The
MPAA's rating scheme can be manipulated with money and power, just as
anything else can.

The Motion Picture Association of America controls what you see.
Controlling what you see ends up controlling what you say which ends
up controlling what you think. Violence and sex are removed from
movies because they are dangerous to children. What determines what
violence is too extreme? What exactly is the danger? Is Fight Club a
dangerous movie because it shows fist fights or is it is a dangerous
movie because it speaks an anti-social message that the removal of
violence from our society removes a piece of what we are? Is this not
an important message? If it is dangerous, perhaps it is something that
needs to be said.

Violence and the method it is show in cannot be simply categorized
into neat boxes of G, PG, PG-13, and R. Movies like "The Pianist" are
far more disturbing than anything you will find in the comic book like
"Kill Bill". Perhaps it is far more important for us to be disturbed
over something as horrific as the holocaust, but the loss of innocence
is just as damaging.

Good movies cannot be easily categorized as "action", "drama", or
"comedy". The best movies simply are what they are. Ratings are the
same way. Trying to affix such a simple one letter rating to an art
form that is as wide as life is impossible. Just because a movie says
the word "****" or shows a bare breasted woman does not determine how
disturbing the movie is or what audience it is intended for.

Parents are responsible for what their children see. A responsible
parent will watch or read up on any movie they plan to take their kids
to see. Taking a 13 year old to see Kill Bill probably isn't wise, but
in an age where the R rating is almost completely irrelevant, the
rating alone cannot tell a parent what the content is.

Far more dangerous is when the rating system is used to censor what we
are allowed to see. When a beaurocrat from the MPAA decides that too
much blood will give a movie like Desperado an NC-17 rating, they are
controlling the content of the movie and controlling who is allowed to
see it. Taking this idea to its next logical step would assign ratings
to books and cutting out any violent or sexy books from our
bookstores. Of course, who determines what amount of sex or violence
or language is too "disturbing" for the public?

Censorship is the abolishment of the freedom of speech and worse, the
freedom to hear. I want to hear what people want to say. I want to see
the films that people want to make. No middle man should stand between
me and the material I want to experience. The Motion Pictures
Association of America should abolish their worthless rating program
and stick to simple reviews of the content of the movie. Movie
theaters should show any movie they wish to show regardless of the
content of the movie.

No one should control what you see, what you say, or what you think.
The Motion Picture Association of America is doing just that.

Mike Shea
http://mikeshea.net/about/
http://liquidtheater.com/

"Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
news: om...
snipped all the crap.....

The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn thing
they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go see
their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to cut
scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I wanted
to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good points
in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the reasons
why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view. Does
the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
until that changes, they should exist.

You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.

Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
to a subjective view is impossible.

But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.

Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
unbound movies.

As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
be happy.

Mike


Biz wrote:
> "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> snipped all the crap.....
>
> The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
> responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn thing
> they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go see
> their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to cut
> scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
> wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I wanted
> to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good points
> in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the reasons
> why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view. Does
> the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
> definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
> parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
> until that changes, they should exist.
>
>

You are saying nothing that Roger Ebert hasn't been extolling for decades.

"Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
news: s.com...
> You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
> their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
> again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
> after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
>
> Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
> and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
> to a subjective view is impossible.
>
> But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
> most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
> NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
>
> Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
> created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
> the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
> unbound movies.
>
> As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
> be happy.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Biz wrote:
> > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
> > news: om...
> > snipped all the crap.....
> >
> > The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
> > responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn
thing
> > they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go
see
> > their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to
cut
> > scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
> > wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I
wanted
> > to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good
points
> > in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the
reasons
> > why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.
Does
> > the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
> > definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
> > parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
> > until that changes, they should exist.
> >
> >
>

He's right.

luminos wrote:
> You are saying nothing that Roger Ebert hasn't been extolling for decades.
>
> "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
> news: s.com...
>
>>You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
>>their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
>>again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
>>after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
>>
>>Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
>>and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
>>to a subjective view is impossible.
>>
>>But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
>>most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
>>NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
>>
>>Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
>>created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
>>the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
>>unbound movies.
>>
>>As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
>>be happy.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>Biz wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
>>>news: e.com...
>>>snipped all the crap.....
>>>
>>>The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
>>>responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn
>
> thing
>
>>>they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go
>
> see
>
>>>their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to
>
> cut
>
>>>scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
>>>wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I
>
> wanted
>
>>>to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good
>
> points
>
>>>in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the
>
> reasons
>
>>>why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.
>
> Does
>
>>>the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
>>>definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
>>>parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
>>>until that changes, they should exist.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an R?
It's all about money.

>the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
>it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an
>R?
>It's all about money.

Better for kids to see Amadeus than the next Adam Sandler film.

Remove "moc" to reply.


Whoever says "Nothing is impossible" has never tried to slam a
revolving door.
- Willy Walker

On 17 Oct 2003 01:53:36 GMT, oc (Sydney Assbasket ) wrote:

>>the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
>>it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an
>>R?
>>It's all about money.
>
>Better for kids to see Amadeus than the next Adam Sandler film.
>

Better for whom? Who decides these things. Kids are overprotected and that's why there's so many brats in
the world.

SpeedByrd PhD

--
There's only one hope left for the Star Trek movie franchise.
It is a letter located between P and R in the alphabet.
"Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
news: s.com...
> You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
> their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
> again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
> after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
>
> Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
> and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
> to a subjective view is impossible.
>
> But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
> most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
> NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
>
or alos no studio has the balls to release one anyway.
if a major long awaited film were to carry an NC-17 rating it would still
get played.
I would have had South Park listed as South Park : Lean Mean and NC-17!


> Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
> created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
> the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
> unbound movies.
>
> As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
> be happy.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Biz wrote:
> > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
> > news: om...
> > snipped all the crap.....
> >
> > The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
> > responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn
thing
> > they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go
see
> > their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to
cut
> > scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
> > wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I
wanted
> > to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good
points
> > in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the
reasons
> > why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.
Does
> > the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
> > definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
> > parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
> > until that changes, they should exist.
> >
> >
>

Biz <> wrote:

> The MPAA is just rating it

Exactly. Think yourself lucky that that's all they're doing. The
British BBFC have been mutilating movies for decades.