|
|
Posted by Adam H. Kerman on 03/22/07 18:22
At 8:45am -0400, 03/22/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:32:07 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>At 11:59pm -0400, 03/21/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>>http://commanderbond.net/article/4067
>>The Chinese people have been kept in the dark about the Cold War? Didn't
>>the censors understand that was a dig at the Russians?
>It was a dig a *communist* Russia.
Why would Chinese censors care?
>>>The US cuts were completely voluntary and made in order for the film to
>>>earn a PG-13 instead of an R.
>>While the US has no Board of Film Censors, cuts negotiated with MPAA CARA
>>to get a more favorable rating are in no way voluntary.
>Yes they are. The producers could've accepted the R rating the MPAA first
>gave the film, but they chose to go for a lower rating.
Huh? They were making a Bond movie, not an R-rated movie. They knew going in
that they'd make cuts to receive the more commercially-viable rating,
otherwise they couldn't have gotten financing based on expected US
distribution of a PG-13 movie. R ratings are specifically enforced to keep
children out of theaters and to keep movies out of certain communities in
America. Generally, R-rated movies are not as widely distributed.
How can you deny that even though MPAA claims the ratings are advisory, that
they are enforced by film exhibitors? That makes 'em mandatory.
>>Movie censorship exists in the US because the movie studios are scared to
>>death that it would be imposed upon them by Congress.
>If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary censorship
>agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.
What free market is that? Is there a choice of classification, or is there
exactly one classification for the entire country?
>>There have been movies shut down in some places in the United States for
>>alleged obscenity and pornography and, at times, because local authorities
>>were trying to appease the Church.
>That didn't happen here though, and was highly unlikely to happen even if
>the film had be released uncut with an R rating.
Exactly such things happened in the past, which is why the current rating
system replaced the old one in the late '60's, and why movies that were
specifically adult in nature and not pornographic were not rated by CARA.
Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie; none of the early X-rated movies had
any clear explanation as to why they didn't qualify for R-ratings anyway.
Within five years, the X rating became unviable as it was adopted by
producers of bad '70's pr0n.
NC-17 isn't commercially viable as nearly no exhibitor will show such a
movie. It is the kiss of death.
>>Think it can't happen? Congress does censor television and radio, been
>>cracking down on obscenities uttered on radio for years. The fines have
>>gotten punitively high since the attack of the giant breast.
>Congress doesn't supervise broadcast TV and radio, the FCC does.
Let me be the first to inform you that FCC is carrying out federal law as
enacted by Congress. One would think that FCC sticks to enforcing technical
and engineering standards within a scheme of economic regulation, but
Congress requires FCC to censor television and radio broadcasts.
>The FCC can do this because they control and license out the radio waves
>broadcast TV and radio use. Cable and Satellite TV and satellite ratio
>aren't under any such restrictions though.
What makes you think they couldn't be? Cable uses public rights-of-way,
sometimes along highways paid for with federal grants, so that's a way in to
censorship if Congress chooses. Satelite is licensed, I believe.
>>Very few movie theaters are willing to show unrated movies in the United
>>States.
>Not really applicable here, since an uncut Casino Royale would've been
>rated R instead of NC-17 or unrated.
It was an observation that refusal of a producer to submit to CARA because
the cuts required for more favorable ratings are usually capricious
(especially for adult movies with no violence at all) is not a viable
alternative. I suppose there may be examples of a producer making a movie
that he is aware would not qualify for an R rating forced to make cuts for
NC-17.
>It's still a voluntary choice by the theater owners what they chose to
>show, and a voluntary choice by film producers to change the rating of
>their film in order to get it in more theaters.
What don't you understand about the difference between voluntary and
mandatory? If advice, it's volutary. If enforced, it's mandatory.
MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS. PG-13: We RECOMMEND that
children who aren't yet teenagers should not see this movie by themselves.
R: We RECOMEND that if you let your children under 17 see this movie that
you should accompany them.
If ratings were advice to parents, then yes, they would be voluntary.
The typical theater owner, fearing adverse reaction by church groups and
others in his community who tell people how to raise their children, which
is exactly what happened until the present classification system was
adopted, does not allow unaccompanied teenagers under 17 to see R-rated
movies. If he belongs to NATO, he agrees to such enforcement.
In an actual free market, parents would be free to decide whether to allow
unaccompanies children to see R-rated movies. Perhaps they know that a
certain R-rated movie has sex but no violence and aren't concerned about
exposing their children to some sex scenes. Perhaps a parent thinks his
child isn't old enough to see a certain R-rated movie and won't take him.
Perhaps he thinks his 15 year old is mature enough to make up his own mind
and not be stupid enough to act out, copying violent acts in movies.
We lack such a free market in our society, or theater owners fear becoming
the targets of community boycotts by people who won't just refuse to see a
certain movie but will attempt to prevent others from making the choice.
Recall that these groups once pressured municipal authorities to shut down
theaters through capricious enforcement of building codes.
Do you recall that movies that featured black actors in other than
subservient positions couldn't be distributed nationwide? Was that an
example of a free market?
>>All theaters that belong to NATO (and some that don't) enforce
>>CARA's recommended audience restrictions. R rated movies tend not to be
>>blockbusters.
>Right, that's why 300 has been the top movie for 2 straight weekends.
Is it your contention that blockbusters are more likely to have R ratings
than PG ratings? That Casino Royale would have made as much money in the
United States with an R rating?
>>Despite decades of movie censorship, Hollywood has failed to avoid scandals
>>like the original Fatty Arbuckle scandal that was the original excuse.
>Film ratings weren't enacted until 1968. The Hayes Code before that wasn't
>enforced until 1934, 13 years after the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.
Did I mention Hayes? Hollywood's original round of industry censorship was
enforced by Kenesaw Mountain Landis.
>And I don't see what any of this has to do with the cuts made to Casino
>Royale.
Just a bit of historical perspective.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|