|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 03/25/07 02:29
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:22:14 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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?
Because China is communist, and was allies with communist Russia.
>>>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.
Right, they made a decision to make a PG-13 movie, and thus made the choice
to edit the film to earn a PG-13 rating. The MPAA didn't force them to
make any cuts, it simply provided the original rating. At worst, the notes
the MPAA made regarding specific scenes they had problems with may have
gotten in the hands of the producers, who then *themselves* chose to make
cuts to earn the rating they wanted.
> 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.
None of which changes the fact that it's a voluntary system. And the
distribution is a decision of the studio and distribution company, not the
MPAA. The film 300 made it into more theaters than some PG-13 fair.
> How can you deny that even though MPAA claims the ratings are advisory, that
> they are enforced by film exhibitors? That makes 'em mandatory.
The film exhibitors *volunteer* to enforce the rules. The ratings may not
end up be voluntary for the consumer, but that's because the consumer isn't
in charge of the theater. It's like how a consumer doesn't have control
over what films are in stock at their local video store. It doesn't make
their reduced selection "mandatory" somehow.
An exhibitor could chose to ignore the movie ratings completely and let
anyone into any movie. They'd most likely learn from local reaction though
that it's better for their business to play along though. Just because the
free market can be exploited to impose certain morals on businesses doesn't
mean it's not the free market that's driving it though.
>>>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?
If someone wanted to create an alternative film classification, they're
certainly free to do so. I've seen video releases with a distributor's own
ratings and classifications on them. And of course the porn industry has
been classifying their films without the MPAA for decades.
>>>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.....
I really don't care about the past though. I was referring to Casino
Royale's release in particular, which is the reference you challenged. If
you want to point out that such things happened in the past, that's fine, I
agree that it did, but it doesn't have any relevance on Casino Royale's
rating and whether its rating and edits were voluntary.
> Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie;
No, a complete lack of rating from the MPAA meant an unrated movie. X
meant nobody under 17 could see the film, exactly the same as NC-17 when it
first came into being. The reason why they changed the name was because
they forgot to trademark the X rating, which meant anyone could use X as a
rating for their film if they so chose.
> NC-17 isn't commercially viable as nearly no exhibitor will show such a
> movie. It is the kiss of death.
Right, so it's driven by market forces. Casino Royale was never near an
NC-17 rating though.
>>>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.
The FCC "carrying out federal law as enacted by Congress" isn't the same as
Congress itself doing the action. The police carry out laws as enacted by
legislative bodies, but I'd never say that Congress gave me a speeding
ticket.
>>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.
You're correct, they could if they decided to. The main point was that
they don't currently, contrary to your earlier blanket claims.
The FCC doesn't supervise satellite and cable because while broadcast is
considered "public," free for anyone to receive, cable and satellite are
"private" and require a person to subscribe to the service to receive it.
Since subscribing to such a service is a tacit agreement with the content
provided on the service, then there's really no reason for the FCC to
supervise it, the free market can dictate the content. For example, even
though in theory every cable channel could show non-stop violence,
language, and sex, the vast majority of programming isn't any more risqué
than what's on network TV.
An interesting example in contrast of content is Cartoon Network, which
provides kid-friendly content during the day, and TV-MA rated material
later at night as part of it's "adult swim" programming. It seems parents
have no objection to adult material being shown, even on the same network
that millions of kids watch, as long as it's on late enough.
>>>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.
Again, not viable to this specific situation, since if the producers had
refused to edit the film, it would've had an R at worse.
> 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.
There are absolutely *zero* examples of a film having to make cuts to earn
an NC-17. There is no maximum limit in terms of content to what an NC-17
film can provide. A porno could get a NC-17 rating if submitted to the
MPAA, but no porn producer is going to bother.
>>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.
It's voluntarily enforced by the theater owners. I recall that enforcement
varying. Growing up, I remember that some theaters were ok with minors
seeing an R rated film unaccompanied by an adult as long as they had a
note. Some theaters were fine with it as long as the parent bought the
actual tickets. Some theaters have been completely lax about it.
> MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS.
No, they say they created the system *for* parents. Up to PG-13, the
decision is completely up to the parent. For R and up, the theater
enforces the rules as they see fit. For example, one theater chain I went
to banned *all* children 6 and under from R rated films, accompanied by
parents or not. This rule isn't at all in MPAA's guidelines, but the
theater decided on it themselves as a courtesy to their customers. If
there were enough parents wanting to take their 2-year-old to the R rated
films to change the theater's mind, it would do so.
> 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.
The "adverse reaction" is typically in terms of boycotts or bad publicity.
The theater owner typically decides it makes better business sense to
conform. This is the free market in work, although for some of us probably
not the way we *wished* it worked.
> In an actual free market, parents would be free to decide whether to allow
> unaccompanies children to see R-rated movies.
You're confusing free market with a much narrower focus of freedom over a
theater's own rules. The theater can enact most whatever rules it wants
within reason, such as no shirt, no shoes, no service. If such rules don't
appeal to a customer, they can go somewhere else. If nowhere else exists,
then if there's a large enough demand for it someone will make it. There
really isn't a large enough demand for theaters that ignore MPAA guidelines
though.
> 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?
Unfortunately, probably so, unless certain laws prohibited it. The free
market, since it's swayed by the whim of the masses, isn't always a pretty
thing.
>>>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?
I'm not contending either, since the first one would require a lot of work
to confirm one way or the other, and the second would be pure conjecture.
I'm just saying that an R rating is not an automatic restriction against a
film becoming a blockbuster. R rated films have been blockbusters and can
be very profitable, which is why studios still release them. The decision
to release a given film at a given rating is left to the studio, it's not
in the hands of the MPAA what the film is released at.
>>>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.
I can't find any mention of him in relation to film censorship on the
internet. The MPAA, with Hayes at the head, formed in 1922, just a year
after the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.
Here's an article about Hayes that mentions Landis in passing, mostly
noting the similarity between the MPAA's self regulation, and the
self-regulation of baseball the Landis headed.
http://rsparlourtricks.blogspot.com/2005/11/hoosier-watchdog.html
>>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.
Historical perspective is fine, just be sure it's appropriate and needed.
I never said that no censorship never happened nowhere, I said that cutting
Casino Royale from an R to a PG-13 was a voluntary move on the studio's
part.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|