censorship priorities: sex vs. violence
 

Dawn of the Dead was on cable the other day, and they seem to have left most of the gore in it. You see heads being blown off, zombies feasting on flesh, etc. But when you get to the one part where two people are doing the nasty in the mall, they blur it out. So let me get this straight: brutality, cannibalism and extreme violence are fine, but the sight of bare boobies will scar you for life? Really. Someone's got their priorities messed up. Not that I think violence will necessarily traumatize you, but it seems that serious violence would be more harmful to a sensitive person than sex.

On an unrelated note, I have noticed that Dawn of the Dead is sometimes incorrectly referred to on the board as a movie. Movies are works of fiction; Dawn of the Dead and other works like it are documentaries and public service announcements, created to inform the public of what to do in the event of a zombie outbreak. This unfortunate misconception needs to be corrected.

It's easier to explain violence and zombies and exploding heads than it is sex. Sex is real, zombies aren't. People like things easy.

Of course boobies are more offensive than violence. Hell......take this site for instance....I can post this pic.

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/im...-explosion.jpg

but if I try to show this one uncensored.......
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../lifeforce.jpg

I will get a warning.


RUN..........ITS A NIPPLE

ZOMBIES AREN'T REAL?!?!?!?!?!?:confused:

Not sense the war of 1823 which has been pretty much erased from history. The war lasted two and half years and resulted in the complete extinction of zombies. If they had been later in recognizing the threat we may be hiding from flesh-eaters at this very moment but there is a small group of people who really believe that humans were in the wrong...

If they're painted though, they're allowed - I checked.

http://www.renoir.org.yu/paintings/g...re-breasts.jpg

Matilda May=YUMMY!:D

Noticed the same type of thing on cable tv myself and it bugs the hell out of me. A certain cable channel will play the most violent horror and mob movies with nary a scene cut out. But the dialogue makes me crazy with either bleeeps or cheap fill ins for all the nasty words. So apparently you can cut people up in a shower with a chainsaw, tear off heads, disembowle people but it's very bad to swear at them.:confused:

it's my theory that they leave in all the violence to use as an eventual scapegoat if ever some kid decides to go on a murdering spree. they take out the boobs cause well... how could you put the blame on a movie where all you see is (sometimes) gratuitous sex ? quite the opposite... the system doesn't want us to wank off, therefore releasing all the tension, and not having any murderous desires!

wait... did that come out right ? it sounded so much better in my head.

For the simple reason that they dont want you holding your wank in one hand and a .45 Magnum in the other.

Seriously though, I have never understood the censorship laws. Nudity which is actually needed by a movie goes through the cuts, but mindless violence which is totally unnecessary isnt. The censor board members are a bunch of stupid jokers, IMO.

I think I might have mentioned it here a while ago, but there's a brilliant quote from Jack Nicholson that say it all. I don't remember the exact wording, but it went a bit like this:

"If a kiss a breast in a movie, it's going to be rated R, but if I rip it off, you can bet it will only be PG-13"

"If you suck on a tit the movie gets an (R).If you hack it off with an axe it will be (PG)."


I think Jack Nicholson's quote is funny,but it's an exaggeration.

The MPAA rating system is weak,but it's not that bad!;)

Well, let's be happy for the MPAA... without them the government would be the only ones "protecting" us with censorship.

Welcome to living in a country founded by puritans. The same rule applies to language. "Fuck you" is PG13, "Fuck me" is R.

At least the movies aren't banned by the government...

A non-govermnent censorship group that (slowly) evolves through time has proven to be a better alternative than government based censorship.

Oliva Whiting is nude in "Romeo & Juliet." (PG).



Kate Winslet is nude in "Titanic." (PG-13)


I think the MPAA gets it right most of the time!:)

Agreed, but I think there are times they go overboard. It's not always evolving in the right direction. Example: nudity in movies used to be judged based on context, with sexual nudity getting a stricter rating than non-sexual nudity. Now it's just an automatic R. go back and watch the old 70's Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Sutherland in it. I tossed that on the monitors when I was working at a video store once, not realizing how much the rating system had changed. Full frontal nudity, but since it's not a sexual situation, the movie's PG.

Please tell me you're joking...

Okay,I'm joking.




Hell,children don't need a warning/rating system.....they should watch movies like "Cannibal Ferox" and "Vice Squad.":rolleyes:

That way when ignorant and lazy parents need a babysitter they don't have to worry about finding an "appropriate" movie anymore. Just toss in anything and go have fun baby!

Becouse of my age.......I can buy or watch any movie at any time!The MPAA rating system is for the protection of CHILDREN!It's not perfect,but it's better than nothing.

Yeah, I remember how many times customers at the video store would bitch at us for letting them rent things for their kids that were inappropriate. I always wondered why they thought it was my job...

As I've said before, the problem with it is that it's arbitrary, based on the whims of the current review board. It's the old Supreme Court argument of "I know porn when I see it". The system is worthless without consistent standards. It results in movies being watered down to meet the random standards of a system that no one enforces. The MPAA is utterly pointless.

Without it we would have government censorship which would be 10 times worse...

True, I just want an actual system of regs in place for the MPAA so it becomes more consistent. Course, my luck, any rules they put in would make it more strict...

And it would be tougher for them to change which means we probably wouldn't have seen Grindhouse, Devil's Rejects, or the Saw movies without an NC-17 rating which would destroy their box office numbers and prevent other envelope pushing films from seeing wide releases and making any money. Their "hard R" concept even seems pretty good...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing for stricter ratings, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the current system. The changes it makes over time have actually made it stricter over the years in some ways, more lenient in others. The NC17 rating is a good example. It was designed to give a rating higher than R that didn't designate porn. The problem is, it's viewed by theatres as being on about the same level as X. Most theatres won't show NC17 movies, but having the rating gives the MPAA an option to rate something worse than R so it has to be cut further.

A LOT of that is the fault of the theaters and companies who refuse to let their films play at theaters that show NC17 movies. It's not the MPAA but rather the whole system that has flaws... just like anything. NC-17 movies can be brilliant such as Bad Lieutenant but most people simply will not get a chance to see them. This "hard R" should give theaters the option to play movies with more violence and sex without having to display the dreaded NC-17 rating on their marquee.

Who would you like to see judge the content of films?


Do you think the government would do a better job?The filmmakers?


:)

I'll always side with the filmmakers...:D

No, what I'm grumbling about is the lack of consistency... filmmakers are required to meet standards that have a lot of gray areas, then are forced to cut their work to fit the current interpretation.

agreed, and a lot of this goes back to the earlier argument that much of this wouldn't be necessary if people didn't want others to decide what their kids can and can't watch.

i agree man, it's stupid as!

i mean, sex is legal and people are goin to be doing that more than violence which is illegal but it's fine to put it all over the screen

I think the "this country was founded by puritans" sums up the whole issue. America was started by people who would ostracize or kill you for dancing or wearing red; long, violent brutal killings in the name of "goodness", and god forbid you show some ankle...

Sex has always been evil and violence a tool. Welcome to the great irony of "civilization".

For more detailed info on how arbitrary the ratings board decisions are, and how biased they can be, see the documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated.

I will have to, that is a big deal to me.I will have to look a little more, but i seem to remember that Trey Parker and Matt Stone filed a lawsuit against them for team america, because they supposedly gave it to a single woman to rate it.

At least in the USA, films do not have to be rated to be released (eg on DVD). In Australia, any film that is to be released must be rated by a government body (the Office of Film and Literature Classification). If the film shows something they don't like, they "refuse classification" and the film can't be released - ie it is "banned". So no one can see it - not in the cinema, not at home on DVD.

And this government rating seems just as arbitary as your MPAA ratings. It is up to the rating board, and things that have been passed with a rating can later be re-submitted and banned (it has happened with a number of films including Salo and Baise Moi).