This is topic The Matrix = PG-13, Titanic = R? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000036
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-24-2000, 11:14 PM:
There's an amusing, local, urban legend which says that the MPAA has changed its mind about The Matrix and the movie is now rated PG-13. Meanwhile, they say that Titanic is now rated R. According to the legend, the nudity or lack thereof was the issue.Now... why would such an urban legend exist around here? There are plenty of parents in this area who refuse to let their kids see any R-rated movies (and many of those parents don't even watch R-rated movies). But now their teenagers are assuring those parents that The Matrix is no longer rated R... so it's okay to buy the video. It's amusing that teenage boys, who would be most anxious to see The Matrix, have included Titanic in this legend. They'd happily give up their right to see Titanic in exchange for The Matrix.
The distressing thing is that parents believe the teenage boys more than they believe the clearly-posted rating on the video case. And these are supposed to be the parents who care about ratings! It would be one thing if a parent watched both movies and decided that sci-fi violence was more tolerable than promiscuity in their household. But this appears to be a case of parents who blindly trust the MPAA to decide what's acceptable. And then they complicate that blind trust by believing their teenagers who are spreading an urban legend about the MPAA!
So... has this particular urban legend reached your area yet?
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-25-2000, 12:59 AM:
Wasnt there a theatre in Utah somewhere that actually censored the nude scenes in Titanic by cutting it out of the film and then Paramount sued them or something? Also, I heard several video stores were doing the same thing when it was released on video, and I remember Paramount getting worked up about that too. NOTE: I am not slamming Utah, just the individuals who are doing this, as it is wrong in my opinion, Im sure it has happened elsewhere.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-25-2000, 01:42 AM:
I don't know about cutting prints, but there is no way to "cut out" part of a videotape unless it is edited out by duping, which is a MAJOR crime. (Major crime meaning duping a videotape and then renting it.)
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-25-2000, 05:11 AM:
Well... that's sort of off-topic as far as I'm concerned. There was exactly one theatre in a small Utah town which showed Titanic after they'd cut the footage. They did great business with it that way (the local folks really liked it that way) but Paramount forced them to stop it. Ironically, a video store in that same town offers to physically cut scenes out of your videotapes. (But they don't sell tapes that way nor do they rent them that way... and that's how they wiggle around the copyright laws. They're cutting the tape you already bought.) Yes, they actually make a splice... and who knows what that'll do to your VCRs heads? But the censorship of Titanic was by no means a state-wide thing in Utah.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-25-2000, 06:00 PM:
Nude scenes in 'Titanic'?! I didn't know there were any. They must have been cut from the version released in the UK (which had a '15' certificate, incidentally). If memory serves me correctly, the nearest we got was a head-and-shoulders shot of Leo (another one) looking rather pleased with himself with the steamed-up car window in the background. The reason for the 15-cert was the horror element in the sinking scenes rather than anything to do with sex.Did they cut the buggery out of 'Wilde' for release in the US, I wonder...
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-25-2000, 07:04 PM:
From what I remember reading about this, the guy who was offering to censor your Titanic videotape for you wasn't actually making physical splices to the tape; customers would purchase legitimate copies of the tape and send them to him and he would dupe the edited version over the original version. The quality must have been horrible. Anyway, the justification for this was that, by purchasing the tape initially, customers were purchasing a license to view the movie and so there was no copyright issue. I have no idea how well this would have held up in court (probably not very well at all).
As for making physical edits to a projection print, that's a major no-no...the distributor could certainly claim breach of contract as well as destruction of property (including billing for replacemnet reels as a result of excessive splices, even if the theatre bothered to put the censored bits back in).
The whole ratings system kind of upsets me since it fails to take into account the context in which the sex/violence/language/etc. occurs in most cases. I suppose that having some sort of ratings system is a necessary evil, but what currently exists does not seem to serve its intended purpose.
I am, however, pretty tired of having the US government jump all over "Hollywood" (whatever that is...) to get rid of sex/violence/whatever in movies. As for the "marketing R-rated films to minors"--I don't personally see the issue here. Just because a film is rated "R" doesn't mean that it is inappropriate for children--just that it has "mature" content and that children under 17 should be accompanied by a parent. I certainly would not suggest that 12-year-olds should be watching stuff like "Scary Movie," but I do think that there are plenty of mature 12-17-year-olds who would benefit from having the opportunity to see something like "Schindler's List" (which is rated R for good reasons, but is not necessarily inappropriate for the right child/parent combination).
Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 09-25-2000, 08:14 PM:
Scott, Excellent point!The rating system is not being challenged by the parents who have used it as the tool it was intended to be since its conception.
(Personally, I think that "Schindler's List" should be shown every year at the junior high level.)
It is being attacked by people who are attempting to get elected.
Why, in this day and age, should a parent have to be bothered with trivial tasks like raising their children? (buy their tickets)
Sadly enough, I have been bitched out by parents for REFUSING admission far more times than I have been thanked for enforcing the ratings system.
If you ask me, society (read: politicians) are attempting to blame the entertainment industry for merely reflecting problems that were created by their neglect of their duties as governors.
Ratings should be enforced at the theatre level. We do this.
Being a parent is the most important job in existance. Don't farm the job out to someone you never met.
Don't attack an industry that developed and enforced a rating system even when they didn't have to!
DO attack the moron who takes his kids to see "Scary Movie" and then comes back to complain because he just couldn't comprehend the meaning of the big, fat "R" on the marquee.
I won't even comment on the "parents" who simply drop the kids off only to be able to get on with their lives.
But hey! If you criticise parents, they won't vote for you!
Russ
Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 09-26-2000, 03:32 PM:
I had to know this was coming-whenever a discussion takes place about whether or not kids should be allowed to see R-Rated films, inevitably someone brings up Schindler's List. This film exists as an anomality in the pantheon of R-Rated movies. The bulk of R-Rated films have no redeeming qualities for kids(and most adults). I played Schindler's List, and very few kids or teenagers were at the box office begging mommy to buy their ticket. Contrast this with Scream, Road Trip, Half Baked, Deuce Bigalow, and other dubious entertainment that has the fourteen year olds swarming the ticket booth with their parent or 'guardian', and you'll see where the priorities lie.
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 07-15-2005, 07:33 PM:
It has been 1753 days since the last post.
Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-15-2005, 07:33 PM:
I seam to remember no head-butting in “The Matrix” for the UK release 1999 outrageous head-butting, it’s not nearly as grim as watching Anakin Skywalker getting a little toasty around the chops in Star Wars episode 3 Revenge of the Sith, and getting a (12a) rating and “The Matrix” with it’s (15) rating for violence of a Sci-fi nature, quite mad and this head-butting issue started with “Glodeneye” 1995 and now later on in the 21st century the head-butting as returned I does make for a good sound effect in THX….
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-15-2005, 10:37 PM:
OMG ... Who f'ing cares anymore?