Talk:This Film Is Not Yet Rated/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rating

What is the film's rating? The article disagrees with itself. It says "[t]he new version of the film is not rated", while saying NC-17 in the informational box to the right. I thought that the final cut, which includes the rating process of an earlier cut, was never submitted for rating?--Moriar 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

according to the movie itself, you are correct... it was never resubmit and therefore never re-rated. the filmmaker decided to "keep" his original rating even though the MPAA asked for it back. It is a little open to debate... but i think the final cut was not yet rated --68.184.39.253 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"ET" was rated "G" by the OFLC; and then when the "special edition" was released it was given a "PG" instead. There are numerous movies that exist with different "cuts" rated differently - to keep to the OFLC, another example is the DVD of "The Rock" - originally the Australian cut was given an MA. The DVD was the UK cut (which was not uncut), and it was given R18+ - then the uncut version was released on DVD also with an R18+ classification. Later it was re-released uncut on DVD with an MA15+ classification; and although that version of the movie is now rated "MA15+"; the classification for the UK version has never been re-rated - so it is still classified R18+ even though it is a censored cut. Another example is Robocop 2 - it was originally cut (censored) in cinemas to achieve an M rating (rather than an R18+ rating). However, it has since been released uncut on DVD with an M classification - overturning the original classification of R18+. On the other hand, the first Robocop movie was also cut for an M rating in Australia - but it's since been released uncut on home video (including DVD; the "uncut" versions include meaning the US-theatrical cut and/or the uncut director's cut) with its original R18+ classification.
Because there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the "final cut" of the film was submitted for classification by the MPAA, that means it has no MPAA classification. It's not "R" it's not "NC-17". Therefore I think the article is inaccurate in describing the film as being rated NC-17 - rather the filmmaker demonstrated that it "would be" rated NC-17 by the MPAA. --61.69.1.150 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Hmm, it might actually help if I put why I added the POV tag... It all comes down to the "Controversies About Methodology of Filmmakers" section. It's twice the size of the rest of the article and there are no balancing sections. The links need help, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • response to Jeffrey: I authored the original version of the “Controversies” section and tried to make it balanced -- it actually was the first reporting in this entry of the standing ovation the film got at Sundance, for example. I haven't looked here in many months -- it seems to me that a great deal of press release-style copy – i.e, when the entry turns into blurbese and says "Rolling Stone (“terrific...indispensable”), Entertainment Weekly (“irresistible”), USA Today (“rated R for raves”).. Roger Ebert (“devastating”) and Film Comment’s Gavin Smith (“incisive”)" -- has accrued to this piece in the meantime, and could use some pruning.
  • In defense of the approach I took in creating the “Controversies About Methodology" section, here’s a non-cited quote from the Ebert piece blurbed by someone else as a single word ("devastating") in the current entry: “Yes, it's one-sided, especially in the way Dick sidesteps a good point that Valenti makes: The national ratings system headed off the threat of countless local censor boards.” The addition to the entry of this comment in full would actually put Ebert in the same camp as Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt as having largely positive feelings about the film's message but mixed emotions about the film's methodology, a nuanced position that the single word approach -- i.e., 'Roger Ebert ("devastating")' -- can't accomodate.
  • In any case, the ratios Jeffrey Gustafson cited as a primary reason for citing the article as of questionable neutrality are no longer in play, and I think the neutrality query he placed should therefore be removed. There is a great deal of offsetting prose that was not authored by me, and several revisions have been made to what I wrote (some of which are ungrammatical, but then that's part of Wikipedia's charm, I guess). I have left it all as it was when I found it this time. I'm actually kind of annoyed that the hard effort I put into trying to get some real newsworthy research into this listing has met with this reaction from the Wikipowers That Be -- I apologize if that shows in this post. The community owns what I contributed and it is absolutely free to modify it according to the standards of the group -- I'll be interested to see what evolves, as creating controversy is the film's raison d'etre, so this discussion is far from over. End Post.

Removed "that Dick suppressed facts about the ratings history of the war documentary Gunner Palace, which he depicted as being kept from youthful audiences by an R-rating, when it was actually re-rated PG-13 on appeal before its release to theatres." This film, as screened at the Seattle International Film Festival on 27May06, discusses the appeal process. During this, there was a segment where Gunner Palace filmmaker discusses his experience with the appeal process and the result of his appeal.

Additionally, went through the Methodolgy section, removing statements and words that reflected a lack of neutrality. Removed redundant info from the 2nd paragraph about BOXOFFICE mag. and combined it into the first paragraph. Stesmo 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) stesmo 28May06

Since the reference to BOXOFFICE magazine's "supressed facts" has been removed from the main part of the article, should the link to that article also be removed from the References section? Obviously it should stay under "Links". --AiYume 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed BOXOFFICE magazine's "supressed facts" link entirely, since it's not even true. As mentioned above, the film absolutely mentions that Gunner Palace won a PG-13 on appeal (I just watched the movie an hour ago). Plumpy 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

how about a section listing the films that are mentioned in it?

Like Orgazmo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.189.98.44 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Good idea... go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.140.90 (talk) 01:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Any aftermath?

Has there been any aftermath with regards to the ratings board/appeals board members being "outed"? Any lawsuits brought against Dick or reports of "house-cleaning" within the two boards since the members are no longer anonymous? This was one aspect in which the film itself was lacking, but if there's been any verifiable reports of this, it would be worth including. 209.53.189.3 00:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You could check their website for any news releases from the MPAA post the films release about hirings/firings/change of staff, but I doubt you'll find much response from them. This film just doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. The film didn't out anything about the system most people interested didn't already know (bias was pretty obvious, but not about things most people care about), the system was possibly one of the worst working systems that could have been come up with but it is a still a WORKING SYSTEM {movies still get made and released, and the big studios are content with it} so your average person doesn't care {the differences aren't that profound to the average end consumer, who isn't a film as art buff}, and the movie was a small inde film anyway... figure what, one in ten thousand (probably fewer) Americans might even see it? It's doubtful with all that that the MPAA did anything more then increase the steps it takes to make sure a documentary like this can't get made again as easily. They might not have even bothered with that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.140.90 (talk) 02:00, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Reception

According to Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 'fresh' rating of 84% and has garnered mostly positive reviews, yet this article seems to focus more on the negative ones. All the positive reviews are "snippets" whereas the negative ones go into a lot more detail. For example, why does Armond White deserve his own paragraph? I haven't seen the film so I'm not the best one to do this, but there should be at least more 'positive' coverage to balance it out to what was the general critical consensus.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, can someone please explain to me why White's opinions deserve more focus and detail than the other critics?--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, I didn't notice that you had already written something in the talk page. The answer is that White's opinions don't deserve more focus and detail than any other review - the other reviews deserve to have longer quotes. The fact that they don't shouldn't impact the quotes that do exist, which I think are important and not excessive in any way. If you're worried about balance, please spent just a little bit of time finding some lengthier positive quotes to add in - it'll make for a better article. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try working on the article later. Sorry for the trouble.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

When I saw this, I noticed several issues with the movie's examples. It mentioned Saving Private Ryan as being "real world violence" and showed a clip of True Lies stating its "fantasy violence" being PG-13... except that True Lies is also rated R. Also, it compared a clip from American Pie and, I think, But I'm a Cheerleader. It showed the infamous pie scene from American Pie and said that, because Jason Biggs is male, it got an R whereas Cheerleader got an NC-17... except they showed the version of the pie scene (laying on the table with his pants down) from the Unrated, aka NC-17, version, not the R version (standing up with his back to the camera and his shirt covering his butt.) Both of those, as well as anything else used incorrectly, should be in here. 65.124.14.13 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 

65.124.14.13 -> Regal Entertainment Group  79.194.41.191 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

MPAA Infringements

The "MPAA infringements" section of this article is painfully redundant. I think it only needs stated once that an unauthorized copy was made of the film and that it was subsequently discovered and--hypothetically--destroyed. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.104.39 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Armond White and his opinion.

I think one only has to look at this man's RT page to see where his opinions come from. He basically a critically acclaimed movie and gives it a negative review. Mostly. All movies get negative reviews, can't we use quotes from some body other than him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.47.98 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Armand White is known for his negative reviews of acclaimed movies on Rotten Tomatoes (truly, the disdain he receives there must be seen to be believed). This practice may be bringing his website traffic (which is the going R.T. theory as to why he always negatively reviews the most acclaimed movies.) I strongly suspect the reason he had so much space in the reviews here is because he gave it to himself. There was even a direct link to his website. This man is not a noted critic, and this is not neutral. This is a clear abuse of the Wikipedia system, and it has been amended. I left only one sentence regarding his review and a link to his Wikipedia page, the same as all the other critics got. Generous given that he just got as much of a say on this page as major film critics from major outlets such as Peter Travers and Roger Ebert.
I very strongly recommend that if this unfair and biased information is re-added, it be removed again. It's plainly self-promoting. Verminjerky (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Added sect, diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated/Archive_1&oldid=871730008"