 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2007{OT:}New guidlines for "R" rated movies.
To paraphrase Rush: After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore, if one of the actors lights up the movie gets an R rating. ___________________ Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure! Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure! > To paraphrase Rush: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure! > Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure! And Political Correctness gets another endorsement by the Left Coast. Can we get return Kalifornication to Mexico and get a refund? Charles of Schaumburg > To paraphrase Rush: > > After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore, All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors light up or not. > if one of the > actors lights up the movie gets an R rating. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure! > Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure! And why does Hollywood make these movies? Because you go to see them and you let your kids see them.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> To paraphrase Rush: >> >> After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore, > > All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors > light up or not. Not often any more. >> if one of the >> actors lights up the movie gets an R rating. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And why does Hollywood make these movies? Because you go to see them and > you let your kids see them. BZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! Last movie I saw with my kids was Aladdin... Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first. >>> To paraphrase Rush: >>> >>> After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore, >> >> All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors >> light up or not. > Not often any more. Then feel free to cite some examples. And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see them. YOU might not but plenty of people do. >>> if one of the >>> actors lights up the movie gets an R rating. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first. Frankly, I don't believe you. Or you're just referring explicitly to movies you've seen with your kids and you haven't seen some they've seen. DVDs count, too. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors >>> light up or not. >> >> Not often any more. > > Then feel free to cite some examples. I don't go to movies. When some come to mind I'll shout them out. > And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see > them. YOU might not but plenty of people do. Yeah, get the kids out of our hair for the afternoon. Mine liked rollerskating...when we took them to movies, we went with them, usually cause we wanted to see the movie too. They were OK with that. I guess we were just unusual. Our kids *wanted* us to go places with them... >>>> All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors >>>> light up or not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't go to movies. When some come to mind I'll shout them out. Then I'm at a loss to understand why you think some movies that deserve an "R" rating are getting by with lesser ratings. If you haven't seen the movie, how would you know how "adult" it is? >> And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see >> them. YOU might not but plenty of people do. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess we were just unusual. Our kids *wanted* us to go places with > them... This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to Disneyworld with his "boring" parents. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors >>>>> light up or not. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "R" rating are getting by with lesser ratings. If you haven't seen the > movie, how would you know how "adult" it is? Look at how they advertise. >>> And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go >>> see them. YOU might not but plenty of people do. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to > Disneyworld with his "boring" parents. >>>>>> All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors >>>>>> light up or not. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Look at how they advertise. Example? The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see how you're going to make your case on those. >>>> And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go >>>> see them. YOU might not but plenty of people do. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to >> Disneyworld with his "boring" parents. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Look at how they advertise. > > Example? > > The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see > how you're going to make your case on those. OK. One I remember. Julia Roberts for Erin Brockowichz: "I had to perform 425 sexual favors". Yeah, that was in the ad, and in the movie. As usual, you're just playing dumb (um, you *ARE* playing, right?) You know PERFECTLY DAMN WELL what I'm talking about. Either that, or you've got your head up you...er, in the sand. >>> Look at how they advertise. >> >> Example? >> >> The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see >> how you're going to make your case on those. And I really should have continued on with... "and you/re judging the movie's rating based on 30 seconds of TV advertising?" Get a grip. > OK. One I remember. Julia Roberts for Erin Brockowichz: "I had to perform > 425 sexual favors". Yeah, that was in the ad, and in the movie. Considering that she worked in a law office, that line might have been *really* funny. I didn't see the movie, so I don't know. > As usual, you're just playing dumb (um, you *ARE* playing, right?) > You know PERFECTLY DAMN WELL what I'm talking about. Either that, or > you've got your head up you...er, in the sand. I'm pretty sure you're not *playing* dumb... The fact is, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I see movies occasionally and, as far as I can tell, the ratings are reasonable. Moreover, the ratings are entirely voluntary. As a producer, you can get an MPAA rating, or you can walk right by them. There's no weight of government leaning on anybody's shoulders to make them comply. By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Look at how they advertise. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > see movies occasionally and, as far as I can tell, the ratings are > reasonable. Well, some of the PG-13's aren't any my kids would be seeing until they were 17. > Moreover, the ratings are entirely voluntary. As a producer, you can get > an MPAA rating, or you can walk right by them. There's no weight of > government leaning on anybody's shoulders to make them comply. > > By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to > paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? Yup. >>>>> Look at how they advertise. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Yup. I should have known. The fact is, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, except that Fearless Leader Limpballs, who's never had a life or career outside the fantasyland of the entertainment industry himself (*), says that you should be righteously incensed, so you are. Good show. And, while I'm checking his Wiki entry, I see he's another of those prominent Family Values Conservatives, divorced three times and no kids (well, thank God for that). So he really doesn't have any idea of the stress of parenting, either. That's one lucky guy, if you ask me. I'm going to remember this the next time I hear that he's railing about sex ed in the schools or movie ratings because, lacking children, he has no real interest or expertise in the matter of how to raise children and teach them about sex and no experience whatever in trying to control what movies they see, whether or not their friends are worthwhile people or any of that. In other words, he has little standing in the matter and nothing whatever at stake for any of his idiocy that's child-related. And, further, here's the deal on movie ratings... in addition to the rating itself, you almost always get clues as to why it earned that rating. (R/n,l.v,a, for examples, would be R for nudity, language, violence and adult settings). Come to think of it, did ol' Rushie-boy get his knickers in a twist when they added drug abuse to the ratings sytem? And, pardon my asking a foolish question but isn't nicotine considered a drug? Come to think of it, is Oxycontin a drug? Let us know, will ya? And, if you disagree with the addition of smoking to the ratings, well, you are free to take the kdis to the movies that earned it yourself. Or write the MPAA. Try to write something reasoned, for a change. If you can manage that, post it here; it would make a refreshing change. You're perfect for Rush. A match made in heaven. Neither of you is interested in reality. * - I mean, it's not like he ever had a career in the military, for instance. He could have been drafted at 19 but, with a painful butt condition, it was far better to let him cheer on the war and encourage the troops from the safety of the sidelines, like Bush, Cheney and many other prominent Chickenhawks. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to >>> paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > outside the fantasyland of the entertainment industry himself (*), says > that you should be righteously incensed, so you are. Good show. I don't need Limbaugh to tell me when to be incensed, I can handle it all by myself. There have been plaenty of ads on TV for PG-13 movies that have pushed the envelope on what *I* would let my kids see. In fact there were a lot of PG-13 movies that I wouldn't let my 14 YO go see, based on the dialogue presented in the ads. Smoking is not one of them. The fact they'll let smutty dialogue, that I have witnessed for myself, pass muster and call it on smoking is just dumb-assed Political Correctness. All Limbaugh did was tell me they were going after smoking in the movies. I managed to get incensed all by myself, thank you. But then, hearing about inane stupidity usually has that effect on me. >>>> By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to >>>> paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > PG-13 movies that I wouldn't let my 14 YO go see, based on the dialogue > presented in the ads. Then, thanks to how they do ratings, which are voluntary (no government involvement, so exert whatever free market pressure you like), you will be able to tell if it's for smoking, drug use, smutty dialogue or any of a number of factors. And, if it's for smoking, you can take them there and watch the actors light up all you like. And a 30-second TV spot tells you nothing about the film's other qualities. I see by the ratings that ONE sexually derived swear word gets the film a PG-13 and two bumps it to R, so I doubt that you're seeing a lot of profanity in the movies (and, given that you're not seeing them much at all, I could hardly call you an expert). Separately, you mentioned that you'd seen "Pearl Harbor" at the movies. Was there any foul language in it? Do you suppose there was any foul language on December 7th, 1941, at Pearl Harbor? What would be appropriate in a movie about Pearl Harbor? Sailors manning a gun and cussing a blue streak at the Japanese or sailors manning a gun and politely asking the Japanese to "c'mon, play nice, fellas?" Would a realistic film about Pearl Harbor, with enough swearing in it to make Dick Nixon blush, have other qualities that would make it worthwhile to take a kid to see it in spiteof an R rating? Two sexually derived curses gets you an automatic R. > Smoking is not one of them. The fact they'll let smutty dialogue, that I > have witnessed for myself, In TV ads, out of context > ss muster and call it on smoking is just > dumb-assed Political Correctness. Oh, NO! It's "Politically Correct!" [snicker] The Rightard curse for anything he doesn't understand or care to think through. Call it "Poliltically Correct" and, in your head, you've WON! You're a fool. I don't suppose you've noticed that smoking is still a serious public health problem? If you think your children are going to be damaged by patterning from foul language or other behaviors in movies, did it occur to you that seeing actors smoke might also influence them? Do you want them to smoke? >ll Limbaugh did was tell me they were > going after smoking in the movies. > > I managed to get incensed all by myself, thank you. But then, hearing > about inane stupidity usually has that effect on me. Then do something about it. Write a reasoned letter to the MPAA. If you can. Which I doubt. But Hollywood makes what sells to Family Values Republicans (there's a steady stream of SUVs with "W-04" stickers dropping off kids at the theater in my town every Saturday). If you don't like what you see, it's not the MPAAs fault. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as >>>>> "to paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > And a 30-second TV spot tells you nothing about the film's other > qualities. When they're pushing vulgarity and stupidity, that's all I need to know. > I see by the ratings that ONE sexually derived swear word gets the film a > PG-13 and two bumps it to R, so I doubt that you're seeing a lot of > profanity in the movies (and, given that you're not seeing them much at > all, I could hardly call you an expert). Didn't profess to be. > Separately, you mentioned that you'd seen "Pearl Harbor" at the movies. > Was there any foul language in it? Yeah. So? I was 45 when I went to see it. > Do you suppose there was any foul language on December 7th, 1941, at Pearl > Harbor? Fu@k No!!! > What would be appropriate in a movie about Pearl Harbor? Sailors manning > a gun and cussing a blue streak at the Japanese or sailors manning a gun > and politely asking the Japanese to "c'mon, play nice, fellas?" What in God's Name are you on about?!?! > Would a realistic film about Pearl Harbor, with enough swearing in it to > make Dick Nixon blush, have other qualities that would make it worthwhile > to take a kid to see it in spiteof an R rating? Two sexually derived > curses gets you an automatic R. >> Smoking is not one of them. The fact they'll let smutty dialogue, that I >> have witnessed for myself, > > In TV ads, out of context When they're pushing vulgarity and stupidity, that's all I need to know. >> ss muster and call it on smoking is just dumb-assed Political >> Correctness. > > Oh, NO! It's "Politically Correct!" [snicker] The Rightard curse for > anything he doesn't understand or care to think through. Usually, Political Correctness=Stupid. > Call it > "Poliltically Correct" and, in your head, you've WON! You're a fool. I > don't suppose you've noticed that smoking is still a serious public health > problem? Duh... > If you think your children are going to be damaged by patterning > from foul language or other behaviors in movies, did it occur to you that > seeing actors smoke might also influence them? Do you want them to smoke? When they're 18, I don't have a lot to say. >>ll Limbaugh did was tell me they were >> going after smoking in the movies. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then do something about it. Write a reasoned letter to the MPAA. If you > can. Which I doubt. Just because I have to dumb myself down to deal with the Liberals in Newsgroups doesn't mean I can't write succinct letters... > But Hollywood makes what sells to Family Values Republicans (there's a > steady stream of SUVs with "W-04" stickers dropping off kids at the > theater in my town every Saturday). If you don't like what you see, it's > not the MPAAs fault. That's why I don't go... >>>>>> By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as >>>>>> "to paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> to take a kid to see it in spiteof an R rating? Two sexually derived >> curses gets you an automatic R. What am I on about? That next question answers yours. Film is an ART. It is crafted to convey something from the writers, actors and directors to the audience. Would a film about Pearl Harbor be appropriate with or without a lot of f*cking swearing? If there was a lot of f*cking swearing in a movie but it otherwise made a good point, would you go? >>> Smoking is not one of them. The fact they'll let smutty dialogue, that I >>> have witnessed for myself, >> >> In TV ads, out of context > > When they're pushing vulgarity and stupidity, that's all I need to know. Do you think your children don't see enough self-restraint and proper adult behavior at home to tell the difference between a story and reality? I'll bet they don't. >>> ss muster and call it on smoking is just dumb-assed Political >>> Correctness. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Usually, Political Correctness=Stupid. No, resorting to calling something "Politically Correct" to score points = Rightard. >> Call it >> "Poliltically Correct" and, in your head, you've WON! You're a fool. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > When they're 18, I don't have a lot to say. Don't you think what they're exposed to when they're 11 and 13 has something to do with their actions at 18? >>>ll Limbaugh did was tell me they were >>> going after smoking in the movies. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Just because I have to dumb myself down to deal with the Liberals in > Newsgroups doesn't mean I can't write succinct letters... You should have warned me to put the coffee down. Now I have to mop up the keyboard. >> But Hollywood makes what sells to Family Values Republicans (there's a >> steady stream of SUVs with "W-04" stickers dropping off kids at the >> theater in my town every Saturday). If you don't like what you see, it's >> not the MPAAs fault. > > That's why I don't go... Then what are you whining about? If you don't go, you don't care. For all you care, they could rate the movie G or XXX and it would be the same to you. It is a VOLUNTARY system. It is an agreement between the theater owners and the producer's association. It is there to give you INFORMATION, something that is sadly lacking in your life. If you think the ratings are too loose, feel free to tighten up a notch or two on what you let your children see. If you think Hollywood produces nothing but crap, go up and down the street and thank your neighbors for that. I you want to join the Amish, get in your car and go. Leave the Supra and the computer behind, you won't need them. Just because the smoking doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother someone else. Now those people have information about movie content that they will find useful. How is this bad? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Oh, NO! It's "Politically Correct!" [snicker] The Rightard curse for >>> anything he doesn't understand or care to think through. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, resorting to calling something "Politically Correct" to score points = > Rightard. Complete, utter BULLSHIT! there are PLENTY of reasons for films to get R ratings other than someone lighting up! This is Political Correctness at it's rampant worst. >>>> Oh, NO! It's "Politically Correct!" [snicker] The Rightard curse for >>>> anything he doesn't understand or care to think through. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Complete, utter BULLSHIT! there are PLENTY of reasons for films to get R > ratings other than someone lighting up! And, when those reasons apply, they do get R ratings. > This is Political Correctness at it's rampant worst. No, this is the MPAA being sympathetic to a public health problem. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Complete, utter BULLSHIT! there are PLENTY of reasons for films to get R >> ratings other than someone lighting up! > > And, when those reasons apply, they do get R ratings. ...not... >> This is Political Correctness at it's rampant worst. > > No, this is the MPAA being sympathetic to a public health problem. HAHA! Typical Lib...a BS answer for everything... >>> Complete, utter BULLSHIT! there are PLENTY of reasons for films to get R >>> ratings other than someone lighting up! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HAHA! Typical Lib...a BS answer for everything... So, you're saying smoking is NOT a public health problem? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> Complete, utter BULLSHIT! there are PLENTY of reasons for films to get >>>> R ratings other than someone lighting up! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So, you're saying smoking is NOT a public health problem? No, I'm saying *YOU'RE* throwing up a public smoke screen... > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Hatchy just parrots right wing movie reviews. For him and all rightwingnuts, all culture is perverse. A. >> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > A. <YAWN> and you're a bore... > >> To paraphrase Rush: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first. You are a real cultural maven. Well, you do spend all day typing simple sentences on the Internet. A. >> >> To paraphrase Rush: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > A. When I'm not fixing a car, reading a Tech manual, or writing software documentation, or playing bass. Most recent movies are for Dumb-a.ses. You must be enjoying the hell out of them. >> On May 13, 11:00 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>> >> To paraphrase Rush: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Most recent movies are for Dumb-a.ses. You must be enjoying the hell out > of them. Yes, I know what you mean. I'm trying to find a movie to take my date to of an evening but can't find anything worth my 10 bucks plus popcorn. Charles of Schaumburg >>> On May 13, 11:00 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>>> >> To paraphrase Rush: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg Let her pick the movie. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> On May 13, 11:00 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>>> >> To paraphrase Rush: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg Wait, I tell a lie. Last movie I saw in the theatre was Pearl Harbor. The effects were amazing, the love story...feh... >>>> On May 13, 11:00 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>>>> >> To paraphrase Rush: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > The effects were amazing, the love story...feh... I liked Tora Tora Tora better. And of course, Patton. "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other poor bastard die for his country." Charles of Schaumburg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.