It seems that the Apatow Films and any of the spinoff family of his films have some core similarities. Potty humour and sexually crude shock jokes. Anyone who has watched these films have been exposed to all sorts of banter that range from bad dating advice all the way to sexual fetish discussions.
Any surprise that a Kevin Smith lead film staring Apatow staples Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks was going to be rated R. How about NC-17?? They are always pushing the envelope, so it’s likely.
The rating was posted on the MPAA film ratings site at least as early as last Saturday, but News Askew noted that it was marked as “pending appeal” and had received the rating for “some graphic sexuality.”
I am not the least bit surprised that a movie about a crude talking Seth Rogen and his terribly hot best friend making a Porno (they are making it, not staring in it) would eventually cross that line.
There is no limit to the degree of crude talk that comes out of Seth Rogen’s mouth, but we have become used to that. So this will likely just mean they have to appeal with some suggested changes and make the movie more appropriate for a rated R crowd. (18a in Canada)
But I think the MPAA is getting a little looser with its judgement. Consider back in 1999 when American Pie came out. They had to change a line when Stiffler drinks beer laced with Semen from “man chowder” to “pale ale” to dodge an NC-17. And the iconic scene with Jim having sex with the pie was changed to him doing it standing up. Laying on top and penetrating the pie was too graphic. In the last 5 years we have seen FAR more explicit inuendo and sexual scenes getting an R.
Kevin Smith’s own Clerks 2 featured a scene with a man sexually satisfying a donkey. Originally Smith wanted to release it unrated because he feared that the MPAA would have to create a new rating for that movie. Clerks 2 got a rated R with no edits.
So with all the expected crude and sexually blunt jokes we expect from Zach and Miri Make a Porno, WHAT WAS SO OFFENSIVE??
And this will not destroy the integrity of the film. Smith will simply make some edits, clean it up a tiny bit (thats like handing a gangbang hooker a wetnap) and get his R.
Then release an unrated version on DVD.
Kelly, in response to your comment… There is a new group in town known as “Fight the MPAA” that intends to fight this very issue. It is composed of both male and female members. Best of all, membership is free to all, no personal information is ever requested and the site is secure. Go check it out and if you decide you like it…. Please spread the word since the site creators are seeking new members (as quickly as possible). Here’s the website address: http://fight-the-mpaa.com
Also be will remain wholesome other areas treatments, depending treatments for patients. This used the underlying stroke prescribed.
Another tiresome, redundant use of male frontal nudity. The double standard against men continues. I hope that young men will soon realize that they are being had and refuse to see shows that do not include an equal amount of female frontal nudity. It is about respect and equality.
I’ll tell you what it is Kelly; since the late 90s (like 97′ on) I can’t think of a mainstream R’ rated film with female genatalia even ‘oops a daisy’ glanced at. While you look at the R’ rated films in the 70s and 80s (even early 90s) female genatalia is openly celebrated on R’ rated films; however, the catalist for devolution (towards prudism in film) was the ‘corporate, money makin’ scam thrusted upon society that a woman should trim herself lookin akin’ to a 12 year old; or a few years after that, shave it off like a baby girl. This was hypnotically induced upon society through the brainwash technique of ‘your not clean otherwize’. Wow, I wonder what the men of the 70s n 80s did during sex, hold their nose? Having disproved that B.S. (back to the subject), a shaved, open to display (for camera) vulva has always been way too sexually graphic for R films; while a penis is….well..you know not very sexually overloading (get it; its more humour). THIS IS OBVIOUS (when you think about it as a strait guy). BTW, bush shots on film back then hid it enough for sensual suggestion and fair game on R’ film.
It seems like female nudity gets a higher rating from the MPAA than male nudity. Penises are R-rated but vaginas get an NC-17. (which is the same as CENSORSHIP)Why the hell is that anyway? I’m sure more people would rather see a woman’s vulva or anus than a man’s penis and scrotum, so how come penises abound in R-rated movies but we never see an actual vagina? It’s a sexist double standard.
I’m sick of seeing dicks in these R-rated comedies; it’s time we start seeing vaginas instead. And I’m not talking about just showing female pubic hair, but the entire female anatomy (vulva and anus) should be allowed to be shown in an R-rated movie just like they can show the entire male anatomy. Regarding the comment posted here that Kevin Smith said the NC-17 was for showing a close-up of a vagina or an anus, that just proves how sexist and unfair the MPAA is when it comes to female nudity. “Walk Hard” showed a close-up of a penis for about 10 seconds and they gave it an R , so how come showing a woman’s vagina or anus for 1 quick second gets threatened with an NC-17? Whatever happened to “equality”, huh?
Does anybody know if we get to see Elizabeth Banks nude?
CMC…. that wasn’t a typo.
The point is that removing an offensive scene wont change the movie so much that the original vision is compromised.
you missed a typo lemme help you out:
you said “destroy the integrity of the film” for a kevin smith movie.
Hazmat, In Canada if a movie is Rated R you have to be 18. Period.
We have a rating called 18a that works much like the R in the US does. So they serve the same purpose, but are called differently.
ha! when was the last time that happened?
rodney- can you be 30 and bring someone underage in that movie? or is it RESTRICTED for minors?
i hope that if it ends up being R- they show the whole good thing in DVD…the full version
it was only a matter of time till this got an NC-17. this film’s box office will get toned down because of it
Back in the 80s there were LOTS of boobs shown in movies. Even by todays standards Boobshots only really count as “mild nudity”
On his smodcast I heard they were going to keep the NC-17 rating, which I don’t understand.
The reason the film is getting an NC-17 is because there is a close up shoot of either a vagina, or a anus (Kevin Smith said this). Its only about a second long but is apparently really graphic, and that is why they have gotten the rating.
I don’t know if the MPAA has gotten looser. Back in the 80’s you could sow Titties and still get a PG rating. I was watching Manniquen the other day and that chick is half naked the whole movie and guess what the rating was “PG”.
Anyone seen not yet rated? While its just one side of the story, it explains how movies get their ratings, and how unfair the system is. One example given is that during an appeal of a rating, you may not mention other films rating to bolster your case.
I’ll still check it out no matter the rating