Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The worst case was still when Once: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/ received an R-rating.


Looks like Once has 24 f-bombs. Why is the R rating shocking?


It's been a long time since I've seen Once, but it's a touching love story. As far as I remember, there's no violence, graphic sex or anything remotely objectionable or disturbing besides your aforementioned f-bombs. The R rating may not be shocking since we know how the MPAA rates thing, but it certainly doesn't make sense that Once is less appropriate for teens than movies containing violence, sex and other things parents typically object to their kids seeing. Here's the top grossing PG-13 movies: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-1...

I think you'll find Once to be more innocuous than almost all of the movies on that list.


That's significantly less than the average high school student probably hears in a day.


(Time to burn some karma for going against the grain..)

On the other hand, I find movies with constant foul language tedious to watch. I'm happy that movie producers have a financial incentive to really think about whether language really adds to the story or is being thrown in because it is easier to have an actor say f*ck than to have her actually, you know, act out her character's emotions.

Yes, the MPAA is prudish and has gotten more prudish over the years (there is no way the original Exorcist would be rated R today). I also think ratings could be made more objective (but some subjectiveness will remain). Finally, the MPAA shouldn't be the ones doing the rating, simply because of the conflicts of interest involved.


It really depends on the movie. I see your point about it sometimes being a lazy way to cover up for poor acting, or just to go for shock value, but consider "Die Hard" - the word "fuck" (and variations on it) is used 50 times, mostly by John McClane. I think that helps contribute to the atmosphere of his being a regular guy who's in way over his head, doing his best to survive in an impossible situation.

Either way though, I don't think it should be the ratings agency's job to enforce artistic quality. Either movies that lazily use profanity will fail on their own lack of merit, or they'll succeed; in which case I would argue that the public is getting what it's asking for.

Side note: I think it's poor form to lead a comment with "I know this will get downvoted" or "time to burn some karma" etc. It comes off as a pretty annoying attempt to psychologically manipulate readers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: