• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Why did the NC-17 rating not ever become widespread?

tall_guy1

tall_guy1

It seems like the purpose of that rating was to abolish the X rating, but still was so stigmatized. I think Blockbuster and movie theatres wouldn't carry them, but why?
 
Almost no director wants their movie to be rated NC-17. It's basically like walking into the studio and saying that you're better off losing money.

Initially getting this rating caused movies like Kill Bill Vol. 1, Saw, and Requiem for a Dream edited in order to appease everyone at the MPAA.

Pretty simple - R allows a 16 or 17 year old movie-goer (with an adult), whereas NC-17 is "18 or above - period"
 
Identnut said:
Short answer, they tried to make it an alternative to X, but Showgirls ruined its chance.
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of arthouse films get that rating, but get acclaim. I think Roger Ebert wanted to get rid of X because of it not being trademarked and used "elsewhere." But he kind of got his wish, but one would think it would be used more as a band of prestige perhaps.
 
tall_guy1 said:
Seems like a lot of arthouse films get that rating, but get acclaim.
Click to expand...
The number of NC-17 films that actually get shown that way in any theaters is tiny. Maybe one or two a year. Certainly not "a lot". Many movies that initially receive an NC-17 rating get re-edited to qualify for an R rating.

EDIT to add: For those films, Sometimes the NC-17 cut was released on VHS/DVD/Streaming. Sometimes not.
 
Last edited:
PTBoardOp93 said:
The number of NC-17 films that actually get shown that way in any theaters is tiny. Maybe one or two a year. Certainly not "a lot". Many movies that initially receive an NC-17 rating get re-edited to qualify for an R rating.

EDIT to add: For those films, Sometimes the NC-17 cut was released on VHS/DVD/Streaming. Sometimes not.
Click to expand...
Yes, I guess if you look up the list of films which actually took the NC-17 rating, there aren't many. I see a few films on streaming with a TV-MA rating and some films which have an R rating and a TV-MA (uncut) version beside them. Not sure why they don't just go ahead and submit the uncut versions to the MPAA, since a lot of streaming and stores sell those, but some policies don't make sense. AMC+ has some actual NC17 films, and Netflix has a few rated that as well, so it looks lile it depends.
 
kwthom said:
Almost no director wants their movie to be rated NC-17. It's basically like walking into the studio and saying that you're better off losing money.

Initially getting this rating caused movies like Kill Bill Vol. 1, Saw, and Requiem for a Dream edited in order to appease everyone at the MPAA.

Pretty simple - R allows a 16 or 17 year old movie-goer (with an adult), whereas NC-17 is "18 or above - period"
Click to expand...
The "R" rating has nothing to do with the age of a child. They simply need to be accompanied by their parent or guardian if they're under 17. At first, it was under 16, as was the "X" rating.
 
Looking around Youtube, there are a few TV spots for NC-17 movies, but they seem to be rare. The spots themselves seem pretty tame as R rated movies tend to try to get more of an idea out they are "edgy" than this. But don't think these films get advertised much at all.
 


Back
Top Bottom