Should a movie be punished by an R rating simply because of an X number of F-bombs?

Seriously? Did you read my post or just posted arbitrarily? I'm leaning that you went the latter. If you actually read every word instead of ad nauseum repeated your previous arguments, this whole thread isn't completely about young children's sensitivities and their parents fear of that early exposure.

My last post also indicated that high schools can not even show a movie on the Holocaust as an educational tool.

The nudity in a Holocaust film is the least sexiest ever recorded on film. It's a truthful depiction of suffering and the neglect those forced to live in the concentration camps.

NO ONE SAID these films should be seen by YOUNG CHILDREN (under 10) the fact you and other posters keep hopping on this point means you really haven't been paying attention to the actual issue and have been rocketing your kneejerkish reactions without thought to the actual 1st amendment issue at hand.

When should a student learn about history? The King's Speech which virtually EVERYONE ignored is the issue of this thread. The Unfinished Film is another issue of this thread. Should teenagers be barred from this because of you prudes fear the worst for the possibility of offending a few toddlers sensitivities?!

And everyone seemed to forget that teenagers still can be considered children so please don't try to quote me my original thread. My only mistake was adding the final question to the thread to make the question more accessible to nonfilm fanatics who may not be familiar with the film examples at hand.

Yes, seriously. What part about protecting children do you not get? Not only did I read every word of your post, I read it twice.

Did you read my post completely, or did you just read the first paragraph and launch into a spittle-flecked rage? I'm guessing the latter. Did you read my last paragraph?

And yes, I completely got the large red letter part of the quoted portion of your post about high schools not being able to show the movie. If you actually read MY post, you will see my comment about filmmakers knowingly bearing the risk of an "R" rating when they include certain content. And however certain you are that children should be exposed to virtually anything in the name of education does not mean most mainstream parents share your view. So, yes, this means high school students may not be shown graphic nudity in a movie that may otherwise be very educational. C'est la vie.

What First Amendment issue? You can't get over this ridiculous notion that the filmmaker is being "punished" by a bad rating. Get a grip.

I'm guessing you don't have kids ... am I right? Doesn't really matter though, because as you see in this thread, even parents differ as to what they want their kids exposed to. I'm not a prude, but I can't tell you how many times I've watched a film, thinking it would be suitable for my kids to watch, when all of a sudden the director inserts a completely gratuitous image of graphic sexual intercourse for no apparent reason -- so much for letting the kiddos watch it. The "R" rating puts me on notice that I should screen such movies for such content.


No, I was absolutely planning to quote your original thread question (despite your plea), because of your comment: "... this whole thread isn't completely about young children's sensitivities and their parents fear of that early exposure."

Actually, that's pretty much what this thread is. Your question, in your original post:


Evidently you don't care what I think ... you disagree with my opinion, and you disagree with me not wanting to let my "young" children watch a movie with foul language. (As I previously said, I'd let my now 10 and 12 year old kids watch a movie with foul language.)

If you didn't expect to hear other opinions than yours on this subject, you really shouldn't post threads such as this.

I missed this earlier post by engineer, but this is spot on.

This just tweeted by Edgar Wright, the director of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz:

I am in total agreement!

What sense does this make?

My husband wrote this -

Street Asylum -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100705/

I had a chance to cross the roof and meet Liddy but didn't. Ex talked with him.
Seems it is a cultish film now, but what do I know.

Ratings vary..


F bombs, nah. Violence, yes.

The MPAA is so concerned with profanity while underrating the violent content of any particular film that's its plain silly.

Yes, indeed ... they should release that new version with more f-bombs and an added scene where the King is caught thrusting his penis into a pie in the kitchen.

I thought that that's what the PG13 rating was for.

Then they'd have to pay you copyright, Tico.

It's silly alright.

And when those kiddies grow up, they grow up into this guy. He can't spell "their" and sees nothing wrong with dropping actual bombs on the White House, but he would never in a million years drop an F-bomb.



I think we're dealing with living proof here of serious flaws in the MPAA system.

**** the MPAA!

This just tweeted on the eve of the news of the rerelease of the sanitized version of this year's Best Picture winner:
'The King's Speech' to be re-released as PG-13 version on April 1
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/03/24/the-kings-speech-pg-13-version/

wha-wha-wha-what the f-f-f-****

I don't know what R means. Over here The King's Speech has a 12A rating, that means children under 12 can only go and see it if they're accompanied by an adult. I think that's about right, although I can't think of any kids under 12 who'd want to see it.

If you look it up, it's equal to your 18 rating. No one under 18 can go see an R movie without a parent or adult guardian.

Then that's a big difference. Yhen again you Americans have always been a bit prudish re swearing. Your Puritans gave up rooster, and you don't go to the toilet/lavatory, you go to the bathroom. I think as a nation we swear a lot more.

Rooster?

Btw the Puritans weren’t “ours” they started in England. I’ve never met a one.