Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. Here's my review, very shocking documentary..

Here's my review, very shocking documentary..

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
24 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #21

    ExcessiveMilkDrinker — 14 years ago(August 10, 2011 03:19 PM)

    If you think that's what people are referring to as "terrifying", then you either didn't watch this documentary, or completely misunderstood every single point made in it. I hope for your sake it's the prior, in which case you shouldn't be commenting on this film until you see it.
    The problem isn't that they rate movies. The problem is that they can hugely affect the distribution opportunities of movies they dislike by giving them an NC-17 rating, which is based on no specific criteria at all, so that they can impose their "moral code" at will on all Hollywood movies, and with a system in which past examples cannot be used for comparison. This basically forces filmmakers to cut any material the MPAA doesn't like from their films, or else just release their film to a couple arthouse theatres, generate no revenue, and endanger their career. Not to mention that the raters operate secretly to avoid accountability, and contradict most of their own guidelines.
    There's also the bias towards studio films over independent films. One filmmaker said that when he submitted a film independently, the MPAA gave zero feedback on what he had to cut to get an R rating and said he simply had to submit a re-cut version and hope it would be good enough, leaving him at risk of also cutting shots he didn't need to cut. However later on he submitted a film through a studio, and they told him exactly which shots he had to cut to get an R rating.
    It's also funny how their "moral values" come down so hard on homosexuality and movies that show loving, sexual relationships, yet movies that glorify brutal violence get away relatively easy. I wonder which would be more harmful for teenagers to see

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #22

      Uber_Soldat — 14 years ago(May 10, 2011 03:51 AM)

      The filmmaker and the interviewees are just as biased and pro-censorship as the MPAA, even though they're trying to come off like they're against the whole system altogether.
      The idea put forward by the movie is that explicit gay anal sex is perfectly fine for PG-13 movies, but a movie should be branded with an NC-17 if a woman gets slapped or the movie is pro-military.
      They're not really against censorship, they're just against censorship by their political opponents. They're not against our culture being controlled, they just feel like people with their values should be the MPAA controlling it.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #23

        gregforttmags — 13 years ago(September 25, 2012 06:08 AM)

        The documentary kinda of shoots itself in the foot a bit by suggesting media violence motivates stuff like Columbine and other horrible spree killings and the MPAA has been a lesser evil compared to earlier US Conservative attempts to hamstring Hollywood. However this documentary is great at highlighting the hypocrisy of the MPAA (the aversion to homesexuality but the toleration of women being maimed or raped), the MPAA institution itself being in a secure compound guarded by intimidating bouncers, the MPAA members kept unknown to the public, the MPAA being heavily influenced by big business and relgious pressure groups, and the genuinely disconcerting influence the US Military has had on Hollywood (the creators behind Independence Day had a big falling out with the US Military when they featured Area 51).

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #24

          almighty_cinder — 13 years ago(March 09, 2013 12:03 AM)

          The military being involved in movie productions usually is limited to loaning the production their planes, tanks and helicopters. Unless a filmmaker wants to buy a 40 year old derelict tank and only show it from a distance because of how crappy it looks, they need to cooperate with the military. Independence Day had jets featured very prominently and using a bunch of 1960's scrap heap jets would not have worked out well at all. They NEEDED military assistance, but (and this is just a guess, I'm not aware of the backstory) neglected to inform the military of the entire plot of the movie, that something the government is adamant about not existing was a major plot point.
          For a recent example of a filmmaker doing this right, Transformers used the Hoover Dam as a secret military facility. It has nowhere near the stigma that Area 51 has, so the military would've taken no issue with it being featured. Due to this, the later two Transformer movies also feature military vehicles used prominently.
          .
          "Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat PIZZA!!!"

          1 Reply Last reply
          0

          • Login

          • Don't have an account? Register

          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • Users
          • Groups