Re: {OT:}New guidlines for "R" rated movies.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

To paraphrase Rush:

After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore, if one of the
actors lights up the movie gets an R rating.

___________________

Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure!
Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure!

And Political Correctness gets another endorsement by the Left Coast. Can
we get return Kalifornication to Mexico and get a refund?

Charles of Schaumburg

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

To paraphrase Rush:

After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore,

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors light
up or not.

if one of the
actors lights up the movie gets an R rating.

___________________

Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure!
Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure!

And why does Hollywood make these movies? Because you go to see them and
you let your kids see them.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:33:59 -0500, dh wrote:

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message
news%g1i.1358$vu2.951 (AT) trndny01 (DOT) ..
To paraphrase Rush:

After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore,

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.


Not often any more.

Then feel free to cite some examples.

And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see
them. YOU might not but plenty of people do.

if one of the
actors lights up the movie gets an R rating.

___________________

Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure!
Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure!

And why does Hollywood make these movies? Because you go to see them and
you let your kids see them.



BZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! Last movie I saw with my kids was Aladdin...

Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first.

Frankly, I don't believe you. Or you're just referring explicitly to movies
you've seen with your kids and you haven't seen some they've seen. DVDs
count, too.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:49:36 -0500, dh wrote:

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.


Not often any more.


Then feel free to cite some examples.

I don't go to movies. When some come to mind I'll shout them out.

Then I'm at a loss to understand why you think some movies that deserve an
"R" rating are getting by with lesser ratings. If you haven't seen the
movie, how would you know how "adult" it is?

And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see
them. YOU might not but plenty of people do.

Yeah, get the kids out of our hair for the afternoon.
Mine liked rollerskating...when we took them to movies, we went with them,
usually cause we wanted to see the movie too. They were OK with that.

I guess we were just unusual. Our kids *wanted* us to go places with
them...

This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to
Disneyworld with his "boring" parents.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:43:37 -0500, DH wrote:
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message
news:ebF2i.7414$vu2.4890 (AT) trndny01 (DOT) ..
On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:49:36 -0500, dh wrote:
All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.

Not often any more.

Then feel free to cite some examples.

I don't go to movies. When some come to mind I'll shout them out.

Then I'm at a loss to understand why you think some movies that deserve
an
"R" rating are getting by with lesser ratings. If you haven't seen the
movie, how would you know how "adult" it is?

Look at how they advertise.

Example?

The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see how
you're going to make your case on those.

And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go
see them. YOU might not but plenty of people do.

Yeah, get the kids out of our hair for the afternoon. Mine liked
rollerskating...when we took them to movies, we went with them, usually
cause we wanted to see the movie too. They were OK with that.

I guess we were just unusual. Our kids *wanted* us to go places with
them...

This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to
Disneyworld with his "boring" parents.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:37:30 -0500, dh wrote:

Look at how they advertise.

Example?

The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see
how you're going to make your case on those.

And I really should have continued on with... "and you/re judging the
movie's rating based on 30 seconds of TV advertising?" Get a grip.

OK. One I remember. Julia Roberts for Erin Brockowichz: "I had to perform
425 sexual favors". Yeah, that was in the ad, and in the movie.

Considering that she worked in a law office, that line might have been
*really* funny. I didn't see the movie, so I don't know.

As usual, you're just playing dumb (um, you *ARE* playing, right?)
You know PERFECTLY DAMN WELL what I'm talking about. Either that, or
you've got your head up you...er, in the sand.

I'm pretty sure you're not *playing* dumb...

The fact is, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I see
movies occasionally and, as far as I can tell, the ratings are reasonable.

Moreover, the ratings are entirely voluntary. As a producer, you can get an
MPAA rating, or you can walk right by them. There's no weight of government
leaning on anybody's shoulders to make them comply.


By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to
paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On May 13, 11:00Â*pm, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク <Tru... (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:33:59 -0500, dh wrote:
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru... (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message
news%g1i.1358$vu2.951 (AT) trndny01 (DOT) ..
To paraphrase Rush:

After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore,

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.

Not often any more.



if one of the
actors lights up the movie gets an R rating.

___________________

Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure!
Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure!

And why does Hollywood make these movies? Â*Because you go to see them and
you let your kids see them.

BZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! Last movie I saw with my kids was Aladdin...

Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first.

You are a real cultural maven. Well, you do spend all day typing
simple sentences on the Internet.

A.

On May 17, 9:43 am, "DH" <d... (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote:

"Hachiroku ????" <Tru... (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message

news:ebF2i.7414$vu2.4890 (AT) trndny01 (DOT) ..

On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:49:36 -0500, dh wrote:

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.

Not often any more.

Then feel free to cite some examples.

I don't go to movies. When some come to mind I'll shout them out.

Then I'm at a loss to understand why you think some movies that deserve an
"R" rating are getting by with lesser ratings. If you haven't seen the
movie, how would you know how "adult" it is?

And, the fact remains, people go see them and they let their kids go see
them. YOU might not but plenty of people do.

Yeah, get the kids out of our hair for the afternoon.
Mine liked rollerskating...when we took them to movies, we went with them,
usually cause we wanted to see the movie too. They were OK with that.

I guess we were just unusual. Our kids *wanted* us to go places with
them...

This won't be the case when they're 17. Our oldest declined to go to
Disneyworld with his "boring" parents.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Hatchy just parrots right wing movie reviews. For him and all
rightwingnuts, all culture is perverse.

A.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:41:12 -0700, AnneCoultersAdamsApple wrote:

On May 13, 11:00 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru... (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:33:59 -0500, dh wrote:
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru... (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message
news%g1i.1358$vu2.951 (AT) trndny01 (DOT) ..
To paraphrase Rush:

After the shooting, the drinking, the sex and the gore,

All of which can still qualify an movie for an "R" whether the actors
light up or not.

Not often any more.



if one of the
actors lights up the movie gets an R rating.

___________________

Well, of course! We can't glamorize smoking! Promiscuous sex, sure!
Drinking, sure! Violence and gore, sure!

And why does Hollywood make these movies? Because you go to see them
and you let your kids see them.

BZZZZZZZTTT!!! WRONG! Last movie I saw with my kids was Aladdin...

Or Lion King. Can't recall which came first.

You are a real cultural maven. Well, you do spend all day typing simple
sentences on the Internet.

A.


When I'm not fixing a car, reading a Tech manual, or writing software
documentation, or playing bass.

Most recent movies are for Dumb-Asses. You must be enjoying the hell out
of them.

Yes, I know what you mean. I'm trying to find a movie to take my date to of
an evening but can't find anything worth my 10 bucks plus popcorn.

Charles of Schaumburg

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:36:19 -0500, DH wrote:


"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message
news:tdQ3i.8920$xP.6291 (AT) trndny04 (DOT) ..
On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:37:30 -0500, dh wrote:

Look at how they advertise.

Example?

The only ads I can remember are for Spiderman 3 and Shrek. I can't see
how you're going to make your case on those.

And I really should have continued on with... "and you/re judging the
movie's rating based on 30 seconds of TV advertising?" Get a grip.

OK. One I remember. Julia Roberts for Erin Brockowichz: "I had to
perform 425 sexual favors". Yeah, that was in the ad, and in the movie.

Considering that she worked in a law office, that line might have been
*really* funny. I didn't see the movie, so I don't know.

As usual, you're just playing dumb (um, you *ARE* playing, right?) You
know PERFECTLY DAMN WELL what I'm talking about. Either that, or you've
got your head up you...er, in the sand.

I'm pretty sure you're not *playing* dumb...

The fact is, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I
see movies occasionally and, as far as I can tell, the ratings are
reasonable.

Well, some of the PG-13's aren't any my kids would be seeing until they
were 17.



Moreover, the ratings are entirely voluntary. As a producer, you can get
an MPAA rating, or you can walk right by them. There's no weight of
government leaning on anybody's shoulders to make them comply.


By the way, you didn't cite your source, except to introduce it as "to
paraphrase Rush..." How did you learn about this? From Rush?


Yup.

I should have known.

The fact is, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, except
that Fearless Leader Limpballs, who's never had a life or career outside
the fantasyland of the entertainment industry himself (*), says that you
should be righteously incensed, so you are. Good show.

And, while I'm checking his Wiki entry, I see he's another of those
prominent Family Values Conservatives, divorced three times and no kids
(well, thank God for that). So he really doesn't have any idea of the
stress of parenting, either. That's one lucky guy, if you ask me. I'm
going to remember this the next time I hear that he's railing about sex ed
in the schools or movie ratings because, lacking children, he has no real
interest or expertise in the matter of how to raise children and teach them
about sex and no experience whatever in trying to control what movies they
see, whether or not their friends are worthwhile people or any of that. In
other words, he has little standing in the matter and nothing whatever at
stake for any of his idiocy that's child-related.

And, further, here's the deal on movie ratings... in addition to the rating
itself, you almost always get clues as to why it earned that rating.
(R/n,l.v,a, for examples, would be R for nudity, language, violence and
adult settings). Come to think of it, did ol' Rushie-boy get his knickers
in a twist when they added drug abuse to the ratings sytem? And, pardon my
asking a foolish question but isn't nicotine considered a drug? Come to
think of it, is Oxycontin a drug? Let us know, will ya? And, if you
disagree with the addition of smoking to the ratings, well, you are free to
take the kdis to the movies that earned it yourself. Or write the MPAA.
Try to write something reasoned, for a change. If you can manage that, post
it here; it would make a refreshing change.

You're perfect for Rush. A match made in heaven. Neither of you is
interested in reality.

* - I mean, it's not like he ever had a career in the military, for
instance. He could have been drafted at 19 but, with a painful butt
condition, it was far better to let him cheer on the war and encourage the
troops from the safety of the sidelines, like Bush, Cheney and many other
prominent Chickenhawks.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com