Why is the NC-17 rating considered box office poison still?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand why if a movie is rated NC-17 that people will not go and see it, but they will still watch TV shows that have NC-17 equivalent content in such as Game Of Thrones for example, or a movie that is unrated. If it's not given a rating than they can watch it, but if it's given the NC-17 rating, then people feel unclean seeing it, even though the content is equivalent.

One person told me it's because if the movie Showgirls (1995), as that movie has ruined the NC-17 rating. But has most of today's generation of moviegoers even heard of Showgirls? I asked a few friends and they haven't even heard of it. But let's say Showgirls is still deep in a lot of movie goers minds. Are they actually thinking "my parents were alive in the 90s and Showgirls ruined the NC-17 rating for them, so therefore it's ruined for me too, and I can't do it, out of respect for my parents"?

Or they are probably not thinking that I am guessing, in which case, why does it still bother people?

Showgirls. I remember when they aired it on TV, they had to censor the nudity with bikini and swimsuit blurs to make it look like they had clothing.

Why do you think Game of Thrones would be NC-17? I watched the whole thing and I don't recall anything that couldn't be in an R-rated movie. It was on the more explicit side but there are R-rated movies with that level of nudity.

I've never seen an NC-17 movie but season one of American Gods would have probably qualified It was...unnecessary.

Well there is just sex and nudity and the NC-17 rating is usually given to movies with those types of content in.

Hopefully things will change as more Americans are exposed to foreign movies through streaming services. For the most part, other countries aren't as terrified of showing full frontal nudity or realistically simulated sex scenes.

as long as amuuuricans have a bible belt and a south, mature movies won't be considered for general audiences here.

I've never heard of the NC-17 rating before. You often hear people in American programs talking about sneaking in to R rated movies so I always thought that was the worst one. The top rating here is 18 (apart from maybe unrated?) and I don't think there's any stigma about it, they do prefer to get rated 15 so they have a wider audience though. As a horror fan when I was a kid I used to avoid watcing anything that wasn't an 18 if I could. It was very disappointing to discover that the ratings weren't because the film was too scary for younger people but often because there was nudity which I wasn't interested in.

Ratings are all really screwed up here. PG-13 is another rating that's pretty much cursed because studios think making it rated R will make the movie sell better. They stopped releasing as much PG-13 movies, and the ones that we do have are usually pretty low quality nowadays. Older PG-13 movies prove that it's definitely possible to make a movie for that age range, but studios feel like it's too much of a gamble. With video games it's the exact same problem. Just replace R with M, and PG-13 with T. That's one of the reasons why younger teenagers watch movies and play video games intended for older audiences. Another is that I personally believe R and M should be 16+ ratings and not 17+. It doesn't make logical sense for ratings that close together in age requirements and a 16 year old is definitely old enough to handle our toned down version of "adult content."

NC-17 useta just be known as X. but the pornographers appropriated that for themselves as it was not copyrighted. so in 1990 the MPAA/CARA changed it to NC-17 which WAS copyrighted. but if you read the fine print it really means nobody under 18, not 17. so it is amuuurica's version of the "18" rating in other nations. the first movie here with the new rating was "henry and june," due to graphic sex and nudity.

But are NC-17 movies still frowned upon nowadays, especially in an age when Netflix shows all these unrated movies that are unrated because they would get an NC-17?

It is also because of commercial viability. NC-17 does not allow for anyone under that age to be able to watch it in a cinema. Its not profitable enough for major studios. It is probably not gonna matter much longer anyways.

advertisers for the most part won't touch them with a ten foot pole, many amuuurican newspapers likewise.

Last edited by auntblabby on 13 Dec 2020, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But what I mean is, since no one seems to be going to theaters hardly anymore lately, is it still a problem therefore?

eventually, this mess will sorta pass [albeit with permanent changes in our culture] and there will be moviegoing again, but hollywood might need to up their game in terms of making movie theatres better than they are.

Oh okay. How do they need to up their game better?

in 1986 i had the privilege to go to an utterly unique cinema in washington DC to watch a movie whose name i forgot, it was a restaurant with a movie screen. or more movies featuring total immersion presentation, meaning kinetic actuators in seats, all-around 360 degree sound, laser projection [very bright and clear] with dolby vision/HDR, smellovision.