![]() This film was submitted three times to the MPAA and each time it came back to director Brian De Palma with the X rating. Scarface (1983) Is anyone surprised? If you’ve seen Scarface you know what I’m talking about. Again it was a violence issue and a few scenes had to be trimmed since they were considered too gory. Of course it didn’t go to theaters with the X and instead got the R. A few years later, his film, Total Recall, would also initially get the X rating from the MPAA. Total Recall (1990) Paul Verhoeven just can’t catch a break. Today the R rated version is not available on most home video releases, so home audiences are getting the director’s original “X” rated cut. The director, Paul Verhoeven, didn’t want his film going into cinemas with an X rating so he had to edit out violence to receive the more acceptable R. Robocop (1987) This film was deemed too violent so it was given an X rating by the MPAA. It’s a worthy argument that if these films had entered cinemas with the X they would not have been or be the popular films they are today (except for a few of the films at the bottom haha). Most of the films listed below were re-cut to gain an R rating, except one film kept the X (later re-rated to NC-17) and went to theaters anyway. The 80’s was a time for a lot of movies to get the X rating. If this increases sales then why this version isn’t put into theaters is a discussion for another time. Normally an unrated cut is for publicity sake and to increase DVD sales. An unrated version is a clear indicator the film would have received an “X” or today an NC-17. Instead, they will release a cut they believe will be rated R (sometimes they have to do a little cutting) and later on home video they will release the “Unrated Cut” which means this was not submitted to the MPAA for rating. Nowadays director’s know that if there film is going to be rated NC-17 due to too much gore then they won’t even present such a version to the MPAA. An X rated film would most likely receive poor box office returns therefore making it a financial failure. Most theaters would not even carry an X rated film and B). Mostly every film given an X rating would have to be re-cut because A). As stated above this mean that no one under the age of 17 could enter the film. When first presented to the MPAA these films were originally rated X. II is a very “soft R” and I would allow a teenager to see such a film. If a film is deemed a “hard R” then it should be rated NC-17, whereas Rambo: First Blood Pt. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that bad of an idea to rate more films “X” or nowadays NC-17 because I believe children should simply not be allowed to see what would be called “hard R” films. Since the X rating became synonymous with pornography, the MPAA dropped the rating and trademarked a new rating, the NC-17 rating, which stands for “No Children under the age of 17”, meaning no one under 17 is admitted even if accompanied by a parent. Films that received an X rating were deemed unsuitable for children under 17 and could not be admitted, whereas adults could take a child to see an R rated film under their supervision. ![]() ![]() Yes, by the 1980’s the pornography industry took over the X rating because the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) did not trademark it, but films released in theaters with an X rating were not porn. ![]() An X rating back in the 1960’s to the beginning of the 80’s did not mean pornography. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |