I personally think that this since nobody else has. No reason. Just figured I should write on this since nobody else has. No reason. Just figured I should write on this since nobody else has. No reason. Just figured I should write on this since nobody else has. Try to do that with your house it wont work, the balloons will not do anything.
I think that it is very important to have the higher rating, since it will keep younger kids from seeing a lot of sexual content, which could be bad for them, and will not be good to the parents, since they are the ones that will be really against it.
The R rating is more than enough for a movie. By the time most kids reach the age of 13, they will have seen and heard much more insane things than they will see on the big screen. This is just entertainment. If an adult is there, let them through.
I don't believe the NC-17 rating isn't needed simply because the government has a lower rating for violence than it does for sex. Government censors feel it is more important to shield children from someone killing another human being rather than shield acts of lovemaking. Apparently, kids can see someone gut another human being in bloody fashion rather than witness two people making love on screen. Somehow, violence is better than sex with the rating system and it doesn't make sense.
I believe the NC-17 rating is unnecessary and we could easily go without it. I believe the MPAA tries to control filmmakers with their ratings especially when handing out the NC-17 rating, which literally makes it impossible to release a film in theaters. I believe the public is old enough to make their own decision and a R rating should be sufficient.