Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think the NC-17 rating (no one under 18 may be admitted) is necessary (yes), or would it be better to have R (viewers under 17 must have an adult with them) as the strictest rating (no)?

Do you think the NC-17 rating (no one under 18 may be admitted) is necessary (yes), or would it be better to have R (viewers under 17 must have an adult with them) as the strictest rating (no)?
  • Why isn't it NC-18?

    What i don't understand about the NC-17 is the age requirement. If you see a 17 on a movie you could assume that is the minimum age required to see the movie. I went to Best Buy one time and I asked them what the minimum age is to buy an NC-17 rated film and they said 17? It says on their board NC-17: No One 17 and Under Admitted. If they want the movie to be 18 or older why not rate it NC-18? The NC-17 rating seems to cause confusion and one time it was No Children Under 17 Admitted.

  • Should they be shown to the public?

    Apparently, a movie that is rated NC-17 cannot be shown at public movie theaters. Only movies that are rated G, PG, PG-13, or R can be shown in public theaters like AMC, Carmike Cinemas, or Regal Cinemas. Movies rated NC-17 can ONLY be shown at licensed adult cinemas. The same applies to them being sold in stores.

  • The Strictest Rating

    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.

  • We need the NC-17

    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.

  • I think the R rating is fine.

    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.

  • NC-17 Not Needed

    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.

  • R Is Enough

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.