Zack And Miri Make A Porno Rated NC-17

Comment on “Zack And Miri Make A Porno Rated NC-17”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. GQ Monkee Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 15:06

   Boo Hoo. I hate it when people take the actions of private organizations--the MPAA is not a government agency, and neither are movie theaters--and make it look like someone is taking away your rights. So, Kevin Smith made another movie full of offensive jokes and sexual content. No surprise there. The MPAA hasn't buckled and given it a lighter rating than it deserves? Now, that's surprising, pleasantly surprising.

1. Joey Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 15:06

   Fuck the MPAA!, I'm sick of it, getting an appeal is like getting slapped in the face after being kicked in the nuts, it's not gonna happen. The second I hear about a protest against the MPAA count me in. And Kevin Smith with always have an audience that will always look for the film regardless of the rating.

1. Kris Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 15:07

   I dont know if Kev's movies are ever "victim" to DVD, I think even he would say that his movies thrive on DVD, plus all of his films are fairly low budget (it helps when big name, talented stars are your buddies and gladly work for you for an actors min wage), so DVD sales are like gravy.
   Id still see this if it were R, so let me say this... I think all of his movies (except maybe Dogma and Jersey Girl) all had the potential to be NC-17, but werent, so Im sure he can shave Porno down to hard R, and Ill still see while looking forward to owning the unrated version on DVD.

1. EC Dunn Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 15:08

   Oh, the MPAA, the illuminate of film. When an organization is allowed to work in secret, what stops them from being absolutely corrupt?
   
   The Fall receives an R rating for "violent images" while The Dark Knight manages a PG-13 with 2 and a half hours of pervasive, extreme violence. The MPAA's moral outrage seems much more lax when a film is backed by a big Hollywood studio. Gee, I wonder why?
   
   As for the rating system in general, what differs NC-17 from an R rated film, other than sex is evil while a mutilated teenager is good?
   
   
   

1. Mike Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 17:48

   Dance, Monkey, Dance. (GQ)
   
   This is bullshit.
   
   -MIKE

1. Ken Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 17:48

   GQ Monkee...I invite you to watch a small film caled "This Film is Not Yet Rated".
   
   After looking into the MPAA through those eyes, I defy you to tell me that this organization doesn't daily take away the rights of artists all over this country.
   
   It's also a testament to how backwards our mentality is here with regard to what is "ok" and what is "taboo". Like EC Dunn said..."sex is evil while a mutilated teenager is good?"
   
   So sad...so true.

1. Eric Cartman Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 19:07

   I don't mind films getting a harsh rating, but I don't think it's fair that a theater near me won't play NC-17 movies. I don't understand why you can't have a full slate of films that appeal to all age levels from kids and familys to twisted hillarious fun. It seems like the reality is that not showing a Kevin Smith film at the theaters would be bad business, but not enough people see his films in theaters to give him the power to get away with juicy filth. Hmm...

1. kdroid Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 19:07

   GQ Monkee, why are you happy that some arbitrary set of people decides what you do or don't see. Are you truly incapable of making your own decisions that you would have a set of people watch and determine what something is? Not even based on set rules or guidelines, just the whim of personal opinion.

1. Torgo Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 21:38

   I listened to Smith's and Scott Mosier's latest Smodcast and they said that the 1st time it got hit with an NC-17, he said it was about at 1 hour and 45 minutes and he was going through the test screaning process anyway so through that he took out about 12 minutes and re-submitted it. It got an NC-17 so he trimmed it back more. They still gave an NC-17 so he whittled a bit more and not they're saying that it's a 1 second shot equalling about 14 frames that he said is a really powerful shot that would ruin the movie if he had to take it out.
   
   So they're going to do the appeal process later this week and we'll see what becomes of it. Wonder what the "one shot" is that they're objecting to now. The MPAA is idiotic BTW.

1. Rick Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 21:38

   What is it with Smith's on-going preoccupation with low-brow crudity? Clerks 2 was almost unwatchable and this new film has all the earmarks of disaster as well. With too much money and too many comforts the inspiration just ain't there anymore, I"m afraid. And what's with the get-up, man?

1. G Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 22:43

   I completely agree with GQMonkee...first off, Kevin Smith hasn't made a movie with any original content since at least Dogma (and even that was filled with too much whining for me to enjoy). He's quickly becoming nothing but a shock-jock for the silver screen. Maybe he should focus on making something that is genuinely funny and entertaining, rather than trying to shock, degrade, and tell as many penis jokes as he can get out in 1.5 hours. If he was half as good as he thinks he is, the guy would have moved up the ladder by now. Now, before anybody gets on me saying I just don't appreciate that kind of humor...well, I thought Superbad was great. It was fresh, and it had a charm to it. I had high hopes for Clerks 2, but it was just a rehashing of the first, with the climax coming with an elaborate Gay/Donkey joke. Sorry...I think if you guys really want to get upset about something, you should get upset about nothing original in Hollywood, not the MPAA which is doing their job to help the audience decide whether it's the kind of movie they want to see. It sucks that NC-17 gets such a bad rap...but those are the breaks if you make a movie with severe sexual content....and it is a shame about violence not getting the same treatment, but those are the breaks for now.

1. frogboy4 Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 03:32

   The MPAA should either be restructured or disbanded. They have NO REAL GRADING SCALE. There have been brutal, graphically violent scenes in this summer's films that have received a PG-13 rating, yet this one gets slapped with the NC-17 reportedly due to salty language.
   
   I am certain that Kevin Smith would sit down with the MPAA to address their grievances in order to come to a compromise that would give his theatrically released film an R. However, the MPAA doesn't do that. They hide their ivory tower and toss out arbitrary, incongruent ratings to films.
   
   It is clear that GQ Monkee should view the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" before making any wild assumptions about the practices of the MPAA and how they can unduly cripple a film's release.

1. Jeremy Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 04:14

   Clerks 2 Gross: $25,894,473
   Jersey Girl Gross: $36,096,354
   Jay and Silent Bob Gross: $33,762,400
   Dogma Gross: $30,651,422
   Mallrats Gross: $2,108,367
   Clerks Gross: $3,073,428
   
   The numbers speak for themselves. An NC-17 would hurt a George Clooney movie so it's ridiculous to think it won't affect a Kevin Smith movie. Kevin Smith has a loyal fanbase but a lot of it is ever changing because of people growing out of his brand of humor. A big chunk of people who would see this movie are under 17 and wouldn't be able to get in. Smith's movies make money but not enough for a studio to take a chance on sending it out with the kiss of death. Wrong or right, this movie will be heavily cut before release or it will go nowhere. People will just have to wait for the dvd release to see it in it's original form. I wouldn't doubt that the name changes as well.

1. alex Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 12:38

   The MPAA is the last bastion of censorship in America and I think its more right to call it the last bastard of american morality tyrants have on what we can and cannot see. like the columnist mentioned, its apparant that with an R rating, kids can't be admitted without a parent, and what parent will take their kid to a movie with the word porno in it? just about every director in hollowood worth their salt has encountered an nc-17 rating, and the statistics show that 4x more films are given the nc-17 due to female pleasure than for raw violence. that shows where the MPAA's morals lie. fuck them.

1. MilkChan Says:
   August 5th, 2008 at 16:55

   Sheesh. NC-17 wouldn't be so damn bad if THE US COULD HANDLE IT LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY WITH AN 18+ RATING. Holy shit...most other countries will air 18+ rated films in major theaters across their country and advertise it with no problem but why the hell does it have to mean 18+=sex shop only in the US?
   
   

1. EpiMaN Says:
   August 5th, 2008 at 22:20

   Well this is another reason that I wait till the dvd comes out. I can get all the deleted scenes that the MPAA makes them take out to get a certain rating.

1. Framed Says:
   August 6th, 2008 at 01:25

   Simple equation:
   
   Male buttocks=PG or PG-13
   Breasts = PG-13
   Female buttocks = PG-13 or R
   Penis = PG-13 or R
   Vagina = NC-17.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)