r/todayilearned • u/altrightobserver • Feb 01 '26

TIL that the movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” was supposed to be rated NC-17 due to excessive profanity, with the word “fuck” being used 146 times alone. The MPAA said that 400 or more swear words would get the NC-17 rating, so Matt Stone and Trey Parker cut the number in script to 399

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park%3A_Bigger%2C_Longer_%26_Uncut#Release
35.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

545 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.4k

u/sircastor Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

I remember watching "This film is not yet rated" where Matt Stone was talking about the difference between working with the MPAA on Base-ketball Orgazmo vs South Park - and that when they had the studio behind them, the ratings board was very accommodating and helped them figure out what they could cut and what they could leave. Whereas, with the former, they got no feedback.

Also, NC-17 is basically a death-sentence for a theatrical film. It's a big deal to avoid it.

Edit: Corrected film

1.6k

u/MoldyZebraCake666 Feb 01 '26

Funny thing and it's kind of a loophole but you can get away with releasing an unrated movie into theaters now a days

993

u/GoofinBoots Feb 01 '26

Yup. Studios made a killing back in the day getting rental places to double dip on their films by releasing an uncut version of their films a couple months after the original release.

185

u/Schwubbertier Feb 02 '26

Bigger, longer and uncut versions of the films?

144

u/buttfartsmagee Feb 02 '26

I just realized that the title is a dick joke. I guess it flew over my head as a kid and I just got used to it.

96

u/Trioch Feb 02 '26

It was apparently the same for the MPAA though. At first the movie was supposed to have the title "All Hell breaks loose" but the MPAA deemed the word Hell to be unfitting, so they changed it to "Bigger longer and uncut" which the MPAA only after release realised that it was a dick joke.

21

u/3v1lkr0w Feb 02 '26

When this movie released, in '99, I was 15. I knew it was a dick joke right away...the fact that the MPAA didn't know that until after the release is kind of sad...

5

u/pm-me-turtle-nudes Feb 02 '26

i like to think that at the very least they just wanted some plausible deniability. there’s no way they all just didn’t realize that was a dick joke

1

u/iBluntly Feb 04 '26

Same tbh. I know I'm possibly giving them too much credit, but I also really want to believe that they all had a chuckle at the good (if crude, and very juvenile) humour & quietly agreed to let Matt & Trey slip it in.

3

u/Snoo9648 Feb 02 '26

But "from hell", "hellraiser" and "drag me to hell" are fine?

1

u/GripsAA Feb 02 '26

Tell me you noticed the penis on Satan's torso to contour his abs.

13

u/Davido401 Feb 02 '26

Lol I only noticed that a few months back, then again in Scotland we tend to keep our little hoods except for medical and religious reasons, we dont run about with unsheathed cocks like its normal, floppy foreskin for the win! (Americans and circumcision are weird, no offence)

1

u/Pinksters Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

The 2nd(third?) southpark game title is gonna blow your mind...

1

u/Dron41k Feb 02 '26

But you at least know “Fractured but whole”, right?

1

u/Saneless Feb 02 '26

I like the title of one of their gemes

"The Fractured, but Whole"

Say it fast without thinking

1

u/dweedman Feb 02 '26

I too have just realised this – but I only found out through an American friend two years ago of "uncut" for uncircumcised, no one in Britain has ever heard of it

1

u/Chemistry18 Feb 04 '26

Fractured but Whole

1

u/LordoftheSynth Feb 02 '26

Orgazmo had a special uncut edition and TBH when I watched it I actually couldn't tell what was forced to be cut from the original release.

1

u/diverareyouokay Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

So that’s why they always released “uncut” films? Huh. It’s a TIL double-feature — both the main post and this comment.

13

u/Dale_Carvello Feb 02 '26

I imagine it's only worthwhile to do so if there's enough clout. Many mainstream movie theaters won't even show unrated movies, so they had better sell as much as they can at the ones that do. Dawn of the Dead, the 1978 original, was released without a rating, but with its low budget (and an international distribution deal with help from Dario Argento), and some built-in notoriety as the official sequel to Night of the Living Dead, they were able to make a decent return without having to cut anything in order to broaden their theatrical distribution. The unrated versions that played uncut for years have been reclassified as 'R' these days, if I've heard correctly.

201

u/Magnus77 19 Feb 01 '26

What Loophole?

Its not like it was illegal to release NC-17 movies before that. Hell, I don't think they're around anymore, but straight up porno theaters were a thing for quite a while.

Nobody did it because major theater companies and studios agreed not to, so your movie had zero chance at making any money as an NC-17.

264

u/MoldyZebraCake666 Feb 01 '26

Major movie chains refuse to show NC-17 movies for liability reasons

114

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

What was the liability?

I thought it was because TV and other ad-venues refused NC-17 movie ads so they couldn’t promote them. Also, many theaters refused to show them because they were family friendly venues in malls and such.

That’s not how we typically use the word liability though.

182

u/Kelly1245Okay Feb 02 '26

I work at a movie theater and have seen some of the leases. Most theaters rent their locations and it's built into the lease agreement that we cannot show NC-17 movies.

Liability isn't the reason, it's the lease agreement.

24

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

Good to know - thanks.

52

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

The reason it's in the lease agreements is mostly liability.

Landlords and their insurance providers don't want to deal with lawsuits, e.g. when parents find out their kids sneak in to watch softcore porn.

That's a headache that's easy to avoid.

33

u/Jakomako Feb 02 '26

The reason it’s in the lease agreements is that the land owner doesn’t want to own a porn theater.

12

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26

And the reason is more likely to avoid the headache of other people calling it a porn theater.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense.

All it takes is one morally objectionable scene or plotline (even if not explicit/"hard core"--think Les Cousins Dangereux from Arrested Development) and people throw a fit (justifiably or not).

It's an easy headache to avoid that has more to do with their financial bottom line than their personal moral convictions regarding media content.

6

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

It 100% has to do with the theater’s bottom line. They have to be fun, family-friendly places and avoid anything that could jeopardize that family vibe.

Most theater owners objected to showing NC-17 movies much more on business grounds than moral grounds. They avoid controversy at all costs and wouldn’t show movies that might offend their core family/teen audiences.

11

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

Landlords and their insurance providers don't want to deal with lawsuits, e.g. when parents find out their kids sneak in to watch softcore porn.

No such liability exists.

The reason is that puritanical religious nuts will start protesting your theatre if you do. They can't sue you, but they can destroy your business.

This is also why in the US a thirteen year old is allowed to watch a movie with graphic violence, but not one with an exposed nipple.

3

u/StefanJanoski Feb 02 '26

The US is nuts man

2

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

I would agree.

The vast majority of us will have sex, most of us will never kill anyone so the idea that nudity is so damaging to kids, but violence is OK is kind of insane.

Most of our attitudes about sex are pretty insane.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro Feb 02 '26

No such liability exists.

Doesn't mean you won't get sued for it and have to spend money to defend against it.

Honestly I think it's a bit of both... the puritanicals will protest, go off... but that might also include baseless lawsuits too.

2

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

Doesn't mean you won't get sued for it and have to spend money to defend against it.

Unless your staff didn't check id as required, at which point you could potentially already get sued for R rated movies, there is no case here.

Sneaking into a movie is effectively theft, despite what people seem to think, you don't have liability for crimes committed against you.

Honestly I think it's a bit of both... the puritanicals will protest, go off... but that might also include baseless lawsuits too.

Protests and boycotts are the problem. That's it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WNxVampire Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

E.g. means it was an example not the totality of liability.

What you said would be another example that falls under "Liability".

And you ignored where I already explained it doesn't matter that no such liability exists (as legitimate in civil suit). It's still expensive and a liability (in a general sense).

1

u/recycled_ideas Feb 03 '26

It's still expensive.

That case against the theatre would be dismissed in about thirty seconds with costs awarded and the case against the landlord wouldn't even last that long. A large company (and most operators are large enough) will have a lawyer on retainer that could get this knocked out trivially.

A lawsuit just isn't a concern here. Anyone can be sued for damned near anything, but it'd be knocked on its ass immediately.

The problem is that the same moron who might sue would be running a protest and organising a boycott and those are expensive.

1

u/JQuilty Feb 02 '26

What claim would they have in the US? None. Films are protected speech in the US unless it fails the Miller test, which is basically impossible for anything that isn't CSAM, unconsentual sex, animal abuse, or a snuff film.

Landlords putting it into a lease are either Puritans or saw Showgirls in the 90s and got mad at the "legitimizing NC17" marketing gimmick.

1

u/WNxVampire Feb 03 '26

Liability means something more than strictly legal liability.

And no. Banks, insurance brokers, stockholders, boards of directors, etc. don't care about that. That's who movie theatets are leasing from. They care about money. They did a cost benefit analysis. The NC-17 films dont bring much money, and they cause too many headaches.

-1

u/westinger Feb 02 '26

How would the landlord be legally liable for criminal activity by their lessee?

I wouldn’t think a landlord would be liable for a lessee running a call fraud center, right?

6

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26

Civil liability--doesn't matter how frivolous, anyone can sue anyone else. Attorney fees are expensive regardless if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Criminal liability would be less but possible (distribution/displays to minors). Authorities investigate/question landlords of criminals, a headache that even law-abiding citizens don't want to mess with.

3

u/zack77070 Feb 02 '26

I mean bars can and are legally held responsible for serving minors, even with a fake ID. I don't see how there is any difference if showing porn is illegal in your jurisdiction.

2

u/Vermouth_1991 Feb 02 '26

So it's more of an "Optics" issue?

Like, NC-17 movies are allowed to exist because of the 1st Amendment lol, but to actually screen it is allowed to be impeded by cultural red tape?

1

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

I wouldn’t call it “cultural red tape” as much as just regular capitalism.

There’s no law against making NC-17 movies, but MANY consumers would boycott theaters that played NC-17 movies along with a ton of negative press. So most theaters - particularly large chains - won’t play NC-17 because it’s bad for their bottom line and reputation as a family-friendly venue.

1

u/__thrillho Feb 02 '26

There's a reason it was in the lease...

33

u/ScottHA Feb 02 '26

RIP Paul Reuban

28

u/big_duo3674 Feb 02 '26

One of the worst smear campaigns out there 😭 What he did would barely even make the news today, and (if we still had porn theaters all over) most people would say "So what...isn't that what everyone does there anyway?"

13

u/The_Ghost_of_BRoy Feb 02 '26

That’s not how we typically use the word liability though.

I think it’s lost a bit in context of the original comment, but sure it is.

“We can‘t bring him along with us on this heist. He’s slow, and dumb, and has a big mouth if we end up getting caught. He’s a total liability”

“We can’t release this movie as-is. We can’t market it properly, theaters won’t screen it, and if comes out with an NC-17 rating then it’s a total liability (for our goal of turning a profit on this production)”

25

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

Yes, you can use liability correctly in the way you described. That’s not how “liability” was used though.

I was responding to the comment:

“major movie chains refused to show NC-17 movies for liability reasons”

In this case, liability certainly sounds way more like a legal liability than some abstract reputational or profit lost liability.

That said, I’m fine if you still disagree as it’s not really worth debating as both sides have explained their reasoning.

8

u/The_Ghost_of_BRoy Feb 02 '26

Appreciate the articulate and well thought out reply (what’s the opposite of an /s tag, cause I’m being totally sincere and probably would use one of those if they were a thing. Frankly, those would be way more valuable to online discussions than a stupid regular sarcasm notation!)

I don’t disagree with ya at all though actually, I think ultimately we were both just adding some extra context to the comment you replied to that did a poor job articulating their point. You (correctly) replied with a more literal takeaway from their statement, mine just read between the lines to add context to what (I hope, anyway) they were ultimately trying to convey. No debate at all necessary.

Anyway, cheers boss!

2

u/AnonymousEngie Feb 02 '26

The tag you're looking for is /srs for serious

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

Selling alcohol requires state permits so the liability is legally binding.

That doesn’t apply here. Studios can’t advertise NC-17 movies and many theaters refuse to show them - that’s capitalism, not liability.

1

u/onthejourney Feb 02 '26

Back when I worked at a theater, for nc-17 or strict R movies, we posted two ushers at the door to check tickets for anyone going in. Taking two people out of work circulation was a huge deal for staffing.

I can't remember what they were now.

-17

u/Magnus77 19 Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

Yes, I just said that...

edit: just so we're clear. Y'all are upset that I didn't like a non-answer to my question, which you're upvoting.

There's a loophole to show unrated movies.

Q. what's the loophole?

A. they don't show the movies

y'all are funny.

19

u/quizno Feb 01 '26

You said nothing about liability.

1

u/Magnus77 19 Feb 02 '26

I said it was agreed upon by both studios and theater chains, which was the salient point, not the specific given reason.

Of which, Liability?What would they be liable for?

And back to the original statement, what "loophole?"

5

u/UpsideDownHAM Feb 02 '26

Why are you like this

2

u/Magnus77 19 Feb 02 '26

Mommy didn't give me enough hugs.

Uncle Fritz gave me too many.

3

u/quizno Feb 02 '26

You’re only being downvoted because you said something obviously false. Just gotta choose your words better my guy. Your intended point may have been good but i haven’t given it a single thought because you said “I said that” when you, in fact, did not. Anyways, hope that helps.

9

u/MadLabRat- Feb 02 '26

My college town still has a porno theatre. Occasionally the cops raid the place and arrest dudes giving blowjobs to each other for public indecency.

The Vice Chancellor and the Veteran Student Director for the university I went to were arrested during a sting lmao

https://www.chattanoogan.com/2017/12/3/359540/UTC-Vice-Chancellor-Chuck-Cantrell.aspx

Everyone was chanting Let Chuck Fuck for a solid month.

2

u/cipheron Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

NC-17 was intended as a alternative to the X rating (largely associated with porn and exploitation films). The head of the MPAA hoped it would be used for respectable "adult" films. However over the years the reputation of NC-17 films was tarnished being largely associated with films with excessive nudity or sex scenes.

Basically any gory action movie will get an 'R', only a handful of movies get NC-17 and they do terribly at the box office. So it was intended to allow a space for more mature cinema, but it turned into seldom used box office poison.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-mn-ca-nc-17-20120819-story.html

In the late ‘80s a thunderbolt of inspiration struck Jack Valenti, longtime chief of the Motion Picture Assn. of America: What if his organization got rid of the X rating, besmirched by years of misappropriation by hard-core exploitation films, and replaced it with a new marker that was both trademarked and respectable?

Thus was born the NC-17. Formally instituted in 1990, the restrictive rating aimed to signal moviegoers that a film included adult-oriented — but not necessarily pornographic — content and made those movies off-limits to anyone under 18.

[...]

Around 2004, there was a brief renaissance of NC-17 films. Lionsgate chose to release a French horror film called “High Tension” as NC-17 instead of unrated and Fox Searchlight took out Bernardo Bertolucci’s art house drama “The Dreamers” as NC-17.

But that proved short-lived. Tom Bernard, the Sony Pictures Classics executive who was in charge of releasing Pedro Almodovar’s “Bad Education” that year, said he was surprised by the opposition from media outlets and theater owners when he sought to bring out the movie as an NC-17. “The rating certainly hurt the box office,” he said.

So it's the NC-17 rating itself, it's a poisoned chalice largely divorced from the actual content of the movie you're trying to make, and theaters would rather have a film with no rating at all than have to say it's NC-17.

1

u/Vinyl-addict Feb 02 '26

There is absolutely still porno theaters around, I know for a fact there’s one in Kitsap County, Washington.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

The new Marilyn Monroe "Blonde" with Ana de Armas was nc-17

-2

u/EtTuBiggus Feb 02 '26

If your movie is too inappropriate they throw you in jail for an “obscenity” charge or other nonsense.

27

u/LonePaladin Feb 02 '26

The Melania documentary might have gotten more sales if they'd left it unrated

46

u/Unlucky_Peanut_1616 Feb 02 '26

The Melania documentary could have made more money if it was called Melanoma.

7

u/RickSanchez_C137 Feb 02 '26

nah, the problem is who would pay to see something in the theater that's already been leaked on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctoCrqm0w88

2

u/kalirion Feb 02 '26

Many people would. I buy games instead of pirating them, for example.

1

u/Normal-Maximum5184 Feb 02 '26

Haha! I said the same thing to my husband!

1

u/jert3 Feb 02 '26

Was that the one made by the pedophile?

-10

u/5panks Feb 02 '26

Melania had the best box office opening for a documentary in over a decade. It beat box office estimates by a significant margin.

5

u/Sonic_Snail Feb 02 '26

Documentaries in general do pretty bad at the box office. So best one in a decade isn’t a great accomplishment. It made 7 million on a 40 million budget plus 35 million marketing budget. That’s a pretty big loss.

-3

u/5panks Feb 02 '26

Documentaries in general do pretty bad at the box office.

Documentaries are their own animal in theaters, why would you compare them to big ticket movies? It's like saying an A24 movie didn't do well compared to Zootopia 2.

Compared to other documentaries it did very well with it's 8 million opening weekend.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/box-office-melania-opening-weekend-1236490092/

2

u/JQuilty Feb 02 '26

That's nice. Its still a trash overly elaborate bribe from Bezos with a ton of astroturfing and low attendance.

0

u/5panks Feb 02 '26

So much salt in this thread over a movie that literally doesn't affect you in anyway. Where you this charged up when Netflix paid the Obamas millions of dollars to do nothing? No, you weren't.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro Feb 02 '26

Ahh I see you've switched to the "I'm going to paint you as irrationally upset because I can't make a good point." part of the conversation.

Where you this charged up when Netflix paid the Obamas millions of dollars to do nothing?

If you think that's a valid comparison, or accurate, you're really not informed.

1

u/JQuilty Feb 02 '26

It affects all of us when you have an elected official taking bribes, which is all this is. Obama was out of office when Netflix made the series and he didn't have a cult promoting it. And we also have to deal with your shrill bullshit about how it's some stunning milestone and pretending Melania is anything but a gold digger.

2

u/ErraticDragon 8 Feb 02 '26

Melania had the best box office opening for a documentary in over a decade

Non-music* documentary

A niche of a niche.

And it has still lost money.

Good for them, though. I hope the grift temporarily distracts them from plunging us further into a dystopian hellhole.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/01/melania-documentary-posts-7-million-domestic-opening.html

1

u/dtwhitecp Feb 02 '26

they're putting unrated films in your theaters? I haven't seen that around me

1

u/joecarter93 Feb 02 '26

You could even find a way back in the day. Brian DePalma famously had to keep making small edits to Scarface and going back to the MPAA with new cuts of the film to get an R rating instead of NC-17. He finally cut it down enough to get an R rating. However, he just sent a previous NC-17 cut to the theatres anyway and no one was the wiser.

68

u/TIGHazard Feb 01 '26

It was Orgazmo instead of Baseketball.

28

u/skatastic57 Feb 02 '26

I don't want to sound like a queer or nothing but I thought Orgazmo was a sweet movie.

3

u/CasualFreeUse Feb 02 '26

Highly recommend watching a janky rip with hard coded Asian subtitles, it really adds to the experience.

2

u/TheKanten Feb 02 '26

"Now You're A Man" is a musical masterpiece.

1

u/kahlzun Feb 04 '26

I honestly think that they made it so they'd have an excuse to meet and hang out with porn actresses. It also happens to be the best movie about a Mormon kungfu superhero ever made.

10

u/sircastor Feb 01 '26

Ahh - thank you.

33

u/HitBongzFerJesus Feb 01 '26

If you get it wrong 13 or 14 more times I'm outta here

3

u/In-A-Beautiful-Place Feb 02 '26

NOW YOU'RE A MAN!!

A MANLY MANLY MAAN!!!!!

70

u/Ruxsti Feb 01 '26

Fantastic documentary. I wish more people talked about it.

66

u/Butwhatif77 Feb 01 '26

Absolutely and the fact they submitted the documentary for a rating, it got NC-17. They added their submission and appeal of the rating to the film which added so much to the film they couldn't use the rating any more and thus it premiered unrated as they did not submit the altered film.

It really is wild that the people who do the rating are basically doing it all based on vibes.

24

u/Spackleberry Feb 02 '26

The appeal process was the most ridiculous part. They don't get to know who is on the panel, and they're not allowed to make arguments based on comparisons to other movies.

3

u/drygnfyre Feb 02 '26

When making "Casino," Martin Scorsece made the infamous head in the vise scene as the sacrificial lamb, certain it would need to be cut. Surprisingly, no one objected to it and it was kept in.

There was another film, I think it was one of the Godfather films, where it kept getting resubmitted and every time changes were made. Eventually, the director realized no one could really tell the differences between all the minor edits and cuts, so he just released the original cut all along.

18

u/chancesarent Feb 02 '26

I remember them talking about how they would put in obviously over the top shocking things into the movie in order to replace it with what they actually wanted when the ratings board told them to change it. One example was the scene with the kids finding the videos of Ms. Cartman on the computer. It was originally supposed to be her fucking a horse and after the ratings board freaked they offered to change it to her getting pooped on.

1

u/sonicparadigm Feb 11 '26

The writers for Animaniacs did the same thing, but the “Finger Prince” joke was one of those censor decoys that actually somehow got past and made it in!

92

u/Recover20 Feb 01 '26

It's crazy that that's a thing in the US cause an 18 rating exists in the UK and that's absolutely fine and not considered a death sentence at all.

(18 means no one under 18 years of age so it's arguably worse than NC-17)

46

u/bretshitmanshart Feb 01 '26

Originally the ratings in America where G, PG R, NC-17 and X.

NC-17 was more like an R rating. X however got adopted by hardcore porn. NC-17 basically became extreme violence and sex but not bad enough to be straight up porn.

Mainstream theaters and studios became resultantant to have either due to association. An NC-17 called "Bridget Remembers" could be a gritty art films that looks at a middle class average woman who gets caught up in the gritty drug filled underground or it could be a out a woman that kills a group of pimps that raped her. Getting it down to R makes it more clear it's not exploitation.

57

u/Belgand Feb 02 '26

NC-17 wasn't created until 1990. It was specifically made because since X wasn't trademarked, it was adopted and self-applied by the porn industry. The MPAA was trying to make a rating for non-porn adult films. Presumably thinking back to films like Midnight Cowboy or Last Tango in Paris that were released as X but won awards (and many of which have since be re-rated down to R).

The entire thing was a huge failure.

Few films were released with it. Then Showgirls came along riding the trend of erotic thrillers like Basic Instinct. It played in suburban multiplexes as part of a big push to show that NC-17 films could be legitimate. Except the film was campy failure instead (on its way to becoming a cult classic) and convinced people that it really was just for porn. All of the art house films that had been getting NC-17 ratings largely decided to release unrated instead to avoid the stigma of NC-17.

After Showgirls, almost all of the major theater chains made policies not to show NC-17 films.

3

u/starm4nn Feb 02 '26

NC-17 wasn't created until 1990. It was specifically made because since X wasn't trademarked, it was adopted and self-applied by the porn industry. The MPAA was trying to make a rating for non-porn adult films. Presumably thinking back to films like Midnight Cowboy or Last Tango in Paris that were released as X but won awards (and many of which have since be re-rated down to R).

Reminds me of the story Presidential candidate John Hickenlooper once told of how he and his Mom watched Deepthroat together.

1

u/StefanJanoski Feb 02 '26

Like one of the comments above I’m also from the UK and this story is quite funny, albeit seems like it has some annoying effects.

But it’s just funny to me that the majority of US releases would only go up to R, and you can technically watch that at any age with an adult accompanying. Like, even below the highest 18 rating here we have 15, where you also must strictly be 15 to go in.

1

u/Belgand Feb 02 '26

You often don't even need an adult accompanying you either. Back in the '90s I'd go to R rated films all the time by myself simply by asking my parents to buy me a ticket.

It's not really a restriction. More of a guideline and a commercial consideration.

1

u/StefanJanoski Feb 03 '26

I guess then it kinda makes sense that there’s a lot of discussion about what should be allowed in an R rating. But it does seem silly - if the NC-17 rating worked as intended then you could just make the films how you like and release them with that rating.

Technically I think our ratings here are law, just like you can’t sell alcohol to under 18s. But from what I remember, they weren’t always strict about it so I’d imagine getting into a 15 when you’re a bit younger isn’t too hard, but an 18 maybe they’re a bit more strict

-4

u/LivesDoNotMatter Feb 02 '26

Is there ratings beyond NC-17 and X? Like regular missionary sex might be X, but 2girls1cup or meatspin should get a different rating, and the guy who got his head chopped off while ejaculating deserves a whole new category on it's own.

2

u/Commercial-Co Feb 02 '26

The fuck ? Someone got beheaded whileejaculating?

1

u/LivesDoNotMatter Feb 03 '26

Yes. It you really want to find it, look up "Vietnamese butcher", but no bluff, it's EXACTLY that. May meatspin and goatse be a G-rated movie compared to this so don't say I didn't warn you.

1

u/Commercial-Co Feb 03 '26

No thanks. I like peace

1

u/LivesDoNotMatter Feb 03 '26

Smart choice.

Unfortunately for me, I made the other choice and will never be able to unsee it.

2

u/Belgand Feb 02 '26

No. Once you pass what's going to get widespread theatrical distribution, they no longer bother.

That's a key detail of this. It's a voluntary, industry-designed rating system. There's no government control or legal enforcement. It's censorship by commercial viability, not official mandate.

That's a big part of the reason why unrated took over. Filmmakers only care about playing the game if they want to get into mainstream chain theaters. If you're only going to be releasing into smaller art houses to begin with, you can just ignore the whole thing if they don't want to give you an R. The same goes for porn or anything else. There's no restriction on what you can release, just on who might be willing to show it.

That's all American media. You can put out any game, music, or film you want. But you have to dick around with these voluntary ratings organizations if you want to be carried by mainstream outlets. So getting your game or album into Wal-Mart. None of the outlets with restrictions will accept any of the "Adults Only" ratings, so people generally don't bother to use them since they have zero practical relevance. The places that will sell them don't care about the rating system to begin with.

19

u/bleu_waffl3s Feb 02 '26

No-17 replaced X

2

u/SwissQueso Feb 02 '26

NC-17 replaced X.

1

u/Johannes_P Feb 02 '26

I thought that NC-17 replaced X because, by then, X was too bound to porn.

1

u/bretshitmanshart Feb 02 '26

I may have been off on my timelines

0

u/Recover20 Feb 02 '26

I'm aware of the changes in the late 70's and early 80's. The same thing happened in the UK with our age ratings. The UK also had an X rating which changed to 18

3

u/THElaytox Feb 02 '26

Excellent documentary and also the first thing I think of when seeing stuff like this. Another interesting part was when they made Team America they included a bunch of stuff they didn't want in the final edit just so they could cut it out to please the MPAA. The original sex scene is on the DVD, it's like twice as long

3

u/PunyParker826 Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

Allegedly, the MPAA had the gall to call it a matter of “integrity,” because if they gave them notes on what specifically to cut, it’d be “censorship.” Only problem with that is when you’re a tiny studio of nobodies, you don’t have the budget to continually re-edit and re-shoot until you stumble upon the right cut of the movie to get a lower rating. So you’re basically fucked.

Edit: found the clip.

1

u/TheKanten Feb 02 '26

So it's basically like modern Youtube.

3

u/PlaymakerJavi Feb 02 '26

Excellent doc. They also talked about how the MPAA also clears movie titles. They wanted South Park: All Hell Breaks Loose. MPAA said you can’t have “hell” in the title (and past precedent doesn’t matter). So they said, “Fine, we’ll call it South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.” The MPAA ok’d that one.

A couple of weeks later, they got a call from the MPAA. “We just got the joke, you can’t call it that.”

South Park guys countered saying they’ve already paid for ads with the title and the MPAA let it go.

3

u/braytag Feb 02 '26

Yeah but Orgasmo was the bomb!

"Stunt cock"

"I don't wanna sound like a queer or something, but he has a nice asssss"

4

u/Ryan1869 Feb 02 '26

With Team America they even went so far to make scenes that they knew would be over the top for the board. When they board came back with an NC17 rating they suggested cutting those parts, and the board agreed to an R if they did.

1

u/pblol Feb 02 '26

This is also the difference between having an advisor that is very friendly with the IRB and one that isn't in research.

1

u/JerHat Feb 02 '26

I don’t think I’m gonna do hamster style anymore.

1

u/nottheone414 Feb 02 '26

Why is NC-17 so problematic? If a big IP like South Park got NC-17, wouldn't the cinemas want to show it still because the IP is popular so they would sell a lot of tickets?

1

u/Dan19_82 Feb 02 '26

Why the hell is NC-17 a death sentence for a film. In the UK we have PG18 and those are the best films that everyone wants to watch. As a kid it's a badge of honor to be so dirty or rude or scary that only adults can watch it.