i have no idea how the rating is called. PG17? anyways it's been argumented with the brutal footage of the iraq war that is shown in the movie. for me that's a very weak argument.

yesterday i saw something on cnn where they showed how US soldiers shot a 12 year old afghani boy in the back. they closed up on the boy while he was lying and gasping for breath eyes wide open and in total horror, clearly being in pain.

this is shown on normal tv at around 5 pm us time. how much more violent can any pictures be?

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Rated R.

Michael Moore is going to scream conspiracy since Jack Valente was a cabinet member for Nixon.</font>

Just as well. Most kids younger than that don't need to see something humorously depressing, though my 12 year old cousin acts (or tries to act) like an adult instead of enjoying being young.

You have to be 18 to vote, so the age thing makes no difference.

I think everyone should see this 2-hour hallucination for what it is...

anyway, is it me or does Michael Moore strike you as the type of nerd who now is in with the cool crowd (i.e. all those Hollywood intellectualls like that punk'd Ashton guy) and as such must continue his sheepish anti-Bush posture and pass it off as some enlightment?

Bowling For Columbine probably wasn't hurt for its R-rating.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern

anyway, is it me or does Michael Moore strike you as the type of nerd who now is in with the cool crowd (i.e. all those Hollywood intellectualls like that punk'd Ashton guy) and as such must continue his sheepish anti-Bush posture and pass it off as some enlightment?

hes an idealist and its very very annoying...he claims the full picture isn't being shown on tv or the administration is covering stuff, but so does he. he atempts to show how washington wouldn't act the way it does if it were personal, he interviews a senator and being the asshole he is asks him if his son could go to war over in iraq. what moore left out of the final edit was that the senator has a nephew over there as we speak, but no, that wouldn't be what moore wants us to see...hypocrocy anyone?

Originally posted by severin

yesterday i saw something on cnn where they showed how US soldiers shot a 12 year old afghani boy in the back. they closed up on the boy while he was lying and gasping for breath eyes wide open and in total horror, clearly being in pain.

this is shown on normal tv at around 5 pm us time. how much more violent can any pictures be?


i really really doubt this was on during that time but they are showing some brutal shit on tv...theres some things that we just don't need to see...everyone thinks they're entitled to know everything...atrocities happen during every war but since we are so networked we are exposed to alot of it...think if WWII was brodcasted like this war is...i bet it would have been 200 times as controversal

Originally posted by ciGarki
atrocities happen during every war but since we are so networked we are exposed to alot of it...think if WWII was brodcasted like this war is...i bet it would have been 200 times as controversal

If the American media let us see a quarter of what the rest of the world is allowed to watch on the news, there's no way in hell a solid half of the country would be supporting the war in Iraq.

It shows dead bodies and shit. Of course it was going to get an R rating.

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


If the American media let us see a quarter of what the rest of the world is allowed to watch on the news, there's no way in hell a solid half of the country would be supporting the war in Iraq.

yeah the american media is sooo friendly and supportive of the war. ok so bad shits going on over there, name one war were terrible shit has not gone on

Originally posted by ciGarki


yeah the american media is sooo friendly and supportive of the war. ok so bad shits going on over there, name one war were terrible shit has not gone on

The cold one.

Originally posted by ciGarki
yeah the american media is sooo friendly and supportive of the war. ok so bad shits going on over there, name one war were terrible shit has not gone on

What point - if any - are you trying to make?

The only thing I can derive from this message is that you think that our government is bound to carry out large-scale acts of violence someplace on the planet, and thus our media should focus on weighty things like Britney Spears weddings so as not to burden us with unpleasant aspects of reality. Please tell me I'm wrong in assuming that's what you meant.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
I think everyone should see this 2-hour hallucination for what it is...

anyway, is it me or does Michael Moore strike you as the type of nerd who now is in with the cool crowd (i.e. all those Hollywood intellectualls like that punk'd Ashton guy) and as such must continue his sheepish anti-Bush posture and pass it off as some enlightment?

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">don't think I've ever heard anyone call Ashton Kutcher being called a Hollywood Intellectual.</font>

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


What point - if any - are you trying to make?

The only thing I can derive from this message is that you think that our government is bound to carry out large-scale acts of violence someplace on the planet, and thus our media should focus on weighty things like Britney Spears weddings so as not to burden us with unpleasant aspects of reality. Please tell me I'm wrong in assuming that's what you meant.


youre wrong. my point which i admitt was not clear, is that war will be terrible and the more we are exposed to it and the more truth we see in it, the more we will oppose it, we being any population, not exclusive to America. Also, not exclusive to America, is war...the last thing i think our media should focus on is britney weddings fuck that if you knew me better that kind of news is regardless of any of my interests, if i want up on spears ill watch extra.. there are other things besides britney spears and kids gettin shot in the back to report on..and the media does report on other things, but they cut this war no slack

Originally posted by ciGarki


i really really doubt this was on during that time
it was on cnn. it was around 10 pm in europe, which makes it approx. 4 pm on the east-coast.

Originally posted by ciGarki
youre wrong. my point which i admitt was not clear, is that war will be terrible and the more we are exposed to it and the more truth we see in it, the more we will oppose it, we being any population, not exclusive to America.surely, the primary role of the news is to report what happens.

Originally posted by severin

it was on cnn. it was around 10 pm in europe, which makes it approx. 4 pm on the east-coast.
European CNN and American CNN are different. I mean, they're the same, but the shows are different. You know what I mean.

The same thing being shown in Europe isn't on in America. I don't even think they have the same anchors...

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
European CNN and American CNN are different. I mean, they're the same, but the shows are different. You know what I mean.

The same thing being shown in Europe isn't on in America. I don't even think they have the same anchors...

was it CNNfn?

Originally posted by ciGarki


was it CNNfn? CNNfn? That's financial news... no, I'm talking about regular CNN.

this topic should be deleted, it's that stupid. when has an R rating prevented anyone of voting age to see a movie they wanted to see?

Originally posted by ciGarki



youre wrong. my point which i admitt was not clear, is that war will be terrible and the more we are exposed to it and the more truth we see in it, the more we will oppose it, we being any population, not exclusive to America. Also, not exclusive to America, is war...the last thing i think our media should focus on is britney weddings fuck that if you knew me better that kind of news is regardless of any of my interests, if i want up on spears ill watch extra.. there are other things besides britney spears and kids gettin shot in the back to report on..and the media does report on other things, but they cut this war no slack

So you're saying that, in light of the general attitude towards the war, the public are completely informed on what's happened and is happening in Iraq?

R ratings are bullshit. Anyone can go to an R movie, as long as they have an adult with them. Hence 3 year olds going to see Gothika. Wtf?

However, I doubt many parents are gunna be like "Come on son, let's go see a movie that attacks the government!" but still.

So, despite what the title leads me to believe, the movie is rated R and not NC-17?

Originally posted by ciGarki


he interviews a senator and being the asshole he is asks him if his son could go to war over in iraq. what moore left out of the final edit was that the senator has a nephew over there as we speak, but no, that wouldn't be what moore wants us to see...hypocrocy anyone?


Have you seen the film or are you simply repeating something that you heard? In that segment he was saying that congressman were so eager to send other peoples children to war and possible death, yet only one of which actually had a child currently serving. So he went around asking them if they would be willing to try and recruit their own children into enlisting. Now, the senator didnt reply "I have no children", no he replied "My nephew is serving/is in Iraq." which really has nothing to do with it. Does he value his nephews life more than his own childs? Does he really have any control over what his nephew does?

Originally posted by Crono
So, despite what the title leads me to believe, the movie is rated R and not NC-17?

Yup, R. And it's a good movie.

Originally posted by Future Boy


Does he really have any control over what his nephew does?

does he really have any control over what a 18 year old son does?

Yeah, I was hesistant to leave that last line in, but that was not central to the point, so dont ignore the rest of it. Moore was asking about sending their own children, and he said his nehpew was over there. That's like you asking me if I've ever been through war, and me saying "Well I play a mean game of paintball."

Just because someone isnt 17 doesnt mean the theater wont sell them tickets to a Rated R movie. My friends and I bought tickets to Eurotrip without a hitch.

Originally posted by transluscent
Just because someone isnt 17 doesnt mean the theater wont sell them tickets to a Rated R movie. My friends and I bought tickets to Eurotrip without a hitch. Well, some places actually check tickets. When I went to see <i>Jackass: The Movie</i>, they checked for ID when you bought tickets <i>and</i> before you walked in the theater.

It just depends on where you live.

I think the R rating is deserved. There's a numerous shots of dead and wounded in the movie - even a few of kids. The shot of the Iraqi kid with just a chunk of his arm blown out and you can see his broken bones and viens and exposed muscles is completely horriffic.

The problem with an PG-13 is that NOBODY pays attention to it. Its a rubber stamp. 8 year old kids go with thier parents to see Lord of the Rings. You slap a PG-13 on this movie kids will go in to see it. At its really gory. I don't think kids should this this movie because it is really tough on them. Teenagers, fine, they have a tollerance for gore. But they just have to go with someone whos older than them to get in.

that being said I did see some kids in the audience at tonight's showing. I don't know why the parents brought them to it in the first place.

Originally posted by Ugly

that being said I did see some kids in the audience at tonight's showing. I don't know why the parents brought them to it in the first place.


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Maybe they couldn't find a babysitter and figured the movie was educational.

I don't think I would shelter my kids from war, anyway.</font>

Originally posted by transluscent
Just because someone isnt 17 doesnt mean the theater wont sell them tickets to a Rated R movie. My friends and I bought tickets to Eurotrip without a hitch.

yeah but i remember when passion came out, with all the hype around it they made sure to card people like they were buying cigarettes...but then again, that movie was pretty bloody

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros



<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">

I don't think I would shelter my kids from war, anyway.</font>

I don't think kids should be sheltered from war either, they should know that its happening and people dying. But I think from just a parenting perspective, do you want to have to put up with the kid having nightmares after seeing a boy's head stiched together? I just think it'd be a headache.

I'm usually pretty hard on the MPAA myself (buch of assfucking cockmongers they are for editing down movies like Kill Bill or True Romance, etc. etc. Hell, if a movie using the word "Fuck" ONCE its an automatic R rating. That's just bloody retarded.) But, I digress, I think when its Real Gore and Real People and Real Dead Bodies and Real Kids, they made the right choice.

Originally posted by sppunk


The cold one.

What about the spies that died? Unless movies and TV have lied to me (which I highly doubt) there has been alot of dead spies as a result of the Cold War.

Originally posted by ciGarki


yeah the american media is sooo friendly and supportive of the war. ok so bad shits going on over there, name one war were terrible shit has not gone on

You are fucking stupid, my friend.

Originally posted by transluscent
Just because someone isnt 17 doesnt mean the theater wont sell them tickets to a Rated R movie. My friends and I bought tickets to Eurotrip without a hitch.

dont watch crap like that. one of the actors is a friend of mine, though.

Originally posted by ciGarki


i really really doubt this was on during that time but they are showing some brutal shit on tv...theres some things that we just don't need to see...everyone thinks they're entitled to know everything...atrocities happen during every war but since we are so networked we are exposed to alot of it...think if WWII was brodcasted like this war is...i bet it would have been 200 times as controversal

D-day woulda been crap too i really dont think the public needs to see/know everything. good example being the guy on the news who said " i cant tell you our exact location but ican draw you a map" so he bends down and on world broadcasted tv he draws the location of our troops course iraq was watching they say he got a lot of men killed. my point is we dont have to see everything

Originally posted by sweetsweet1979


D-day woulda been crap too i really dont think the public needs to see/know everything. good example being the guy on the news who said " i cant tell you our exact location but ican draw you a map" so he bends down and on world broadcasted tv he draws the location of our troops course iraq was watching they say he got a lot of men killed. my point is we dont have to see everything

I really don't think thats what people are trying to get at... first to ciGarki, i think its an attrocity you are comparing WWII to the war in Iraq.

I think the American people are entitled to know why we are really fighting this war and why our brothers and sisters are dying... I don't give a fuck where the troops are located and planning on striking (as long as its not slums where only civilians live)... but we are entitled to know what is really going on over there, not the bullshit that they feed us which is just rehashed info that the government passes down to them... like the Iraqi people are favorable to the US troops being there. From my three friends over there whom I've talked to, they have all said that the Iraqi people don't want them there, why you might ask? They were leading happy lives before they destroyed their country, homes, families. They continue to instill fear into the people and kill innocents on a daily basis.

The media companies don't ask any hard questions, they just wait to hear what Administration has to say and goes with it... They need to stay profitable, and they will do so by any means necessary, especially lying to the American public.

Originally posted by ciGarki
what moore left out of the final edit was that the senator has a nephew over there as we speak, but no, that wouldn't be what moore wants us to see...hypocrocy anyone?
actually, he pointed out about 3 times that there was only one senator who had a kid fighting in iraq.

Originally posted by David

actually, he pointed out about 3 times that there was only one senator who had a kid fighting in iraq.

Don't agrue with it, the anti-Moore brigade loves to split hairs about the definitions of a single term. However Moore is guilty of doing the exact same thing too, so I guess the criticism is fair.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">don't think I've ever heard anyone call Ashton Kutcher being called a Hollywood Intellectual.</font>

surely you know a hollywood intellectual is anyone who is famous and talks about current events like they think we should care.

Originally posted by Ugly


Don't agrue with it, the anti-Moore brigade loves to split hairs about the definitions of a single term. However Moore is guilty of doing the exact same thing too, so I guess the criticism is fair.
yeah, i didn't really like every facet of the movie, but i did enjoy it over all.

so, uh, about that election.

Originally posted by Ugly


What about the spies that died? Unless movies and TV have lied to me (which I highly doubt) there has been alot of dead spies as a result of the Cold War.

Not to mention the state-sponsored terrorism. There was non-stop violence throughout that period.