Hollywood thinks brutal violence is more harmless than sex and nudity

The MPAA has been giving letter ratings to films for so long that most people in the US don’t even question it anymore.

But if you take a few steps back and really think about it, the system makes little sense. Why do torture porn films like “Saw” and “Hostel” only receive an R rating, while sexually explicit films like “Orgazmo”, “Showgirls” and “Blue is a Warm Color” are given an NC-17 rating?

It’s not about porn

What they’re basically saying is that seeing a person being hacked to pieces in the most sadistic way is less harmful to minors than seeing the same person having sex. And we’re not talking about actual pornographic content here.

If the MPAA deems the nudity in a film to be excessive, it gives it an NC-17 rating and guarantees that most theaters won’t touch it. There is also the absurd rule that the word “fuck” can only appear once in films rated PG-13. Do you really believe that the precious ears of teenagers can handle a single “fuck” but be irreparably poisoned by a second?


More epic fails in film history


This is all just outdated nonsense and needs to be seriously reconsidered.

This translated text comes from the list “The 50 Worst Decisions in Movie History” our colleagues from the USA

ttn-30