If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Study shows little difference between PG-13 and R rated movies. This is what happens when you find a stranger in the alps   (businessinsider.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1522 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 10 Dec 2013 at 8:41 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-10 08:06:37 AM
You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?
 
2013-12-10 08:19:02 AM
People get paid or at least college credit for bullshiat studies like this? Christ, I'm in the wrong business.

As for boobies, in the '70s and '80s they were plentiful. My first exposure to boobs was in the PG rated "Airplane!" when I was 3. Logan's Run, Clash of the Titans, all PG rated boobs. But Titanic was the last PG-13 rated movie with boobs (and even that was only one boob but I can extrapolate). Violence in PG-13 movies however, is about as high as many R rated movies from the 80s. But you can't say the eff word more than once.
 
2013-12-10 08:24:55 AM
It's all subjective anyway. The MPAA is headed by a bunch of idiots. You could have two almost identical films with almost equal scenes and one will get an R while the other will get a PG-13 because of the politicking
 
2013-12-10 08:50:43 AM
Which is why, for example if we believed subby, we would frequently find nudity and especially sexual nudity in PG13 movies recently.

Let's check TFA
"The study shows that there was little difference in the amount of violence between PG-13 and R-rated movies. "
{and discussion of study / results therein}

Ah. I see.
Another misleading headline on fark, it must be a day ending in "y"

EABOD
 
2013-12-10 08:54:49 AM
I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane.
 
2013-12-10 08:56:04 AM

Mugato: People get paid or at least college credit for bullshiat studies like this? Christ, I'm in the wrong business.

As for boobies, in the '70s and '80s they were plentiful. My first exposure to boobs was in the PG rated "Airplane!" when I was 3. Logan's Run, Clash of the Titans, all PG rated boobs. But Titanic was the last PG-13 rated movie with boobs (and even that was only one boob but I can extrapolate). Violence in PG-13 movies however, is about as high as many R rated movies from the 80s. But you can't say the eff word more than once.



Most of this.  But you're missing another bigger point. Even today when we do see Nudity in movies, it's typically oh hah, let's show a guys schlong in all its glory zoomed in for comedic value. But if a woman is full fruntal, she has to wear the biggest merkin we can find because... uhhh... well....

There was lots of briefly visible female glory in some of those 70s/80s movies too.  *Weep for the good old days*
 
2013-12-10 08:59:09 AM
There might be just as many "instances" of violence in PG-13 films as in R-rated films, but the depiction of that violence is generally more graphic in films that are awarded an R.

Not to defend the head-up-ass ratings system, but you CAN watch a film without knowing it's rating and pretty much guess what that rating is. Yes, you can find exceptions, but the idiot standards overall are fairly evenly applied.
 
2013-12-10 09:02:11 AM

Leader O'Cola: EABOD


That would be Rated R, right?
 
2013-12-10 09:08:27 AM
Ratings are a racket.  My daughter who is 10 has seen exactly 4 PG13 movies.   It isn't the sex I keep her from, because provided context, it is ok.  It is the stupid violence.  The 4 PG13 movies?  The Hobbit (insert jokes about movie here) and Lord of the Rings trilogy, because she read all the books. But the truth of the matter is that yes there is some brutal violence, but it is mythical, contextual and not divorced from consequence.

Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.

Sex and nudity?  The problem is that most American movies are exploitative when it comes to sex and nudity, vs. European movies where it is just part of the natural order of things. (Wow, what a concept!)  The one thing I won't do (yet) is allow my daughter to see the sexual material as a punchline before she is old enough to get the context, so in a lot of ways, she may actually get to see a Rated R movie like the "Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight" series before she sees some of the Rom-com crap.
 
2013-12-10 09:10:16 AM

RyansPrivates: Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.


Neglected to mention  that I know "The Kings Speech" has no violence to speak of (pun intended), but it was rated R for repeated use of "Fark".   Stupidest rating ever.
 
2013-12-10 09:13:48 AM

RyansPrivates: RyansPrivates: Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.

Neglected to mention  that I know "The Kings Speech" has no violence to speak of (pun intended), but it was rated R for repeated use of "Fark".   Stupidest rating ever.


See also: "Billy Elliot"
 
2013-12-10 09:16:58 AM

markfara: RyansPrivates: RyansPrivates: Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.

Neglected to mention  that I know "The Kings Speech" has no violence to speak of (pun intended), but it was rated R for repeated use of "Fark".   Stupidest rating ever.

See also: "Billy Elliot"


You bring up great point: movies that are dosed heavily with real life, tend to be Rated R, because you know, we are sexual creatures that use salty language.  It make no sense to me that over the top (yet tied to reality) violence gets a pass.  The more realistic portrayal of violence, the more likely you get an R rating.  Arg....hate to keep thread shiatting, but it really pisses me off.
 
2013-12-10 09:19:06 AM

RyansPrivates: There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List


LOL what? Those are like the most violent non-horror movies ever made. I dunno, I'm not one to ask,  I saw Alien when I was 3.
 
2013-12-10 09:19:29 AM
I look for R-ratings as a sign of directorial integrity.
 
2013-12-10 09:22:27 AM

RyansPrivates: markfara: RyansPrivates: RyansPrivates: Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.

Neglected to mention  that I know "The Kings Speech" has no violence to speak of (pun intended), but it was rated R for repeated use of "Fark".   Stupidest rating ever.

See also: "Billy Elliot"

You bring up great point: movies that are dosed heavily with real life, tend to be Rated R, because you know, we are sexual creatures that use salty language.  It make no sense to me that over the top (yet tied to reality) violence gets a pass.  The more realistic portrayal of violence, the more likely you get an R rating.  Arg....hate to keep thread shiatting, but it really pisses me off.


The U.S. is exceptionally prudish in that regard. I was running around England a couple of years ago and the local station wherever I was was showing "Starship Troopers". The co-ed shower scene was left completely intact, but every time the graphic violence popped up, it was clipped (and very clumsily).

In France, you can catch hardcore porn on TV after midnight. Doesn't seem to make that culture any more sexually dysfunctional than ours, from what I can see. But, you know, Jesus hates sex, so. . . .
 
2013-12-10 09:28:50 AM

EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?


Heck, you got a certain amount of gratuitous nudity back in PG movies too. Take for instance the original Clash of the Titans. PG rated, tits everywhere.

It only relatively recently that banned nudity from PG movies and that makes me sad.

/Andromeda boobies mmm.
 
2013-12-10 09:30:01 AM
Little difference = nipples
 
2013-12-10 09:35:43 AM

EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?


We have secretly replaced the squiggly lines on a crappy old television with full HD video of gorgeous, nubile, former Soviet Bloc hotties, doing all kinds of nasty things for free. Let's see if EvilEgg notices.
 
2013-12-10 09:38:59 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: It's all subjective anyway. The MPAA is headed by a bunch of idiots. You could have two almost identical films with almost equal scenes and one will get an R while the other will get a PG-13 because of the politicking


Yeah, a lot of it is who you know blow.

Farking MPAA is a joke.
 
2013-12-10 09:46:54 AM

EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?


You used to be able to count on a certain amount of gratuitous nudity in your PG rated films, too.

Prudes! Ruining film!
 
2013-12-10 09:50:27 AM
Didn't Evil Dead 2 get an X rating when it came out? Last time I watched it I was thinking It could almost be PG-13.
 
2013-12-10 09:51:57 AM

StoPPeRmobile: EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?

We have secretly replaced the squiggly lines on a crappy old television with full HD video of gorgeous, nubile, former Soviet Bloc hotties, doing all kinds of nasty things for free. Let's see if EvilEgg notices.


Sure I can you can get porn if you want to spank it, but I just like looking at boobies.  They are like chocolate chips, they make everything a little tastier.
 
2013-12-10 09:52:29 AM

browntimmy: Didn't Evil Dead 2 get an X rating when it came out? Last time I watched it I was thinking It could almost be PG-13.


I think it was released unrated to avoid an X or NC-17 or whatever. Same with "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" which DID, in my opinion, deserve an "adults only" classification.
 
2013-12-10 09:58:43 AM

markfara: browntimmy: Didn't Evil Dead 2 get an X rating when it came out? Last time I watched it I was thinking It could almost be PG-13.

I think it was released unrated to avoid an X or NC-17 or whatever. Same with "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" which DID, in my opinion, deserve an "adults only" classification.


Ditto on that.  One I struggle with is "Requiem for a Dream".  Pretty damn graphic, but most late teenagers should see it if just to see how drugs can ruin your life.  My wife has watched it just once, and refuses to see it again (hits too close to home).  I might prefer and R rating on it, but can understand where the NC-17 came from (aside from even that one scene).
 
2013-12-10 10:05:17 AM

markfara: In France, you can catch hardcore porn on TV after midnight. Doesn't seem to make that culture any more sexually dysfunctional than ours, from what I can see. But, you know, Jesus hates sex, so. . .


You don't even have to travel that far. In Canada, the Sopranos used to play, completely uncut on broadcast TV at 10pm, with just a simple viewer discretion is advised warning.
 
2013-12-10 10:05:20 AM

RyansPrivates: markfara: browntimmy: Didn't Evil Dead 2 get an X rating when it came out? Last time I watched it I was thinking It could almost be PG-13.

I think it was released unrated to avoid an X or NC-17 or whatever. Same with "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" which DID, in my opinion, deserve an "adults only" classification.

Ditto on that.  One I struggle with is "Requiem for a Dream".  Pretty damn graphic, but most late teenagers should see it if just to see how drugs can ruin your life.  My wife has watched it just once, and refuses to see it again (hits too close to home).  I might prefer and R rating on it, but can understand where the NC-17 came from (aside from even that one scene).


Even Valenti said once that setting the age restriction at 17 was kind of stupid.
 
2013-12-10 10:16:19 AM
Seems relevant:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-10 10:20:33 AM

EvilEgg: StoPPeRmobile: EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?

We have secretly replaced the squiggly lines on a crappy old television with full HD video of gorgeous, nubile, former Soviet Bloc hotties, doing all kinds of nasty things for free. Let's see if EvilEgg notices.

Sure I can you can get porn if you want to spank it, but I just like looking at boobies.  They are like chocolate chips, they make everything a little tastier.


"I uncrease the bill, tenderly as you may imagine, it just having come from between the two smoothest scoops of vanilla I had ever known were there, and pass a half and a penny into her narrow pink palm, and nestle the herrings in a bag and twist its neck and hand it over, all the time thinking. "
 
2013-12-10 11:07:22 AM
The MPAA is a joke.  It was a way to enforce censorship on US films while avoiding 1st amendment issues (by making the censorship privately run and not government run).  I've worked on films where we were poised to get an NC17 rating and when we resubmitted we took off a few frames from some of the "offending" shots, timed the blood so it was dark rather than bright and took out some of the music and temp sound effects.  Then, you get an R.

They're just conservative douchebags getting paid to sit in judgment on a method of speech they have no understanding of.  They're not industry professionals, they're recipients of cushy jobs for good behaviour in their political lives.
 
2013-12-10 11:13:49 AM
....because he's a FUZZY NERD!
 
2013-12-10 11:50:32 AM
% of people who will likely have sex/see nudity of the gender they are attracted to in their lifetime = somewhere really, really, close to 100%
Sex and nudity in films = A little will get you an R, a little more than that will get you an NC-17

% of people who will speak or hear profanity in their life = Again, really, really close to 100%
Profanity in films = A tiny bit may still slip into a PG-13 film, otherwise it's R

% of people who will directly and intentionally kill another human being through violence = Nowhere close to 100%
similar violence in films = it's gotta be pretty graphic and excessive to get you an R instead of a PG-13
 
2013-12-10 11:52:46 AM

EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?


Here ya go.

NSFW? You betcha!
 
2013-12-10 11:55:24 AM

Leader O'Cola: Mugato: People get paid or at least college credit for bullshiat studies like this? Christ, I'm in the wrong business.

As for boobies, in the '70s and '80s they were plentiful. My first exposure to boobs was in the PG rated "Airplane!" when I was 3. Logan's Run, Clash of the Titans, all PG rated boobs. But Titanic was the last PG-13 rated movie with boobs (and even that was only one boob but I can extrapolate). Violence in PG-13 movies however, is about as high as many R rated movies from the 80s. But you can't say the eff word more than once.


Most of this.  But you're missing another bigger point. Even today when we do see Nudity in movies, it's typically oh hah, let's show a guys schlong in all its glory zoomed in for comedic value. But if a woman is full fruntal, she has to wear the biggest merkin we can find because... uhhh... well....

There was lots of briefly visible female glory in some of those 70s/80s movies too.  *Weep for the good old days*


Exactly. Compare great comedies of the past like Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds to the modern comedic crap... in the 70s and 80s you'd be guaranteed of at least one scene of glorious tits. Not just sideboob, but a fantastic view. Now it's all naked man ass or (if they're really feeling "edgy") full frontal male nudity without even a good peek at that actresses' unclothed chest to serve as eye bleach.

They really have chopped back the nudity- once upon a time an R rated flick was almost guaranteed to have some kind of nudity and a PG-13 movie might well have some nudity in a non-sexual context. But nowadays, there's bugger-all of that.
 
2013-12-10 12:05:07 PM

Mercutio74: I've worked on films where we were poised to get an NC17 rating and when we resubmitted we took off a few frames from some of the "offending" shots, timed the blood so it was dark rather than bright and took out some of the music and temp sound effects.  Then, you get an R.


I think for a lot of movies they don't even have to go that far. It seems that for studio movies (where the money for is available), all they have to do is threaten to appeal, or send their army of lawyers to the MPAA and a movie will get changed from an NC17 to an R without any cuts being made.
 
2013-12-10 12:06:34 PM

abrannan: % of people who will likely have sex/see nudity of the gender they are attracted to in their lifetime = somewhere really, really, close to 100%
Sex and nudity in films = A little will get you an R, a little more than that will get you an NC-17

% of people who will speak or hear profanity in their life = Again, really, really close to 100%
Profanity in films = A tiny bit may still slip into a PG-13 film, otherwise it's R

% of people who will directly and intentionally kill another human being through violence = Nowhere close to 100%
similar violence in films = it's gotta be pretty graphic and excessive to get you an R instead of a PG-13


Why do you hate the American war machine?

Show me where the war machine touched you.
 
2013-12-10 12:10:20 PM
"'R' is when you show an actress' bare breast; 'PG' is when you slice it off." - (most commonly attributed to John Landis circa: early 1980s)
 
2013-12-10 12:54:18 PM

Sinbox: EvilEgg: You used to be able to count on a certain amount gratuitous nudity in your R rated films.  Sad really, where have all the boobies gone?

Here ya go.

NSFW? You betcha!


Now, if only I could import that page into the Netflix watch-list
 
2013-12-10 12:56:16 PM

Mugato: People get paid or at least college credit for bullshiat studies like this? Christ, I'm in the wrong business.

As for boobies, in the '70s and '80s they were plentiful. My first exposure to boobs was in the PG rated "Airplane!" when I was 3. Logan's Run, Clash of the Titans, all PG rated boobs. But Titanic was the last PG-13 rated movie with boobs (and even that was only one boob but I can extrapolate). Violence in PG-13 movies however, is about as high as many R rated movies from the 80s. But you can't say the eff word more than once.


And it was casual, too. So many movies I recall had just a throwaway naked person in the background. It's really astonishing when I watch on DVD all the nudity I had forgotten due to years of watching the movies on tv.
 
2013-12-10 01:06:44 PM
Violence but little death = PG
Violence, with death, or high levels of violence = PG-13
Tarantino levels of blood or horror/slasher violence = R
Mild profanity = PG
F word = PG-13
Tarantino levels of F bombs = R
Nipple = R
 
2013-12-10 01:33:35 PM

RyansPrivates: RyansPrivates: Compare that with the recent pg-13 Die Hard movie.  She won't see that until she is at least 13.  There are Rated R movies I would rather her see: Saving Private Ryan, Schindlers List or the inexpiciably rated R Kings Speech.  Which are all retelling of history and put the violence in context.

Neglected to mention  that I know "The Kings Speech" has no violence to speak of (pun intended), but it was rated R for repeated use of "Fark".   Stupidest rating ever.


The Kings Speech has been involved in a bit of a spat the director of Made in Dagenham with the BBFC. Due to the context of the farks (all at once and not used as swearing) it was bumped down to a 12 (similar to the MPAA's PG13) while Made in Dagenham had fewer farks but as it was used on accession in a sexualised manner it meant it had to have the 15 (like an R) for the language. It's nice that context is taken into account in the ratings and not just power.

Also the Hunger Games had to have some blood cgi'd out to get the rating down to a 12 from the 15 it was originally.
 
2013-12-10 01:40:31 PM
 

hugh chardon: Mild profanity = PG


Didn't use to be this way. (yeah, yeah...i know...)

In Warren Beatty's Reds, near the climax of the film, there's an argument scene between Beatty and his co-star Diane Keaton. They exchange what must be 6 or 7 F-blows between them. The film's rating: PG.
 
2013-12-10 02:11:13 PM

Sinbox: hugh chardon: Mild profanity = PG

Didn't use to be this way. (yeah, yeah...i know...)

In Warren Beatty's Reds, near the climax of the film, there's an argument scene between Beatty and his co-star Diane Keaton. They exchange what must be 6 or 7 F-blows between them. The film's rating: PG.


The general rule of thumb (this isn't written anywhere, btw, since the MPAA isn't bound by any written guidelines) is one non-sexual usage of the f-bomb will still get you a PG.  Two or more... or using it sexually... automatic R.  Unless you're Warren Beatty or similar.
 
2013-12-10 02:15:47 PM

mechgreg: I think for a lot of movies they don't even have to go that far. It seems that for studio movies (where the money for is available), all they have to do is threaten to appeal, or send their army of lawyers to the MPAA and a movie will get changed from an NC17 to an R without any cuts being made.


That hasn't been my experience.  Generally there are at least token changes to the movies to get an NC17 changed to an R.  From the perspective of the studio it's way cheaper to cut 36 frames out of an hour and a half movie (during the picture edit phase) and resubmit than it is to go ballistic.

Also, the MPAA is particularly cagey about telling you what specifically you need you do.  And they will never give a specific note (for example, "Trim the head off of this specific shot").  They'll usually verbally tell the producer which scenes are responsible for the rating but beyond that they're careful.
 
2013-12-10 02:47:50 PM
This isn't related to the discussion at hand...

But what kind of trash site is this?  It allotted 20% of the total width for the actual text of the article for over an entire screen's worth of height.
 
2013-12-10 03:04:50 PM

Mercutio74: The general rule of thumb (this isn't written anywhere, btw, since the MPAA isn't bound by any written guidelines) is one non-sexual usage of the f-bomb will still get you a PG. Two or more... or using it sexually... automatic R. Unless you're Warren Beatty or similar.


Yeah, I saw the documentary (and also, many other things about the organization.) I was just kvetching for kvetching's sake (as is the custom here'bouts, so I've been told).

Also: Reds runs like 4 hours long (and, as overall worthy of praise as it genuinely is, feels it in places.) So it wouldn't surprise me if the screener on dutyt that at MPAA/CARA HQ dozed off at that part and didn't feel like reviewing upon awakening (as, sans that scene the rest of the film is fairly tame and propably as PG-worthy as any film ever was.

Also, this weekend TCM Underground aired the howlingly awful old anti-LSD camp "classic (???)" The Big Cube (starring a seriously slumming Lana Turner).
It was released with an M rating (The PG of its day) and featured Pamela Rodgers (from the old Riowan + Martin's 'Laugh-In' show) going center-frame, close-up topless for a full 15 seconds (and another non-credited female cast member flashing her arse for a good 20 seconds of screentime.
 
2013-12-10 03:12:58 PM
 
2013-12-10 03:50:57 PM

hugh chardon: Violence but little death = PG
Violence, with death, or high levels of violence = PG-13
Tarantino levels of blood or horror/slasher violence = R
Mild profanity = PG
F word = PG-13
Tarantino levels of F bombs = R
Nipple = R


Peter Jackson levels of... WTF are you even talking about? The Hobbit is a kids movie. Oh, have you seen a little flick called Bad Taste?
 
2013-12-10 04:43:29 PM

RyansPrivates: markfara: browntimmy: Didn't Evil Dead 2 get an X rating when it came out? Last time I watched it I was thinking It could almost be PG-13.

I think it was released unrated to avoid an X or NC-17 or whatever. Same with "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" which DID, in my opinion, deserve an "adults only" classification.

Ditto on that.  One I struggle with is "Requiem for a Dream".  Pretty damn graphic, but most late teenagers should see it if just to see how drugs can ruin your life.  My wife has watched it just once, and refuses to see it again (hits too close to home).  I might prefer and R rating on it, but can understand where the NC-17 came from (aside from even that one scene).


That's probably the last movie I saw where I was genuinely disturbed by it. The last ten minutes are just unrelentingly brutal.

Still remember seeing that in the theaters. No one in the audience would leave or make a sound until the credits were over and the lights came back on.
 
2013-12-10 07:08:28 PM

The Bunyip: I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane.


My favorite was when some genius got the idea to air Scarface on regular TV as the Saturday Afternoon Feature on one of the local UHF channels. I have never heard the phrase "magic farmer" used with such contempt.
 
2013-12-11 07:54:11 AM

Mercutio74: mechgreg: I think for a lot of movies they don't even have to go that far. It seems that for studio movies (where the money for is available), all they have to do is threaten to appeal, or send their army of lawyers to the MPAA and a movie will get changed from an NC17 to an R without any cuts being made.

That hasn't been my experience.  Generally there are at least token changes to the movies to get an NC17 changed to an R.  From the perspective of the studio it's way cheaper to cut 36 frames out of an hour and a half movie (during the picture edit phase) and resubmit than it is to go ballistic.

Also, the MPAA is particularly cagey about telling you what specifically you need you do.  And they will never give a specific note (for example, "Trim the head off of this specific shot").  They'll usually verbally tell the producer which scenes are responsible for the rating but beyond that they're careful.


I am sure cutting happens a lot of the times. But I know that Clerks for example was given an NC-17 rating. Then Miramax sent Alan Dershowitz (from OJ's legal team) to appeal and it got dropped down to an R rating. I swear this is not the only time I have heard of this.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report