Bully Forum

@cwdawg1224 said:

Say "fuck" five times? R-rating

Show children being stabbed, shot with arrows, being eaten by dog mutants, having their necks snapped and their throats slit? Eh, PG-13.

Most of that was offscreeen and I felt they should've pushed the violence further. By the end of the book, Peeta and Katniss were pretty fucked up, but in the movie they were fine.

Oh and this is crap that Bully won't get a PG-13 rating but I don't see what the big deal is to get kids into an R rated film. The Passion of the Christ was R and I know there was a bunch of kids going to see that. (I went to a Christian school). Hell, I saw the remake of Friday the 13th in theaters and there was at least 3 kids under the age of 10 at the showing I was at.

Fuck 'em.

I really don't like how the put "criteria" on a movie. Say fuck more than twice, you get an R. 5 times isn't even that much. He should let Netflix stream it. He could have a pretty big audience there.

@Anlino said:

Typical that MPAA should keep a movie like this from being shown to kids in the early to middle teens, when the kids really should be forced to see it. I suppose it's easier to ignore the issues then to do anything about them.

Anyone interested in the MPAA should see the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, BTW.

While I think this is a film that should be shown to kids, especially pre-teens and teenagers, I think Harvey Weinstein needs to grow the fuck up. If he's so worried about the film being shown, release it as an R-rating and hope that parents will take their children or let them bleep the excess fucks, get the PG-13 rating and let it be seen by a wider audience. Let's face it, in the end, Weinstein wants to make money. If anyone really thinks he cares about bullied children, I'm sorry to say you are a bit delusional. He can smile and act like this in front of the media all he wants but he's most concerned with his bottom line at the end of the day.

Also, I was pretty disappointed by This Film is Not Yet Rated. The guy had some very interesting points but the whole thing gets lost in the second half with the PI and the car chases, etc.

EDIT: If people think I'm being harsh or don't care about the status of bullied children, that couldn't be further from the truth. I was bullied in school, mostly because I had red hair. My sister was bullied so bad my parents almost pulled her from the parochial school we attended. Fortunately, the teachers and principals stepped in and life got better for her. Granted, this was 10+ years ago but still.

@TheSavageAssasin said:

@Captain_Insano said:

is it weird that for a moment I thought that this was a movie adaptation of the game?

I thought the same exact thing.

Yup, me too.

I would cast Viggo Mortenson as the protagonist little kid.

It would be amazing.

@rem25 said:

@Anlino said:

Typical that MPAA should keep a movie like this from being shown to kids in the early to middle teens, when the kids really should be forced to see it. I suppose it's easier to ignore the issues then to do anything about them.

Anyone interested in the MPAA should see the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, BTW.

While I think this is a film that should be shown to kids, especially pre-teens and teenagers, I think Harvey Weinstein needs to grow the fuck up. If he's so worried about the film being shown, release it as an R-rating and hope that parents will take their children or let them bleep the excess fucks, get the PG-13 rating and let it be seen by a wider audience. Let's face it, in the end, Weinstein wants to make money. If anyone really thinks he cares about bullied children, I'm sorry to say you are a bit delusional. He can smile and act like this in front of the media all he wants but he's most concerned with his bottom line at the end of the day.

Also, I was pretty disappointed by This Film is Not Yet Rated. The guy had some very interesting points but the whole thing gets lost in the second half with the PI and the car chases, etc.

EDIT: If people think I'm being harsh or don't care about the status of bullied children, that couldn't be further from the truth. I was bullied in school, mostly because I had red hair. My sister was bullied so bad my parents almost pulled her from the parochial school we attended. Fortunately, the teachers and principals stepped in and life got better for her. Granted, this was 10+ years ago but still.

Even if he is being a whining asshole that wants to make more money it still doesn't change the fact that schools wont show an R rated or even unrated movie in their schools. It's pretty sad that the MPAA thinks that they know what is morally right for kids to see when kids see and do worse things then what movies show (sometimes).

@Monkeyman04: Oh, I completely agree that kids should see a film about bullying, especially if it is going to make an impact. I'm not saying the MPAA is necessarily right in this case either but like other people have pointed out, if they make an exception for this, why not the next filmmaker that whines and bitches? Maybe Shame really should have been an R rated film instead of NC-17. I'm exaggerating a bit here but you get my point. Let's face it, it's not like schools were going to have field trips to see the movie even if it was PG-13. I'm not sure about you but most school districts in my area (I live near Chicago) are broke for the most part. The school district I was a part of in high school outright stopped field trips for anything, educational or not. Sure, teens could have just gone to see the film after school on their own and now they won't see it until it comes to DVD or Netflix Instant. I guess it really comes down to if Weinstein was really passionate about getting this film out to the masses to see, he would have just bleeped out or removed the extras swears and let it get the PG-13 rating. I would think if this is such an important film that should be seen by kids of all ages, the filmmaker and studio would do whatever they can to make sure that happens. Clearly, they are both more concerned with "artistic integrity" or whatever the fuck you want to call it. Yes, kids see and hear really bad things but there are enough that don't where I can see why parents wouldn't want to expose their children to that language or content early on.

Damnit. Damnit. Damnit.

@brownsfantb The problem isn't that kids won't go see an R rated film...it's that the film will be less likely to be showed in schools because of an R rating.

@cwdawg1224: That's because in the United States and even Canada, "Graphic, deplorable violence is okay.. as long as no one says any naughty language". Or shows any skin.

I'm glad that in BC the film board rated the movie PG. I plan on taking my stepdaughter (10) to see it when it starts it's run here.

@rem25 said:

Let's face it, it's not like schools were going to have field trips to see the movie even if it was PG-13. I'm not sure about you but most school districts in my area (I live near Chicago) are broke for the most part.

Like others have pointed out, the point is that the movie wouldn't be able to be shown in schools. The cost for that isn't a field trip, it's simply the cost of the teacher buying a DVD. Unfortunately the cost of that teacher screening an R-rated movie is often their jobs, so that rating means the movie will not be shown to its audience (kids) in schools (where bullying takes place).

I do though agree with you that Weinstein isn't doing this for benevolent reasons. If this argument wasn't happening, I wouldn't be typing this about this movie right now. It would have came and gone and not really be seen by anyone. He's a very brilliant marketer, and that's it. But the distributors' questionable ethics don't change an unjust situation where the art of film in our country is edited and censored by anonymous antiquated assholes. In the "land of the free", films are unanimously censored, and that fucking shit is fucking fucked up.

I think it's kind of fucked up that Bully can't get a PG-13, but Gunner's Palace was overturned from an R to PG-13.

The MPAA needs to rot off and die like a sheep's nutsack.

Screened: Your favorite unrated website.

@gangly said:

@rem25 said:

Let's face it, it's not like schools were going to have field trips to see the movie even if it was PG-13. I'm not sure about you but most school districts in my area (I live near Chicago) are broke for the most part.

Like others have pointed out, the point is that the movie wouldn't be able to be shown in schools. The cost for that isn't a field trip, it's simply the cost of the teacher buying a DVD. Unfortunately the cost of that teacher screening an R-rated movie is often their jobs, so that rating means the movie will not be shown to its audience (kids) in schools (where bullying takes place).

I do though agree with you that Weinstein isn't doing this for benevolent reasons. If this argument wasn't happening, I wouldn't be typing this about this movie right now. It would have came and gone and not really be seen by anyone. He's a very brilliant marketer, and that's it. But the distributors' questionable ethics don't change an unjust situation where the art of film in our country is edited and censored by anonymous antiquated assholes. In the "land of the free", films are unanimously censored, and that fucking shit is fucking fucked up.

Ok, yeah I completely forgot about showing it in the classroom. I should not respond to things before I'm awake for at least two hours. Anywho, I would think depending on the subject matter, maturity levels of the kids and parent approval, this should be allowed. So really, Weinstein has done a disservice to everyone involved.

Any teachers on here: do you think this film would cause kids to bully other less or perhaps get others to step in to help kids being bullied? Do you think it will increase the amount of bullying or will the awareness help parents and kids alike? I'm curious. Part of me wonders if the film would've made an impact at all, though I guess we'll never know.

As for the MPAA, does the ESRB have the same issue? Aren't they also an anonymous group that doesn't stay consistent when rating games or is it not much of an issue like it is with movies? Feel free to correct me on this as I don't know much about them. I guess you need to have someone censoring stuff or at the very least rating it accordingly. I guess if I were a parent and my children didn't hear swearing in the house or at school (for argument's sake, let's just go with it), I don't know if I would be comfortable with them viewing a film that has swearing, even if it is just five "fucks" without me being there to explain what is going on. Maybe I'm not giving kids these days enough credit. I'm sure there are some who are mature enough at an early age but I think there are plenty that aren't.

Like Simian said, in Canada we seem to be a lot more sensible about this. Being rated PG means it will reach the target market, as well as encourage parents to bring along their kids. Ultimately bullying is an issue that needs attention, and this R rating doesn't allow that in the slightest. Swear words are the least amount of concern in this age of hyper sexualized teens and incredibly violent movies and tv. Makes me wonder what the priorities of rating agencies are, and what really goes on behind closed doors there. Guns = okay for kids but shedding light on a pertinent issue = not good for kids.

So... he could have stuck to his guns, kept it unedited, got the R rating and had it shown in hundreds to thousands of theaters across the nation and get the important message out to the public. Alternatively, he could have remove 3 "fucks" and gotten a PG-13 rating and maximum exposure. Instead, he chose to keep it unedited, pull it from being rated, have it only shown in five theaters, and have the message go largely unnoticed.

I don't see the point of choosing what he chose. Makes it seem like he was more about publicity stunts than actually getting the movie out to the public.

Gary Whitta retweeted this earlier today: http://www.reddit.com/tb/rhmm3

While I applaud AMC for doing this, it seems like a moot point since it's still only showing in 5 theaters. Maybe AMC should talk with the Weinstein company to get a deal to have it distributed throughout all AMC theaters in the country? That would be a win-win for everybody really.