Okay, so there was a documentary with an opinion on the subject.
It's actually not merely an opinion. While the documentary was undoubtedly a piece of video propaganda, and I would never try to claim otherwise, it was still based in truth and wasn't a pure opinion piece in the same way that, for example, Michael Moore's documentaries are. In this documentary the director actually filmed his ordeals going through the MPAA ratings and appeals process in addition to weeding out the MPAA ratings and appeals board at the time, bringing up ratings comparisons from a number of films, infamous and average alike, interviewing a number of film-makers as to their own ordeals while going through the ratings and appeals process, and even interviewing a few former members of the MPAA ratings board. I don't know about most people, but I personally do not consider descriptions of actual events that actually happened to actual people to be mere opinion.
but regardless, an independent film or even a film from a smaller studio may have had to do more to change the rating.
From what I've gathered, independent films in general usually aren't told what even needs to be done to change the rating, whereas studio films are told what to do in exacting detail. This was confirmed by both Kevin Smith and Matt Stone, both of whom are directors that have experience on both sides of the fence. Also, sometimes the changes are so minute that they become pointless or negligible, which is why so many 'unrated director's cuts' are only a few seconds to a minute or so longer than their R rated theatrical counterparts. Again, The Boondock Saints is an example of this, as the NC-17 rated version is a mere few seconds longer – if even that – than the R rated version. The unrated, read as: originally NC-17, version of American Psycho is less than a minute longer than the R rated edited version. The unrated version of Saw has the same runtime as the R rated version, which means that the changes, if any, are again completely negligible. Even the minor edits of The Hills Have Eyes (2oo6), which is a whole three or so minutes longer than the R rated theatrical edit, are downright extreme by comparison.
But honestly, the line between PG-13 and R is pretty blurry anymore anyway.
As is the line between G and PG, PG and PG-13, and R and NC-17, really.
Well the films you and I are most often exposed to or choose to watch may be different in nature (I don't get to see many independent films and my forign film exposure is sadly lacking as well)
That might be it. I mostly watch independent films and foreign films. Not because I'm a pretentious art snob, but because I think that most contemporary mainstream cinema sucks balls and swallows the salt, in a big way. I watch a lot of films, but I haven't gone to see a 'real movie' in a 'real movie cinema' that wasn't an art house theatre since Syriana was released, so my view of films is probably wildly different from yours. Also, it's pretty much a given that mainstream films are given way less grief by the MPAA than independent fringe cinema, and that there is next to no such thing as a mainstream film that's rated NC-17 and is actually theatrically released that way.
to me, your statement about the entire system being a joke and needing to be done away with entirely seemed rash and a bit reactionary
You misquote and/or misunderstand me. I don't think that the system should be done away with, I just don't see the point of having a system that's so obviously biased and seemingly arbitrary. What good is having a ratings system when there are no set standards for said ratings system? Without set standards and consistency, it loses all of its value and is no longer a fair judge of what is or is not appropriate. So yes, I do think that the MPAA is a joke but I don't think that it needs to be done away with entirely, I just think that it needs to be severely reformed so that there are some actual standards that are publicly available. Currently, neither of these things, which I would assume would be necessary to have for something like a ratings system just to function, exist. Former members of the MPAA have admitted that there are no real standards or consistency in regards to the ratings process, and even if there were nothing about the MPAA other than the released ratings themselves are made public.
Of course, I really could care less if the NC-17 rating wasn't an automatic kiss of death. If the NC-17 rating was treated like any other rating out there instead of being all but completely blackballed, then the damaging effect of receiving such a rating, which often ends in either commercial failure or outright censorship, would decrease dramatically.
~ jj ~