Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Cat Hatter
Oct 24, 2006

Hatters gonna hat.

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Do non-pornographic movies still get released with an X rating? It looks like X got changed to NC-17 for mainstream movies after the 70s and 80s in the U.S., but there's still an informal use of X and XXX ratings for softcore and hardcore pornography respectively. The split in commercial mainstream and pornographic film from the 1970s seems interesting.
...

X was not trademarked by the MPAA, the idea being that if a company knew their film would probably get an X anyway, they could save everyone the time/effort of reviewing it and self-rate the film. Since X wasn't trademarked, porn companies would try to show off how raunchy their never-submitted-for-approval movie was by putting additional X's on the promotional material. "Hey, if Deep Throat only got one X and this has 3 Xs, it must be really explicit" was the line of thinking. Once the X rating became more associated with porn than films like Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, and Evil Dead; (and when porn started to go out of fashion) theaters started banning X rated films. Eventually the MPAA realized their mistake and created NC-17 so you could (in theory) still have wide releases of non-pornographic films with extreme content, like the original cut of Robocop. Unfortunately, the movie theaters collectively went "oh, NC-17 is the new X? Ban them too, we don't want people thinking we're showing porn". Now its usually in a director's contract that they will turn in an R (or less) rated film.

As to porn theaters, keep in mind that cultural attitudes about sex aren't a straight line. People push boundaries continually and then it hits a tipping point and a bunch of people go "we've gone too far!" and retreat a bit. The overall trend has been pushing towards more openness about sex since longer than anyone has been alive, but the double whammy of Reagan and AIDS was definitely a valley.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cat Hatter
Oct 24, 2006

Hatters gonna hat.

Panfilo posted:

It's interesting to speculate how streaming affects censorship and the MPAA . how much sway is it going to have when most of this media is easier to access?

I think its hard to tell at this point. One of the reasons that Playboy cited for ditching nudity is that most social media outlets group things into "Adult Content" and "Everything Else", besides the fact that a lot of advertisers don't want to be in a "girly mag" even if its only slightly more explicit than National Geographic.

Cat Hatter
Oct 24, 2006

Hatters gonna hat.

Tiggum posted:

Yeah, it's not that they're too realistic (because they're not at all) or too gory (because they're not really any worse than the old ones in that regard), they're just not funny. They go on too long and they seem to be intended seriously. Like, in the old 2D games you'd get stuff like Raiden shooting someone with lightning and then their head explodes, whereas in this one he grabs them by the head, forces them to their knees, zaps them until their eyes pop out, then rips off their head, throws it in the air and then shoots it with lightning to make it explode. It's like they brainstormed their fatality ideas and then just used every idea they came up with all at once.

The old ones were gory and extremely violent, and the new ones are still absurd and over-the-top, but the old ones worked much better because they were quick. It was this sudden bit of absurdity at the end of the fight, rather than an extended sequence. If you want to make a longer sequence like that work, it has to escalate, but these don't, they start out as the goriest, most violent thing they could think of, and then they just keep doing that for a while. There's no build up, no punch line.

I came in to post basically this. The old ones were under 5 seconds long, so it was more like killing your fallen opponent in the most expedient way possible. The MKX ones keep going for about three times as long so they have more of a sadistic feel to them as your character just keeps on dismembering their opponent. Not to mention that when I finally get around to playing it, I'm not going to want to bother sitting through that long-rear end animation every match.

I did think the comments on Cassie's selfie were funny though.
Kano: A/S/L?
Sonya: Why is Kano on your friends list?

Cat Hatter
Oct 24, 2006

Hatters gonna hat.

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

I like to think that, in doing the extended gory fatalities, MK is doing it with a knowing wink and a smile at how ridiculously over-the-top it is.

"Hey, did you get the joke? Because we're going to keep doing it until it isn't a joke anymore"

  • Locked thread