Warning People: We Are In A State of EMERGENCY!!!

Anime On DVD Community Forums: Midori Days volume 7 edit

From what I've read, Viz has editing one lousy nipple out of book seven of the extremely adorable and funny "Midori Days," and like clockwork, everyone is screaming like it's the end of the world. Here are some of the mroe memorable quotes to prove that these people need a life:


I don't have the Japanese GN on me to do a scan comparision, but I do recall these panels exposing the nipples when I looked through them a few months ago.

This makes me glad I buy next to nothing from Viz. . .sigh. .

I HATE it when any company releases an un-edited manga and then decides to edit one the last vols. They know we're still going to buy the next vol. I think that there should be a company that never censores their manga, that way we wouldn't have to guess if it's an edit or not.

those of us who despise censorship are in the minority and will never win. perhaps the forum should be reversed - lets talk about titles that are 100% edit free and just assume everything else has been censored.


Someone help get these people REAL lives! It's only a nipple. Even I can point them in a special direction if they really want to see some of those.

Currently Listening To: Billy Joel - The Essential Billy Joel

It's Alive! IT'S ALIVE!!!

Sony Pictures - Monster House

Title: Monster House
Director: Gil KenanRated:
PG (For scary images and sequences, thematic elements, some crude humor and brief language)

There's been so much animation released this year, that it's almost been hard to keep track it all. We've gotten cartoons about monkey's, cars, and teenagers who drift in mountains in Tokyo (oh wait). Keeping track of them can be a bit of a chore, and I had no reason to be really excited about "Monster House" in any way. I mean, the story seems simple enough: Old man across the street lives in a house that is secretly haunted and READY TO EAT YOU IF YOU STEP ON THE LAWN!!!!!! Yeah, okay, that sounds pretty lame. Oh, and this movie is being made from a guy who has never made a movie before and just got out of college? Gee, this all sounds so...fun. I'm sorry, but when I can sum up the storyline in one sentence, it gets hard to get into the idea behind the movie.
But I am here to tell you, I was wrong in my assumptions. Dead wrong. From the way the movies looked, this looked like a movie for little kids prying on their fears that old houses will eat you while spitting on you, or something like that. But "Monster House" not only ends up being far more complicated and deep then the previews suggest, it actually ends up being scary. The story revolves around a twelve year old boy named D.J. D.J. is growing up, his voice is starting to crack, and he's starting to notice girls. When his best friend, a boy with the strange name of Chowder, comes over to inquire about Trick or Treating on Halloween the next day, D.J. says that he doesn't intend to Trick or Treat, as that sort of thing is beginning to feel very silly to him as he gets older.

The only possibly reason D.J. would have to going Trick or Treating would be if the babysitter he was being stuck with all weekend got on his nerves to a certain extent (when we meet her, we find that she might be all the motivation he needs to go out). But while the two boys are playing basketball, their balls falls on old man Nebbercrackers lawn, who died the previous day of a heart attack. When D.J. goes to retrieve the ball, the windows become eyes, the door becomes a mouth, and the trees become hands, and the house comes alive as he attacks young D.J. in a sudden and surprising attack sequence. The boys report the house to the police and the babysitter, but no one believes their story. Well, two people do. A pizza delivery boy named Skull believes them because of things he's seen between his journeys to his comic book conventions, and a girl named Jenny (who believes them mainly because the house tries to eat her).

When the house actually attacks and manages to eat someone, the kids realize they must do what they can to destroy the house before Halloween night comes, and tons of kids are put into danger. From this point on, we get a complicated film where secrets about the house are discovered, characters feelings are dived into, and some surprisingly scary moments lurk around every corner. This is one of the few animated features to actually set a mood and aura to create suspense and fear, instead of just making things jump out of shadows, which results more in cheap jumps then actual fear. One sequence where the kids launch in a plan gone wrong in particular gets very intense, very scary, and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

In fact, the whole movie does an extremely good job of balanced these terrifying, scary, excellent action sequences with these slow, somber, and intelligent scenes of dialog and character interaction. There is some humor spread out that feels like it was tacked on so that kids have something to laugh about (and I can't say they won't need these moments), but overall this is a thriller crossed with a character drama. Of course, you wouldn't know any of this is you watched the previews, but that's okay. This is what reviews are for. Reviews are also helpful because there might be a good movie that you wouldn't really know was good unless you read a good review. One of these movies if "Monster House." From the people I've talked to, no one has really been interested in this movie.

Either the story from the previews sound lame and boring. Maybe people are having a hard time keeping track of all the animated films out there. The biggest star in this movie is Jon Hedar, and he less then fifteen lines of dialog. The biggest reason though, from what I hear, is that it sounded like a kiddie film. Trust me folks, this is NOT a kiddie film! In fact, I'm going to venture to say that this film is scary enough, that I think kids under the age of ten are going to be scared by this film, as it really does become quite trippy (if you know what I mean). I also have to admit, this film gets quite sad near the end of the movie, to the point where I was on the verge of tears (of course, I'm a sucker for sad stories).

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that "A Scanner Darkly" came out this year, I would say that "Monster House" would have been the front runner for Best Animated Feature Film at the Academy Awards. If "A Scanner Darkly" doesn't win though, I'm sure this wonderful film will win. "Monster House" took me completely by surprise, as I wasn't expecting anything more then a simple kids movie. Instead, I got one of the most scary, action packed, emotional animated films I've seen since 2002's "Spirited Away." Here's hoping people take the time and take a chance on this wonderful film. Just leave all kids under ten at home, because this film is scary. I can't stress that enough, if you have kids under the age of ten, LEAVE THEM AT HOME!!!!

Side Note: Some theaters are showing this movie in 3D using the Real Cinema 3D process. Having seen the movie in 3D, I can testify that the 3D adds to the whole experience, and if the option to see it in 3D is available to you, then take it.

The MPAA Get's Reviewed

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Title: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Director: Kirby Dick
Rated: NC-17

What is the MPAA? The MPAA stands for the Motion Picture Association of America. What is the purpose of the MPAA? To inform parents of content in movies that would potentially be objectionable if viewed by children. Is the MPAA self-owned or sponsored by companies? The MPAA is an independent, self operated company that deals outside of Hollywood to rate films. All of this, is brought under the light in Academy Award winning documentary film maker Kirby Dick's new movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." For years the MPAA has been a staple of the movie industry. Whether you love or hate the ratings system of the MPAA, for better or worse the ratings are as basic a feature of the movie as the director.

People depend on the ratings to inform them about potentially objectionable content in a movie they want to see. If you know me, then you know that while I love the idea behind a ratings system, I have found myself questioning some of the choices of the MPAA. Why does one movie get a PG-13 when another movie gets an R, when it turns out the R rated film is much tamer then the PG-13 rated film? Why is a film with mild sex like "The Dreamers" and "Kids" given NC-17 ratings, while graphic movies like "Hannible" and "The Passion of the Christ" receives R ratings? I personally remember finding it strange that "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" got a PG-13, while "Kingdom of Heaven" got an R rating with the same amount of violence, with the only difference being that the blood in "Kingdom of Heaven" was red while "Lord of the Rings" blood was black.

These are some of the questions I have, so I was looking forward to seeing "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," a documentary that promised to study the MPAA with great zeal. And what zeal there is. The movie opens with an explanation of the MPAA, how it was created, and what it does. They explain how the ratings work, and then they explain the impact the ratings have on films. G's are for children's films, PG's are for family films, PG-13's are for teenagers, R's are for adults but kids can see them if a parent is with them, and NC-17's means no kids regardless of whether or not parents are there or not. Then the movie goes on to talk to Kimberly Pierce, the director of "Boy's Don't Cry." She admits with sadness that her movie, which she worked so hard to make, got an NC-17.

Kimberly expresses frustration with the rating as getting an NC-17 means her film will not be advertised on TV, in newspapers, or on most internet sites. When she asks what she could change to make her movie an R, she is told to cut a sex scene and a rape scene. She reluctantly agrees to trim the sex scene, but without the rape scene there would be no movie. Even more puzzling is that the main character gets beaten almost to death several times in the movie, yet the MPAA has no problems with the violence in the film. Kirby Dick wonders whether or not the MPAA is more strict on sex then they are with violence. A study with films that got NC-17 ratings show that out of all the movies to receive an NC-17 rating, only one of them had no sex in it what-so-ever (Kevin Smith's "Clerks," which was appealed and lowered to an R without any changes made to the film).

When Kirby tries to get into the MPAA to ask them some questions about how they rate their films, even more disturbing news comes up: No one from the MPAA building speaks to anyone. As it turns out, the MPAA is the most secret organization in the world, second only to the C.I.A. Even more disturbing is the fact that when attempting to talk to people who rate films, Kirby discovers that you never actually know who rates your films. Determined to get to the bottom of the MPAA, Kirby hires Becky Altringer, a private detective to help him find the names of people who rate movies. As the investigation goes on, film makers tell their stories of horror in dealing with the MPAA. Kevin Smith says he was shocked that his film got an NC-17, but was lucky enough to have one of the lawyers defending O.J. Simpson appeal the rating to an R.

Matt Parker expresses a very interesting story where his movie "Orgazmo" gets an NC-17, but the MPAA refuses to give him notes on how to get the movie lowered to an R. When his next film, "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut" gets an NC-17, the film is sent back with notes on how to get the film lowered to an R. The difference between his two films: "Orgazmo" was an independently produced film, while "South Park" was a studio produced film. Does the MPAA help out studios more then they do independent film makers? Further interviews suggest that they do, as every independent film maker gets no notes on how to lower any ratings they don't want to lower ratings, while studios get notes on how to lower high ratings they don't want.

One independent film maker decides to make a comedy about a teenage girl who is sent to a homosexuality center after her parents find out she is a lesbian. The film makers thought they were making a funny teen comedy and expected a PG-13 rating. The movie gets an NC-17, with no reason as to why. When they found out the reason for the rating, everyone is a little puzzled. The reason for the NC-17 is that a fully clothed girl is shown masturbating. But if masturbating is NC-17 rating material, then why is masturbating so frequent in the R rated "American Pie?" An even bigger question ends up being if masturbating is NC-17 rated material, then why is masturbating shown in the "American Pie" PREVIEWS?!?!
You know, those commercials for the films that are approved for all ages by the MPAA. Those previews that are going to be seen in front of PG-13 rated films? All of this just scratches the surface of the fun debates that go back in forth about the rating system. As the search to find out the identities of the raters of the MPAA grows more and more hopeless, Kirby continues to question the system. The MPAA claims that their system is not a necessity, but if your film has no rating on it, then people don't go to see it. If this is the case, then is the MPAA considered a monopoly? Once Kirby gets all the interviews he feels he can get, he calls the MPAA to get his film rated.

In an ironic twist of events, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" receives an NC-17 for "Some Sexual Content." When Kirby inquires about an appeal to get the rating lowered (seeing as how the MPAA refuses to give him advice on what to cut to get the R rating), he is shocked to discover that one of the rules is that he can not make comparisons of his film to other films. With no way to make an argument and no way to know who's rating his film, Kirby Dick accepts the NC-17 while his investigation comes to a close. "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a mixed bag. On one hand, as entertainment, the film is WILDLY entertaining! Using various interviews, stollen notes from the MPAA trash, and satire, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" attacks the MPAA with great zeal and passion.
By the end of the movie, you will most likely feel that the system is, more or less, broken. The problem comes in with some of the agreements the people make. They claim that the MPAA does not care about artistic freedom, and thus are putting a limit on their art. This is not true. While the MPAA is a flawed system, one that definitely needs to be fixed, movies as art are still free in many cases. The intent of the MPAA, as one catholic priest points out, is that film makers are free to make the movies they want, it's just that if they go too far down a certain road they will be cutting off some of the audience, and that they need to know that they are doing that. This is a valid point. I think we need to admit that the MPAA is not here to promote or care about the art of film making.

Why should they? That's not their job. Their job is to rate the movies based on objectionable CONTENT! By making this look like a sin, the film makers have completely missed the point of the MPAA. So while its frustrating that the MPAA doesnt really consider why certain scenes are filmed for in an artistic sense, we shouldnt expect them to. The film makers make it sound like the MPAA system should be destroyed so that the artists can run free with their art, but they dont really think as to why this would not be a good idea. If the MPAA was torn down and there was no rating system, then no one would go to the movies anymore. Its as simple as that. People like to be warned about what it is they are seeing, and even though lots of movies have been rated inappropriately recently, they are still a warning of some sort.

As much as people hate the DMV, we all realize that even though the system doesnt work as well as it should, there needs to be a system of some sorts at the end of the day or else everything would fall apart. So while the film makers in this movie can complain about how their art is being censored (in a way) by the NC-17 rating, ultimately they are responsible for what they put in their films, and if their movie is slapped with an NC-17, then its their own darn fault. [Editors Note: Just for the record, having seen the R rated version of "The Cooler" and the uncut scene of the sex scene from the NC-17 rated version, I think I can calmly and sanely tell the director that the two seconds of pubic hair that had to be cut to achieve the R rating was not a fatal blow to the story, characters, or your art.]

However, even though some of the requests these guys make are pretty unreasonable, some of the points they make are good. The fact that you can have tons of violence, language, and crude humor and never get an NC-17 is an absolute joke, and its discouraging to see sex scenes that show women getting abused get R ratings, while sex scenes showing that show love as something truly beautiful get NC-17's. As Kevin Smith points out, the thing that he would get tough on with harsh ratings in movies is abusement to women, yet that stuff just slides, appearing frequently in PG-13 rated movies, and even in many PG rated films. One director wonders why action movies that glorify violence get PG-13 ratings (like "Fast and The Furious" and "Stealth"), while movies that show violence as horrible get R ratings (like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Mystic River"). That same director suggests that the mentality should be reversed, as movies that show violence as something fun can be more harmful to kids and teenagers then movies that show violence as terrible.
After seeing some comparisons, we find ourselves agreeing with this man. The big issue that is worthy of digging deeper into is why the raters names are never revealed. Why is this? The MPAA claims that they dont want people to try and persuade their raters to give films lower ratings, but when the MPAA GIVES the studios notes on how to get their films lower ratings, this argument doesnt hold a lot of water. Its even more puzzling that during appeals to get ratings lowered you cant compare the content of your film to another films content. This makes making an argument for your film almost impossible, and its inexcusable that the MPAA is allowed to get away with this.

When the movie is finished, chances are "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" will come off just as flawed as the MPAA itself is. As entertainment, this is one of the best films Ive seen all year. Its a comedy, drama, crime investigation, and revenge film all rolled into one. Kirby Dick uses a lot of bully techniques that Michael Moore likes to use, and some of the results are absolutely hilarious, especially when comparison clips show how biased the MPAA is when it comes to ratings. The interviews of various directors are all very interesting and deep, and while I think some of them may be missing the point of the ratings system to a certain extent too, it is interesting to hear stories of their dealings with the MPAA and what a headache it all was to basically be editing your film to be judged several times with raters whose faces they never see.

As an argument, the film has some flaws. While some of the argument this film makes are well thought out, the fact that it misses the point on several key issues they brought up makes them look extremely ignorant at times. The fact that no one in the film offers a real good solution is also troublesome, making it feel like these guys can pick apart flaws in the system, but they cant actually come up with any solutions to the flaws they pick at. There is one way where an NC-17 rating wouldnt hurt a movie, and that one thing is if there was an NC-17 rated film that made money. But every time a studio edits a big profile release down to an R ("Team America: World Police," "South Park," and "Clerks II"), they are cutting off a chance to break the NC-17 curse that has plagued movies for years.

I think one of the points that the movie fails to realize is that most NC-17 rated films are low-budget films that no one wants to see. But if you released a NC-17 rated movie that people actually wanted to SEE...well then, I guess the rating wouldnt be a big issue anymore! As entertainment I can easily recommend this movie. As a documentary I cant recommend it quite as much, but it will still start a lively conversation. Now all we got to see is if people will see this movie or not.

Entertainment Value: ****
Documentary Value: **

Currently Listening To: Frankie Valli & The Four Seaons - Anthology

Some Thoughts On "Pirates of the Caribbean's" Box Office

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Okay, I'm assuming by now everyone's seen "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," right? I guess everyone would have to, seeing as how this film is breaking all these records. The highest grossing pirate film ever. The biggest summer blockbuster. Heck, it even dethroned "Spider-Man's" five year record for the most money made in a single weekend. It is this last claim that has me a little skeptical. Now I'm not sure how many of you read the box office reports, but if you don't, and are a fan of movies, you should really get into that habit. Does it mean anything to you? Probably not. But much like baseball fans find glee it watching the sports statistics running across their TV screen, there is a certain amount of fun to keeping track how much tickets a movie sells.

It's also fun to see how much money a movie makes compared to how much it costs. For example, reading the box office reports shows an amusing little statistic in the form of "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties." The movie was NOT a box office hit! The opening weekend showed the movie make around $5 million dollars and open at number eight. Hardly worthy to be called a hit right? Well the thing is, even though the film was deemed to be a flop, the film appeared to have legs as it made a steady $5 million a week for three weeks before it was pulled from most theater chains. This normally doesn't happen, and Fox might have made some money off the film if they had kept it in the theaters for several months (ah, but I guess there's a DVD release to be made to waste time on THAT).

Recently though, people are going gah-gah over "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" record-breaking opening weekend of $134 million dollars, saying that "Spider-Man's" record-breaking $113 million opening record had finally been broken. But honestly, were they expecting anything else? As always, there are factors to take into account for everything, and since you won't ever see Hollywood looking at factors, I guess I'll have to do it for them. Now, I hope this doesn't come off as a pirate hating blog to all of you, but I admit that simply sitting back and "accepting" this record breaking weekend has been a bit difficult for me. See, I'm a cynical person. A VERY cynical person! I look at factors, I look at variables, and I look at cause and effect.

First of all, let's look at "Spider-Man's" box office report:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman.htm

A look at the daily report shows that "Spider-Man" opened on 3,165 screens on opening day. We also look at the fact that it had been years since we saw any kind of superhero movie, and the last one we did get was "Batman & Robin" (a movie that is so bad, that every movie director should just point out that they didn't make THAT movie whenever they get a complaint about a movie they made). We also notice that there were no midnight showings for "Spider-Man." Moving on, let's look at the box office report for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest":

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=piratesofthecaribbean2.htm

Well, well, what do we have here? I see "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" had the fortune of having some midnight showings of the movie. On tope of which, it opened on 4,133 screens. 600 more screens then "Spider-Man" opened on. Oh, and HERE'S something you won't here from too many other people: Tickets cost $8.50 when "Spider-Man" came out but now cost $9.75. Well gee, isn't THAT a wake-up call! Taking all that into consideration, I'd say that about the same about of people went to see both movies, and that "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" is no more a success then most other action films. If you want box office results that REALLY impress, check out the box office report for "Gone With The Wind" (one of the movies we'll be watching for the Oscar discussion):

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gonewiththewind.htm

Now you guys might be wondering what the big deal is with this report. $198 million is a far cry from record breaking. But keep in mind, "Gone With The Wind" came out in 1939, when a movie ticket would literally cost you a dime. If the same amount of people bought tickets to see this movie with today's price's, then "Gone With The Wind" would be the record winner with $1,293,085,600 in tickets sold. How's THAT for a wake-up call! So not to rain on Disney's publicity parade, but once they manage to sell THAT many tickets, I'll take their record breaking stunt more seriously. Oh, as for the movie itself, I admit it IS good! I liked it just as much as the first, no more, no less. There's just one thing that would have made the movie better then the first: The other half of it.

Currently Listening To: Michael W. Smith - "The Second Chance" Soundtrack