The First $100 Mil NC-17 Movie Will Be In The Year ...

Will it be a vulgar comedy, a horror movie, or a sex spectacle? Or none of the above?

Elizabeth Berkley in 'Showgirls' - United Artists

What does a $100 million NC-17 movie look like? Is it a horror film? A vulgar comedy? A dramatic sexual curiosity? Last week Universal's Bruno was slapped with the dreaded NC-17 rating and as soon as I read this news, the first thing I thought was that the studio probably just earned themselves an extra couple of mil. Naturally, the film was going to get cut down to an R rating, but not before the Internet started buzzing. So when I thought about writing this piece, the answer to my question become obvious: The first $100 million NC-17 movie will likely be a risqué comedy with an established audience that a studio with cajones decides to release as is.

The MPAA doesn't seem to have a big problem with violence. Some of the most disturbing and depraved things I've ever seen were in R-rated films. How much further can the horror genre take it? I've seen eyeballs melt out of skulls by blowtorches. I've seen jaws ripped off and tongues dangling like aging meat. I've seen arms, legs and heads chopped off torsos. I've seen swords slashed through faces and skulls. I've seen a girl in one movie cut off a dude's junk and rip off the rest of it for good measure, tendons and tissue pulling like rubber bands. It's safe to say I've seen it all, or at least close to it. The horror genre would need to invent new obscene-looking body parts to mutilate at this point.

Sex is a whole other issue. Remember when Showgirls was going to be the movie that broke the NC-17 rating wide open? I started thinking about that movie and thought, What if it didn't suck? What if some director with a strong script landed A-list talent to bare all in a sexually mature, intriguing adult tale? Maybe a suspense thriller of some kind a la Basic Instinct that a major director had enough pull to stick with the dreaded rating.

See the best cinematic stripping

So a $100 million dollar NC-17 film will appear when?

NEVER.

The reason is simple. Studios are about the bottom line. And here is the bottom line: NC-17 limits the number of potential tickets. Would an established sure-fire comedy hit like Bruno sell a million or two more in curiosity tickets because of its NC-17 rating? Maybe ... but at the expense of millions upon millions more. High school kids are a gigantic market. No. They are the market and if you keep them out, you're cutting off your legs. A movie studio isn't going to let any filmmaker cut off their legs in a major film. And filmmakers have less cause to be uncompromising, especially with unrated directors' cuts on DVD waiting in the wings. It doesn't matter if the film cost $100 million to make or a hundred dollars. If the studio senses a hit, they aren't going to release it with the NC-17 scarlet letter. It's a drain.

The real problem, of course, is the MPAA. Get rid of these unqualified fools. And get rid of the NC-17 rating altogether. It's a joke. That's right. If it were up to me, there would be R-rated movies and then there would be porn. If I ever run things, lock the children away.