Home
  • Like Us On Facebook
    • Like us on Facebook

  • +1 Us on Google
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook
    • Follow us on tumblr.

  • Search
Hypable

The popular book Perks of Being A Wallflower was adapted for film last year and is due to be released sometime in 2012 by Summit.

But now there’s been a roadbump: The film received a ‘R’ rating from the United States’ MPAA, which alienates many of the potential moviegoers who’ve read the book. So Summit intends to appeal the decision.

Rope of Silicon notes that the film was rated ‘R’ for “teen drug and alcohol use, and some sexual references.”

Larry Richman, a well-sourced movie writer, says the film’s director Stephen Chbosky has intended all along for the film to be rated PG-13.

Would you see the film even if it were rated R? Is it an issue Summit should be concerned with? Parents may not allow their kids to see it.

Emma Watson plays Sam, Logan Lerman plays Charlie, and Nina Dobrev plays Candance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.r.bailey Richard Bailey

    I willl go see it no matter what

  • Alyssa_R

    I’ll see it regardless, especially since I’m old enough too.  But it seems ludicrous that it’s rated R.  

  • Alyce

    The book is fairly graphic, but if Chbosky wrote the script and directed it to be PG-13, I don’t see why the MPAA would rate it R. The reasons for it being R are something you would see on a PG-13 rating. 

  • Kimmee

    I have read this book and I think this is bull, there is no way that this movie could be R rated unless they added things in or something. It should be a PG-13 rating and nothing higher. I’m glad that Summit is appealing the decision. It makes me wonder what is going on in this world when Twilight Breaking Dawn: Part 1 got a PG-13 and it was very disturbing for younger viewers to see, also with the violence that was shown it it and there was sexual references in that as well. This movie has drugs and alcohol use and sexual references and they are rating it R…there just seems like there is something wrong with this.

    If they won’t change the rating maybe they can edit some of the movie to get the rating changed without compromising the story. This is a coming of age book and a lot of teens go through doing drugs and/or alcohol (I’m not saying all do) so they should appeal this decision and I hope it gets change I will however be seeing the movie either way, the book was fantastic.

    • stargazer

      I do think it’s interesting that Breaking Dawn got PG-13.  I haven’t seen it, but I’ve heard stories–horror stories about people having seizures and girls being traumatized because of the birth scene.

      • Josh

        Lmfao, it wasn’t that bad. 

      • Kimmee

        It was horrible I couldn’t believe they got a PG-13 rating when I saw it. When you look around in a Twilight movie it is mainly people under 15 (or when I saw it it was) and their parents/friends. I’m just saying if i was a parent and I took my child to go see that I would be horrified that it was rated PG-13. I don’t get grossed out easily but that grossed me out. 

    • Phillip Good

      If you dumb it down, clean it up, change it from R to PG-13, then you WILL be compromising the story. When I first read this book I loved reading all the stuff that is making the film R rated. It wouldn’t have the edge that the book has if they manage to PG-13 it.

      • Kimmee

        It shouldn’t be an R-rated film, the stuff in that book isn’t that bad. It should be rated PG-13. To avoid the R-rating the director can imply things in order to avoid showing somethings…if that makes sense. I’m not saying do that for every part of the movie but some parts you could. It’s been done in the past.

        • Phillip Good

          You’re right- implying things could work quite well for this movie. I appreciate the power of subtlety. 

          I guess when I think of Perks it seems quite real to me, especially in comparison to Breaking Dawn which is very fantastical. Its a personal thing that I quickly discount/ignore the more adult parts of fantasy (unless its intense like wearing someone else’s freshly-removed face as a mask- looking at you Spartacus) and yet, if its a story set in the suburbs with events that could have actually happened, then the adult bits get to me more. Of course I realize the MPAA can’t apply this logic when rating movies and tv. “Let’s give A Game of Thrones a G rating because its a fantasy so the sex and violence won’t affect anyone” — that would be insane.

          When I read Perks I felt like I was reading something naughty and R-rated because it was opening and challenging my rather innocent mind at the time. It had the power to change how I thought about life and people and relationships. 

          I don’t know the States’ rating system very well but it would be great if they had an in-between rating like for 15 year olds (like MA15). I don’t think I’d want a 13 year old of mine watching it (probably not reading the book either). But give them a few years and they should be good and ready.

          I suppose I’m just trying to say, in a very round about way, that the adult stuff is an important part of this story and it will affect viewers and readers differently and at different ages. This movie should be given the chance to have the power to get young adults (but not too young) thinking about various issues. Or they could just read the book.

  • Shawn

    If people under 17 can read and understand the book, why should they be kept from seeing the film? PG 13 seems like a more reasonable rating to me because I think most people 13 and up are mature enough to see the film.

    • http://www.hypable.com Andrew Sims

      The MPAA and their rating system is pretty corrupt.  It’s run by a group of anonymous parents who are deciding what other people’s kids should and should not see.

  • http://twitter.com/RachelgurlFL Rachel Gay

    dont bother me if its R rated

  • Luna

    i didn’t really like the book, truth be told, 

  • Angela Yannes

    tell me when it will be released!!!!

    • http://www.hypable.com Andrew Sims

      Release date hasn’t been set yet, but it’s expected to hit theaters this year.

  • Kitster_kosh

    No. I won’t go see it. I’m LDS (a.k.a. mormon) and we aren’t supposed to see R-rated movies. So not only does that limit teen audiences, but excludes mormons as well…and you would be surprised to know how many of us there are.

    • Katelyn

      But…isn’t there a difference between movies rated R for sex or violence, and movies rated R for something like drug use?  Not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to understand. :) 

      • stargazer

        First off, this is going to be a somewhat religious answer to a question somewhat concerning religion.

        If someone considers a somewhat religious conversation inappropriate and flags this post, I’ll understand.  Hypable isn’t really a place for a religious conversation, since it’s a place for fandoms.  I’m not trying to push any views on anyone, just provide answers to a question.

        The counsel to not watch rated R movies has to do with filling our minds with wholesome things.  Sex, violence, drug use, vulgar language, they can all be considered unwholesome.  To just not see R movies because it’s what the LDS church says is looking at it too simply.  And to see some PG-13 (and, must I say, some PG) movies because they don’t categorically fall under the “Don’t watch it if it’s R” counsel is also going against the counsel of the LDS church.  It’s interesting because my grandparents (who are stalwart members of the LDS church) saw the King’s Speech and loved it.  The R-rating thing is still in place, but we’re also told to judge according to the admonitions of Paul (is it good, is it praiseworthy, is it virtuous, is it pure, etc.).  It all boils down to, “Does this push me away from Jesus Christ?” (or, if you want to look at this in a non-religious way, “Does watching this influence my thoughts in such a way as to make me a worse person?”) not “Is it R?” 

        (Random side note: It’s interesting how often I notice if something makes me worse instead of if something makes me better/makes me feel happy.  I think it’s just part of human nature that it’s easier to remember the bad in life more than the good.  I don’t know if that’s how it is for anyone else or if I just have a morbid outlook on life.  I hope not.)

        As to whether I’d watch Perks or not, or if Mormons would be pushed away from it, I have no idea.  I’ve never read the book.

        • http://twitter.com/Tygridia tygridia

          Don’t worry about the religious comment, part what everybody loves about Hypable is that you are free to speak your mind as long as you don’t hurt people and to some extend, as long as what you are saying isn’t pointless. 
          I’m an atheist and I really loved what you said -don’t know much about mormons-, specially the random side note. 

          Just wanted to ask if you could watch a film that shows you what could be considered a bad behaviour, if the conclusion you can get is I’m not meant to do that; like “American Playboy”, “Trainspoting” or “The Wave” (sorry, couldn’t think of better examples). I mean, films that expose a bad behaviour and in which the person is somehow punished even if it’s not in a explicit way.

          Maybe my question was just terribly stupid, but hope you understand what I meant.

          • stargazer

            I haven’t seen any of those movies, so I wouldn’t know for sure.  I think it’s more about doing things delicately (not quite sure that’s the right way to say it)–is it explicit?  Is it implied?  Also the subject matter matters.  I’m guessing “American Playboy” is about…well…a playboy.  Watching something like that would be unacceptable because of the subject matter.  Maybe it’s just the way that I was raised, but even implied (censoring my words because of little kiddies) turns my stomach, and lots of it, implied or otherwise, would turn me off to the show.  But in general implied is better than explicit because you get the idea without having it shoved down your throat, if you know what I mean.  Tons of exploding guts, tons of swear words, tons of violence and/or promiscuity, all of those things are not “delicate.”  Moderation in all things is probably a good way to clarify.  Do they show things in moderation?  Or do they go all out for the sake of realism so that by the end your stomach turns or you feel numb to everything?

            Some of my favorite shows (not all-time favorite, but still a genre I like) are ones that show the consequences of bad behavior, especially if it’s juxtaposed against someone who chooses to change and escapes the bad situation.  (one that I watched several years ago was “Freedom Writers” about kids in an English class who lived in poverty, were parts of gangs, all sorts of stuff, and managed to rise above their circumstances.  I was a young teenager and thought it was “edgy.”  I also really liked an edited version of Gladiator that I saw, which I think kind of fits the “consequences for bad behavior are revealed” genre. (I’m not sure what it took out since I haven’t seen the unedited version))

            (On another random note, I like religious movies, but I hate religious movies that shove things down your throat.  Just as “hard topics” have to be done delicately to be able to pull it off, religious topics also have to be done delicately.  Make it uplifting, but don’t pour on the cheese please.)

            (even more random note: maybe the censoring was unnecessary, but I decided to leave it in)

            I’m not even sure if I’ve answered your question, but maybe so.

          • http://twitter.com/Tygridia tygridia

            Yes, you did. I  chosed bad examples because American Playboy and Trainspoting (about drugs) are really explicit, but you answered exactly to what I was talking about. If I understood properlly, basically the point is not the topic, but the way is treated and the message it has, so it kind of makes sense both comments about the R-rated films.

            Thanks for answering, I was really curious about how it was, and I’m nearly as curious to know which parts of Gladiator were cut.

            (Hope I wasn’t insulting at any level in the conversation)

  • Rabbit471

    don’t care really, gonna see it either way. though i hope they get a final rating in soon cause the sooner that happens, the faster we get a freakin trailer 

  • http://twitter.com/chelscantil Chelsea Cantil

    I’ll see it either way. but makes me wonder if they’ll make changes if necessary

  • Blair Warren

    Well if you’ve read the book this rating actually makes sense… I don’t get why so many people are surprised by it

    • http://twitter.com/tarthurs09 Tylor Arthurs

      Well I think it’s because people are upset that the director was aiming for PG13 so he probably withheld some stuff that could’ve been included had he been aiming for an R rating.

    • Violet

      Agreed. I figured it was going to be R if it kept everything in. Drugs, sex, abortion, language. I’m really not surprised. I’m not quite sure how Chbosky wanted to keep it pg13 and still leave a lot in. That wasn’t going to fly, but we’ll see what happens. 

  • Megham11

    I think the R rating is suitable, especially if you’ve read the book. There are many mature themes and if they are going to heavily imply certain things that occur in the book, I don’t think many 13-year-olds would feel comfortable watching. However, there are most likely many young teens that would be fine watching and therefore the decision should be up to the parents. ‘R’ or not, kids who want to see it will.  

  • Leigh

    I’m fine with an R rating.  I really hope they don’t have to change anything to get the rating changed

  • Maggie

    I find it funny how books can change a person’s whole perspective on life and can be so meaningful and change a person but there’s no age restrictions on them. But a movie is completely different. Personally, I think reading something can be just as harmful to children as it is seeing it.

    • Bella

      But really, not everyone reads. It’s mostly more mature minded people who read, especially a book of such a perspective-changing caliber, whereas with movies, anyone can sit down and watch a movie. All it requires is a couple hours of doing nothing. And, hey, add in some sex and drugs and any guy off the street’s going to be down for that. Those not mature enough for the book wouldn’t read it anyway, so what does it matter that it isn’t rated. It’s more a matter of maturity and intellect, the desire to learn. This book can change your perspective if you open yourself up to it in the first place. You have to go to a book and put in the effort that is otherwise not required for a movie.

  • AngieRanck

    i’ll def see it no matter what the rating is. i just hope they don’t cut out any scenes just so they can make it PG-13.

  • Ncnapper92

    It should be rated “R” but I think that mature 13-year-olds could handle it so give it the PG-13 only if they promise not to cut anything, otherwise, keep R and ask your parents to let you in.

  • Gary65

    People need to get the stick out of their ass and realize that all that matters is that a movie is done right. If it is, it’ll make money. Who cares about the rating? Look at Shame. That’s Rated R but it’s still gotten tonnes of buzz.

    Chill.

    • Drew

      I don’t think shame is a good comparison because it isn’t at all for the same demographic. 

      • Gary65

        Its not the demographic that I’m referring to. Its the principle. So long as a movie is done right, it doesn’t matter that its rated R.

        • Liderc

          The fact remains you lose a huge audience by going from pg13 to R.  I agree with you that a film should be made the best it can be, not cater to a ratings system but the hard truth is that production companies make movies to make money.  If they feel they’ll lose a lot of money (which they will with an R rating) then they’ll cut scenes to drop it down a rating, which is sad.

          Having said that, I see no reason why anyone wouldn’t allow their kids to see R rated films. Rarely is there a film that I feel isn’t appropriate for a kid over the age of 10. Drugs are talked about constantly on the news which are readily available on tv and sex is something a 13 year old is already talking to their parents about (hopefully).

  • Jason

    Anyone who is surprised hasn’t read the book. And personally, I’m surprised they’re not sugarcoating anything. 

  • Katelyn

    It’s the drug stuff, that’s the only reason why.  The MPAA is super strict about drug stuff nowadays.  

    • http://twitter.com/SlySound Brett H

      Well, the fact that it involves teens is also taken into consideration. Teens using drugs/alcohol is going to be “graded” harder than adults. 

  • LotusCalm

    I think it’s ridiculous, I haven’t read it but if he directed it to be PG-13 then it should be. We can handle it. xD

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7GJGPUWLPFHSGSVBJQZKVFIUEE Nik

    As long as they don’t push for a PG rating.

  • http://twitter.com/CassiopeiaDrake Cassie Drake

    lol I’m not surprised. It’ll be rated 14A, both before and after edits, in Canada which I think is just right

  • Vivian Page

    From that rating it sounds like Mean Girls.

    • http://twitter.com/Tygridia tygridia

      Mean Girls is R-rated?

  • upper_westsider

    I think Perks could easily have been done as an R-rated film.  It’s not Harry Potter!  Chbosky will be forced to do some editing in order to get the PG-13 and I’m sure he’ll find a way to satisfy the MPAA.  I just hope he doesn’t have to alter this story too much.  It’s unforgettable!

    • Blair Warren

      Yeah I think they are likely to drop some scenes :-/

  • Cassie

    It should be rated PG-13.. That’s ridiculous. I will see it no matter what, it just makes it a little more difficult to get a ticket if it’s rated R.

  • http://twitter.com/SlySound Brett H

    It has nothing to do with alienation and all about money (from Summit’s point of view anyway). A very small portion of those who’ve read the book would be affected by it being rated R. 

  • akacj18

    yes, an R rating is a huge issue for the movie’s target demographic. whether people who have read the book believe the material is suitable for a PG-13 rating is irrelevant. the MPAA has strict rules. if they say its R, its R. the movie makers are gonna have to do some work and earn the lower rating.

  • shar

    I can still see it if it’s R, but I’ve read the book and I think it should be PG13. 

  • http://twitter.com/HUGO7321 anthony

    I’ll still go see it, but idk but to me that seems like a pretty weak reason to be rated R, but then again teen drug use is a big deal and i get not wanting to expose it to young audiences but I mean Chbosky was very involved so if he made it to be PG-13 then i see no reason to dispute the claim.

  • Drew

    I definately understand the rating even thought I don’t want it to be R. I’m 13 and I read the books and I am sure I will be able to see it either way. My parents know how big of a fan of the book I am so that probably won’t be a problem for me. Though I think that money will definitely be a problem for Summit. Summit isn’t a small movie production company. It is big so I am sure they will try to get as much money as they can. 

  • Josh

    Heavy gore, drug use, a lot of cussing, sex/nudity. The 4 things that the MPAA get queasy on. This film had drug use, and apparently a lot. So naturally the MPAA gives it a R. 

  • glee_hp_hungergames_fan

    I hope their appeal works; I’m not sure I’ll be allowed to see it if it’s rated R

  • Lukas_caldera

    I’ll see it if it’s rated R for Emma Watson…what? She’s hot.

  • scar1026

    The movie isn’t made for adults, and the message isn’t for adults. It’s for teenagers… so restricting them from seeing it is just ridiculous. MPAA is stupid.

    • katie

      This comment should have more likes. That is a really good point! I didn’t even think about that.

  • Perse

    oh america…

  • LGray1983

    To be honest, I was wondering how they were going to make it not R rated. It’s a pretty heavy book that deals with a lot of issues. Reading the scenes is pretty different from seeing them portrayed on screen. I hope they don’t water it down, though, just to lower the rating. Hopefully most teens will still be allowed to see it.

  • http://www.kevanhenshaw.tumblr.com/ Kevan Henshaw

    It doesn’t matter. Teenagers are teenagers. They’re gonna see it either way. We have this thing called the internet. It has free movie websites and almost every teenager can hit the ‘I certify that I’m 18′ button. 

    The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is about the most realistic you can get in a book on adolescence. That’s why it should get an R rating. Chbosky shouldn’t have withheld anything though, and now I’m kind of upset he was aiming for a lower rating. But as long as it’s good (as I’m sure it will be) then I’ll be happy.

  • Tomas

    I’m going to see it

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joey-Mangum/1820064015 Joey Mangum

    I’d go see it regardless of the rating! XD

  • moonfey

    I’ll go see it there is no way i’d miss an emma watson movie no matter the rating she is a great actress

  • Lizard14

    I was really thinking it would be a good movie when i heard the outline. But I am only 14 years old and my parents would not allow me to see it if it was rated “R.” And i also wouldn’t want to watch it myself. I really hope that they take stuff out and it goes to PG-13. I think that they will make more money if the rating is PG-13.

  • http://myselfandpotter.blogspot.com/ VideoKilledSeverusSnape

    ‘Perks of Being a Wallflower’ is a young adult book, not an adult book. There should be no reason for it to be Rated R if they possibly added “extra” things. 

  • KatnissLovegood

    I don’t see why people are surprised that it’s rated R…haven’t you read the books? It’s mature stuff in there. It may be written about young adults and for a young adult audience, but a lot of young adults lead what the MPAA deems a rated R life, so there you go.

    • KatnissLovegood

      Also, it’s not that hard for someone under 17 to get into a rated R movie….All you do is buy a ticket to a PG movie and then walk into the screen playing Perks…I did that all the time when I was 16. It may not be right, but, a girls’ gotta do what a girls’ gotta do.

  • hpspnlover1

    I think this brings up an interesting issue. On the one hand , the book was written for a teen audience. However, the book is known to deal with adult situations and that general transition into young adulthood. The fact that this translated on screen in such a way as to receive a R rating does not surprise me really.

    I think what is interesting is that this may not be so limiting. Teens who read the book and want to see may be passionate enough to suffer through it with an older adult. The R rating doesn’t forbid teens from entering, they just need an adult guardian. This could potentially lead to important conversations occurring between adults and teenagers. 

    But yeah, hopefully it works out. 

  • http://www.twitter.com/morgan_burt Morgan Burt

    I’m pretty sure I’m in the minority here, but I have a personal commitment not to see Rated R films, so–very unfortunately–unless the rating gets appealed, I won’t be seeing it. :(

    I do appreciate the rating system because it warns me (a 25-year old woman) of movies that contain vulgarity, sexually explicit scenes, or gory violence, which personally I don’t want to see.

  • Guest

    I think every one here understands that if they cut some controversial parts where they “show” the drug use or “show” the sexual acts, they can get it down to rated-R. If the characters say Charlies swears a lot instead of showing him swearing, they can get it down to PG-13. This really shows that being told something lowers the rating, while showing it makes it r-rated. Don’t you get it, kids may read the books and it’s suitable for them, but they are just being told that charlie had sex, he is doing drugs, he is swearing every sentence. It becomes more real when it is acted out on screen. Reading about violence is not the same as SEEING it being committed. We can’t just say kids as young as 13 can read perks so they should be allowed to see the movie. They are allowed, but the movie can only say that the actors do those illicit or mature things instead of actually showing them do it. take for example you are reading about a rape scene in perks. it is controversial and seems real. Have that acted out on screen makes it 100 times more real.

    • Guest

      *I think every one here understands that if they cut some controversial parts where they “show” the drug use or “show” the sexual acts, they can get it down to pg-13.

  • Guest

    Summit don’t want a PG13 Rating so that those whom the film is ‘speaking to’ are able to see it. They want a PG13 rating so more people will be able to pay to see it. R ratings mean fewer dollars.

  • anon

    I will go see it no matter what and anyone below 18 who has read the book or who is up for seeing a real coming of age story and not some Disney stuff should also see it. Bring a parent or any other close adult – take the risk, Perks is worth it

  • Melv1024

    I will see this movie no matter what, but who the hell is “Candance”?? I’m assuming it’s a mistake and should be Candice maybe, but there is nobody by either name in that book! Ugh. It was fine the way it was, they shouldn’t be inventing random characters.

    • Smoresluver13

      candice is the name of the sister i think, she never had a name in the book if i’m not mistaken, so i think that they gave her a name in the movie. correct me if i’m wrong

  • soph

    I Guess the UK is more relaxed, whatever usually gets an R rating in the US, usually gets a 15 in the UK, meaning anyone over 15 could watch it, this means less people miss out..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=531808242 Courtney Gibson

    I’ll go see it no matter what, but i’m 18. I think readers of the book, no matter how old they are will go see the movie, even if they have to drag their parents a long to get in. I’ve seen PG-13 films contain strong drug use. ‘Some Sexual References’ is a total pg-13 saying, so i’m confused as to why they would take it all the way to R. 

  • AvisWizard178

    In this film, will Emma Watson speak in an American accent, or is she gonna stay British?

    • Ncnapper92

       I bet American.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=722496967 Ana Selene Rodriguez Garcia

    I” go see it and the R rating is fine for me but I do agree that it would alienate a lot of readers

  • Prettyfairy1996

    i would be sad if it was R because i wouldn’t be allowed to see it :(

  • http://twitter.com/Andrew_ww Andrew W

    I usually watch 1 R rated movie a month.

  • http://twitter.com/ShelleBelleSki Rochelle Korolewski

    I would still go see it. Personally I don’t like that some movies receive a PG-13 rating when they seem to me that they should have been ‘R’ and others go through this same thing as this movie. 

  • Kimberpower

    I have been REALLY looking forward to this movie because I love Emma and Nina, but if it’s rated R I won’t be seeing it. I really hope that they can fix it. :/

  • Guest

    I’ll still see it, but I feel like they’re cutting out a large portion of their audience. I would say that the book is generally 14+, but hopefully the younger kids can find someone to take them. However, I still really hope it gets changed!

  • Mrs Rachel_malfoy

    i wanna go see it! i mean i’m only 14 and i WILL lie about my age to get into this movie!

  • http://twitter.com/Lorentio16 Lauren Dipple

    i do not understand how the american rating system works. In the UK its not such a big deal:)

  • http://twitter.com/ameywakeford Amey Wakeford

    How does this MPAA even exist? They sound like a bunch of uptight parents, i’m glad the UK is run by the BBFC, they recently did an article on BBC radio 5 live about how they clasify films and i was genuinly happy with what they said, they know thier films, they’ve been in the industry and i trust them with thier ratings

  • Alexacadia

    ….who is candance?

    • Drew

      Candace is Charlies older sister. Her name was never mentioned in the book.

  • http://twitter.com/mwdickens2013 Mary Warren Dickens

    I totally understand why it’s rated R, but I do agree that summit will likely need to get it to a PG-13 to keep its audience.

  • Erica

    I’m going to see it whatever the final rating is; I kinda expected a R rating, though.

  • ollie

    I want it to be rated pg 13 because I think it would be stupid to rate something r just for sexual “references”. the book was jot at all bad in any way and I feel that if it was rated r most of the viewers would no longer be able to watch it.

  • Igobogi

    This movie should be kept as Rated R.  I feel like it would allow it to have a lot more leniency in filming and production. Furthermore, I believe that the audiences who would fit PG-13 could be accompanied by a parent regardless. The book represents a positive image and smart parents will raise their kids to be smart enough to understand and take responsibility when acting on these according “drug, alcohol, and sexual reference” use.

Hypable encourages the community to use our Comments feature to hold thoughtful, polite, and critical discussions. We do NOT tolerate inappropriate, rude, or downright mean discussion towards the news story's subject matter or towards other Hypable users. We reserve the right to delete or ban comments and users who violate these guidelines.