If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   Why unrated cuts on DVD do no service to cinema   (denofgeek.com) divider line 143
    More: Interesting, DVD, movies, Dredd, action cinema, family friendly  
•       •       •

9624 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Sep 2012 at 2:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-19 11:53:47 AM
Hey, If I direct a movie, and put on the canvas what I want. I'm the artist. If someone butcheres it, they are the butcher.
Problem is, most Americans will eat McDonalds, and forgo a farking steak.
Me, The less the butcher is involved, the better.
Whack his dick and horns of and bring me the rest.
 
2012-09-19 01:34:03 PM
With few exceptions, I don't see movies in the theater anyway, so it makes little difference to me. However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it. You have to deal with the market realities and while there are a lot of people like the author who would like to see the full version in the theater, more people buy tickets to movies rated lower than R... that's it, that's all it is, production companies don't make enough money off of rated R movies, generally, to justify their costs.
 
2012-09-19 01:45:29 PM
People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.
 
2012-09-19 02:00:33 PM

serpent_sky: Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it


"Yippie Kayay Motherf-" *BOOOM*
 
2012-09-19 02:35:32 PM
'R' Rated movies make money. Fact.

To cater to some dreamt up PG13 demo is beyond retarded.
 
2012-09-19 02:38:29 PM
TL;DR summary: people would rather wait and rent the complete version of a movie rather than see a chopped version of it at the theater, and somehow the complete version that you want to rent is the problem.
 
2012-09-19 02:40:55 PM

vudukungfu


Me, The less the butcher is involved, the better.
Whack his dick and horns of and bring me the rest.


I didn't know butchers had horns.
 
2012-09-19 02:43:30 PM

serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.


Some PG horror films rock
 
2012-09-19 02:47:54 PM
And if you want to see an 'unrated' movie do right, just watch Sex Drive. The theatrical version was ok (has Seth Green playing a foul-mouthed Amish), kinda funny at times, but very typical. The unrated version, on the other hand, is farkin hysterical.

The directors even have a blurb at the beginning saying "Please watch the theatrical version first. If you don't you will hate this version because it will make almost no sense." Random naked chicks walking the background, scenes that go well past the 'cut' stage, them breaking character and laughing. It all combines to make a very funny movie.
 
2012-09-19 02:53:48 PM
Blame it on the MPAA's insistence of farking with the ratings system.

Case in point: "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut."
 
2012-09-19 02:54:06 PM

AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock


That movie is pretty much responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating.
 
2012-09-19 02:55:26 PM

scottydoesntknow: serpent_sky: Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it

"Yippie Kayay Motherf-" *BOOOM*



"Yippie Kayay Mother, father!"
 
2012-09-19 02:57:30 PM

Leopold Stotch: AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock

That movie is pretty much responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating.


I think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is what caused it, but Poltergeist helped. 

/Thank you, Steven Spielberg
 
2012-09-19 03:04:23 PM

scottydoesntknow: And if you want to see an 'unrated' movie do right, just watch Sex Drive. The theatrical version was ok (has Seth Green playing a foul-mouthed Amish), kinda funny at times, but very typical. The unrated version, on the other hand, is farkin hysterical.

The directors even have a blurb at the beginning saying "Please watch the theatrical version first. If you don't you will hate this version because it will make almost no sense." Random naked chicks walking the background, scenes that go well past the 'cut' stage, them breaking character and laughing. It all combines to make a very funny movie.


you must not watch many movies.

because Sex Drive is a cinematic turd. The extended cut is just more shiat on the pile. They KNEW the movie sucked so they just put random tits in the "extended version". The ONLY watchable parts of the movie are the Seth Green parts and even HE admits that the movie is a turd.

Please don't lie to people about "Sex Drive", and if you truly aren't lying, then watch more movies so you have a frame of reference.
 
2012-09-19 03:05:06 PM

serpent_sky: People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.


Sam Raimi's last 2 horror movies have been pg13, and they are scarier than all the rest of the garbage out there. You don't necessarily need blood and gore to make a great horror movie. Of course, most directors do not have a fraction of his talent.
 
2012-09-19 03:08:01 PM

machodonkeywrestler: serpent_sky: People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Sam Raimi's last 2 horror movies have been pg13, and they are scarier than all the rest of the garbage out there. You don't necessarily need blood and gore to make a great horror movie. Of course, most directors do not have a fraction of his talent.


I love Drag Me To Hell, but don't try and tell people that it was "scary" in any way. It had a couple of BOO moments but the movie is mostly just there being an unofficial sequel to the Evil Dead movies.
 
2012-09-19 03:08:58 PM

frepnog: because Sex Drive is a cinematic turd.


I thought it was pretty damn funny.
 
2012-09-19 03:09:55 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Leopold Stotch: AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock

That movie is pretty much responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating.

I think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is what caused it, but Poltergeist helped. 

/Thank you, Steven Spielberg


And Gremlins.

/Which was produced by Spielberg
//Guess he decided 1984 would traumatize kids
///Still hate that movie
 
2012-09-19 03:12:38 PM
CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.


An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.

I get that.


He was biatching about telling a "toned down" story to try and pack more people in the theatre and then selling the non-toned down story on DVD.
 
2012-09-19 03:13:00 PM

serpent_sky: People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.


I'm with you on it but we're in the minority. Studios make WAY more money on PG-13 movies than anything else.
 
2012-09-19 03:14:18 PM

Leopold Stotch: AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock

That movie is pretty much responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating.


Forgot there was no PG-13 back then. Funny thing: any old episode of CSI or whatever is far more violent than Poltergeist, Temple of Doom, etc.
 
2012-09-19 03:16:05 PM

AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock


Never happen today.


meanmutton: Studios make WAY more money on PG-13 movies than anything else


I refuse to see them in the theatre.
 
2012-09-19 03:17:25 PM

liam76: CSB-
Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.


Did he honestly expect any difference living in a country under Sharia law?
 
2012-09-19 03:21:03 PM

scottydoesntknow: And if you want to see an 'unrated' movie do right, just watch Sex Drive. The theatrical version was ok (has Seth Green playing a foul-mouthed Amish), kinda funny at times, but very typical. The unrated version, on the other hand, is farkin hysterical.

The directors even have a blurb at the beginning saying "Please watch the theatrical version first. If you don't you will hate this version because it will make almost no sense." Random naked chicks walking the background, scenes that go well past the 'cut' stage, them breaking character and laughing. It all combines to make a very funny movie.


That movie is farking hilarious. Kind of along the lines of eurotrip....there was a catchy song in that movie somewhere.

I'm pretty sure I've only seen the unrated version though. Dildo on donut?
 
2012-09-19 03:21:09 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: vudukungfu

Me, The less the butcher is involved, the better.
Whack his dick and horns of and bring me the rest.


I didn't know butchers had horns.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-09-19 03:21:28 PM

liam76: CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.

An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.

I get that.


He was biatching about telling a "toned down" story to try and pack more people in the theatre and then selling the non-toned down story on DVD.


It's not a "time" issue, an extended cut is usually like saying, "Look, the studio wouldn't let me tell the story I wanted." Whether that's because of length (Blade Runner, Gladiator) or content (so very, very many), it's the same message.
 
2012-09-19 03:23:06 PM

meanmutton: Did he honestly expect any difference living in a country under Sharia law?


Soon to be the good ole U.S. of A., too.
 
2012-09-19 03:24:15 PM

meanmutton: liam76: CSB-
Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

Did he honestly expect any difference living in a country under Sharia law?


He had just moved there, and they are pretty moderate.
 
2012-09-19 03:24:20 PM
I also will immediately skip any horror movie with a PG-13 unless word-of-mouth says it's amazing. Not because I want to see gore in all of them, but because that rating sends the message: "We made this movie to appeal to the average dumbass 13 year old." They need to stop doing that shiat.
 
2012-09-19 03:24:33 PM

frepnog: machodonkeywrestler: serpent_sky: People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Sam Raimi's last 2 horror movies have been pg13, and they are scarier than all the rest of the garbage out there. You don't necessarily need blood and gore to make a great horror movie. Of course, most directors do not have a fraction of his talent.

I love Drag Me To Hell, but don't try and tell people that it was "scary" in any way. It had a couple of BOO moments but the movie is mostly just there being an unofficial sequel to the Evil Dead movies.


Maybe scary isn't the best description, but come to think of it, I don't even know the last movie that I saw that was actually scary. Shiat was scary when I kid, but if I re-watch those same movies now, it's kinda corny.
 
2012-09-19 03:31:15 PM

liam76: CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.

An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.
here's some worthless scenes that add some sex or violence we cut out but otherwise these scenes slowed the pace down or were worthless but, by all means, pay another $15 for the same dvd you already own so you can see it 'uncut'.

I get that.

 

FTFY
 
2012-09-19 03:38:28 PM

frepnog: Please don't lie to people about "Sex Drive", and if you truly aren't lying, then watch more movies so you have a frame of reference.


Sex Drive is one of those movies that I hate to admit I laugh at, but damn if it's on, I'm watching it!
And yes, it's the first time in history someone has said "Seth Green was one of the best parts of that movie!"

But it was a funny movie!
 
2012-09-19 03:41:15 PM

museamused: liam76: CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.

An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.
here's some worthless scenes that add some sex or violence we cut out but otherwise these scenes slowed the pace down or were worthless but, by all means, pay another $15 for the same dvd you already own so you can see it 'uncut'.

I get that.

FTFY


While that might be true in some cases, that's not the usual reason. The scenes that are added back in are sometimes simply because they want to add in some "shock" value or whatever, but most of the time it is because the studio and director didn't agree on what audiences would want to see or what would be viable in theaters. Blade Runner is a great example.


timujin: An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.


I just realized what you meant by that... ignore my earlier post.
 
2012-09-19 03:47:36 PM

buntz: frepnog: Please don't lie to people about "Sex Drive", and if you truly aren't lying, then watch more movies so you have a frame of reference.

Sex Drive is one of those movies that I hate to admit I laugh at, but damn if it's on, I'm watching it!
And yes, it's the first time in history someone has said "Seth Green was one of the best parts of that movie!"

But it was a funny movie!


So just for reference, are you one of those people that thinks American Pie is one of the top 10 comedies of all time?
 
2012-09-19 03:50:36 PM

browntimmy: buntz: frepnog: Please don't lie to people about "Sex Drive", and if you truly aren't lying, then watch more movies so you have a frame of reference.

Sex Drive is one of those movies that I hate to admit I laugh at, but damn if it's on, I'm watching it!
And yes, it's the first time in history someone has said "Seth Green was one of the best parts of that movie!"

But it was a funny movie!

So just for reference, are you one of those people that thinks American Pie is one of the top 10 comedies of all time?


Yeah, that is another of those movies that are not nearly as good as some people think.

actually, that movie pretty much sucks. It was much better back when it was called "Porky's". My wife tried to convince me that American Pie was awesome. I had never seen it because I just KNEW it was a pile, but I gave in and watched it with her. Yep, as I thought, it was farking terrible.

Then I made her watch Porky's with me. Now she understands.
 
2012-09-19 03:51:31 PM

browntimmy: So just for reference, are you one of those people that thinks American Pie is one of the top 10 comedies of all time?


Thank God! THAT GUY is here!
 
2012-09-19 03:53:35 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Sam Raimi's last 2 horror movies have been pg13, and they are scarier than all the rest of the garbage out there. You don't necessarily need blood and gore to make a great horror movie. Of course, most directors do not have a fraction of his talent.


I don't like going to theaters to see movies but the sound effects in Drag Me To Hell were really really worth it. That was f*cking freaky
 
2012-09-19 03:59:22 PM

browntimmy: So just for reference, are you one of those people that thinks American Pie is one of the top 10 comedies of all time?


No, but I did enjoy it. I also liked American Reunion.

Like I said in another movie snob thread, sometimes you just want a Big Mac!
 
2012-09-19 04:00:38 PM

timujin: With few exceptions, I don't see movies in the theater anyway, so it makes little difference to me. However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it. You have to deal with the market realities and while there are a lot of people like the author who would like to see the full version in the theater, more people buy tickets to movies rated lower than R... that's it, that's all it is, production companies don't make enough money off of rated R movies, generally, to justify their costs.



Wrong. And this is what the studios think, so they're wrong too.

People buy more tickets to see rated PG-13 Avengers because it's farking Avengers, not because it's "PG-13".

Being "R" has little to do with people wanting to go see a movie.

What happened with Terminator 2 and True Lies? Both were R yet people went to see them en-masse! Earning 519 and 378 million dollars of 1991 and 1994 money.

Lethal Weapon 2 and 3 also made big bucks around 227 millions of 1989 dollars.

People go to see a movie because they're thrilled about it, because the thing looks farking badass and because it's marketed right.

"Make it PG-13" is a marketing faux-pas and the sign of someone who probably has a 2 digit IQ. Movies have audiences, you can't alienate the audience for a movie and then complain no one went to see it.

This lazy marketing bullshiat is what's been decreasing hollywood's intake instead of the piracy boogeyman.
 
2012-09-19 04:09:56 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Extended Editions are AWESOME!!!
 
2012-09-19 04:16:47 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: With few exceptions, I don't see movies in the theater anyway, so it makes little difference to me. However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it. You have to deal with the market realities and while there are a lot of people like the author who would like to see the full version in the theater, more people buy tickets to movies rated lower than R... that's it, that's all it is, production companies don't make enough money off of rated R movies, generally, to justify their costs.


Wrong. And this is what the studios think, so they're wrong too.

People buy more tickets to see rated PG-13 Avengers because it's farking Avengers, not because it's "PG-13".

Being "R" has little to do with people wanting to go see a movie.

What happened with Terminator 2 and True Lies? Both were R yet people went to see them en-masse! Earning 519 and 378 million dollars of 1991 and 1994 money.

Lethal Weapon 2 and 3 also made big bucks around 227 millions of 1989 dollars.

People go to see a movie because they're thrilled about it, because the thing looks farking badass and because it's marketed right.

"Make it PG-13" is a marketing faux-pas and the sign of someone who probably has a 2 digit IQ. Movies have audiences, you can't alienate the audience for a movie and then complain no one went to see it.

This lazy marketing bullshiat is what's been decreasing hollywood's intake instead of the piracy boogeyman.


You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.
 
2012-09-19 04:21:50 PM

frepnog: I love Drag Me To Hell, but don't try and tell people that it was "scary" in any way. It had a couple of BOO moments but the movie is mostly just there being an unofficial sequel to the Evil Dead movies.


I didn't find it scary, nor did I like it.

It was really just "oh, it's Raimi doing the Raimi thing. I guess it's good, but I enjoyed it a lot more in the early 90s, when I was in high school." His stuff doesn't do it for me now.

That possession movie looked bloody awful, but in fairness, I hate all just about all possession movies. Especially when they are "based on a true story." And PG-13.
 
2012-09-19 04:31:17 PM

timujin: You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.


Dunno, the Resident Evil movies are R rated and make quite a bang. Last one made 296 millions. and this one is only one weekend in and it's already at 72 millions.

Also, you keep looking at it the wrong way.

Yes, the biggest money makers are PG-13 movies, that doesn't mean YOUR movie is going to be successful because it's PG-13. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Again, being PG-13 had little to do with their success. OF COURSE movies about Batman, Avengers, Transformers, Harry Potter and etc are going to make boatloads of money. They're big franchises. Do you think "Ninja Assassin" would have made more money if they had toned down the violence and turned it PG-13? Nope.
 
2012-09-19 04:31:23 PM

timujin: You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.



Yep, looking at the top 100 movie grossings of all time, the highest R-rated I could find was The Hangover II.  Comes in at 66.  Grossed $254,455,986.
 
2012-09-19 04:32:08 PM

timujin: Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.


That's an important point, and it really makes this into a chicken vs. egg argument.

Are people not going to PG-13 movies because they expect the full cut to be out in 6 months, or are studios not making enough good R-rated films because they're afraid of losing crossover appeal, thus lowering the aggregate box office for grown-up movies? My two cents: Taken was a steaming pile of dogshiat and every man in America wants to see the sequel even less if it's PG-13 and thereby guarantees they see zero blood or titties.

Onion-belted/Libertarian rant of the day: I blame the ratings system. Airplane was rated PG, and it had violence, terrorism, suicide, wonderful breasts, fake blowjobs, fear, drug humor, alcohol abuse...and it was one of the highlights of my youth. Now you say the F-word, and show one drop of blood, or god forbid a female nipple, and theaters are afraid to let a human who's allowed to drive a car and risk of all our lives in to see it. All of us got more real sex in our teens than we were technically allowed to watch by ourselves on movie screens -- seriously, I could take a girl to a movie, not be allowed to see a boob, then go get a hummer in my '83 Mustang. What is that? I remember having graduated high school already and being turned town to take my high-school-senior sister in to see the South Park movie. It's nonsense.
 
2012-09-19 04:36:27 PM
Heck, show me a single movie series that went from R to PG-13 that made considerably more money

Adjusted for ticket inflation, Die Hard 4 is the least successful movie in terms of gross money:

Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Release
1 Die Hard 2: Die Harder Fox------$222,855,400 $117,540,947 7/6/90
2 Die Hard: With A Vengeance Fox -$184,390,900 $100,012,499 5/19/95
3 Die Hard Fox -------------------$161,978,300 $83,008,852 7/15/88
4 Live Free or Die Hard Fox ------$156,820,600 $134,529,403 6/27/07
 
2012-09-19 04:39:37 PM

taxandspend: downstairs: timujin: You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.


Yep, looking at the top 100 movie grossings of all time, the highest R-rated I could find was The Hangover II.  Comes in at 66.  Grossed $254,455,986.

Passion of the Christ. $370 million in the US at #19


downstairs: Yep, looking at the top 100 movie grossings of all time, the highest R-rated I could find was The Hangover II.  Comes in at 66.  Grossed $254,455,986.


Also, the Hangover II made 327 million overseas for a total of 581 which is exactly...uh...as much as Iron-Man.
 
2012-09-19 04:42:41 PM

timujin: there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50


Nitpicking, but "The Matrix Reloaded" was rated R.
 
2012-09-19 04:50:54 PM

taxandspend: downstairs: timujin: You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.


Yep, looking at the top 100 movie grossings of all time, the highest R-rated I could find was The Hangover II.  Comes in at 66.  Grossed $254,455,986.

Matrix Reloaded. $281 million in the US at #52.The original The Hangover. $277 million in the US at #55.



All good, thanks.  I was looking at the IMDB list quickly, which does not list the rating in the list... you gotta click each movie.  So I kinda guessed.
 
Now... I didn't realize Passon of the Christ was R, and would not have even checked that.
 
2012-09-19 04:54:15 PM

downstairs:
Now... I didn't realize Passon of the Christ was R, and would not have even checked that.


Dude, that movie made Troma movies look tame. (And as if they had crack team of special effects people, to boot).
 
2012-09-19 04:54:48 PM
Even better, yes, it's true that the PG-13 market is nominally bigger than the R market, but the G and PG markets are even bigger, yet most big time grossing movies are PG-13.

When a movie makes boatloads of money, it's the CONTENT (and good marketing) that matters, not the rating.
 
2012-09-19 04:58:04 PM

taxandspend: downstairs: timujin: You're dealing with a much different parental mindset in 20012 than you were in the 80's or 90's. Parents these days don't take their little snowflakes to see rated R movies. The biggest franchises these days, the movies that makes the most money, are rated G through PG-13, there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50. Sure, R movies can make money, but they don't make MONEY.


Yep, looking at the top 100 movie grossings of all time, the highest R-rated I could find was The Hangover II. Comes in at 66. Grossed $254,455,986.

Passion of the Christ. $370 million in the US at #19


The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.
 
2012-09-19 05:00:57 PM

Cubicle Jockey: timujin: there isn't a single rated R movie in the top 50

Nitpicking, but "The Matrix Reloaded" was rated R.


Not nitpicking at all, I didn't realize it was R, thanks for the correction.
 
2012-09-19 05:01:24 PM

Torqueknot: scottydoesntknow: serpent_sky: Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it

"Yippie Kayay Motherf-" *BOOOM*


"Yippie Kayay Mother, father!"


Mr. Falcon does not approve of this post...
 
2012-09-19 05:02:09 PM

timujin: The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.


Look! It's the guy that uses DOMESTIC numbers for movies he's arguing against and WORLDWIDE numbers for movies he's arguing for.
 
2012-09-19 05:06:42 PM

rocky_howard: Even better, yes, it's true that the PG-13 market is nominally bigger than the R market, but the G and PG markets are even bigger, yet most big time grossing movies are PG-13.

When a movie makes boatloads of money, it's the CONTENT (and good marketing) that matters, not the rating.


I don't believe that at all... Alien, as a quick example, is a much better movie than, say, Twilight. The content is leaps and bounds ahead. But the audience that wants to see Twilight is much larger. Make Twilight rated R, though, and that market segment that would have seen it won't be allowed to by their parents.

See, that's the thing. You make a really good rated R movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go see it. Make a really good G through PG-13 movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go with their two kids.
 
2012-09-19 05:07:45 PM

rocky_howard: It's the guy that uses DOMESTIC numbers for movies he's arguing against and WORLDWIDE numbers for movies he's arguing for.


Ugh, that guy is worse than the other that guy.....
 
2012-09-19 05:12:16 PM

timujin: I don't believe that at all... Alien, as a quick example, is a much better movie than, say, Twilight. The content is leaps and bounds ahead. But the audience that wants to see Twilight is much larger. Make Twilight rated R, though, and that market segment that would have seen it won't be allowed to by their parents.


You don't believe what? Did you even read what I said?

Why are you comparing Alien to Twilight?

I said WHEN a movie makes boatloads of money it's the content/marketing that matters, not that all the movies with content will make boatloads of money.

Also, Alien being a better movie than Twilight has ZERO bearing on this discussion. The content of Twilight is what attracted the audience, not the rating.

See, that's the thing. You make a really good rated R movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go see it. Make a really good G through PG-13 movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go with their two kids.

More bullshiat. If that was the case G and PG movies would be the highest grossing ones.

Again, show me a single case where a PG-13 movie in a series made more money than an R one.

PG-13 having a potentially larger audience doesn't mean your movie would be a success just because it's PG-13. What about the hundreds of PG-13 movies that DON'T become major box office successes? Sometimes it's better to focus on your audience rather than trying to please everybody.
 
2012-09-19 05:13:53 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.

Look! It's the guy that uses DOMESTIC numbers for movies he's arguing against and WORLDWIDE numbers for movies he's arguing for.


Nope, I was just getting the numbers from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

Turns out, Passion comes in at $611M, at least according to this:
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passionofthechrist.htm

I went by the $370M number because that was what taxandspend posted, I didn't actually look it up myself. $611M still puts it out of the top 50.
 
2012-09-19 05:17:41 PM
timujin:Nope, I was just getting the numbers from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films


That list doesn't show Passion, so how did you get the numbers? Bad excuse.

I went by the $370M number because that was what taxandspend posted, I didn't actually look it up myself. $611M still puts it out of the top 50.

But not "barely half of what Twilight made".

Also, at some point Passion was on the Top 50, even Top 25. Movies make more nominal money as times goes by, news at 11. That's why the high majority of movies on the list are made within the last 10 years. Adjust for inflation and only Avatar and Titanic remain in the Top 10.

Try harder.
 
2012-09-19 05:20:44 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: I don't believe that at all... Alien, as a quick example, is a much better movie than, say, Twilight. The content is leaps and bounds ahead. But the audience that wants to see Twilight is much larger. Make Twilight rated R, though, and that market segment that would have seen it won't be allowed to by their parents.

You don't believe what? Did you even read what I said?

Why are you comparing Alien to Twilight?

I said WHEN a movie makes boatloads of money it's the content/marketing that matters, not that all the movies with content will make boatloads of money.

Also, Alien being a better movie than Twilight has ZERO bearing on this discussion. The content of Twilight is what attracted the audience, not the rating.

See, that's the thing. You make a really good rated R movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go see it. Make a really good G through PG-13 movie and Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will go with their two kids.

More bullshiat. If that was the case G and PG movies would be the highest grossing ones.

Again, show me a single case where a PG-13 movie in a series made more money than an R one.

PG-13 having a potentially larger audience doesn't mean your movie would be a success just because it's PG-13. What about the hundreds of PG-13 movies that DON'T become major box office successes? Sometimes it's better to focus on your audience rather than trying to please everybody.


G and PG movies are the highest grossing ones.

And, sorry, but what do you mean by "in a series"? Do you mean franchises?

Here, let me set it out for you:

Highest Grossing films of all time:
Rank Title Worldwide gross
1 Avatar $2,782,275,172
2 Titanic $2,185,372,302
3 The Avengers $1,510,617,210
4 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 $1,328,111,219
5 Transformers: Dark of the Moon $1,123,746,996
6 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $1,119,929,521
7 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $1,066,179,7257
8 Toy Story 3 $1,063,171,911
9 The Dark Knight Rises film currently playing $1,058,259,444
10 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $1,043,871,802
11 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace $1,027,044,677
12 Alice in Wonderland $1,024,299,904
13 The Dark Knight $1,003,045,358
14 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone $974,755,371
15 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $963,420,425
16 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 $956,399,711
17 The Lion King $951,583,777
18 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix $939,885,929
19 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince $934,416,487
20 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $926,047,111
21 Shrek 2 $919,838,758
22 Jurassic Park $914,691,118
23 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire $896,911,078
24 Spider-Man 3 $890,871,626
25 Finding Nemo $890,620,397
26 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs $886,686,817
27 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets $878,979,634
28 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring $871,530,324
29 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith $848,754,768
30 Ice Age: Continental Drift film currently playing $836,891,241
31 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $836,303,693
32 Inception $825,532,764
33 Spider-Man $821,708,551
34 Independence Day $817,400,891
35 Shrek the Third $798,958,162
36 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban $796,688,549
37 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $792,910,554
38 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull $786,636,033
39 Spider-Man 2 $783,766,341
40 Star Wars $775,398,007
41 2012 $769,679,473
42 The Da Vinci Code $758,239,851
43 Shrek Forever After $752,600,8673
44 The Amazing Spider-Man $748,605,830
45 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe $745,013,115
46 The Matrix Reloaded $742,128,461
47 Up $731,342,744
48 The Twilight Saga: New Moon $709,827,462
49 Transformers $709,709,780 2007
50 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 $705,058,657

Of those, only one, Matrix Reloaded, is rated R.
 
2012-09-19 05:27:37 PM

timujin: And, sorry, but what do you mean by "in a series"? Do you mean franchises?


Of course. Otherwise comparing a movie to another movie is a pointless exercise since there's more to a movie than a rating.

taxandspend: I posted both numbers in separate posts, clearly stating which one was US gross and which one was Worldwide. Don't blame me because your reading comprehension is that of a toddler's.


No, you didn't. Liar. Here's what you posted:

timujin:The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.

You were clearly thinking Passion only made half of what Twilight did.

Also, when you posted the Hangover numbers you also didn't specify they were domestic, so it was more tampering.

G and PG movies are the highest grossing ones.

More than half of those are PG-13, so FAIL. I think only the animated ones are PG/G because even the Potter ones are PG-13.
 
2012-09-19 05:28:12 PM

rocky_howard: timujin:Nope, I was just getting the numbers from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

That list doesn't show Passion, so how did you get the numbers? Bad excuse.

I went by the $370M number because that was what taxandspend posted, I didn't actually look it up myself. $611M still puts it out of the top 50.

But not "barely half of what Twilight made".

Also, at some point Passion was on the Top 50, even Top 25. Movies make more nominal money as times goes by, news at 11. That's why the high majority of movies on the list are made within the last 10 years. Adjust for inflation and only Avatar and Titanic remain in the Top 10.

Try harder.


Fine, adjust for inflation and no rated R movie is in the Top 10:

1 Gone with the Wind $3,301,400,000 1939
2 Avatar $2,782,300,000 2009
3 Star Wars $2,710,800,000 1977
4 Titanic $2,413,800,000T 1997
5 The Sound of Music $2,269,800,000 1965
6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $2,216,800,000 1982
7 The Ten Commandments $2,098,600,000 1956
8 Doctor Zhivago $1,988,600,000 1965
9 Jaws $1,945,100,000 1975
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs $1,746,100,000 1937

And you're actually making my point for me... we're talking about movies released today, to today's audiences. Movies rated G through PG-13 make more money with today's audiences than rated R movies do. That is why movies made now are more likely to have stuff cut out that would put them over into the R rating, simple economics.


taxandspend: I posted both numbers in separate posts, clearly stating which one was US gross and which one was Worldwide. Don't blame me because your reading comprehension is that of a toddler's


You might want to try decaf if you're getting so wound up about this you need to resort to ad hominem.
 
2012-09-19 05:30:26 PM
Ooops, I mixedtimujin with taxandspend in a point. Sorry guys.
 
2012-09-19 05:32:35 PM

scottydoesntknow: And if you want to see an 'unrated' movie do right, just watch Sex Drive. The theatrical version was ok (has Seth Green playing a foul-mouthed Amish), kinda funny at times, but very typical. The unrated version, on the other hand, is farkin hysterical.

The directors even have a blurb at the beginning saying "Please watch the theatrical version first. If you don't you will hate this version because it will make almost no sense." Random naked chicks walking the background, scenes that go well past the 'cut' stage, them breaking character and laughing. It all combines to make a very funny movie.


Green screening naked chicks in just to make it worth the "unrated" label? Sorry, but that was pathetic. Either reshoot the scenes with the nudity (if that's what you want to show) or just leave it alone. If you want me to buy an "unrated" version on top of the regular version it needs to be worth it.
 
2012-09-19 05:34:01 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: And, sorry, but what do you mean by "in a series"? Do you mean franchises?

Of course. Otherwise comparing a movie to another movie is a pointless exercise since there's more to a movie than a rating.

Fine. Of the top 25 movie franchises, only two, Matrix (#20) and Terminator (#25), had R ratings.

taxandspend: I posted both numbers in separate posts, clearly stating which one was US gross and which one was Worldwide. Don't blame me because your reading comprehension is that of a toddler's.

No, you didn't. Liar. Here's what you posted:

amusing, you're responding to an ad hominem calling me out for my poor reading skills by demonstrating poor reading skills.

timujin:The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.

You were clearly thinking Passion only made half of what Twilight did.

Yes, I was, I admitted that above.

Also, when you posted the Hangover numbers you also didn't specify they were domestic, so it was more tampering.

I didn't post Hangover numbers

G and PG movies are the highest grossing ones.

More than half of those are PG-13, so FAIL. I think only the animated ones are PG/G because even the Potter ones are PG-13.


throughout this I have stated that G through PG-13 movies make more than R.
 
2012-09-19 05:34:02 PM

timujin: And you're actually making my point for me... we're talking about movies released today, to today's audiences. Movies rated G through PG-13 make more money with today's audiences than rated R movies do. That is why movies made now are more likely to have stuff cut out that would put them over into the R rating, simple economics.


Nope. You're still missing the point. Movies that make boatloads of money do so because they're going to, not because of the rating.

That's why I'm asking you for evidence where a single PG-13 movie in a series of R rated movies has made more money than the predecessors. So far the evidence is NONE.

Yes, there's the "potential" to make more money if you go with PG-13, but that's not what we're talking about.
 
2012-09-19 05:37:32 PM

taxandspend: That's an easy one: Terminator Salvation made more money than The Terminator, even when adjusted for inflation. However, The Terminator only cost about 7 million to make and gave birth to a wonderful franchise. Terminator Salvation cost $200 million to make and pretty much killed said franchise. Also it's really an apples and oranges comparison here.


Yeah, only if someone is being glib. Obviously Terminator 1 was going to make very little money (it was the first movie, low budget, etc). Terminator Salvation still made LESS money than BOTH Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 which is rated R.

As did Die Hard 4 which is the least grossing movie.

So, really, where are all these "formerly R movies that make more money because they're PG-13"?
 
2012-09-19 05:42:09 PM

rocky_howard: That's why I'm asking you for evidence where a single PG-13 movie in a series of R rated movies has made more money than the predecessors. So far the evidence is NONE.

Yes, there's the "potential" to make more money if you go with PG-13, but that's not what we're talking about.


Ah, I misunderstood your question, I thought you were looking for a series that included PG-13 that made more than a series that included R... my bad.

However, I still stand by the statement that a movie where people take their kids are going to sell more tickets than movies where they don't, it's simply a matter of numbers.

I'm going to use Toy Story and Saw as examples, not because of their relative gross, but because of their extreme difference in content. Now, you might go see both and you'll take Mrs. Howard to see Saw but certainly not your two tykes. All four of you, though, will go to see Toy Story. You'd buy two tickets for one, but four for the other. It's math, that's all.

If, somehow, Toy Story was made into a rated R flick, fewer people would see it because it would cut out the entire under 18 demographic... or at least the under, say, 12, since there are usually a lot of teenagers at rated R movies.
 
2012-09-19 05:45:26 PM

timujin: Fine. Of the top 25 movie franchises, only two, Matrix (#20) and Terminator (#25), had R ratings.


Yup, you have poor reading comprehension skills :P

I was asking for movies where a franchise moved to PG-13 and made more money than the R-rated ones.

amusing, you're responding to an ad hominem calling me out for my poor reading skills by demonstrating poor reading skills.

:P

throughout this I have stated that G through PG-13 movies make more than R.

No. You only mentioned the G/PG because I mentioned them first. And you're still missing the point.

G/PG movies would make much more money than PG-13 ones, considering the "potential audience", yet they don't. At best, they do "just as much".

In terms of "potential audience":

G > PG > PG-13 > R

In terms of box office gross:

PG-13 > PG > R/G (on a case by case basis).

And still, you have dozens of R movies making more money than hundreds of PG-13 and PG movies. What happened there?

Oh wait, the rating has little/nothing to do with the actual grossing.

"PG-13 movies make more money" is a DESCRIPTIVE sentence, not a PRESCRIPTIVE one.
 
2012-09-19 05:47:04 PM
This film is not yet rated.

Go watch it and understand why the ratings system is so screwed up.

But the other part is "We know you're stupid enough to go and be with your friends to see it, so be a pal and pay another $15 to purchase a copy of the movie you really wanted to see."
 
2012-09-19 05:47:20 PM
Troma's Terror Firmer was released as both R and uncut. I've only seen the uncut version. I post this simply to add to the Troma content in this thread
 
2012-09-19 05:49:22 PM

rocky_howard: No. You only mentioned the G/PG because I mentioned them first. And you're still missing the point.


The very first thing I posted was:
You have to deal with the market realities and while there are a lot of people like the author who would like to see the full version in the theater, more people buy tickets to movies rated lower than R.

That's the entirety of my point... there are more people that are going to see movies rated G, PG or PG-13 than are going to go see an R rated movie, no matter how good it is. That is why even mediocre movies made for that broader audience do better than almost anything that is rated R.
 
2012-09-19 05:49:35 PM
I also hate it when they do that to CD's...e.g. Joe Satriani's "Is There Love In Space?" - Japanese version had two additional songs which are, arguably, better than what's on half the original CD.

Again...collector's item? Bull. I felt that the U.S. copy I had only gave me 80% of the actual CD!

P.S. Downloaded the two additional songs. So the riveting tale ends well.
 
2012-09-19 05:51:00 PM
Wow, retarded article. Unrated DVD cuts aren't the probem, they are a weak band-aid on the problem. The problem is studios don't want to take a risk and let the story organically be either mature or not in theme. Money over art.

Directors film the stuff they want and then have to let the studio edit it to be PG-13. Having played the box office game the studios are then more than willing to boost DVD sales by putting out the unrated version as well.

At least we eventually get to see the more natural version this way.
 
2012-09-19 05:51:13 PM

timujin: However, I still stand by the statement that a movie where people take their kids are going to sell more tickets than movies where they don't, it's simply a matter of numbers.

I'm going to use Toy Story and Saw as examples, not because of their relative gross, but because of their extreme difference in content. Now, you might go see both and you'll take Mrs. Howard to see Saw but certainly not your two tykes. All four of you, though, will go to see Toy Story. You'd buy two tickets for one, but four for the other. It's math, that's all.

If, somehow, Toy Story was made into a rated R flick, fewer people would see it because it would cut out the entire under 18 demographic... or at least the under, say, 12, since there are usually a lot of teenagers at rated R movies.


And the bold part is where you're failing. There's no guarantee to that.

Passion of the Christ domestically made more money than The Incredibles.
Bourne Supremacy made more money than Shark Tale.
Troy made more money than Lemony Snickets Unfortunate Series of Events.

All of those movies came in 2004, so no need for inflation or "different eras" shenanigans .

Where is your God now?
 
2012-09-19 05:53:25 PM

serpent_sky: People are just figuring this out? As a horror movie fan, no matter how good the trailer may look, if we see "PG-13" my friends and I groan, ignore it, and maybe watch the extended cut on Netflix. They think they'll get more young people in, and maybe they do. But they completely cut off anyone I know (my whole group spans late 20s-late 30s) from going because we don't want to see a movie chopped up so the kids can (a) get in and be annoying and (b) enjoy it. So we pass.

I've been saying this for years, though. If they released good, (and while we're at it -- original, not remakes and reboots) horror movies that were R-rated? I'd go. Otherwise, maybe Netflix. Maybe HBO. Maybe never. PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.


Clearly the latest 3 "Batman" movies have been unwatchable.
 
2012-09-19 05:53:50 PM

FriarED1: scottydoesntknow: And if you want to see an 'unrated' movie do right, just watch Sex Drive. The theatrical version was ok (has Seth Green playing a foul-mouthed Amish), kinda funny at times, but very typical. The unrated version, on the other hand, is farkin hysterical.

The directors even have a blurb at the beginning saying "Please watch the theatrical version first. If you don't you will hate this version because it will make almost no sense." Random naked chicks walking the background, scenes that go well past the 'cut' stage, them breaking character and laughing. It all combines to make a very funny movie.

Green screening naked chicks in just to make it worth the "unrated" label? Sorry, but that was pathetic. Either reshoot the scenes with the nudity (if that's what you want to show) or just leave it alone. If you want me to buy an "unrated" version on top of the regular version it needs to be worth it.


Has anyone ever gone out and bought an unrated version after purchasing the theatrical version? I'm 99% sure most companies release both at the same time. Hell if it was R to begin with, they either have both on one disc or they ONLY release the unrated version. If you're shelling out extra money for an unrated version of anything then you are a moron.
 
2012-09-19 05:56:49 PM
This "Unrated" business is bullshiat anyway.

All you have to do is alter the film in some way and NOT submit it to the MPAA.

You could add a scene to a Pixar movie and release it on video as "UNRATED".

All too often an unrated version of a film released on video would more than likely receive the exact same MPAA rating.
 
2012-09-19 05:57:44 PM
Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.
 
2012-09-19 05:58:41 PM

PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.


What do you think they spent the money on? :P
 
2012-09-19 05:59:05 PM

frepnog: The ONLY watchable parts of the movie are the Seth Green parts and even HE admits that the movie is a turd.


That's a dirty lie, the only good part of the movie was James Marsden as the douche bag older brother. he was the only thing worth watching.
 
2012-09-19 05:59:33 PM
Back then, the full cut of a film would be in cinemas. It would be rated whatever was appropriate, with the eventual video release the more likely to be chopped.

Wat? I worked in video stores for years in the 80s and 90s I don't recall EVER seeing that happen to a video release.
 
2012-09-19 06:01:55 PM

PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.


It was Cameron + $$$$$. He argued to heaven and back that it should be PG-13. Eventually the MPAA said that since the nudity was artistic in nature, and not sexual, it could stay in with a PG-13 rating.

The MPAA is a pretty corrupt organization. They've been paid off to let some stuff slide in a movie, while the exact same stuff in a different movie either garnered an 'R' rating or worse
 
2012-09-19 06:02:32 PM

PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.


It was released pre-Janet Jackson Nipplegate. Prior to that moment, the female nipple did not have the power to end civilization, create psycopathic murdering rapist zombies and otherwise hold a nation hostage. Violence is still ok though. Just don't show that nipple!
 
2012-09-19 06:14:24 PM
I think people are missing the point arguing about gross and box office returns, from what I have understood it is all about distribution, and studios can normally get distribution companies to order more prints of PG, and PG-13 movies over R movies. Sort of a chum theory.

A lot of it is based on licensing agreements, and when deciding whether they want the PG-13 rating so they can hit more theaters than an R rating, while it may still be a box office hit, won't have the same distribution.


/my 2 cents
 
2012-09-19 06:25:13 PM
Maybe it's also a product of paying too much money for an underwhelming experience to see a movie in a theater? No, it has to be something else, and this rating issue is the studios' latest idea that misses the point.
 
2012-09-19 06:32:49 PM

Witty_Retort: Tyrone Slothrop: Leopold Stotch: AliceBToklasLives: serpent_sky: PG-13 horror (or action) movies are rarely worth it.

Some PG horror films rock

That movie is pretty much responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating.

I think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is what caused it, but Poltergeist helped. 

/Thank you, Steven Spielberg

And Gremlins.

/Which was produced by Spielberg
//Guess he decided 1984 would traumatize kids
///Still hate that movie


Gremlins came out as a PG movie, a big hit and folks compaligned about the how much horror and violence there was far a "kids" movie.
PG13 was inventedd for Gremlins, and I do belive that Red Dawn was the first movie officially released with the new rating.
 
2012-09-19 06:53:41 PM

PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.


your mind is filling in blanks, you see a fully nude pencil drawing of her but only 1 boob in reality.

Very brief female nudity that is non-sexual in nature is still in PG-13 territory.
 
2012-09-19 07:08:04 PM
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2124/2123486063_a3ca57c64b_z.jpg

Hi Guys, which version of Bladerunner do you want to see today?
Workprint, Preview, US Theatrical, US Broadcast, International Theatrical, Director's Cut, or the Final Cut?
 
2012-09-19 07:08:51 PM
HTMfaiL

farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-19 07:18:55 PM

timujin: museamused: liam76: CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.

An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.
here's some worthless scenes that add some sex or violence we cut out but otherwise these scenes slowed the pace down or were worthless but, by all means, pay another $15 for the same dvd you already own so you can see it 'uncut'.

I get that.

FTFY

While that might be true in some cases, that's not the usual reason. The scenes that are added back in are sometimes simply because they want to add in some "shock" value or whatever, but most of the time it is because the studio and director didn't agree on what audiences would want to see or what would be viable in theaters. Blade Runner is a great example.


Blade runner was going to be my point. Yes some movies it is just extra shock, but theatrical vs directors cut in that case was a big difference.
 
2012-09-19 07:19:51 PM
FirstNationalBastard

As was said in the article, the companies fark themselves over by forcing movies to be family friendly or PG-13 instead of letting the movies be what they are and worrying about ratings later.

PG films pull in more than R flicks. Your logic is flawed.
 
2012-09-19 07:22:55 PM
sure haven't

'R' Rated movies make money. Fact.

PG rated movies make more money. Fact.

Ratings make no difference to me, I don't care about blood, swearing or whatever, but the fact is PG is more profitable. Double dipping on the DVD market is profitable. Nothing's gonna change till those 2 facts change.
 
2012-09-19 07:27:40 PM

liam76: timujin: museamused: liam76: CSB-

Had a friend in Indoensia (from Scotland) who heard good things about Old School. he was pumped when it came outon video and sprang extra for th e"unrated cut". Problem was "unrated" still had to meet indonesian deceny standards so he was buying a PG-13 version.

timujin: However, I also don't see the problem with releasing an "extended cut" or whatever they call it.

An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.
here's some worthless scenes that add some sex or violence we cut out but otherwise these scenes slowed the pace down or were worthless but, by all means, pay another $15 for the same dvd you already own so you can see it 'uncut'.

I get that.

FTFY

While that might be true in some cases, that's not the usual reason. The scenes that are added back in are sometimes simply because they want to add in some "shock" value or whatever, but most of the time it is because the studio and director didn't agree on what audiences would want to see or what would be viable in theaters. Blade Runner is a great example.

Blade runner was going to be my point. Yes some movies it is just extra shock, but theatrical vs directors cut in that case was a big difference.


That's what pisses me off about Ridley though. He basically gets twice as much money because people will pay to see his movies in theaters (because he's Ridley Scott), then complain it's not what they thought (or it doesn't do well commercially), he releases the "Director's Cut" (which should've been the movie released in theaters to begin with), and he rakes in the dough. Ridley should have enough clout that he can get a movie made the way he wants to, not resort to a "Director's Cut" so you can actually see what he was trying to do.
 
2012-09-19 07:29:28 PM

SandmanEsq: PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.

It was released pre-Janet Jackson Nipplegate. Prior to that moment, the female nipple did not have the power to end civilization, create psycopathic murdering rapist zombies and otherwise hold a nation hostage. Violence is still ok though. Just don't show that nipple!


In the 80s you could even show bush in a comedy!
 
2012-09-19 07:31:49 PM
timujin
>>> An extended cut is like saying, look there just wasn't enough time to tell the complete story I wanted.

It's not a "time" issue, an extended cut is usually like saying, "Look, the studio wouldn't let me tell the story I wanted." Whether that's because of length (Blade Runner...

Calling BS on both of those.
Lets use Blade Runner as the example since you brought it up.

BR had been out for awhile in the "standard" version. Market stared to dry up, so they release an extended version. Fans go nuts and buy again. Market slows, and they release the Definative director whatever-the-far they called it verstion. Fang go out and buy again.

Ridley Scott was NOT biatching the past 3 decades about not being able to tell his story. They saw a way to cash in and they did. Same for any of the other films where double, tripple quadripple dipping goes on. What are there now 5 versions of T2 ? bullshiat it's about "telling the story" it's a cash grab.
 
xcv
2012-09-19 07:32:44 PM
Now that digital distribution is available to some theaters and films no longer have to be shipped on expensive reels, what's keeping studios from having offering capable theaters the choice of showing a PG/PG-13 cut during the day and an R/uncut version later in the evening?
 
2012-09-19 07:37:12 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: However, I still stand by the statement that a movie where people take their kids are going to sell more tickets than movies where they don't, it's simply a matter of numbers.

I'm going to use Toy Story and Saw as examples, not because of their relative gross, but because of their extreme difference in content. Now, you might go see both and you'll take Mrs. Howard to see Saw but certainly not your two tykes. All four of you, though, will go to see Toy Story. You'd buy two tickets for one, but four for the other. It's math, that's all.

If, somehow, Toy Story was made into a rated R flick, fewer people would see it because it would cut out the entire under 18 demographic... or at least the under, say, 12, since there are usually a lot of teenagers at rated R movies.

And the bold part is where you're failing. There's no guarantee to that.

Passion of the Christ domestically made more money than The Incredibles.
Bourne Supremacy made more money than Shark Tale.
Troy made more money than Lemony Snickets Unfortunate Series of Events.

All of those movies came in 2004, so no need for inflation or "different eras" shenanigans .

Where is your God now?



The Incredibles worldwide gross was higher than that of The Passion of the Christ, $631M vs. $611M. Same for Shark Tale and Bourne Supremacy (which was PG-13, btw, so I'm not sure why you bring that one up) at $367M vs $288M. Shrek 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2004.

Overall, without cherry picking particular titles, movies rated G through PG-13 make higher revenues than movies rated R. That is what a studio takes into consideration when asking a director to remove parts of a film in order to get a lower rating. Increasing a film's potential market means a higher likelihood of a greater return.
 
2012-09-19 07:49:58 PM

timujin: The Incredibles worldwide gross was higher than that of The Passion of the Christ, $631M vs. $611M.


I know. That's why I made it domestically because it's not as if it was going to be a big hit in China, Indonesia or Iran.

Also, a couple million more isn't that much anyway, so, it's not as if Incredibles doubled the intake or something. 3.1% less, wow!.

Same for Shark Tale and Bourne Supremacy (which was PG-13, btw, so I'm not sure why you bring that one up) at $367M vs $288M. Shrek 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2004.

Cause Shark Tale was G and according to the "larger potential audience = more money", then it should have done better. Why did you even bring up Shrek 2?

Overall, without cherry picking particular titles, movies rated G through PG-13 make higher revenues than movies rated R. That is what a studio takes into consideration when asking a director to remove parts of a film in order to get a lower rating. Increasing a film's potential market means a higher likelihood of a greater return.


It's not "cherry picking." Per your statements all the PG-13/PG/G movies should make more money than R rated ones.
 
2012-09-19 07:58:16 PM

OnlyM3: PG rated movies make more money. Fact.


Except that's a fallacy.

The big blockbuster movies make their money regardless of the rating. More than anything, they do so because they're part of a big franchise. Other than maybe Titanic, every single movie in the Top 50 has a relation to a franchise (Batman, Avengers, Harry Potter, Pirates, Twilight, LOTR) or film group that is a franchise in itself (Pixar / DreamWorks)

If you think "Oh I'll make this movie PG and it'll magically make a billion dollars because it's PG", you're dumb.
 
2012-09-19 07:59:33 PM

OnlyM3: Calling BS on both of those.
Lets use Blade Runner as the example since you brought it up.


Yeah, it's a weird one actually. It was originally cut for length... then they showed the "original" cut in 1991 or 92 and it was well enough received that they decided to release it a few years later, even though, as far as I understand, Scott had no desire to. He did biatch about it, though, saying he was never happy with it and finally, in 2007 (?), he released his "final cut".
 
2012-09-19 07:59:52 PM

Digitalstrange: PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.

your mind is filling in blanks, you see a fully nude pencil drawing of her but only 1 boob in reality.

Very brief female nudity that is non-sexual in nature is still in PG-13 territory.


Titanic was pretty much the last PG-13 movie that featured nudity. In the 1980s, boobies were plentiful in PG movies.

But yes, PG-13 by definition have a larger audience and therefore studios tend to command that bigger budget movies have PG-13 ratings even if it means the movie has to suck as a result. That's the business. And no, it's no consolation if the "Special edition DVD" has a couple eff words and CGI blood. The audience sees through that.
 
2012-09-19 08:03:52 PM

scottydoesntknow: PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.

It was Cameron + $$$$$. He argued to heaven and back that it should be PG-13. Eventually the MPAA said that since the nudity was artistic in nature, and not sexual, it could stay in with a PG-13 rating.

The MPAA is a pretty corrupt organization. They've been paid off to let some stuff slide in a movie, while the exact same stuff in a different movie either garnered an 'R' rating or worse


After watching 'This film is not yet rated', with its glaringly obvious slant taken into consideration, I've always wondered why no one starts a simple, transparent, film rating system which contextualizes swearing, nudity, violence, assigns numeric scores and weights to them, and simply generates a 'rating' accordingly. Instead of the mystic magic voodoo mafia corruption thing that is MPAA.
 
2012-09-19 08:28:04 PM

browntimmy: I also will immediately skip any horror movie with a PG-13 unless word-of-mouth says it's amazing. Not because I want to see gore in all of them, but because that rating sends the message: "We made this movie to appeal to the average dumbass 13 year old." They need to stop doing that shiat.


So I take it that you were a dumbass when you were 13? Or is that what everyone else was saying about you?
 
2012-09-19 08:28:55 PM
I dislike when the theatrical cut of a movie is done to achieve a rating of any type. and what they cut is put back in the uncut versions.

I do not mind extended versions of films having footage put back that was cut purely for time constraints such as for Lord of the Rings.
 
xcv
2012-09-19 08:35:42 PM

kroonermanblack: scottydoesntknow: PillsHere: Does anyone know why Titanic wasn't rated R? I'm not saying it should have been, but it doesn't make sense because we see Kate Winslet fully nude if I remember correctly. Isn't that one of the criteria for automatically being an R rated movie? I wonder if they just lobbied to get it PG13 since they spent so much money on it or something.

It was Cameron + $$$$$. He argued to heaven and back that it should be PG-13. Eventually the MPAA said that since the nudity was artistic in nature, and not sexual, it could stay in with a PG-13 rating.

The MPAA is a pretty corrupt organization. They've been paid off to let some stuff slide in a movie, while the exact same stuff in a different movie either garnered an 'R' rating or worse

After watching 'This film is not yet rated', with its glaringly obvious slant taken into consideration, I've always wondered why no one starts a simple, transparent, film rating system which contextualizes swearing, nudity, violence, assigns numeric scores and weights to them, and simply generates a 'rating' accordingly. Instead of the mystic magic voodoo mafia corruption thing that is MPAA.


Like Capalert?
 
2012-09-19 08:40:58 PM
What the director say is the film we must see, but sometimes happens something like in Robocop. I have this dvd and this version is very different from the one i first saw on tv. According to moviecensorhip.com the german dvd is uncut, Murphy execution is almost a long shot and that guy killed by Ed 209 take like 10 full seconds of shooting. At the same time a classic like French Connection almost ruined because Friedkin pulled a George Lucas and painted the whole film
 
2012-09-19 08:44:04 PM
I disagree with the article. Die Hard 4 was not a decent movie. It stunk on ice.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:09 PM

grimlock1972: I dislike when the theatrical cut of a movie is done to achieve a rating of any type. and what they cut is put back in the uncut versions.

I do not mind extended versions of films having footage put back that was cut purely for time constraints such as for Lord of the Rings.


To be fair, in the case of Lord of the rings. The theatrical cut and the Extended versions were intentional. Jackson Filmed everything knowing full well that the theatrical release was a advertisement for the full version envisioned for the home market. Hell, they were advertising the DVD's while they were advertising the Movie.
 
2012-09-19 09:09:32 PM

timujin: rocky_howard: timujin: And, sorry, but what do you mean by "in a series"? Do you mean franchises?

Of course. Otherwise comparing a movie to another movie is a pointless exercise since there's more to a movie than a rating.

Fine. Of the top 25 movie franchises, only two, Matrix (#20) and Terminator (#25), had R ratings.

taxandspend: I posted both numbers in separate posts, clearly stating which one was US gross and which one was Worldwide. Don't blame me because your reading comprehension is that of a toddler's.

No, you didn't. Liar. Here's what you posted:

amusing, you're responding to an ad hominem calling me out for my poor reading skills by demonstrating poor reading skills.

timujin:The 19th highest grossing film is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at $934M. #50 is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 at $705M, Passion of the Christ is barely half that.

You were clearly thinking Passion only made half of what Twilight did.

Yes, I was, I admitted that above.

Also, when you posted the Hangover numbers you also didn't specify they were domestic, so it was more tampering.

I didn't post Hangover numbers

G and PG movies are the highest grossing ones.

More than half of those are PG-13, so FAIL. I think only the animated ones are PG/G because even the Potter ones are PG-13.

throughout this I have stated that G through PG-13 movies make more than R.


So what you're saying is that (G + PG + PG-13) > R
therefore G + 2PG - 13 > R
G + 2PG > R + 13
G (1 + 2P) > R + 13
so ultimately:

G > (R + 13) / (1 + 2P)

studios should note this for future reference. Good that something of value came from that argument
 
2012-09-19 09:12:02 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: I didn't know butchers had horns.


Mine did.
And he was. Delicious.

Except the ketchup ran off and ruined the tater skin.
 
2012-09-19 10:01:24 PM

Fark Me To Tears: browntimmy: I also will immediately skip any horror movie with a PG-13 unless word-of-mouth says it's amazing. Not because I want to see gore in all of them, but because that rating sends the message: "We made this movie to appeal to the average dumbass 13 year old." They need to stop doing that shiat.

So I take it that you were a dumbass when you were 13? Or is that what everyone else was saying about you?


Um...yes. Me and 99.9% of 13 year olds are dumber and have worse taste in things than when we're adults. Is that a controversial statement? I don't know how my comment even struck a nerve unless you're 13 yourself.
 
2012-09-19 10:27:42 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: The Incredibles worldwide gross was higher than that of The Passion of the Christ, $631M vs. $611M.

I know. That's why I made it domestically because it's not as if it was going to be a big hit in China, Indonesia or Iran.

but this is about how much money a studio makes, so all of that goes into it. How well will this R rated movie do in other countries is as important as here. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely something they look at.

Also, a couple million more isn't that much anyway, so, it's not as if Incredibles doubled the intake or something. 3.1% less, wow!.

That's true, I was only correcting your statement

Same for Shark Tale and Bourne Supremacy (which was PG-13, btw, so I'm not sure why you bring that one up) at $367M vs $288M. Shrek 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2004.

Cause Shark Tale was G and according to the "larger potential audience = more money", then it should have done better. Why did you even bring up Shrek 2?

wow, no, I have never once even intimated that G movies make more money than PG or PG-13, only that G through PG-13 movies have higher grosses than R rated movies.

Overall, without cherry picking particular titles, movies rated G through PG-13 make higher revenues than movies rated R. That is what a studio takes into consideration when asking a director to remove parts of a film in order to get a lower rating. Increasing a film's potential market means a higher likelihood of a greater return.

It's not "cherry picking." Per your statements all the PG-13/PG/G movies should make more money than R rated ones.


Again I never said "every G through PG-13 movie makes more than any R rated movie" what I wrote was "G through PG-13 movies make more than R rated movies" as in "as a general rule". It's not that hard to understand.

Sort of like "women can't parallel park" Studies have backed that statement up. Now, my girlfriend can parallel park, because she isn't "women," she's a woman.

There are always exceptions to a rule, but if you're investing in a movie then you stand a better chance of higher revenues if that movie isn't rated R.

Christian Bale: so ultimately:

G > (R + 13) / (1 + 2P)


That was beautiful.
 
2012-09-19 11:22:40 PM

xcv: Now that digital distribution is available to some theaters and films no longer have to be shipped on expensive reels, what's keeping studios from having offering capable theaters the choice of showing a PG/PG-13 cut during the day and an R/uncut version later in the evening?


farking THIS. Just set up the projectors and prints with some sort of alternate branching system so they'll show different versions depending on the time of day or on seperate screens, just like they do with 3D films.
 
2012-09-20 12:09:54 AM
I know theaters are stricter now, but when I was a teenager, I went to more R movies than PG-13 movies, specifically because of the content that wouldn't be found in other movies. And not just the violence or sex, either. You could reasonably expect to get a more compelling narrative in a film aimed at adults, a fact I recognized even as a dumbass 16-year-old.

Meanwhile, Argo, End of Watch, Looper, and Dredd 3D are all rated R, and FWIW, I will go to see all of them.
 
2012-09-20 01:28:33 AM

fusillade762: Back then, the full cut of a film would be in cinemas. It would be rated whatever was appropriate, with the eventual video release the more likely to be chopped.

Wat? I worked in video stores for years in the 80s and 90s I don't recall EVER seeing that happen to a video release.


It happened. First time I noticed that there was a difference between theatrical and video store versions was Gremlins 2.. which, courteously enough, made it quite obvious. Other movies, you were never told that the version you were getting was different from what was in the theatres. The only way to know was to have seen the original in the theatre. Blockbusters was notorious, though Hollywood Video did it, too.

Now, the tradition continues with different versions being put out on netflix than what was in the theatre. Allegedly.
 
2012-09-20 02:08:51 AM

timujin: Again I never said "every G through PG-13 movie makes more than any R rated movie" what I wrote was "G through PG-13 movies make more than R rated movies" as in "as a general rule". It's not that hard to understand.


Right. Now it's hard to argue that a movie like "The Hangover" would have made more money as an PG-13 rated movie (after all, the majority of the population who's experienced a hangover is old enough to get into an R-rated movie). But if "Up" was rated R, that would have put a serious dent in the profits. And a good indication why is because while I wouldn't take my elementary or middle school-aged (hypothetical) kid to see a movie like the Hangover, I would take them, and any friends they wanted to bring along) to see a movie like Up. Not to mention the fact that I went to see "Up" despite not having a kid. I just thought it looked like a good movie.

And that's the rub. If a movie doesn't look like it's going to be good to me, I don't go see it in the theater. Therefore, a movie has to look as good as possible to the widest audience as possible. Therefore, studios err on the side of caution when making movies in order to get a PG-13 rating. The bigger the budget of the movie, the more likely a studio will try to get a PG-13 rating. Which a lot of the time is fine. I've watched plenty of PG-13 movies and loved them.

And here's the problem: the MPAA. It's just a committee of cherry-picked people that give arbitrary ratings to movies. It's a cartel. If you don't get an MPAA rating, none of the major theater chains will show your film. So all the major movie studios have to kowtow to them in order to make money. But the ratings are so overly simplistic and arbitrary that it's hard for directors and producers to know what's going to be what. And it's hard for the viewer to know what's what. Why is seeing James Bond kill 30 people PG-13 and seeing James Bond about to go down on a girl R? Frankly, I'd rather my kids learn how to please a woman than learn how to kill. Plus oral sex doesn't lead to teenage pregnancy. Why is the Blues Brothers rated R for just saying "fark" and Star Wars rated PG for showing Luke Skywalker committing war crimes? The MPAA can suck the most syphilitic part of my dick.
 
2012-09-20 02:49:16 AM

timujin: There are always exceptions to a rule, but if you're investing in a movie then you stand a better chance of higher revenues if that movie isn't rated R.


Okay, but that's exactly my main point. There are films where you'll make more money if you make it R regardless of any "potential audience" a PG-13 tag is going to provide. That just because you make it PG-13 doesn't automatically means it's gonna be a successful movie.

There are restaurants than only serve steaks. McDonalds makes more money than them. But those restaurants can't suddenly start selling McDonalds-like burgers, because nobody would like them. They can't compete against Mickey D and the steak audience won't support them.

By catering to an audience, you ensure benefits as opposed to trying to make an anodine product that nobody likes.

Bullshiat (not yours, the studios) like the "PG-13 makes more money so lets make all movies PG-13" is what gives us shiatty movies nobody likes. It's also the same reasoning behind the almost criminal gutting of specialty cable channels (History Channel, Sci-Fi Channel, The Learning Channel, etc) in favor of a more "homogenized" programming, i.e.: more reality shows or shiatty series nobody likes.
 
2012-09-20 03:11:52 AM

Fark Me To Tears: browntimmy: I also will immediately skip any horror movie with a PG-13 unless word-of-mouth says it's amazing. Not because I want to see gore in all of them, but because that rating sends the message: "We made this movie to appeal to the average dumbass 13 year old." They need to stop doing that shiat.

So I take it that you were a dumbass when you were 13? Or is that what everyone else was saying about you?


You bet I was, along with most of the guys I knew. I wouldn't be surprised to find out I was even worse than I remember. There are always exceptions but the key word there is "average."
 
2012-09-20 03:24:18 AM

rocky_howard: timujin: There are always exceptions to a rule, but if you're investing in a movie then you stand a better chance of higher revenues if that movie isn't rated R.

Okay, but that's exactly my main point. There are films where you'll make more money if you make it R regardless of any "potential audience" a PG-13 tag is going to provide. That just because you make it PG-13 doesn't automatically means it's gonna be a successful movie.


And, again, I never said that it was guaranteed. All I have said is that studios try to push for a lower-than-R rating in order to enlarge the size of the potential audience because current trends show that R rated movies don't make as much money. I can't imagine a situation where an R rated movie will ever break into the top 10.


Bullshiat (not yours, the studios) like the "PG-13 makes more money so lets make all movies PG-13" is what gives us shiatty movies nobody likes.


It's part of the culture today, people are a bunch of pussies who are raising a new generation of even weaker pussies. The thought that their snowflake might hear someone say fark or, god forbid, see someone get even close to looking like they might fark, sends them into a tizzy. Half the PG shiat I saw as a kid would be R now. Do you think for a second that Jaws would get a PG rating today?

Understand, I'm not saying that G through PG-13 movies are intrinsically better, I'm saying that studios recognize that modern audiences are, for the most part, a bunch of pansy ass wusses and they cater to that audience.
 
2012-09-20 04:31:02 AM

Snatch Bandergrip: I know theaters are stricter now, but when I was a teenager, I went to more R movies than PG-13 movies, specifically because of the content that wouldn't be found in other movies. And not just the violence or sex, either. You could reasonably expect to get a more compelling narrative in a film aimed at adults, a fact I recognized even as a dumbass 16-year-old.

Meanwhile, Argo, End of Watch, Looper, and Dredd 3D are all rated R, and FWIW, I will go to see all of them.


But you have to remember, at least when I was a teenager, movies in certain genres, namely horror and action, that were not rated R were few and far between.

Argo and End Of Watch got by with tougher ratings because they are closer to the end of year prestige pictures studios put out. Both have solid casts with bankable leads and were made by directors with decent track records (Affleck has been on fire as a director and David Ayer wrote Training Day, FFS) All they need is good reviews, and maybe an award nomination or two and they'll make their money back and more on DVD and On Demand even if the theatrical release isn't great.
 
2012-09-20 05:54:04 AM
Does this help to kill off the Theatres and their extreme price gouging which stands between me and 0-day access to new releases via things like netflix? If so then good, die you dinosaurs die.
 
2012-09-20 09:02:15 AM

Bukharin: HTMfaiL

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 500x375]


I bought the 'Briefcase' box set unopened at Goodwill for $20 about a year ago and I am very happy with my purchase. I like all of the versions of the movie. The voice over reminds me of a 30's nior film. That is why there are different version of things, different strokes for different folks.
 
2012-09-20 09:19:22 AM
It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.
 
2012-09-20 10:16:11 AM
rocky_howard

>>> OnlyM3: PG rated movies make more money. Fact.

Except that's a fallacy.

The big blockbuster movies make their money regardless of the rating. More than anything, they do so because they're part of a big franchise.
They get to be a franchise, because the first film raked in the bucks. It's much easier to do that w/ PG than R. The point stands.

Other than maybe Titanic, every single movie in the Top 50 has a relation to a franchise (Batman, Avengers, Harry Potter, Pirates, Twilight, LOTR) or film group that is a franchise in itself (Pixar / DreamWorks)
Again, they got there by being accessible to larger audiences.

Lets look at franchises you conveniently ignored that are rated R.
Halloween, Scream, Alien, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. While these all became franchises and very popular w/ their fans (hell some were even good films). Yet these don't hold a candle to the income PG franchises, or even non franchised films pull in.


If you think "Oh I'll make this movie PG and it'll magically make a billion dollars because it's PG", you're dumb.
Nobody said slapping PG on a bad film will autocratically make it a cash magnet. Its still fire-season, you should avoid straw men.
 
2012-09-20 10:22:01 AM

thurstonxhowell: It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.


Is that true? I would think the number of people who saw that movie specifically to see Chuck Norris is pretty low. Seems like they were doing him a favor by letting him be in it. I can't believe he was in a position to demand that.
 
2012-09-20 10:30:06 AM

thurstonxhowell: It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.


Um, Expendables 2 was a hard R with plenty of violence and profanity.
 
2012-09-20 10:40:26 AM
OnlyM3 Smartest Funniest
2012-09-20 10:16:11 AM


rocky_howard

>>> OnlyM3: PG rated movies make more money. Fact.

Except that's a fallacy.

..Ad to the above, the fact that the reason "directors cuts" exist is because -in many cases- the directors went back and made cuts in order to get the lower PG and avoid the R.

You want to argue R is more profitable. Argue with the directors that edit their work to to keep the PG market.
 
2012-09-20 10:49:49 AM

browntimmy: thurstonxhowell: It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.

Is that true? I would think the number of people who saw that movie specifically to see Chuck Norris is pretty low. Seems like they were doing him a favor by letting him be in it. I can't believe he was in a position to demand that.


chuck is nuts and I think a fundy christian and all, but I own Lone Wolf Mcquade on dvd and I forgive him his craziness. He don't want no cussin' in his movie, well fine, I don't NEED to hear fark farkity fark fark fark every few seconds to watch an action film.

having said that.... the expendables sucked hardcore dick and I expect nothing less from the sequel.
 
2012-09-20 11:38:59 AM

ferretman: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 600x362]

Extended Editions are AWESOME!!!


I read this in the voice of Steve Smith

t0.gstatic.com

"I touched her hand, her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I touched her boob! Algebra's awesome!"
 
2012-09-20 01:20:04 PM

Mugato: thurstonxhowell: It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.

Um, Expendables 2 was a hard R with plenty of violence and profanity.


Huh. My information is clearly way outdated. Now that I actually checked, I see that Norris did request that and Stallone did say they were shooting for PG-13, but the movie is in fact R.

Apologies to all the people involved in Expendables 2 who are not named Chuck Norris.
 
2012-09-20 01:25:40 PM

OnlyM3: You want to argue R is more profitable.


You talk about strawmen and then come up with this?

Hypocrisy is thy name.

They get to be a franchise, because the first film raked in the bucks. It's much easier to do that w/ PG than R. The point stands.

You didn't understand the point. I know, reading it hard.

Lets look at franchises you conveniently ignored that are rated R.
Halloween, Scream, Alien, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. While these all became franchises and very popular w/ their fans (hell some were even good films). Yet these don't hold a candle to the income PG franchises, or even non franchised films pull in.


He keeps swinging, but still missing.

Dude, nobody's saying that the most successful movies aren't PG-13, just that you can be financially successful doing R movies too.
 
2012-09-20 01:34:05 PM
Also, to any of the "PG-13 movies are more successful".

Do you guys like R-rated movies? Because I do. Why do you keep arguing against them? "Oh, but I like R-rated movies, I'm just explaining economics!!!"
No, you're just validating the weak-sauce excuses the studios are giving. You're enablers.

Yes, an R-rated movie won't probably make a billion dollars (at least until inflation catches up :P), but guess what? Only 13 movies in history have crossed the billion dollar mark, so bringing up the top grossing movies as proof of anything is irrelevant.

Especially when you take nominal numbers as meaningful without considering inflation. For example, if Matrix Reloaded debuted in 2012 it'd have made 987 million dollars.
 
2012-09-20 02:00:30 PM

rocky_howard: Do you guys like R-rated movies? Because I do. Why do you keep arguing against them? "Oh, but I like R-rated movies, I'm just explaining economics!!!"
No, you're just validating the weak-sauce excuses the studios are giving. You're enablers.


This is no more "enabling" than if I give an economic argument as to why Wal-Mart is successful, even if I don't shop there. And you don't have to correct for inflation, you can look at the top grossing movies by year and get the same results. Movies that have a wider possible audience are going to have a greater chance of having a higher box office. It's not enabling, that would imply that my argument is the cause for the studio's actions. Rather, it's simply explaining the motivation of a studio to press for the movie to be available to that larger audience. They are in the business to make money, not entertainment and certainly not art.

rocky_howard: Dude, nobody's saying that the most successful movies aren't PG-13, just that you can be financially successful doing R movies too.


And no one is saying you can't be financially successful doing R movies, but that you have a greater chance of being successful by making movies that are G through PG-13.
 
2012-09-20 02:13:42 PM

rocky_howard: Also, to any of the "PG-13 movies are more successful".

Do you guys like R-rated movies? Because I do. Why do you keep arguing against them? "Oh, but I like R-rated movies, I'm just explaining economics!!!"
No, you're just validating the weak-sauce excuses the studios are giving. You're enablers.

Yes, an R-rated movie won't probably make a billion dollars (at least until inflation catches up :P), but guess what? Only 13 movies in history have crossed the billion dollar mark, so bringing up the top grossing movies as proof of anything is irrelevant.

Especially when you take nominal numbers as meaningful without considering inflation. For example, if Matrix Reloaded debuted in 2012 it'd have made 987 million dollars.


Or you could just say "I got nothin'".
 
2012-09-20 02:24:27 PM

timujin: It's not enabling, that would imply that my argument is the cause for the studio's actions. Rather, it's simply explaining the motivation of a studio to press for the movie to be available to that larger audience. They are in the business to make money, not entertainment and certainly not art.


And you don't think people already know that?

Also, it is enabling. Ever heard of the term "useful idiot"? That's exactly what's happening here. Unless you don't like R movies, you're helping rationalize something that works against you.

And no one is saying you can't be financially successful doing R movies, but that you have a greater chance of being successful by making movies that are G through PG-13.

And that kind of thinking is what has homogenized the film offer from Hollywood studios over the years, with the constant recycling, and ultimately the failure of the system. Because, make no mistake, while they're nominally making more money on big top movies, those movies are doing less and less in actual money (as in money compared to the economics at the time). It's also a bad investment overall since in order to have big tent pole movies, they need to have bigger and bigger budgets, that not only gives you less ROI but also increases the chances of a big flop crippling the studio. Look at John Carter earlier this year. Jesus, what a FUBAR situation. You got you diversify your bonds instead of putting all your eggs in a basket.
 
2012-09-20 02:56:45 PM

thurstonxhowell: Mugato: thurstonxhowell: It's a shame Chuck Norris is such a farkwit that the Expendables 2 won't even get a decent cut on DVD.

Murder is fine but farking swearing isn't? Go fark yourself, Chuck.

Um, Expendables 2 was a hard R with plenty of violence and profanity.

Huh. My information is clearly way outdated. Now that I actually checked, I see that Norris did request that and Stallone did say they were shooting for PG-13, but the movie is in fact R.

Apologies to all the people involved in Expendables 2 who are not named Chuck Norris.



You're right though, he did cry about the profanity and pushed for a PG-13 on that basis (not the violence). So at some point everyone figured out that despite the internet meme, Chuck Norris is a farking tool and he was lucky they let him hang with them at all so the movie remained an R.
 
2012-09-20 03:11:48 PM

rocky_howard: timujin: It's not enabling, that would imply that my argument is the cause for the studio's actions. Rather, it's simply explaining the motivation of a studio to press for the movie to be available to that larger audience. They are in the business to make money, not entertainment and certainly not art.

And you don't think people already know that?

Also, it is enabling. Ever heard of the term "useful idiot"? That's exactly what's happening here. Unless you don't like R movies, you're helping rationalize something that works against you.

And no one is saying you can't be financially successful doing R movies, but that you have a greater chance of being successful by making movies that are G through PG-13.

And that kind of thinking is what has homogenized the film offer from Hollywood studios over the years, with the constant recycling, and ultimately the failure of the system. Because, make no mistake, while they're nominally making more money on big top movies, those movies are doing less and less in actual money (as in money compared to the economics at the time). It's also a bad investment overall since in order to have big tent pole movies, they need to have bigger and bigger budgets, that not only gives you less ROI but also increases the chances of a big flop crippling the studio. Look at John Carter earlier this year. Jesus, what a FUBAR situation. You got you diversify your bonds instead of putting all your eggs in a basket.


speaking of eggs... this is seemingly a chicken and egg situation.

Do movie companies make more "homogenized"
Thing is, if you go back and look at something like, again, Jaws, which would certainly get an R rating today, where is the audience for that movie? If it was made today and got that inevitable R rating, would it have generated the same money?
 
2012-09-20 03:17:56 PM
crapping shiat fark bastard filters...

one more time (just ignore the entire post above):

rocky_howard: timujin: It's not enabling, that would imply that my argument is the cause for the studio's actions. Rather, it's simply explaining the motivation of a studio to press for the movie to be available to that larger audience. They are in the business to make money, not entertainment and certainly not art.

And you don't think people already know that?

Also, it is enabling. Ever heard of the term "useful idiot"? That's exactly what's happening here. Unless you don't like R movies, you're helping rationalize something that works against you.

And no one is saying you can't be financially successful doing R movies, but that you have a greater chance of being successful by making movies that are G through PG-13.

And that kind of thinking is what has homogenized the film offer from Hollywood studios over the years, with the constant recycling, and ultimately the failure of the system. Because, make no mistake, while they're nominally making more money on big top movies, those movies are doing less and less in actual money (as in money compared to the economics at the time). It's also a bad investment overall since in order to have big tent pole movies, they need to have bigger and bigger budgets, that not only gives you less ROI but also increases the chances of a big flop crippling the studio. Look at John Carter earlier this year. Jesus, what a FUBAR situation. You got you diversify your bonds instead of putting all your eggs in a basket.


speaking of eggs... this is seemingly a chicken and egg situation.

Do movie companies make more "homogenized" <R movies ("less than R", which I wish I'd come up with about 15 posts ago) because that's what audiences pay to see or do audiences pay to see more <R movies because that is what is being made? Are they the movies making money because that is where the "talent" is being focused because that's where the studios think the most money is? Circular, I know, but that's part of the problem.

Thing is, if you go back and look at something like, again, Jaws, which would certainly get an R rating today, where is the audience for that movie? If it was made today and got that inevitable R rating, would it have generated the same money?

/yeah, I know, that's what I get for not previewing, but I blame Drew and the new Add Comment button
 
2012-09-20 03:24:44 PM

Mugato:
Um, Expendables 2 was a hard R with plenty of violence and profanity.

You're right though, he did cry about the profanity and pushed for a PG-13 on that basis (not the violence). So at some point everyone figured out that despite the internet meme, Chuck Norris is a farking tool and he was lucky they let him hang with them at all so the movie remained an R.


He's just a tool in your book because he has politics different from yours.

Did you see Expendables 2? There was little to no profanity in it. But you can't blame it on Norris because Expendables 1 has almost no harsh language. It's probably the first time I've seen a Bruce Willis R-rated movie where he isn't f-bombing every other word.
 
2012-09-20 04:48:30 PM
I think I see rocky_howard's point of view which is that certain types/genres of movies should have certain ratings.

If you're making a movie about cartoon ponies that are good friends, it is natural that the movie is going to be a G. A Superman movie is naturally going to be a PG. But a Die Hard movie is about full-on action, and reducing the rating reduces the artistic integrity.

The best way to see this for yourself is to find a movie that's been edited for TV. I've watched Beverley Hills Cop at 5pm and all the life in it was taken away because the more extreme bits of violence and bad language were edited.

What's happening with these films is that they're getting edited at the development, script or editing stage, and that makes them a compromised product. They're not being developed as a piece of art and then going to get a certification, or even being subtly altered where the rating is borderline (there's a few films in the UK where directors were told that having a headbutt off-camera would give them a lower rating than one on-camera).
 
2012-09-20 05:09:19 PM

peterthx: He's just a tool in your book because he has politics different from yours.


Yes.
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report