Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

9630 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Sep 2012 at 2:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report