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  
•       •       •

9621 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 43 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 »






Report