on R-rated movies

TCG · 05-13-03, 03:42 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/13/news...ated/index.htm

LBPound · 05-13-03, 04:43 PM

Good read, thanks for posting. It's getting to the point where the studios think the rating is as important as the product. It's NOT.

The product is ultimately what gets people in theaters, maybe not as many of the pre-teens who loooove to go to the movies. But in the business of making movies, that's a huge slap to the artform to make changes to get a PG-13.

And so far this year, as in every year since 2000, it seems like EVERY movie is PG-13. Somewhat refreshing to see R films are on the way, but then, with all films made with a rating in mind from the get-go, one hopes they're not just adding stuff to get an R-rating as part of the plan.

Still, Terminator 3 and Matrix Reloaded will bring in the big money, and hopefully studios will get ballsy enough to not fear the R.

Tarantino · 05-13-03, 06:22 PM

As an aspiring director, I'd never cut my product to get a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R.

Josh-da-man · 05-13-03, 07:55 PM

If they have to do this, I'd almost suggest that the studios and directors start shooting multiple versions of movies: PG-13 for theatrical release and R/Unrated for home video.

On one hand, it's a compromise, but in the end, every movie will ultimately live on and reach more people on video than in its theatrical runs.

Its almost like theatrical runs are already compromised: the theaters underlight the bulbs, the sound is often bad, the images are mis-framed and shown out of focus, there's print damage, distruptive audiences, and the theatrical showings are over-regulated by the ratings.

It seems like certain people are just going nuts over the possibility that under seventeens are going to go to an R-rated move. What's to keep the same kids from watching the same R-rated movie on cable or watching it on video at a friend's house? Short of outright censorship, there's no way to prevent kids from watching R-rated or NC-17 movies. Let the bluenoses get their panties wadded over theatrical showings and throw them that bone. And let me watch my unrated movies in peace on DVD.

BigDaddy · 05-13-03, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LBPound
Good read, thanks for posting. It's getting to the point where the studios think the rating is as important as the product. It's NOT.

The product is ultimately what gets people in theaters, maybe not as many of the pre-teens who loooove to go to the movies. But in the business of making movies, that's a huge slap to the artform to make changes to get a PG-13.

And so far this year, as in every year since 2000, it seems like EVERY movie is PG-13. Somewhat refreshing to see R films are on the way, but then, with all films made with a rating in mind from the get-go, one hopes they're not just adding stuff to get an R-rating as part of the plan.

Still, Terminator 3 and Matrix Reloaded will bring in the big money, and hopefully studios will get ballsy enough to not fear the R.

I agree with you. I posted this same articel in a post about last weekends gross. There is also a thread about this same topic in the Matrix sub forum. Some of my favorite movies like Heat are R and some ate PG like Raiders.

Dr. DVD · 05-13-03, 08:10 PM

I seem to remember back in the late 70s and early 80s that it was not uncommon for movies to get two versions of a film. A PG version to run at matinees, and an R to run at night. Films that spring to mind are Excalibur and Saturday Night Fever.

Ketamine · 05-14-03, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarantino
As an aspiring director, I'd never cut my product to get a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R.

Too bad you likely wouldn't have the last word. The almightly dollar is the true boss and the director is down a ways on the list of importance. The studio will force most directors to make changes if they think it will help their bottom line. Why do you think there are so many director's cuts on dvd out there? B/C the director didn't get what he wanted in the final product.

Groucho · 05-14-03, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ketamine
Too bad you likely wouldn't have the last word.

Yep, unless he plans to only make independents...and even then cuts might be necessary if you want wide distribution. Very very few director's have final cut in the studio system today. Spielberg, Cameron, and a handful more.

Dr. DVD · 05-14-03, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Groucho
Yep, unless he plans to only make independents...and even then cuts might be necessary if you want wide distribution. Very very few director's have final cut in the studio system today. Spielberg, Cameron, and a handful more.

Is there a complete list anywhere?

05-13-03, 03:42 PM	#1
TCG DVD Talk Special Edition Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Philly Posts: 1,408	on R-rated movies http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/13/news...ated/index.htm __________________ '...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.'

05-13-03, 04:43 PM	#2
LBPound DVD Talk Legend Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 16,666	Good read, thanks for posting. It's getting to the point where the studios think the rating is as important as the product. It's NOT. The product is ultimately what gets people in theaters, maybe not as many of the pre-teens who loooove to go to the movies. But in the business of making movies, that's a huge slap to the artform to make changes to get a PG-13. And so far this year, as in every year since 2000, it seems like EVERY movie is PG-13. Somewhat refreshing to see R films are on the way, but then, with all films made with a rating in mind from the get-go, one hopes they're not just adding stuff to get an R-rating as part of the plan. Still, Terminator 3 and Matrix Reloaded will bring in the big money, and hopefully studios will get ballsy enough to not fear the R. __________________ ultimatedisney.com

05-13-03, 07:55 PM	#4
Josh-da-man DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Bible Belt Posts: 16,956	If they have to do this, I'd almost suggest that the studios and directors start shooting multiple versions of movies: PG-13 for theatrical release and R/Unrated for home video. On one hand, it's a compromise, but in the end, every movie will ultimately live on and reach more people on video than in its theatrical runs. Its almost like theatrical runs are already compromised: the theaters underlight the bulbs, the sound is often bad, the images are mis-framed and shown out of focus, there's print damage, distruptive audiences, and the theatrical showings are over-regulated by the ratings. It seems like certain people are just going nuts over the possibility that under seventeens are going to go to an R-rated move. What's to keep the same kids from watching the same R-rated movie on cable or watching it on video at a friend's house? Short of outright censorship, there's no way to prevent kids from watching R-rated or NC-17 movies. Let the bluenoses get their panties wadded over theatrical showings and throw them that bone. And let me watch my unrated movies in peace on DVD. __________________ "Here's to Boston cops, they did what so many men never have been able to do: they found the little man in the boat." -- Bill Maher

05-13-03, 08:10 PM	#6
Dr. DVD DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 18,644	I seem to remember back in the late 70s and early 80s that it was not uncommon for movies to get two versions of a film. A PG version to run at matinees, and an R to run at night. Films that spring to mind are Excalibur and Saturday Night Fever. __________________ "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -Verbal Kint in The Usual Suspects

05-13-03, 06:22 PM	#3
Tarantino DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 14,354	As an aspiring director, I'd never cut my product to get a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R.