Okay, this is not another thread about how PG-13 horror movies suck, nor is it one posing the question why so many are being PG-13 nowadays. In fact, I don't even want it to turn into a thread like that, so if all you want to do is bitch then leave right now.

Now that I've probably eliminated about 90% of those that would post in here, let's get to business.
I think it is common knowledge why so many horror movies are getting a PG-13, for profit. However, I have noticed that there is still a fair share of horror movies that make money and still maintain and R rating (Saw, the recent Texas Chainsaw Massacre) as well. The question I am asking is what leads a studio to the conclusion as to whether or not they should trim their horror movie to a PG-13 or whether they can keep it R and still be safe? Let's face it, there are still R rated horror movies being made, and if there weren't I would see it as a cause for alarm, but that has yet to pass.

My theory: it all depends the movie's story and premise, then the quality of the final cut. While the Scream movies were fun, the gore wasn't what made them good, it was the story and mystery aspect. Texas Chainsaw Massacre on the other hand, well, one could hardly tell such a story with a PG-13. Recently we have Boogeyman and Cursed (yet to be released). Now, it has been my experience with many PG-13 films that could be R that more gore and blood would not make it a better movie. If it stinks, it stinks. If the movies were good horror, then there is a chance the studio would give that rating (R) as they figure word of mouth will help keep the money coming in on a steady basis. Therefore, I think that any horror movie getting a PG-13 must be lackluster in some way and the studio just needs to make a buck somehow, so give it a PG-13 and broaden its audience. Before people start saying that "The Ring" or "The Grudge" were good PG-13 horror, let me say I disagree. Let me also say that had those movies been R, my opinion would not have changed in the slightest.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that every horror movie started as an R rated film and was trimmed to an R rating. The Ring, The Sixth Sense, The Grudge, Boogeyman, The Forgotten, these are all films that I would guess were planned as pg-13 films, filmed as pg-13 films, and intended as pg-13 films. Any trims would probably be made jsut to keep the film in line with the original plan. Or, as is the case with many unrated DVDs, just crap they cut out and put back in, even though an R rating was never going to happen (unrated simply means...MPAA didn't rate it).

Cursed is a more rare example of a R rated film knowingly being cut down to pg-13, same as Darkness. Both seem to be films that have been bandied around to multiple release dates and dumped by their respective studios, with the hope of recouping as much profit as they can.

Otherwise, how does one come to these conclusions? You'd have to take these films on a one by one basis. Constantine is a film, for example, where I believe they intended to have a pg-13 film, but ended up with an R rating and stuck with it (reminds me of Judge Dredd from years back). But in determining why they went with a certain type of rating, you really have to look at each film individually. There is no simple answer to explain multitudes of films with different stories and content.

Your theory is right, that story and premise determine these things. Of course they will determine the content, and no doubt the studio considers rating when picking films to finance and distribute. But let's not dismiss the idea that some of these pg-13 films are as such not based solely on a commercial decision, but largely on creative decisions about what can be shown. Quality of final cut I beleive is something less aparent, as obviously some bad films have been very successful. I thought Saw was terrible, but obviously no rating issues hurt that film. I think it has mostly to do with the expected marketibility and commercial success of a film that determines such a decision, where quality is but one determining factor. ANd of course many other mitigating creative decisions make this something that is entirely difficult to boil down to a single reason.

But again, with all these films we're talking about, there isn't going to be a single answer. You also have to consider the studio too.

I agree that some films might not have been intended for an R but PG-13. However, I am sure there have been some times where they wanted a PG-13 and got an R anyway (Judge Dredd). Cursed was obviously shot as an R, but trimmed to a PG-13. Of course nobody knows how much of what was cut was actually gore and how much was a few F-bombs. FWIW, I think that the scary images in both The Grudge and The Ring were enough to merit an R, not to mention some of the gore in AvP, so I am sure Cursed will push the rating the best it can.

Saw was originally financed by backers and then was later picked up by Lions Gate. Since the film was done outside the studio system and on an extremely low budget (under $3 million), the filmmakers were pretty much allowed to do whatever they want as long as they didn't go overbudget. When Lions Gate picked up the film (and with all the hype already surrounding the film), it was a pretty much a no-brainer to release the film with it's (trimmed) R rating (previously an NC-17) as it'll make them a profit anyway.

Then you have the studio financed films such as Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chaninsaw Massacre. Since the subject matter for both films can't be done with anything below an R rating (zombies and a cannibal eating family don't scream "family friendly" to me), the studio opted towards that specific rating. It also helped that both films, on a mainstream scale, had "low" budgets. Dawn of the Dead had a $25 million budget whereas Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a budget of only $10 million. In both cases, the films made huge profits for their respective studios and the flicks opened the way for additional studio-backed R rated horror films such as Fox's recent Hide and Seek, Universal's upcoming Land of the Dead (which only got the green light due to Dawn's success), and MGM/Dimension's remake of The Amityville Horror.

Remember, High Tension, House of Wax, and Final Destination 3 are all upon the R-rated horror horizon (among others).

Now the whole editing down R rated films into PG-13 has been recently introduced into the horror genre. Whereas it's been used numerous times in the past few years towards the teen genre (more specifically, teen comedies); horror fans are finally seeing that studios will edit an R rated film into PG-13 for the purpose of making a profit of films that could keep them in the red.

Darkness has been sitting on Dimension's shelves completed since 2002. Originally given an R rating then, Dimension didn't know what the hell to do with the movie. At the time, films like The Ring and The Sixth Sense were considered one-trick ponies. HOWEVER, when The Grudge came around and made a fucking killing with it's PG-13 (and the fact the film only had a budget of $10 million), Dimension decided now the time was better than ever to release the film edited. Their goal was to try and make as much money possible off a two-year delayed film, and it worked. Of course, we will have the "Unrated" edition to look forward to on DVD in May.

And then we have Cursed. The first time Craven and Williamson have worked together since Scream 2 (an R rated horror film that made over $100 million at the box office). However, this particular film has already cost Dimension over $60 million simply for the fact that Craven and Williamson shot the film twice. The first time the film was shot, the flick got an extremely negative rap during test screenings. So what did Craven do? He got the permission and money to go back and reshoot a majority of the flick. However, test screenings were still negative. It's been almost a year since the film has been reshot and re-edited and Dimension set on releasing the film next week with it's R-rating in tact. That was until White Noise, a horror film designed with the PG-13 in mind, made a killing in it's opening weekend despite terrible reviews (but an ingenious marketing campaign). Dimension saw this and put their scissors to use on Cursed. Craven has already shown displeasure for Dimension doing this (as read in Fangoria), but what can you do? I'm sure we will see an Unrated DVD release down the road with a shitload of deleted scenes (COME ON SCOTT BAIO FOOTAGE).

And then of course, we have films created specifically with the PG-13 in mind. Do films like The Sixth Sense, The Grudge, White Noise, The Forgotten and Boogeyman need an R rating to accomplish their goal? No. Their subject matter is "light" compared to that of other horror films (Darkness, Cursed, and others) and they don't rely on gore, profanity, or sexual content. They exist for telling a story with shocks and scares abound. Similar to the ghost films of the '50s and '60s. Of course, we will have to sort the good (The Sixth Sense, The Grudge, The Ring) from the complete utter shit (White Noise and Boogeyman).

On top of that, most PG-13 horror films are done cheap. They rarely need more than a budget of $25 million and you're now guaranteed a big opening weekend as you can secure those teenagers in the seats. Teenagers need something to do on weekends and one of those things they like doing is go to their local multiplex. You secure those teenage dollars and you're good to go.

It seems that the consensus is as follows: if you have a horror movie that you think is good or has potential, let the R rating fly. If you think it's shit, get a PG-13 and make some profit your first weekend before you fade away into obscurity (usually by week three).

Well, I think subject matter and the studio involved does play a bigger role. There are of course, crappy R rated films released. Otherwise Alone in the Dark would've been chopped down to pg-13 (heck, same with Hide and Seek).

Though when it comes to chopping down R rated films to pg-13 after production, I think what you said pretty much hits it on the mark.

Also remember, there is extensive test screenings involved prior to a film being released. The film at that point have not been submitted to be rated. In many cases if a film has already a solid structure on what they are looking for it to be rated, it will be shooting for that.

They get audiance reaction and this is a factor in choosing to cut it down and to a PG-13 and they go from there. Need to get deeper into this thread, but that will come later.

i hate that now a days most flicks are cut for no reason other than to get kids to see it. if the film isnt intended to be for kids, so be it. Thats why i liked the "Kiddy Cut" of Freddy Got Fingered. So fuckin hilarious.

Anyway, then we come to the DVD release and low and behold, there is an "Uncut Unedited Unwanted Extreme Totally Pwn3ding Director's Cut" that only adds one minute of cursing. Its so retarded...

Well, I have seen several movies that got a PG-13 and then got an unrated or R cut on DVD/VHS. For the most part, the differences are negligible and the quality of the film does not change.

In terms of violence, it doesn't seem to add more of it as much as add to more of what was already on screen. Instead of seeing two bloody shots, you see three bloody shots. Nothing major.

...and then they go on to sell three times as many DVDs using unrated hysteria. It's good business.

Hey...at least we know they have every intention of making the un-cut/R version available at some point.


What worries me about "Cursed" is that it's Dimension, and while I have no doubt we will get the unrated/R version in the future, this studio takes its precious time with their deluxe releases. They make sure everyone dips multiple times on their titles, and the wait can be excruciating!!!

Unless Cursed totally flops, we probably will be in for a year long wait until we get the version Craven wanted. Of course if the movie's crappy, it will stay crappy.

Many would prob disagree with me but I think there are a few filmmakers out there who really push for the R because they want it to be brutal and hit the audience hard....I really don't think anyone relies on the nasty just because they can, even in some of the worst horror movies ever made - I think they meant well.

But with that said, the PG-13 thing IMO all comes down to more asses in the seats = more cash in the hand. But...............I'm also willing to bet that blood and guts turns some people off and they really love toning things down a bit and delivering a pretty good PG-13 flick.

Well wouldn't that all deal with the subject matter of a film? Flicks involving zombies and cannibals eating people can not be given a PG-13, unless all the deaths are off screen and that would be a complete cop out to everyone watching the film. The same applies to a (teen) slasher film. The death scenes are the key moments of the film. If you want an involving death scene, you're going to have to aim for that R. While sure there are many R rated horror films that are tame (Valentine, the Urban Legend films, and the I Know... films), there are the few that'll go balls to the wall when it comes to hitting that R rating. I'm still shocked that Shaun of the Dead got passed with an R rating in it's uncut form and the same applies to the theatrical cut of Dawn of the Dead.

What pisses me off through, is that Cursed, a werewolf film, should be an R rated picture. Especially since it's meant to be a horror film and not fucking Teen Wolf Too. Werewolves aren't happy animals. They're out for blood. Did Dimension not see An American Werewolf In London, An American Werewolf In Paris, Dog Soldiers, or the Ginger Snaps trilogy?

Then again, most of the PG-13 horror films that come out today, go towards more shocks and jump scares than actual violent content. We've always had horror films like that, just that they haven't been as "big" as they are now. In the late '90s, we had a revival of the slasher genre and the teen sex comedy. Now we're having a revival of films done in the vain of William Castle that are meant to scare people as they're having fun watching the film.

Then again, most of the shit Hollywood has been pumping out with the PG-13 horror genre hasn't been really fun.

You can still get some gore with a PG-13. The Grudge seemed to push it and I remember the first two Poltergeist movies being rather freaky as well. And FWIW, the X-Files series always showed stuff that made me squirm in terms of gore and blood and they were all apparently PG-13 material or they wouldn't have made it to the air.

When the first Poltergeist film came to theaters, the only ratings consisted of: G, PG, or R. It wasn't "hard" enough for an R, so it got the PG rating. However, when it's sequel came out, it was given the PG-13. And that was in an era where PG-13 ratings could get away with more than what they can get away with now.

And TV can get away with more than what film can. Especially current day television. Think a show like CSI, which is given a TV-14, would get away with a PG-13 by the MPAA? I think not.

and..FWIW....this blah blah blah

I have always wondered what the hell( FWIW)that stands for? I see too many abreviations of sentences online and it drives me nuts

True, but you know damn well when a horror movie goes overboard. Look at Dawn '04 - As bloody as it is, it all flowed well (no pun intended).

I was basically just making a point that some people don't like gore and tend to shoot for the PG-13 (even if their film is going to involve some kills) and that R rated films, with more gore, don't rely on the nasty just because "they can".

I did not know however that Shaun of the D (by the way, I absolutely love that movie) was rated R and I own the damn thing. That's a big surprise.

Cursed is not rated R? Wes?

Yes. As I mentioned before: terrible test screenings, an overblown budget, and recent successes of PG-13 horror films made Dimension edit the film to a PG-13. It was originally meant to be R (for violence and language), but Dimension decided otherwise. Craven has mentioned his disgust already and this might mean the end for Craven's relationship at Dimension/Miramax (his new film is being produced over at DreamWorks).

The problem arises when they try to create a movie that will make money rather than simply make a quality film. When you look to cater to a certain audience you will inevitably alter/formulate specific qualities that will draw them in -- especially if you're trying to expand to a large audience rather than one section of it.

It's not that you cannot make a good PG-13 horror film. The point is that they usually do not. Not necessarily due to lack of gore or whatever, but because they want it to be accessible to as many people as possible.

In essence, it's easier to get a small portion of a large group than a large portion of a small one.

And just for interest (for this list, I have included anything out of the horror/thriller genres)...

The PG-13 Rating (2004 - present)
The Village: $115 million domestic take, $60 million budget.
The Grudge: $110 million domestic take, $10 million budget.
White Noise: $56 million domestic take, $15-20 million budget.
Secret Window: $50 million domestic take, $40 million budget.
Boogeyman: $45 million domestic take (currently), $20 million budget.
Darkness: $22 million domestic take, $10 million budget (**).
Godsend: $14 million domestic take, $25 million budget (**).
Wicker Park: $12 million domestic take, $20 million budget (**).
---
TOTAL # OF FILMS: 8
TOTAL GROSS (to date): $424 million.
TOTAL BUDGET: $205 million.
TOTAL PROFIT (to date): $219 million.

The R Rating (2004 - present)
The Butterfly Effect: $60 million domestic take, $13 million budget.
Dawn of the Dead: $60 million domestic take, $25 million budget.
Saw: $55 million domestic take, $3 million budget.
Blade - Trinity: $53 million domestic take, $65 million budget.
Resident Evil - Apocalypse: $50 million domestic take, $45 million budget.
Exorcist - The Beginning: $40 million domestic take, $80 million budget.
Constantine: $35 million domestic take (currently), $100 million budget.
Open Water: $30 million domestic take, $1 million budget.
Taking Lives: $30 million domestic take, $45 million budget.
Twisted: $25 million domestic take, $50 million budget.
Assault on Precinct 13: $20 million domestic take, $30 million budget.
Seed of Chucky: $17 million domestic take, $12 million budget.
Shaun of the Dead: $14 million domestic take, $10 million budget (*).
Alone in the Dark: $6 million domestic take, $30 million budget (*).
Club Dread: $5 million domestic take, $10 million budget.
---
TOTAL # OF FILMS: 15
TOTAL GROSS (to date): $500 million.
TOTAL BUDGET: $519 million.
TOTAL PROFIT (to date): - $19 million.

* = Despite their budget and underpreformance in America, they have recouped their budgets earlier due to international sales and grosses prior to an American theatrical release.

** = PG-13 horror films that were originally rated R until the studio releasing the film decided otherwise.

Last I heard, movie studios want to make money. If they can do it by making quality films, then they will make quality films. But if they can get away with making a quick buck off a generic film, then they will do that.

I'm amazed on how many films people want to be pure gold. You can't make a hit film every time. Take the critertion model. You put out those money makers so that you can afford to get the rights and restore the classics. You need a crappy blockbuster that will make a quick buck to be able to afford to make the better quality films.

Wait Jack, you're telling me that the film industry is a BUSINESS first??!?! Say it isn't so!

I don't want every film to be pure gold. I'll take silver or bronze.

The only crappy blockbuster they released to DVD, that I can think of off the top of my head is Armageddon. Well, The Rock as well, but I'd disagree with that one.

When I mention Criterion it's not limited to just crappy* films. But also variety of products. I love the beastie boys, but I can see how that is more to generate money.

Hee, I know, it's a surprise to most. But when you forget the Business aspect of the movie business, you are really missing out. Do I want to see creative control on the directors and creators level? Yes. But in many of these events, the creators are a committee trying to see what would sell using the typical forumal test markets.

I agree with you on a lot of those aspects matt, Sometimes I do get annoyed that an originally planed R gets trimmed down to a PG-13, but to some degree I can see why it needed to be done.


*opinions may vary

What a damn shame - how often does shit like this happen?

For what it's worth, I agree that people use too many abbreviations online--at least IMO.