scott shelton

As far as I know, 6/3 has been the date for a couple of months now. Besides, 2/14 is a Monday.

Dr. DVD

Jack, a little off topic but I have a little theory that I think you are probably more qualified to answer than anyone else on this forum. I remember back as recently as 1999, there were movies that came out with an R rating that could have easily been PG-13 had they removed a few F-bombs, and a little brief sexuality or nudity. Two that come to mind from that year are Varsity Blues and Cruel Intentions. Both were rated R flicks, but one could tell that the target audience was obviously adolescent teenagers; heck, the latter of the two films even won the Teens Choice award for Best Picture that year! Anyway, I have a theory that at one point in time, studios made movies targeted at teens and had them rated R on purpose, but not because they were really rated R material, but because they were banking on teens going in under the impression that by seeing a rated R film they would be more like grown-ups. This actually worked, but it seems it all came to a sudden halt with the school shootings that were allegedly inspired by the first Matrix movie. Since that movie, theaters have been cracking down on who can go to an R picture it seems.
My conlusions from my theory:
1) The surge in strict enforcement of the R rating can be almost directly traced to The Matrix and ...
2) Had Varsity Blues and Cruel Intentions been made a year or two later, they would have shot for a PG-13 with them.
Just curious if my theory is valid!

That said, I have just seen the teaser for Bloodrayne, and can honestly say that it doesn't matter if that movie is PG-13, R, or NC-17, it will suck nuts! Same with movies like AvP. I thought AvP had a surprising amount of violence for a PG-13, and that had they shown perhaps one more shot of blood from humans then it would have gotten the R rating. Would that have made a difference? NO! I actually was surprised by the amount of gore and images they were able to include in The Grudge, and while it didn't scare me out my wits, I have yet to find an R horror film with such scary images in the past year or so. So...horror movies can be PG-13, and unlike other movies with the rating, they tend to really push the limit of what they can show with that rating. Cursed really does look like the kind of movie where it will be more about the "boo" factor than they gore factor, and I have the feeling that if they went for ultra-gore it wouldn't affect the story of the movie in any way. Besides, if they were able to change the rating that fast, there must not have been that much material to cut in the first place. (If we are going to miss Portia De Rossi's boobies as a result of this, I will be thoroughly pissed however!)
One last thing Jack: PLEASE tell me Fox isn't going to trim Kingdom of Heaven for a PG-13!!! Yes, I know it has Orlando Bloom, a teeny-bopper draw, and yes it probably has a $120 million+ price tag, but if there's one genre where a PG-13 can ruin a movie's look, it's in historical epics. I cannot imagine Gladiator with a PG-13, and hopefully they trust Ridley Scott to deliver a movie that can perform regardless of its rating.

Bill Needle

Not to speak for Jack, but my reading has been that studios will definitely throw in the odd (and often completely out of context and otherwise pointless) f-bomb to make sure they get a PG-13, since anyone can get in, and a PG has become viewed as a "kids movie." For instance, some of the Adam Sandler comedies come to mind.

jaeufraser

Well, yes I completely agree. But that's entirely the point. You can't boil down successful horror films to their ratings. Let's question, for each of those films, would they have reached the same success with pg-13 ratings? I'd honestly say each one of them would've suffered with pg-13 ratings due to the very nature of the types of films they were, and I mean suffered at the box office.

And I wouldn't worry...Kingdom of Heaven is not going to be pg-13. Scott is pretty much at the peak of his career from a commercial standpoint (and critically speaking, very well regarded too). In his entire filmography, he's only ever made 3 films that weren't rated R, and every one of his biggest succesess is R rated. Kingdom of Heaven will be R, no doubt about it.

Nonetheless, I don't think the more strigent enforcement of R ratings is something you can pinpoint to any one film. Surely Columbine helped, which in some ways can be connected to The Matrix. But these were hardly new arguments. People have been blaming movies for crimes from films like Natural Born Killers and so on. If The Matrix hadn't been released, something else would've been blamed and the same thing would've happened anyway. That is really more indicative of the mindset of many in the country than the effect of any one film. Would Varsity Blues have been targeted for pg-13 though? Yeah, maybe. Each of the films from those filmmakers since that film have been pg-13 or less, so it gives credence to that. Cruel Intentions, well, I suspect it wouldn't have been. Simply because the subject matter of that film calls for an R anyway. Nonetheless, you can still find teen oriented R movies post Columbine. Year 2000 there was the enormous success of Scary Movie, which was as hard R as you can get. There were even a few R rated kncok offs of that, including that Not Another Teen movie, also R. Even just recently we had the teen oriented Girl Next Door, or before that the youth oriented Road Trip.

But let's be real, most teen movies were not R rated. They weren't before, and they certainly aren't now. There will always be exceptions, for instance the American Pie films which have stayed rated R post Columbine or looking back The Breakfast Club. but, let's take a look at John Hughes. Breakfast Club was the only teen oriented film he made that was R rated. Pretty in Pink, Ferris Bueller, Sixteen Candles, so on.

So, while I guess in some ways I agree, the studios will try and tilt their teen films down to pg-13 or so, I think that's always been the case. Someone will also always try and break out of that mold, and sometimes they'll be successful. While there's no doubt that IDing of films has defiantely gotten stricter in recent years, and may very well give more studios pause about releasing R rated films aimed at those younger audiences, the market has also grown quite a bit, so I think we'll continue to see things of ever variety. I also predict we'll see more films aimed at the teen market, as over the decades they have grown in their purchasing power, but I don't think we'll ever see a complete shift in any one direction.

Ha, anyway, I'm not Jack but that's my perspective. Things have changed a little, but, I don't think they've really changed that much. If anything, I'd say we're actually loosening up, but the market is broadening so much you're seeing a much larger output of material aimed at these crowds as the studios realize what cash cows they can be. The one thing horror and teen oriented movies do have in common is this...they're cheap, and they make money. Which is why we've definately seen a rise in their production in the past years. In the end, we're just seeing more pg-13 teen movies. But I don't think it's a case of R rated teen movies being downgraded, similar to how I don't believe the rise in pg-13 horror means that R rated horror is necessarily being downgraded.

nodeerforamonth

You're joking, right?

nodeerforamonth

Just thought of this theory:

Yeah, it's more asses in the seats, but back in my day, when I was underage, I'd just sneak into the theater. I wouldn't bother with a PG-13 or PG movie because they all sucked back then.

These days, with all the crackdown on rated "R" movies being seeing by too many kids (this begin with "South Park"? I was in my 30's when that came out and I got carded when buying my ticket), the studios know that an "R" rating won't entice kids to sneak into the theater to see it because they'll most likely be caught. So they have to make it PG-13 so they can see it. AND they have to make the PG-13 movies better quality so people will want to see it no matter what the rating.

Hope this all makes sense... at work right now...typing as fast as I can...

Dr. DVD

What's also of note is that they want everyone who sees the movie to have paid for the movie. If they pay for a ticket to a PG-13 movie under another banner but sneak into your R picture, it doesn't really help you does it?

Jackskeleton

The PG rating is also seen as to low rated. As the poster somewhere above mentioned. If it's PG then people think it's to kiddy or whatever so studios will indeed throw in a bad word or two here and there so they can get that PG-13.

I'll read more of the post later.

jaeufraser

I honestly don't think the PG rating is the deathwish some people think it is. While it's true that very few PG movies today are hits, it's also true very few PG movies even come out, or are films that would be hits to begin with.

Besides the numerous children's films rated PG that have done well, the PG rated National Treasure sure points to the PG rating not necessarily being the problem it seems to be. I'd venture to say it has more to do with the films that get PG ratings being seen as kiddie and not being good, versus the rating having that effect by itself. Honestly, I think most people don't pay much attention at all to what the film is actually rated (save for the R rating which does, by all means, limit your audience).

Dr. DVD

Let me say that when you read about all of the problems that plagued the production of "Cursed" and how it has been about two years in the making, you might begin to wonder if this movie can do well with any rating.

That said, I am not exactly surprised or particularly irate that they changed the rating to PG-13, but I am rather baffled as to why they chose to wait until there was less than a month left before its release to do so. I remember seeing several spots for this movie with the R rating, then I saw PG-13 ones appear out of the blue.
I hate to guess this is the case, but I am thinking that they might have screened an R version and that it was seen as less than stellar. While trimming down the rating doesn't really make it any better, it does increase its opening weekend potential take before word of mouth gets out that it stinks and it the movie drops out of existence in under three weeks.

OldBoy

it definitely did not start with "Troy"...the trend has been bucking for at least 2 years now and the overdrive button has just been hit as of late!

matome

A no-namer PG-13 horror flick called "The Boogeyman" is going to make $20-25 million this weekend.

Dr. DVD

Well, with some big namer like Craven at the helm "Cursed" should open very well.

jaeufraser

Troy was a mega budgeted R rated film. If anything, wouldn't that be a good sign? I'm fairly positive its disapointing take was very much due to its poor reception. R rated films, in general, for the last 25 years, have never really been the biggest breadwinners. The fact that Beverly Hills Cop was the highest grossing R rated film in the United States all the way until, God, Matrix Reloaded, kind of shows that. Troy, despite its disapointing take in the US (though, 133 million isn't that bad, they were just expecting the moon) still made more money than Gladiator, which is considered an enormous success. So, I doubt WB feels so bad about it.

I just don't really see any special trend. R rated films have never made up the bulk of the big blockbusters. Save for the 1970s, which saw kind of a renaisance and you had mega hits like The Godfather and Exorcist, R rated films have never been the mega hits. I do see a proliferation of pg-13 films in many different genres, but I don't really see it cutting down on the R rated ones at all. They still exist, and they still make a lot of them. That they are expanding the films aimed at the teenage market isn't really disturbing, it's just well, business catering to a growing market. But seeing as we've had two R rated films that have succeeded enormously, way beyond any other R rated film (Matrix Reloaded, Passion of the Christ), we've had a number of big budget R rated films ever year (Troy, Terminator 3, the Matrix sequels, Manchurian Candidate, Colateral, Exorcist, so on) I just don't see much of a disturbing trend. If we talk about lower to moderate budget R rated films, there's a ton more.

In the end, I think it's a mistake to look at the success, and growth of pg-13 horror (or any genre) and see it as the studios dumping R rated films. There's still a ton of them. If anything, we've seen more NC-17 films in the last few years, the boom of unrated films on DVD (whereas before, we just didn't get them at all).

My guess is that Dr. DVD's estimation on Cursed is spot on. They've got a film they don't think will do too well, so they're dumping it to pg-13 to make a quick buck. Nonetheless, in the first few months, we have the R rated Hide and Seek, Attack on Precinct 13, ALone in the Dark, Constatine (a big budget film I might add), The Jacket, all in wide release, all horror (well, Assault is more of an action film). So, in the end, I'm not too worried.

Krug

Urgh with Boogeyman posting decent numbers I wonder if Lion's Gate will nix High Tension. This French horror flick really shows how it's done, and it's quite a smart little film too.

Matthew Chmiel

For the fact that Lions Gate is still showing they have faith in the film, the film is almost a lock to come out that first week in June with the NC-17 rating. If Lions Gate's bet pays off for them (the first NC-17 with a wide release since Showgirls), then I hope more NC-17 horror films will come out after that. If not, oh well.

And as everyone knows, Boogeyman will probably have a 50% plus drop this upcoming weekend. Just like every other horror film to come out as of late.

Rypro 525

matthew, didn't the ring and signs continue to have good numbers in week 2?

Matthew Chmiel

There are exceptions to the rule.

1. Signs was one of Disney's tentpole summer films, so it was going to make money regardless.
2. The Ring had a positive word of mouth and fantastic legs.

BUT both of those films were released in 2002. The whole "Let's rate everything possible to PG-13" didn't start happening until 2003, especially when Scary Movie 3 came out with the PG-13 rating and made almost $50 million in it's opening weekend (which shocked everyone as most thought it would only have an opening weekend of $20 million give or take).

MovieMaster11

These PG-13 horror movies will all be put to shame when High Tension comes out.

SPiRAL

A lot of PG 13 horror movies with a child as one of the main characters, that's what I've noticed.

necros

It all just comes down to money.. and most of these PG 13 movies seem to be made with an R rating in mind, and it's the studios that make them edit the film down enough to get a PG 13 just so that all the kids can see it. And kids will, my area is the perfect example, every friday and saturday night all the theaters in the area (there's like 4 big multiplexes too) are packed with kids, and they'll see any new movie no matter how bad it is, which is why so many bad movies do so well, all it takes is 1 good opening weekend and they're making a sequel.

But the ratings are all screwed up anyway... you can have a guy getting his intestines spewed all over the place and it'll be PG-13, but if he yells "fuck!" while his intestines are spewing, it's rated R. All it takes is an f-bomb or 2.

Dr. DVD

necros: sounds like my hometown theater on Friday nights. What's interesting is that half the time kids haven't decided what they're going to see until they get there and find out what they're buddies are going to "view." Friday night at the movies for the teen crowd is not about the movie, it's about socializing and flirting with the cute girls from their schools.