Why Have a lot of the recent horror movies been PG-13?
Why Have a lot of the recent horror movies been PG-13? I just saw in another post the 'Cursed' has been taken down to PG-13 from R. I know R cuts your potential audience in half (and I assume relates to profit as well), but why does it seem most of the (horror) movies coming out are PG-13?
I know this isn't the best guy to quote- but in an interview w/ Creature Corner about "Alone in the Dark": DG: "What do you think about PG-13 horror?" Uwe Boll: "Shit." |
It's all about the extra kiddie-cash that PG-13 generates. Plus we get to double-dip for the R or unrated version on DVD when it comes out (ala <i>The Grudge)</i>
|
$$$
|
It's because they suck, yet we keep getting more...and more... and more...and MORE!
Seriously, I had this conversation with my friend the other day about ever since The Ring, or maybe even earlier than that... the market is being flooded with all these hollywood scary movies that all seem to be the same for the most part. It doesn't look like it's going to stop either because they're still bringing in good numbers. When my friend took me to go see Blade Trinity a few weeks ago... we saw previews for THREE of these in a row. White Noise, Ring 2, and some movie about a leak in the ceiling. It's annoying, I agree. But if people will see it... it'll get made. |
It's sad when we live in a world where the one of the few people willing to make rated R horror is Uwe Boll.
While not exactly related to horror movies, I think that the current trend of trimming rated R movies down to PG-13 started with Troy this past summer. That was a movie with a huge budget and while it made a lot of money overseas, it's domestic take was disappointing. The problem was not necessarily that it was bad movie, though it was far from perfect, but that the audience needed to make it a hit wasn't able to see it in a time when they are the driving force behind ticket sales. Like it or not, the teenage consumer most likely constitutes more than half of the entertainment industry's income. They do not have the worries or constraints of adults, so they focus their time and money on recreation. Economically speaking, it is always wise to try and make your money off the people with the luxury of using it extravagantly. |
Ya I typically don't go see a horror movie that is rated under an R (reaffirmed that with the Grudge :( ).
What's the point? You already know the level of scare/blood/gore that will be in it, and it's almost a guarantee of no b**bies. What's a horror movie with no b**bies?! -wink- |
I think that has been happening long before Troy. You can probably look up some old threads and see myself complaining about this horrible practice. I don't think a movie has to be rated R to be good. But it totally depends on the genre. Can you make an epic battle movie PG-13? No, not really. A gory horror? Nope. A comedy? Sure. A dramatic love story? Of course. Its a sad trend that is sweeping Hollywood but again PG-13 or R all horror movies nowadays suck either way.
|
To be honest, I haven't been disturbed by this at all. Looking on back on the horror films I have enjoyed the most over the past few years (The Others, The Ring, The Sixth Sense, The Eye) they were all rated PG-13. While the R-rated horror movies I had seen (Freddy Vs. Jason, Saw, Dawn of the Dead) I didn't care too much for.
|
Because you answered your own question:
I know R cuts your potential audience in half (and I assume relates to profit as well) Besides that question should have been asked like this: DG: "What do you think about your film career and body of work?" Uwe Boll: "Shit." |
Personally I look at it as a spit in the face to horror movie fans. Yeah, I realize there some films, primarily Japanese remakes where the original was only PG or PG-13 to begin with. And that's fine because a lot of them didn't rely on gore, but rather suspense or cheap thrills.
But, the majority of American horror films these days are cut purely for financial reasons...to get as many kiddies in the theater as they can...even though it's not a kid's movie. Back in the day when I was a kid, you could easily get into any R-rated movie with no problem whatsoever...most ticket takers didn't give a shit and wouldn't even bother to check your age. Of course that's obviously not the case these days. Honestly, what's the point of seeing a "watered down" horror movie (or any genre for that matter) in the theater when most films are released to DVD in 2 to 3 months, and get the "Unrated", "Director's Cut", "The Version Too Scary For Theater", etc. versions? Not we wait for Jackskeleton to chime in. :D |
Back in the day when I was a kid, you could easily get into any R-rated movie with no problem whatsoever...most ticket takers didn't give a shit and wouldn't even bother to check your age. Of course that's obviously not the case these days. |
Well, it's a money issue. But jsut because it's horror and pg-13 doesn't mean it's inherently bad. The first big blockbuster pg-13 that really kick started the trend I suspect was pg-13 because that's how it was written, not because of monetary needs (that being the Sixth Sense). Others were successful and didn't need to be R (The Ring, which I enjoyed, and The Grudge, which I did not enjoy but I guess some did). Then you have your other pg-13 flicks that, well, are pg-13 to make money: Darkness, Darkness Falls, White Noise, The Forgotten, Cursed, so on. I can't speak for Cursed, but those first four weren't going to be good no matter what rating you put on it. Not to mention, most of these pg-13 horror films are really more about suspense and atmosphere, and don't really call for R ratings. They weren't intended as gore films (and certainly cursing and nudity weren't really needed) so, who cares.
While yes, there is a rise in pg-13 horror, if you took notice there's also a lot more R rated horror too. Saw, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Resident Evil 1 and 2, Cabin Fever, Wrong Turn, 28 Days Later, were all decently to very successful films that are heavy Rs. And take this weeks Hide and Seek, a film that very well could've been downgraded to pg-13 but is instead R rated. Or Freddy vs. Jason, which was as much a gorefest as anything. Since you're seeing successes in both realms, you're going to get horror films of both variety. Don't worry, some of the most violent, gore filled horror films will still be made and released. Land of the Dead and a US release of Haute Tension come to mind. Films like Alien vs. predator, where any person would logically assume it'd be an R rated film but is instead downgraded are, in general, a rarity. And the only reason I hated the fact that AVP was not a gory mess was because, well, I knew Paul Anderson was behind the camera, so I knew full well it wasn't going to be a good movie. Of course, Alien and Predator are in a different realm from your average horror film. They are higher regarded franchises (and bigger budget) films then most horror related films. Don't take my mention of all these films as successes meaning they're all good. Let's be real, great horror films are a rarity, so seeing a bunch released at all is, at least for a horror fan like me, a great thing. For some reason, when it comes to horror, I'm far more lenient on things like logical plots and good acting. I'm not sure why, either. Nonetheless, I find the argument that all the horror films are being cut down to pg-13 to be ridiculous. The real state of things is that, we're getting a LOT more horror films all around, many of which are pg-13 (which, in general, make more money so are often times the bigger budgeted ones) but also getting a crapload of R rated ones too. |
Nonetheless, I find the argument that all the horror films are being cut down to pg-13 to be ridiculous. The real state of things is that, we're getting a LOT more horror films all around, many of which are pg-13 It comes to a point were quantity beats quality. Not enough time is being given to turn out a good film simply because they can mass produce the same concepts over and over again and still turn a profit quickly. |
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
I still maintain that AVP sucked not because it was PG-13, but because it was just a stupid story and had a moron director behind it. The general idea of it Aliens fighting Predators could have flyed as it would be non human violence.
Had Ridley Scott been the director of AVP, I probably would've given him the benefit of the doubt regarding the rating (well, unless it was rated G). |
Back in the '70s, quite a few Horror films were PG. You even got boobs sometimes for your PG. Just no intestines
|
|
People will see ANY horror film when it comes out.
ANY horror film. Doesn't matter if it's bad or good. The scary movie gets the people in. If it wasn't for the fact that Hide & Seek came out this weekend, Alone In The Dark would be getting the punters in. But the R rating? A sword that cuts both ways. True, the filmmaker is not as limited (though good filmmakers know how to work within the limits), but on the other hand, the audience is cut in half. Mama can't drop her kids off to see the R-rated flick. But a movie with a (meaningless) PG-13 rating? EVERYONE can see it! And everyone does! If Hide & Seek had been cut to PG-13, it would have easily made 1.5 times, maybe twice, as much as it made this weekend. To be honest, I'm surprised it was left alone! ALSO: horror movies have a much larger chance of sucking hard. Studios know this and, when given a really bad flick to sell, will cut the film into a PG-13 film that everyone will see on its first weekend (Darkness, Darkness Falls). At any rate... it'll bring in twice as many people than if it were R (Godsend).
Originally Posted by caligulathegod
Back in the '70s, quite a few Horror films were PG. You even got boobs sometimes for your PG. Just no intestines
|
My point was that PG doesn't automatically mean crappy. Some of the best horror films of the greatest period of horror films (the 70s) were PG. These PG/PG-13 Horror are kind of a throwback to those days. Other than the cheesy CGI (which back then was cheesy practical effects and Matte work), even the types of films are. None of that 80s Slasher crap. I'm not even counting the remakes.
|
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
If Hide & Seek had been cut to PG-13, it would have easily made 1.5 times, maybe twice, as much as it made this weekend. To be honest, I'm surprised it was left alone! There's a lot more to a movie's success than just it's rating. Hide and Seek did very well, but I don't see it ever having a 35 plus million dollar opening, regardless of its rating. That would make it, the biggest January opener ever. This film just didn't have the buzz for that type of opening, regardless of its rating. |
Originally Posted by jaeufraser
Honestly, I doubt that. Otherwise you need to explain why White Noise and The Forgotten didn't have 35 plus million dollar openings. And why films like Texas Chainsaw and Dawn of the Dead and Freddy versus Jason and Saw do just as well or better than your average pg-13 horror film.
|
To me, the rating only matters for certain horror subgenres. If it's a supernatural/ghost type movie (The Ring, The Sixth Sense, The Grudge, etc.) a PG-13 doesn't bother me. These movies don't *rely* on onscreen violence or nudity to get their point across. Yes, some movies in this realm do get R's, but that is more of a choice of style rather than a requirement for the subgenre. These types of films have been pretty big at the box office in recent years, so naturally studios will make more of them.
On the other hand, slasher movies and zombie movies had better damn well be R. Especially zombie movies. If I see a movie released in one of these areas as a PG-13, I'm going to assume it was cut to get the rating. As for the rise in PG-13 horror... I don't necessarily think studios are cutting movies to get the rating. If anything, the studios are tailoring these movies to be PG-13 before they even start shooting. I could definitely imagine a script getting a rewrite to make it PG-13. As for the unrated (R-rated) DVD, they'd probably just shoot one meaningless gore (or nudity) scene to edit in to sell more DVDs. |
thankfully all be forgiven when Lion's Gate releases it's NC-17 rated French splatter flick High Tension on February 14th
Gore hounds rejoice. |
Originally Posted by Giles
thankfully all be forgiven when Lion's Gate releases it's NC-17 rated French splatter flick High Tension on February 14th
But seriously, this PG-13 nonsense will be tested again next week with BOOGEYMAN. If that film, starring Barry Watson, little to no early screenings for press, and a super bowl weekend to work with, can put up big numbers...the party is over. PG-13 will reign supreme. |
Originally Posted by scott shelton
On JUNE 3rd, "all be forgiven."
But seriously, this PG-13 nonsense will be tested again next week with BOOGEYMAN. If that film, starring Barry Watson, little to no early screenings for press, and a super bowl weekend to work with, can put up big numbers...the party is over. PG-13 will reign supreme. did Lion's Gate move the release date? dang-it god I hate reading my own typos "all will be forgiven" |
Originally Posted by Giles
thankfully all be forgiven when Lion's Gate releases it's NC-17 rated French splatter flick High Tension on February 14th
Gore hounds rejoice. |
Originally Posted by Giles
did Lion's Gate move the release date? dang-it
As far as I know, 6/3 has been the date for a couple of months now. Besides, 2/14 is a Monday. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
Well, some of that is explained by the fact that all three of those (Texas, Freddy, Dawn) are well established franchises with a built in fan base that will step over grandma to see them opening weekend.
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. |
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
Remember, More Blood + Gore does not mean it's a Better film
|
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... |
Originally Posted by 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... 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? |
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. |
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). |
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. |
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
It's sad when we live in a world where the one of the few people willing to make rated R horror is Uwe Boll.
While not exactly related to horror movies, I think that the current trend of trimming rated R movies down to PG-13 started with Troy this past summer. That was a movie with a huge budget and while it made a lot of money overseas, it's domestic take was disappointing. The problem was not necessarily that it was bad movie, though it was far from perfect, but that the audience needed to make it a hit wasn't able to see it in a time when they are the driving force behind ticket sales. Like it or not, the teenage consumer most likely constitutes more than half of the entertainment industry's income. They do not have the worries or constraints of adults, so they focus their time and money on recreation. Economically speaking, it is always wise to try and make your money off the people with the luxury of using it extravagantly. |
A no-namer PG-13 horror flick called "The Boogeyman" is going to make $20-25 million this weekend. :lol:
|
Well, with some big namer like Craven at the helm "Cursed" should open very well.
|
Originally Posted by scott1598
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!
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. |
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.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.