Variety article on the R rating...
 

Don't give me an 'R'

Film rating slips in light of political climate

By GABRIEL SNYDER


Despite moral watchdogs lamenting Hollywood's vile tendencies, the studios have actually been cleaning up their act. R-rated films, once the studios' mainstay, are on the decline, both in numbers and in lure. In the last five years, R-rated pics have dwindled from 212 in 1999 to just 147 last year.
Perhaps even more startling is the fact that in 2004, PG films outgrossed R pics for the first time in two decades: $2.3 billion to $2.1 billion. The last time PG was bigger business than R was 1984, the year the Motion Picture Assn. of America introduced the PG-13 rating.

While PG films have been making more money -- "Shrek 2," "The Incredibles" and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" were all rated PG -- the box office generated by R-rated films has been falling precipitously.

Since 1999 -- when the $3 billion grosses for R pics was 41% of all box office -- total box office has grown by 26% while R-rated biz has fallen 30%.

Of the 212 R-rated films released in 1999, nine made more than $100 million, a diverse roster that includes "The Matrix," "American Beauty" and "American Pie."

In 2004, only four of the 147 R-rated films released got past the century mark: "The Passion of the Christ," "Troy," "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Collateral."

PG-13 films have eclipsed R's as the largest sector of the market, grossing a combined $4.4 billion, a 48% share of the market.

No single cause is likely responsible for the shift, but many execs cite one factor: the voluntary guidelines studios and exhibs adopted five years ago. Those regs restrict the marketing of R-rated films to kids, which in theory ensures that only people 17 and older can buy tickets to R-rated films.

But no matter what has put R into free-fall, some filmmakers and studio execs have concluded that R is losing its commercial luster.

"Many things in Hollywood become self-fulfilling prophecies," says "American Pie" helmer Paul Weitz. "As soon as there is a whiff that a kind of film won't make money, fewer get made and less marketing money will go towards them."

"You're leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table with an R rating," says one studio marketing exec. "Why? For artistic integrity? Let's be real."

Pics that studios once would have released with an R have instead been trimmed to PG-13. The recent crop of successful horror pics, like "Boogeyman," "White Noise" and last fall's "The Grudge," have mostly been PG-13.

(At the same time, there is evidence that today's PG-13 is more like yesterday's R. Last summer, a Harvard study found that current films with PG-13 ratings and below had more violence, sex and profanity than films of the same ratings 10 years prior.)

Some see the decline in grosses for R films as a barometer of the cultural climate. "Hollywood has done a great job of making PG movies that don't just appeal to kids but appeal to everybody," says Revolution partner Tom Sherak.

But even those who are reluctant to conclude that today's kids are any less interested in R-rated drugs, sex and violence than they were five years ago, say the continued political pressure over public decency has changed industry practices and made it harder for R pics to make money.

Out of last year's four top-grossing R-rated pics, "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" were both unlikely-to-be-repeated anomalies. "Troy," which was seen as a disappointment despite grossing $133 million, did make $364 million overseas. But in many major foreign territories, it received a rating that allowed 15- and 16-year olds to buy tickets. Other R-rated pics, like "The Last Samurai," that have done bigger foreign biz than domestic, have also been less restrictively rated in big overseas markets.

Not to take a chance, Disney recut its own summer historical epic, "King Arthur," down to PG-13.

Before last year's Nipplegate, critics of slipping entertainment standards had set their sights on violent movies. Desperately seeking an explanation for why two troubled teens would walk into school and mow down their classmates, many commentators immediately pointed to the carnage depicted in films, music and videogames.

Within days of 1999's Columbine massacre, President Bill Clinton directed the Federal Trade Commission to examine whether the entertainment industry was promoting violence to teens.

While some lawmakers, including Sen. Joe Lieberman, drafted legislation, eventually both the MPAA and the National Assn. of Theater Owners adopted voluntary guidelines in the fall of 2000 to bolster enforcement of the current rating system.

For example, studios generally now refrain from advertising R-rated films during TV programs in which children make up 35% or more of the aud. Similarly, exhibs pledged to step up ID checks of teens trying to buy tickets for R-rated films and bar trailers for R-rated product in front of PG pics.

The FTC continues to monitor the industry, and in its most recent report, July 2004, said the guidelines were mostly being followed. Only a handful of R-rated films were advertised on shows popular with children and only 36% of under-17 teens were able to buy tickets for R-rated films, down from nearly half in the FTC's first survey.

"Exhibitors have done a really good job of trying to keep underage kids out of R-rated movies," Sherak notes. "And that's caused more PG and PG-13 movies."

During the summer of 2000, while Washington was putting pressure on Hollywood, Danny Leiner was in the midst of filming "Dude, Where's My Car?," which he said was pitched to Fox as a R-rated stoner comedy. He says execs at the studio, which just two years prior had banked $176 million from a body-fluid gag in R-rated "There's Something About Mary," made it clear he needed to start thinking about PG-13.

"All the studio presidents had just gone to Capitol Hill and testified in front of Congress," he says. "And there was a mandate that the movie just wasn't going to be R-rated."

For its part, Fox insists it always planned for the pic to go out PG-13. No matter, it worked: produced on less than $15 million, "Dude" racked up $47 million.

Leiner followed it up with another stoner comedy, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle," which New Line released last summer with an R.

Despite strong reviews -- the New York Times, sounding like it was enjoying a few tokes itself, argued the film "persuasively, and intelligently, engage(s) the social realities of contemporary multicultural America" -- "Harold & Kumar" flopped: $18 million domestic.

Jack Valenti, who is still in charge of the MPAA's ratings program after handing the rest of the org's reins to Dan Glickman, rejects the notion that the rating system he created drives the biz.

"The rating of a film doesn't have anything to do with the box office," he says. "If you make a movie that a lot of people want to see, no rating will hurt you."

Still, he concedes R-rated films have longer odds for success.

"Most producers are like gamblers in a casino. They want to go where the best odds are," Valenti says. "You'd rather have a PG-13 than an R because you have slightly better odds."

NATO prexy John Fithian says exhibs are happy to see Hollywood producing fewer R-rated films. "We have been calling for more PG films and a lesser percentage of R films for years," he says, adding that Hollywood is listening.

"Studios, looking at the commercial potential of films, have migrated some of their R-rated films into PG-13. We think that's a good move. We like big commercial films not being restricted."

Of course, no one expects R films to go the way of NC-17 anytime soon. Studios still look to capitalize on a market for raunchier product, on homevideo at least. Among the PG-13-rated films now available unrated on DVD are "White Chicks," "Anchorman," "The Chronicles of Riddick" and, rather inexplicably, "Nutty Professor II."

That's a disheartening thing to read.

What a dipshit. It's simple common sense. If a huge segment of the ticket-buying population CAN'T SEE THE MOVIE then of course it's going to make less money.

This doesn't surprise me, however. Movies are money-making enterprises. Once you get out of the "creative" side of the business, no one is interested in anything beyond how much money can be made.

I can't wait until the world is completely child-proof. :rolleyes:

I still think that studios should try to make rated R cuts of their movies (ones cut to get a PG-13) to only show at late features, and to cut costs of prints, only put them in select cities/markets.

There is an upside to all of this; college students and older adults who typically go to the late show anyway on weekends no longer have to worry about going to a horror movie and being trapped in there with a bunch of noisy adolescents to disrupt their viewing.

Well, you do have to remember that this is a business first.

You should put that in your sig. ;)

Plus it came right after a quote from the director of American Pie. "Artistic Integrity" is not exactly the first thing I think of when I think of that series.

While I used to rant about why they should fight for an R rating, I have started to realize a fact about a lot PG-13 that many think should be R movies. Regardless of the rating, they are rather lackluster.

Let's look at the trend of horror movies that are PG-13 instead of R. Alien vs. Predator, not really horror, but something a lot of people would expect to be R. Upon viewing the movie, I know that had they added a few more blood shots to get an R, it wouldn't have changed the fact that it was a weak movie. The same can be said for The Grudge. Would an R rating have changed my opinon that it was mediocre? Absolutley not.
What's really happening is studios are making rated R films that stink, but they know if they give them a PG-13 they can capitalize on the teen "we feel like adults for seeing a horror movie" crowd to make a quick buck on opening weekend. I honestly feel that this is the case for Cursed. A lot of what I have read indicates that the movie will be lackluster regardless of the rating, so why not give it a PG-13 for some quick cash? I honestly don't see the upside of taking a PG-13 that sucks and making it an R rated movie that sucks but has a lot of gore to boot.
While I might take heat for this statement, buckets of blood does not a good horror movie make.

FWIW, the only movie I have seen where the uncut/R version was better than the PG-13 was King Arthur, and even then it just elevated it about a half star IMO. I guess it was the fact that one could tell they had made half-hazard cuts, but the weakness of the movie lay in the script.

I've been taking heat for those types of statements for a while. But when it comes down to it. It's very marketable to get something that would normally not make much in the R-rating and simply tag it as PG-13. those kids that have the expendable income and the free time on their hand on the weekend have that burning cash in their pocket and would easily piss it away on a film no matter how stupid it is.

A shitty PG-13 rated movie is still going to be a shitty R-rated film. Only difference is that shitty R rated film wont make the same kind of money.

That's not to say directors are limited or that PG-13 films can't be good. It just means that the directors need to have something else to think about when creating a film if they want it to be seen by the most possible viewers.

I find it disheartening as well. That fact doesn't change just because it's a business.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Most every significant piece of art was commissioned by someone.

Regarding PG-13, horror or otherwise. How scary or effective a film is has little to do with the level of violence or nudity. However, when I hear about a film that is edited to PG-13, it's usually sign of a bigger problem - that the filmmakers or studio are basically unconcerned with the film itself, just its commercial viability. The only exception I can think of is "Minority Report" (like ten seconds were trimmed, and the movie's a very harsh PG-13 anyway). But think about the fight over "Solaris" - the inclusion/exclusion of George Clooney's buttocks made little difference in the quality of the film, but Steven Soderbergh's insistence on keeping the shots demonstrated to me that he had carefully designed his film, and that it couldn't just be reshaped to cater to tweens.

I think that the thing everyone forgets is that regardless of how many blockbuster films that there is, there will still be those artistic oscar pictures. So no matter how many "Fake" horror films that are pumped out by the studios. There will still be some other source that comes in and fills in for those needs. Devil's Rejects for example comes out down the road. So you can't really have that "doom and gloom" view point on all this.

Will the studios try to cash in on the latest craze? will the studios shoot for making the most out of each picture in any way that they can? Yes on both those. Currently it's all about hitting the major profit off the PG-13 rated horror. That money funds those other pictures for the same studios that will be Oscar contenders. So the cycle keeps going on and on.

Well Jack, I don't think it's even as limited as you're making out. R rated films still get made, and still are successful. Even in the limited genre of horror, we had a few bonafide R rated hits in the recent year, from Dawn of the Dead to Saw to Hide and Seek. We also seem to forget that in the past, R rated films were also never the top of the heap either, with Beverly Hills Cop reigning as the highest grossing R picture since 1984, all the way until Matrix Reloaded. R rated pictures have never truly been the highest grossing category, save for a few years in the 1970s perhaps. There are always some standout hits, and many more lower budgeted R rated hits, but when it comes to blockbusters, R rated was never the standard.

Heck, before 1960, there were NO R rated pictures at all.

So what am I saying? Well, obviously R rated pictures have reduced somewhat in number, that article seems to prove that. On the other hand, we've also had a few of the most wildly profitable and highest grossing R rated pictures in the last few years. So, I wouldn't worry about them going anywhere.

Besides, it's naive to pretend the decision to make any film, particularly the high profile ones, is not steeped in its commercial possibilities. If we looks beyond the mega budget, highly advertised, opening in 3,000 theaters movies we'll see more diversity than some think does not exist.

What everyone also seems to forget is that studios often do take gambles on R rated movies and unfortunately, they seldom pay off. I remember seeing Constantine this weekend and an usher coming in to escort a teen who had snuck into the film out. While the movie was rather lackluster, I am sure that if the studio had it to do over, they would have given it a PG-13. What they would have cut is beyond me, but I can tell you this much, the rating didn't effect the quality of that movie.

EDIT: Jack, you work for Fox right? Please tell me they won't cut Kingdom of Heaven for a PG-13!!! Of course if Ridley Scott was under contract to deliver one, I guess it's their right, but he seems to be someone whose always capable of delivering a successful R rated pic nowadays.

What I find disheartening is the common take that more cursing, nudity, and/or gore automatically equals better movie (unless you are talking about the niche movies like Dead Alive or the like). If cutting out some f-bombs ruins a movie, it wasn't much of a movie to start with.

If you have a problem with that statement, let me ask you: Were any good movies made "back in the day" when few if any movies contained gore, nudity, or profanity? Too often those devices are simply used as a cheap crutch to cover for a crap story. I guess I've just reached a point in my life where simply hearing some curse words doesn't automatically qualify as entertainment value.

This shit goes in cycles... we'll eventually see a backlash where the society is starved for violence and sex and blasphemy and studios will happily provide them with it. I'm not too worried really. Besides - how are these pg-13 movies living on DVD when they release both the regular and the uncut versions? Which is the better financial performer?

More importantly, how is Harold and Kumar living on DVD? I really hope they get a sequel made - was it really a flop? It was released at the same time as quite a few successful films which couldn't have helped.

They should just make all movies G rated and be done with hit. That way no restriction on grosses at all. No one ever curses, bleeds or gets naked in real life.