rw2516

If PG-13 didn't exist they would be releasing them as PG. They want the ticket revenue from those too young for an R rating. With money being the driving force in movie making I believe they would make less money from an R horror film. Hollywood will do whatever makes the most money.
As for film makers being unwilling to release NC-17 films. Most theater chains will not book an NC-17 film. You can get around this by releasing the film unrated, as was done with Dawn of the Dead(1978). There are problems with releasing an unrated film. Films not submitted to MPAA for rating do not receive an MPAA number and are ineligible for the Oscars. Also the MPAA will not have your back in copyright protection for an unrated film.
Why not get rid of ratings? All media ratings(comics, movies, tv, music, video games) are self imposed and executed by their respective industry. All these ratings are the result of congressional hearings where the industry agree to police itself so the government wouldn't. Whatever you think of the ratings, it's better than the feds, or locals.
Why does tv show TV-MA stuff? Ratings aren't about censorship. It's about labeling. Posting a warning to parents or adults. Like the warning on cigarettes. Just post the warning and your ass is covered. The economic repurcussions of releasing an NC-17 film to theaters do not exist with tv.
I disagree that an R film would be just as good edited to PG-13 or PG. There are the examples of scenes of gore and nudity are added just for the R rating. Then there are true R films. Films where the R elements are intricately woven into the film. Animal House. The Godfather. Dirty Harry. The Exorcist. The problem doesn't come from the editing room. The problem is R movies aren't being written, or if they are, studios aren't producing them.

Solid Snake

I think there's at least 2 paragraphs in there. I can't tell.

LorenzoL

When did OldBoy becomes Chris_sc77?

Alan Smithee

I've always considered ratings to be "spoilers" as well, especially since they now list why the movie got a certain rating. If a "scary" movie gets a PG-13 rating, I'll expect it to be rather tame (and some horror fans won't see it because of that.)

The movie "Lust, Caution" was interesting because it was rated NC-17, but only for ONE rather explicit (but not like porn) sex scene in the middle of the movie- the rest was your usual drama that could've gotten a PG rating. The sex scene doesn't happen for quite a while, so in the back of my mind I kept thinking "Why was this rated NC-17?" If there hadn't been any rating, then that scene would've come as a bigger surprise.

They actually do take some, but not all movies into context. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" was given an X rating not so much for the violence in it but for its "moral tone", as it didn't really imply that what they were doing in the movie was WRONG. They're also more lenient on anything having to do with the military- usually saying the "F" word 3 times or more is an automatic R, but there's been a few movies about the military that got away with a PG-13 or lower with it being said more times than that. America- Fuck Yeah!

orangerunner

I agree with you on this. If you are old enough to remember films being aired on network TV, they were horribly edited to the point where there were loopholes in the logic and plot. In comedies, many jokes using four-letter words were badly dubbed, completely losing their comic impact.

Granted, network TV edited their films almost to the point of a G-rating.

Some movies aren't made for kids, that's okay.

It all comes down to demographics and money. PG-13 appeals to the widest demographic - and you have to include millennials as your target if you wish to make a lot of money.

As a general observation, I think another thing we're seeing is that millennials' taste in movies does not seem to be maturing much with age. Since, say, Spiderman in 2001, we've had nothing but super-hero movies, toy-themed re-boots and sequels dominating the box office.

I doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.

Obi-Wanma

I know this is true, but I still don't get why. Is is just they're unwilling to take on the responsibility of keeping kids out of the theater? Wasn't the entire reason for creating the NC-17 rating so that we would have an adults only rating that wasn't automatically equated to porn, like the X rating was?

They have adults only ratings in Canada (and many of our R films actually receive them) and there's no problems.

By and large, the NC-17 rating has been a failure as far as achieving what it was intended to do.

orangerunner

The MPAA has always been very coy about the NC-17 rating but I think it is a mixture of liability of kids under 17 getting into the theatre which, in a multiplex world, would happen quite often along with having to turn away money at the box office.

Many major newspapers often refused to accept adverting for NC-17 films.

Not that newspapers have as much influence now (hell, you barely see a movie ad of any kind in the newspaper anymore!) but at the time of the NC-17 introduction, this was a major stumbling block.

Eventually with the DVD technology it allowed for the filmmakers to include the option of having the original uncut version restored to its unofficial NC-17 status as an unrated film.

Alan Smithee

There hasn't been much of a problem with theaters in my area refusing to play NC-17 rated movies. Showgirls even played at the drive-in, which is visible to anyone from the freeway! Blockbuster was the main force in stifling that rating as they were the largest video store chain and had a policy against carrying NC-17, but fortunately they're not around anymore.

rw2516

The big budget sci-fi action adventure is the only thing Hollywood has left. To get asses in the seats you have to offer something on a level nobody else can offer. They have an exclusive on it.
The other is stars. You have to go to theater to see Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Arnold, etc.
There has to be something you can't get from tv.
Movies have always tried to stay one step ahead of television.

rw2516

It's a social stigma thing. Not unlike the store that pulls a celebrity's product from it's shelf because of a scandal. Theaters don't want to alienate people by being the theater that shows "those kind of movies". In many peoples' minds NC-17 is associated with X.
The multiplex probably has A LOT to do with it. If the government were involved I wouldn't be surprised to see regulations like, a multiplex can't show both R and G movies at the same time. Or, R movies could only have showtimes after 7pm.

hanshotfirst1138

I was staggered when my local AMC showed Blue is the Warmest Color with the NC-17 rating. I was there for like three or four days, but still, I was blown away.

RichC2

AMC frequently breaks from norms these days, thankfully they're also one of the largest theater chains. They didn't used to be that way, not sure what changed but I like them more these days.

Alan Smithee

The AMCs in the San Francisco area showed Henry and June, the first NC-17 movie released.

Groucho

Smarter? Please give some specific examples of PG-13 movies that would have been SMARTER if you added boobs or f-bombs. Not more entertaining, not scarier...but SMARTER.

Josh-da-man

Dude, everything is better with boobs.

TomOpus

May your life be filled with Adam Sandler movies where he shows his boobs

Brack

The Cow

There's Something About Mary could have skipped some boobage. **shudder**

Dimension X

Even About Schmidt?

TomOpus

:shudder:

JeffTheAlpaca

I wonder if the Dark Knight movies would be a little better if they went "R" and there was no restrictions on the violence and language?

The same could be said for other Comic book based movies like the Punisher the movie with Thomas Jane.

Watchman and Kick-Ass are the only "R" comic book based movies I can think of.

Solid Snake

Jane's Punisher was R.

I like Jane but thought his film just felt so cheap at times. It's alright. War Zone made up for it in the great action. Sadly... Alexander couldn't do much about that script once she jumped on.

Not sure if Nolan's films would be better with an R. MAYBE a bit tougher violence or more menace in TDK could've been better. But... I don't think so. TDKR... maybe. Actually that one probably could have played out better w/ more push in it. Based on the script though.... I dunno if it would be better.

Obi-Wanma

Blade, the Crow, and Dredd (and the forthcoming Deadpool); and there's lots more if you don't restrict yourself to things resembling the superhero genre (V for Vendetta, Sin City, 300, Wanted, Kingsman, A History of Violence, etc.)

EddieMoney

PG-13 movies aren't dumbing down Hollywood. Lack of imagination and shitty writing is.

Ash Ketchum

Audiences clamoring for shitty CGI-filled movies are dumbing down Hollywood.