Why don't we see more R-rated movies nowadays? (1 Viewer)

[derek]

I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Spiderman movies and even the Star Wars trilogy (though PG) would generally be accepted as good examples against this thought.

 

[GeorgePaul]

Believe it or not, I've never seen either Spiderman movie, but some people do take issue with the cuts Peter Jackson made for the LOTR movies. I don't want to start up a debate over that on this thread--there are plenty of others to go to if you want to do that--but several posters here have expressed their chagrin that the Scouring of the Shire will not be in Return of the King. I think the EE will still be a wonderful movie, but both versions will be missing a valuable story element (Peter Jackson even commented how much violence and story he had to cut for the PG-13 theatrical release).

 

[Brian_J]

Hey, I don't agree with the government suing a legal company selling a legal product and restricting its free speech rights (at least in part because its mascott is "too kid friendly") and I would point out that there are plenty of people who claim that the junk coming out of Hollywood is pretty close to "poison" for our society and youth. Mind you, I am not one of them, I drink that kool-aid. I dont think either should be restricted. But it is easy to track the courseness of society with that of Hollywood. Brian

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Hell, even the 1968 film version of Romeo and Juliet, a movie we had to watch twice back in the school days, had the breast shot from Juliet.

Scuse me while I run over to Netflix for a bit.

 

[Kevin M]

Wait a min. He's not going to include it in the Extended Edition? WTF!?! I hadn't heard this yet. God dammit.

 

[Timothy Alexander]

But how, exactly, would he have included that scene anyway, with the way the rest of the movie works?

 

[Kenneth]

This assumes that it was a rating issue that caused the exclusion of this event. I think it was a time issue. Even in an extended version the Scouring requires setup in all three movies to be meaningful to the casual viewer. One reason that LotR was so successful was partly because the rating gave it a broad audience base but also the plot allowed for tourists to understand the material.

After the first movie's success Jackson probably could have lobbied for a higher rating. I haven't noticed that even in the extended editions there is much unrated material being added. He must have been fairly comfortable with the PG-13 or he could have made the extended editions R.

Kenneth

 

[Nick Sievers]

That section wasn't filmed but it wasn't in order to earn a PG-13 rating either, it was done as a creative decision.

 

[Kevin M]

Damn, I'm sorry for joining in so late to what is obviously old news but...I thought I was up on LOTR but I never knew that they never filmed the scouring of the shire! I honestly thought it was going to be in the EE, I thought that was why Lee was so upset....dammit!(slaps forehead):b

So Wormtongue doesn't get a closure either?

 

[GeorgePaul]

To my limited knowledge, Lee and Brad Dourif both get "closure"...er, sort of. A fight scene between Wormtongue and Saruman in the White Tower at the beginning of the EE has been confirmed. But could you imagine a PG-13 ROTK with certain battle scenes or parts of the Paths of the Dead sequence NOT cut?

It's not like Peter Jackson had a time limit on the EEs...he could have made each of them TEN hours and fans would still have bought them. But even back in 2001, some fans had already showed dismay over the removal of the barrow-wights and Tom Bombadil from Fellowship of the Ring. Jackson's EE commentary (especially the orc battles) on that film confirms that not all the cuts were time or creative decisions.

Again, I don't want to start a debate over which scenes shouldn't have been removed from the LOTR movies: to me, they are a great filmic threesome no matter how you slice them. My point is that valuable elements from the original stories were removed from these films, and that is pretty consistent with most PG-13 movies I've seen. Though that rating is at times nebulous, in general you're not going to be exposed to the level of realism in a PG-13 version of a story that you would in its R-rated version, and as a result you usually miss parts of the story that would have enhanced the movie, had they been included.

For those reasons, I dislike most PG-13 films in general. So many end up being such a frustrating tease. You get some of the realism of an R-rated film without complete payoff. And the cuts are getting so obvious in some releases now that you can literally spot the moments a director pulls punches.

 

[Kenneth]

So you're saying that Raider's of the Lost Ark would have been more realistic if when Indy shot the swordsman we see the back of his head explode and spatter the surrounding people with blood. That would definitely have pulled in the "R" rating. Or maybe we needed the snake scene to go, "****ing snakes, I hate ****ing snakes."

I don't think the PG vs R can be painted in broad black and white strokes

Kenneth

 

[Steve Christou]

Yep one more hour of extra footage and dear old Christopher Lee has to make do with a cameo appearance at the start of the film, get him out the way fast so to speak, while I'm sure there'll be more endless lingering shots of Frodo Baggins looking sad, doleful, downhearted, constipated, depressed, teary, dispirited, miserable and not in the best of moods! :frowning:



ps. Can't wait for the EE.

 

[Don Solosan]

Free speech doesn't cover deceptive speech, and that was the issue. There's a long history of companies selling products that only adults buy (gasoline, for example), and yet they have mascots and advertising aimed at children. Why? Build brand loyalty young. Children grow up into adults and suddenly they're faithfully buying Chevron gas but can't explain why.

I was involved in research a few years ago looking at beer and wine brand awareness in middle school children. They were shown frames from various TV commercials and asked if they knew the brand. The vast majority knew the Budweiser frogs. With cigarette companies, this early loyalty is especially important because their faithful customers have a bad habit of dying off.

The government has an obligation to take action in cases like these. Take DDT, for example. A product proven bad for the environment far beyond all potential good, banned federally and illegal in many states.

As for it being easy to track the courseness of society with that of Hollywood, yes, well, people have done that with rock and roll, jazz-era flappers, and old Warner Bros gangster shoot-em-ups. It's easy, but that doesn't mean its correct. If all these things had a demonstrable negative effect on our society, America wouldn't exist anymore. The Commies would have been right, and they'd be in charge.

Hell, if the accumulated viewing of violence in movies and on TV corroded the human psyche like "plenty of people" claim, most of the members of this Forum would be homicidal maniacs.

 

[GeorgePaul]

That's true, Don, but no one can deny the overkill, if you'll pardon the expression. There have been studies that have confirmed that exposure to too many violent scenes on television can change a child's psyche in a negative way. As an adult, I find that you either get desensitized to it or it just wears you down to the point where you can't watch TV anymore.

 

[Jason Hughes]

I agree totally! The Matrix was so real! We can all jump off buildings and fly through the air! We are all pod people! (actually that would explain a lot in today's society )

Yup. The Wachowski Brothers have no imagination at all. They must have lifted the entire plot off a cereal box.

Part of me thinks our collective chains are being yanked.

 

[Kenneth]

Here are a number of recent PG-13 films:

Spiderman and Spiderman 2
X-Men and X-men 2
Indiana Jones and Last Crusade
Big Trouble in Little China
and of course many others

I am unclear how these would be better films as an "R", or do you think they are misclassified "PG" films

I think the argument between "R" and "NC-17" is generally more valid. Clearly it was intended for "NC-17" to provide an adult outlet for extreme "R" material. However, the logistics never worked out so we end up with exotic cuts (sometimes just a few seconds) that transform a film from an "NC-17" to an "R" Now that really doesn't make sense.

Kenneth

 

[BarryR]

I'm a bit late answering this but BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES was rated G, not PG. The preceding one, CONQUEST/APES, was PG, primarily because of the repeated use of the word bastard.

"bastard bastard bastard bastard!" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Ernest Rister]

"That's true, Don, but no one can deny the overkill, if you'll pardon the expression. There have been studies that have confirmed that exposure to too many violent scenes on television can change a child's psyche in a negative way. As an adult, I find that you either get desensitized to it or it just wears you down to the point where you can't watch TV anymore."

Well, the answer is parenting -- parents need to be parents and do their jobs instead of expecting the government or their local schools to do their work for them. If a child watches Pulp Fiction and starts swearing like a sailor, I don't blame Tarantino and Roger Avary for writing the film, and I don't blame Miramax for producing -- I blame the parent who was negligent and allowed through inaction their child to watch it. When parents leave their children in the back of cars, we don't blame the automakers, we blame the parent. When parents leave firearms in places where children can get them, we don't blame the gun manufacturers,we blame the parent and he or she goes to jail. Why are people so quick to blame Hollywood for their children's viewing habits? The 90's were an interesting time in our country, when personal responsiblity seemed to take a back seat to a sort of Oprah victim mentality, and I see that reflected in the attitude towards blaming Hollywood for school shootings, blaming Hollywood for disrespect between citizens, blaming Hollywood for hateful and offensive discourse.

It is not the responsibility of Hollywood to raise America's children, or control children's viewing habits. They couldn't accomplish that even if they tried. Only parents can do that. Some people, sadly, are not up to the job, and rather than admit their failure, they blame others to avoid the truth.

Remember the scene in The Music Man where Professor Hill raises the warning flags about the new pool table that has come to town?

 

[Don Solosan]

I can't watch TV now, but it isn't because of violence. I just think the shows are lousy, and I can't stand all the commercials.

The most shocking, horrible thing I ever saw on TV was that Vietnamese soldier getting shot in the head. Nothing I saw before or since then has even remotely come close to that experience. Everything else was pretend violence, and it had its place. So I don't feel desensitized or worn down.

I would be interested to hear what other HTF people think about this.

 

[Mike Broadman]

I shudder to think that grown men and women would bother with ratings when evaluating, judging, or enjoying a film. Except for the obviuously violent or sex-filled movies, I honestly don't know and don't care what my favorite films are rated.