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

[Alex Spindler]

For me, it boils down pretty simply. Is the film aided or harmed by achieving the rating that it gets.



As an example, I think Temple of Doom was a good early example of a film that was able to justify a PG-13 rating (what with reaching in and taking out hearts and the like), in such a way that it seemed it was justified. In this way, I think it was a good rating.
The recent remake of The Ring is a PG-13 movie that I don't believe was harmed to make it's goal. I don't think language or gore would have benefited it to much of a degree (but if Naomi Watts wanted to work in some nudity, I wouldn't mind).
Resident Evil? Absolutely harmed in its quest for PG-13. Lack of gore that I would have considered an honest requirement for a zombie film and for a film bearing the game's lineage. Curiously, the sequel was rated R but I also found it lacking gore-wise.
Rollerball...well, I can count weakening it down to a PG-13 level as one of the myriad of problems for that trainwreck. Having the hero sweat oil in the finale certainly didn't help matters. (Boooiinnnggg)

I miss the old pure thrills R-rated action film of the past and the gore filled films of the '80s. Heck, I even miss the kind of virtuoso visceral thrills that James Cameron could pour into a film like True Lies, a film which most assuredly have been made PG-13 today. But I can't help but think it wouldn't have been nearly the same as Harry Tasker shoots a fraction of the number of terrorists and off screen to boot. I just think some films are aided by the material present in an R rating (be it violence, language, or sex) in creating the right atmosphere for the kind of entertainment they are providing. PG-13 becomes a problem when you're focusing more on how much better or more complete a film would be with the missing material than on watching the actual film.

 

[GeorgePaul]

quote:

I miss the old pure thrills R-rated action film of the past and the gore filled films of the '80s. Heck, I even miss the kind of virtuoso visceral thrills that James Cameron could pour into a film like True Lies, a film which most assuredly have been made PG-13 today. But I can't help but think it wouldn't have been nearly the same as Harry Tasker shoots a fraction of the number of terrorists and off screen to boot. I just think some films are aided by the material present in an R rating (be it violence, language, or sex) in creating the right atmosphere for the kind of entertainment they are providing. PG-13 becomes a problem when you're focusing more on how much better or more complete a film would be with the missing material than on watching the actual film.

Well said, Alex. I hate that studios feel like they have to do this with many of their releases now, simply because parents didn't show enough responsibility with their children's entertainment choices in the '90s. It was a very interesting decade in that respect, Ernest. It showed us that not only could American audiences be easily manipulated, but that the willingness of the majority of parents to accept lowest-common-denominator entertainment would win out over the objections of the intelligent, scrupled minority. Regardless of who should be held responsible for that, IMHO, families have to look harder and harder every year for quality entertainment at the movies, and barring a sea change in Hollywood (i.e. a Roy Disney revolution), that trend will continue.

 

[Kenneth]

Remember that the studios also have to think outside the box for how the movie will be rated in other countries where the standards are even tougher and often determined by the government. I suspect that one reason for the PG-13 preference is that at that rating the movie can transition to the international market with a minimum number of cuts or without major rating issues outside the US. An R rated movie may run into more trouble when it comes to the individual country ratings boards (requiring a strict rating or cuts). With 50% or more of a movies revenues coming from the international market, this might be a concern also.



Kenneth

 

[Chris Farmer]

Interesting point Kenneth, and a good one.



In an ideal world, the subject matter would determine the rating, and not vice versa. Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down are two movies that by their nature had to be R, making them PG-13 would have been a betrayal of the subject matter. However, Spider-man, X-Men, Lord of the Rings, Men in Black, and plenty of others all fit quite nicely into PG-13. They had an edge to them that pushed them well out of PG territory, but also had no need of being graphic enough to warrant an R. The problem comes not from the rating itself, but from studios targeting a movie to a rating, and not letting the movie develop and being what the subject matter demands.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I have to argue with that. Since the ratings system came into being, it seems like all we talk about is how this movie could have been 10 times better if it got pumped up to an 'R' if they did this, but they never did that because they HAD to have a PG or a PG-13.



...and today, we constantly see the envelope being pushed. A little bit more nudity or violence makes the PG-13 grade, and the studios have a party because they've reached their ultimate money-making picture.



But what about before the ratings? There are tons of movies out there, and if they all got rated, what percentage of them would even go higher than a 'G'? Why go higher? Why can't they just put out good movies that are rated 'G'? Would you stop seeing movies because they didn't have any cussing, nudity or dismembered limbs in them? Is it your right to have those things just because you are an adult?



Glenn

 

[Chris Farmer]

That's a straw-man, Glenn. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any more G-rated movies. In fact, plenty of G rated movies are very well-liked here n the HTF, including Pixar's entire series, lots of other animated movies, many classic films like The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind, and others. What myself and others are arguing is that the problem arises when a movie that naturally gravitates towards one rating is cut down to achieve another (or occasionally spiced up).



None of this has anything to do with a "right" to see violence, but if you're going to tell the story of Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down and be honest about it, the resulting movie has to have an R rating by todays' standards. To chop it down to a PG-13 would be to artificially sanitize the film of its intended effect, and present an inaccurate depiction of the events. Black Hawk Down set out to depict the Battle of the Black Sea as realistically as possible. In the real world, in battle, people get shot. And when they get shot, they bleed, scream in pain, and sometimes die. And it's never a pretty thing. Chop it down to PG-13 and you get Pearl Harbor (granted, PH had plenty of other faults as well, but one of the biggest was a battle that was way too clean for what was occurring). That said, I didn't hear many complaints about Spider-man 2 being only PG-13 when it should have been pumped up to R. All the discussion was overwhelmingly positive across the board, and even those who disliked it never suggested it should have been R. Spidey was perfect at PG-13, and worked just fine. Nor has anybody suggest that Toy Story or Finding Nemo or Monsters, Inc. would be any better if they were PG, much less PG-13 or R. Never even crossed most people's minds, they just appreciated them for the fantastic movies they are.



What it comes down to is what I said in my above post. Make the movie, and then let the ratings fall where they will. Toy Story wouldn't work as an R rated film any more then Saving Private Ryan would as a G, so let TS be G and SPR be R, but don't force the movie to fit some arbitrary ratings mold. Sure, there are exceptions, and you do try to keep a movie accessible to its target demographic (why do you think most comic book movies are PG-13 and not R?), but when you have a movie such as Aliens vs. Predator, that movie should be R rated. It's the fifth film in the Alien franchise, the third in the Predator one, and all preceding films in either series have been R. Cutting it down to PG-13 to fit the teen demographic simply compromised an already compromised movie further, and ensured that nothing good could possibly come out of it. Neither the Aliens nor the Predators inhabit a PG-13 universe, and trying to fit them into that mold merely sucked whatever life was left right out of them.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

First of all, cartoons are usually rated G. They are made for kids, just as they always have been. Anime is another subject.



Saving Private Ryan didn't need to have any violence in it at all. The story was about finding one guy, so they could have skipped the landing altogether. I can just as easily say that "The Longest Day" was a factual movie about the landing - and it didn't need to show the gore!



I won't touch AVP with a ten foot pole, but it is a sequel, and should stay in line with the rest. That wasn't the first monster or horror movie though. The older ones weren't restricted to little kids, but the kids did know that they'd probably have nightmares for a month if they did see them. A little common sense is all that is necessary. (I saw an outtake from King Kong, where he'd pick up natives and bite their heads off! It was really cool, but they cut it. Why?)



But that was my point. Are we feeding the studios, or are the studios feeding us? If the studios only came out with G flicks from now on, would the public stop going to see them?



The gore, cuss words and naked body parts are all fluff. How did Hollywood survive for 60 years before the ratings system came out?



Remember that the whole ratings system came into being from some complaints (won't go there). If that didn't happen, and we had no ratings, would movies be the same today? Maybe some would try more and more risky stuff, until it came to a point when viewship would go down, and they'd tone their later movies down. They know that an 8 year old girl isn't going to want to watch blood squirting out of a severed arms, so in order to get her to see it, they wouldn't put that in.



They still want to get maximum viewers, and the way to do that is to make the picture suitable for everyone. You've said it yourself - there are good 'G' rated movies out there. You'd go to see more if more good ones came out, right? Now, what if they only cranked out 'G' rated movies from now on? Get it?

(Yeah, but I don't like it!)



Glenn

 

[Kevin M]

quote:Saving Private Ryan didn't need to have any violence in it at all. The story was about finding one guy, so they could have skipped the landing altogether. I can just as easily say that "The Longest Day" was a factual movie about the landing - and it didn't need to show the gore!

Then you missed the director's whole point of showing those graphic sequences in SPR, to attempt to portray the brutality of war as closely to the truth as you can without softening it for those who simply don't know, those who indeed grew up watching homogenized depictions of what was a horrible event that scarred the lives of so many men, to show what sacrifice these men really made for us.



These films are not meant for children and they should not see them, if you dislike any depiction of violence regardless of the context then you should not see them either.


I disagree with that blanket statement. The "fluff" is slasher films, The Godfather, Red Beard, Wages of Fear all contained violence and/or nudity...are these "fluff"?
I've read books that also contain moments of heinous violence but as an teen & as an adult I understood the context and appreciated the reasoning behind it...one such book was the Bible. Another was King Lear (transcribed play) and yet another was Grims Fairy Tales, these did not warp my fragile little mind as a kid and I like to think I am a fairly empathetic adult (I found a newborn stray kitten on my porch three weeks ago and shed more than a few tears as it died in my hands as I tried to nurse it with a bottle, I've done this successfully before but it was too far gone) so I personally don't think films should be any less realistic in the story they are trying to tell then books are, depending on what the artists are trying to say with a given story.



As far as I'm concerned the entire reason for less R rated films these days is one of economics, more bodies in seats = more money....period. It has IMO nothing to do with "morality" or any sense of artistry.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I would definitely side with Kevin here in that violence and nudity aren't fluff, although they can surely be used as such. To argue that a film can have the intended effect without them seems quite impossible.

The war films of the past inspired many (myself included) that war could be a great and heroic thing. As an antidote to that, a film like SPR or Black Hawk Down provide a sobering viewpoint as to the realities within.

A film which I curiously hold in high artistic regard, Basic Instinct is almost defined by its use of sex and nudity and I think as a well crafted film, it wouldn't be reproducible in a less explicit format. This isn't to say that more chaste femme fatale films of the past are ineffective, but they operate at a different level and cannot achieve the same effect.

As another comparison, many PG or PG-13 'teen issues' movies are unable to be as effective as a film like Thirteen which is unfortunate in that it is restricted from the people it may accurately depict.

And, as anyone here will attest, a film like Glengarry Glen Ross is renowned for it's foul language and uses it to tremendous effect to give a gritty and real texture to the people working in that meatgrinder industry.

Violence, sex, and bad language are artistic tools and it's up to the creators to use their powers for good or evil (

). Some obviously use it exploitatively, but that can often be in aid of the films. Horror and Monster movies are able to exploit violence to very good effect and I don't think anyone would argue that films like The Thing or Alien are upstaged by the films that inspired them or they were remade from.

There is also the implied effect of the films of the past that we are referencing. Many of them put forward such a sanitized version of reality that it seems surreal today, to include their use of separate beds for married couples. It was quite refreshing for a film like L.A. Confidential to demystify the '50s for what it really was, which was less formal wear and arch dialogue and something more relatable and human.

 

[Kenneth]

It is interesting that the movies people use to support more R rated movies and fewer PG-13 were all R movies to begin with and under no pressure to be PG-13 (that I am aware).



For artists making low budget movies with their own funding there is little pressure for them to provide a movie of any particular rating. They can release them as NC-17 (if they can find a distributor). However, for artists using OPM (other people's money) they give up some control over their project unless they negotiated up front how much freedom they would have. If a director takes 100 mil to make a movie I don't think it unreasonable for studios to monitor whether the film will be able to return that investment. The big directors (Speilberg, Ridley Scott, Tarentino, and others) have been able to provide movies that are successful and R rated. Others have been able to do the same with PG-13.



I think part of the problem is that there have been some pretty bad PG-13 movies released. Many of these would have been just as bad as an R rated movie. Their problem was not that they couldn't include enough violence, nudity, or adult situations. Their problem was they were poorly written or directed or both. I don't think the rating of a film is a be-all indication of quality.



Kenneth

 

[Kevin M]

quote: I don't think the rating of a film is a be-all indication of quality.

Who the hell is saying that?

 

[Kenneth]

quote:Who the hell is saying that?

Well, there seem to be two primary arguments different people are proposing against PG-13.



The first is that by forcing material that should be R into a PG-13 a substandard product results (hence my statement about quality since some of these questionable PG-13 would have been equally questionable at R).



The second is that the studios are forcing movies into PG-13 because they want more money (hence my comments about the price of using other people's money and dealing with the implications of other country's ratings boards).



Kenneth

 

[Kevin M]

The theory (that I have seen so far) is a mere economic consideration from the studios that we see as the guiding force behind the dearth of R rated films, not (on my part anyway) a denouncement of all PG-13 films or an approval of all R rated films.



I still don't see who said that a particular rating is an automatic sign of "quality".



I know I didn't.

What I have seen is the idea that the rating depends on the story you are trying to tell and that cutting certain "adult" content to gain a higher profit may be economically good but artistically bad...depending on the story you are trying to tell.

 

[Brian_J]

quote:I disagree with that blanket statement. The "fluff" is slasher films, The Godfather, Red Beard, Wages of Fear all contained violence and/or nudity...are these "fluff"?

Except that you are extrapolating to films that come along once in a moon. Look at the bulk and they are not the Godfather, they are Bad Boys 2.



Brian

 

[Jonathan Carter]

quote:Except that you are extrapolating to films that come along once in a moon. Look at the bulk and they are not the Godfather, they are Bad Boys 2.

Which is fine. A PG-13 Bad Boys 2 would have been horrible. The action and charachters, even the movies target audience demand an R rating from movies like this. It's not fluff, it's giving people what they want. AVP did not, it gave a watered down, edited for content version of the 2 franchises so it could score a more lucrative rating.



Whether or not movies like Bad Boys 2 are great cinema compared to films such as the Godfather is irrelevant. What is relevant is that both these films and others like them would have suffered as AVP and others have by getting a lower rating because "necessary" content would have been cut in order to do so.



I'd be down to maybe 1 movie a year, maybe. The industry would crumble.

 

[Alex Spindler]

quote:Except that you are extrapolating to films that come along once in a moon. Look at the bulk and they are not the Godfather, they are Bad Boys 2.

I would argue that 21 Grams, Bad Santa, Cold Mountain, both Kill Bill's, The Last Samurai, Lost in Translation, Man on Fire, Passion of the Christ, and most recently Shaun of the Dead (still not wide, amazingly) have all used violence and/or nudity in aid of the story being told and not as fluff. And that's just from the last two years. A PG or PG-13 alternative of many of them would be radically, and I would argue disastrously, different.

 

[Kevin M]

quote:Except that you are extrapolating to films that come along once in a moon. Look at the bulk and they are not the Godfather, they are Bad Boys 2.

I beg your pardon but he said all fluff which I interpreted as meaning that any need to use said nudity/violence/harsh language in film is intended to draw an audience in with salacious/scandalous material. Yes, it can be used as "fluff" but there are many examples where it is simple part and parcel to the story.

Many newer films have this without being Bad Boys 2 material, House of Sand and Fog - 21 Grams - Ned Kelly - City of God - Young Adam - The Human Stain etc. etc. all contained violence, nudity and/or language, are they fluff? Are they BB2? Are they once in a blue moon? ...there are many other BB2 examples it's true but I don't think R is necessarily the majority territory of Bruckhimer and CO.

 

[Don Solosan]

quote:The gore, cuss words and naked body parts are all fluff. How did Hollywood survive for 60 years before the ratings system came out?

Glenn, that's an easy question. They had the Hays Code. It was in force from the mid-30s until 1967, and provided guidelines to what movies could and could not show.

 

[Don Solosan]

BrianJ,



How did Zed's baby die?