Badmovies.org Forum

And a lot of them had much more gore than made it to the final cut.

Why do studio heads think people don't want to see a gory slasher movie?

It's the MPAA, the self imposed ratings group that the studio supposedly use only voluntarily.  But many places won't take unrated material, the confusion follows...

Because of the whole Adult Film stigma (if no one under 18 can see it then its X rated and Adult Material and many newspapers, broadcasters, and theaters REFUSE to run ads, commercial, or play them - or it might just be illegal to do so, Adults Only connotating pornography).  Many studios (Disney, Warners, and Paramount) have strict rules about movies.  They release nothing harder then R.  Period (i.e. nothing that makes a film ADULTS ONLY, irregardless of content).  Some go farther and say they will not release anything without a rating (pre-rating system Hollywood movies being an exception).  The Friday the 13th films were/are geered to the teenage market, thus creating a problem.  If the movies were rated X (or the PC themed NC-17) the mid teen audience would be unable to see it, thus cutting the profits.  That they would not get good advertising space or theater runs with the only over 17 ratings.

My answer?  We have a PG-13, why not an R-17?  People under seventeen can still see it, if the parents so choose to allow them, but the rating cautions that the movie is quite rough (in regards to language, violence or sexuality) but nothing that would qualify it as ADULTS ONLY (i.e. pornographic).

Only really 'bad' movies are "R" in the theatres in canada. allmost all of them get bumped down to "AA". Which is kinda like PG-13, if your under 14 you have to have an adult. only movies like the recent Resident Evil, Jason X, Blade 2, and Freddy got Fingered got "R" in the theatre. They make you show ID if you want to get into R rated movies.

-Dan

Just curious but when you are cruising the rental shelves, does the rating influence whether or not to try something out?

it influences me sometimes. it depends on what kind of movie i'm in the mood to see, or who i'll be watching it with really.

-Dan

The ratings don't really matter that much at all.  Most cheap movies through guts and tits around because they have nothing else of interest to offer.

I've noticed thaat all big blockbuster films have to be PG-13 lately. That lets them get in enough violence to rope in the teens and adults, yet also grabs the youngins' cash. Basically, the MPAA is a hypocritical, out of touch board of people dishing out their own morals on us, and if we don't like it, tough noogies. On the subject of gore, though- If a film is too gory or sexy, it gets slapped with an NC-17. That's the kiss of death for any film. So the director tones it down, dulling the film's edge, because no NC-17 film will ever be successful. Sucks, don't it?

Even worse is the fact that the MPAA has some major biases; they'll give a film a harsher rating if they simply don't like it, or worse, if they don't like the company releasing it. When Robert Rodriguez' "El Mariachi" was threatened by the MPAA, he asked the distributor why his film was getting an NC-17 while "Reservoir Dogs" (which is MUCH more violent and profane) was getting an R. The response: "Oh, that's a Miramax film. They love them." Also, Troma's battles with the MPAA are well-documented; there have been several instances where they've been told, quite plainly, "This film will never get an R." Fortunately, Troma's become recognized, self-sufficient, and economical enough that they can now circumvent the major theaters entirely and still turn a decent profit, thus eliminating the need for a rating.

Is the desired money making rating, certainly.  Although The Hulk isn't even finished yet the movie is advertised as PG-13, so Lee's contractually obligated to deliver a PG-13 cut.  Peter Jackson probably had the same deal with LotR (thus explained the expanded R rated cut coming out on DVD)

I still think the R-17 rating is a good way to circumvent the whole process, which is quite ridiculous and highly biased (check out some of the PG rated films from 78 and 79, those babies would be slapped with an R in a second flat).

Exactly! It's rediculous. People talk about movies these days but dang! There are alot of movies from the 70s and early 80s that I've seen that were rated PG and these days they would definately be an R. That was a load of crap about El Mariachi(sp?). How the hell is a movie more respectible or better just because it's released by Miramax or some other high profile studio? I've seen Miramax release a load of crap in theatres.

I follow you completely. Planet Of The Apes ('68) has two scenes of male unity, some mild cursing and violence, and it's rated G!!! One big battle against the MPAA: Sam Raimi wanted Evil Dead 2 to get an R rating, so some of the gore was green, so that when the censors complained he could say it was slime. It didn't work, ED 2 was released unrated, and was still a success.

are alot of movies from the 70s and early 80s that I've seen that were rated PG and these days they would definately be an R



Liz at "And You Call Yourself A Scientist" noted that in her review of Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger, a G rated movie with more skin and violence than would be expected today

J.R. wrote:
>
> Planet Of The Apes ('68) has
> two scenes of male unity

Dear God, not male unity! ;)

LOGAN'S RUN is PG and has a couple of scenes with brief nudity.

BEASTMASTER also has quite a bit of nudity and gore for a PG release.

Is really Disney and you KNOW what Hollywood saws about Disney?

"Don't f**k with The Mouse."

Well, remember that PG-13 wasn't an actual rating until the early 80's.  So PG used to mean something different than it does today.  Since there was no step between PG and R, there were only four types of movies.

G was suitable for everyone.
PG was "parental guidance".  (Would've worked great if parental guidance was a reliable commodity.)
R was for adults.
X was porno.

PG-13 was created after movies like GREMLINS started coming out.  Not really bad enough to receive an R, but certainly more violent than most people expected from the PG rating.  I don't think that movie was marketed as a direct horror movie, but I'm really to young to remember.

NC-17 was also created in the 80's to combat the stigma of the X-rating/porno connection.  It didn't work.

Of course, I take the viewpoint that the rating system is almost completely worthless, and often criminally negligent.  So there.

Hey Mofo Rising, dead-on about the "parental guidence" thing. Why are movie makers being held responsible for things that are really the fault of lazy parents? It's stupid! I will admit that in my 20 years on this planet I have seen things that I probably shouldn't but I have never killed anyone, have never gotten addicted to drugs and not suffering fromany sex ills. Why? Because my parents did a dang good job of raising me and my brother and sister! Sure there were plenty of influinces out there but my parents have kept me on the straight and narrow. They taught me along time ago how to tell the difference btween movies and real life.  Parents these days need to get a clue(I'm not attacking all parents because there are still plenty of parents out there that know what they are doing.).

 I agree, my mother always said "You shouldn't watch that violent stuff, it will make you mean." I'm not mean, I'm not violent (they haven't found the bodies yet, right?)
 
Seriously, I think if a parent can instill a good layer of common sense and the ablility to tell reality from fantasy in a kid, it shouldn't matter (to an extent; there are limits of course regarding movies and the age of the child) what the kid sees.

on a side note, wouldn't "Tits and Guts" be a great name for a trashy movie?

Close...



Tits and Asphault


Blood and Guts


Zipper And Tits

I'm surprised some enterprising young soul has not used the title

BLOOD, BREASTS, AND BEASTS! - The Ultimate B-Movie!

I meant nudity.

As far as I know, the entire ratings system and compliance with it is completely voluntary. I remember seeing a news story on how theaters aren't legally required to keep kids out of R-rated movies. Most do, but there's no law that says they have to. X is another matter.

>NC-17 was also created in the 80's to combat the stigma of the X-rating/porno
>connection. It didn't work.

 That's because right after creating the NC-17 rating, the MPAA turned around and told people it meant the same as X, it just wouldn't be used on porn.

Yeah, you don't HAVE to get your film rated, but most major theaters refuse to play unrated material, since "unrated" has become all but synonymous with "NC-17." And I think it is an actual law that theater owners have to keep unaccompanied kids out of R-rated movies, but the law's only been around for a year or two.

Also, as an aside, I think the technical reason they replaced X with NC-17 was that, when they originally made all the ratings, they copyrighted all of them except X. This meant that, while several "respectable" pictures got the X ("Midnight Cowboy," "A Clockwork Orange"), every porn producer was free to put an X rating on their movies as they pleased, thus damaging what credibilty they had. They created NC-17 to rectify this, but it was still too closely identified with X, which was still identified with porn.

I still think that a modified R-17 rating would work best.  It would be the same as a an R rating, but it would let people know the movie is a tad more graphic or saltier than the usual R rated movie.

As I mentioned before, and a few others have guessed, most studios and theater/video chains flat out refuse to stock any movies that carry an ADULTS ONLY flag.