So I was looking at "aleternate versions" for the Friday the 13th movies...

[Akira Tubo]

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?

[Chadzilla]

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).

[systemcr4sh]

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

[Jay O'Connor]

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

[systemcr4sh]

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

[Chadzilla]

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.

[J.R.]

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?

[Vermin Boy]

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.

[Chadzilla]

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).

[Lee]

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.

[J.R.]

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.

[Jay O'Connor]

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 http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/liz_set.htm">Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger, a G rated movie with more skin and violence than would be expected today

[Gerry]

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

Dear God, not male unity! ;)

[Gerry]

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.

[Chadzilla]

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

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