• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

PG-13 cinema release, R rated home version


Dec 10, 2012
Reaction score
Basically, always wondered if this is cost affective for studios to do films like this. I bring this up mainly because of the low revenue Dredd 3d had. I can't help but think that if it was a PG-13 theatrical release, they would have got more money.

So does anyone out there know if this is even a good idea for studios who are not to sure about their movie performing well under an R rating?
That's what they did with the last Die Hard movie, and probably what they're doing with the next one too. They did it with Terminator Salvation. Actually, it's the reason why I waited until Live Free or Die Hard was on DVD to see it because I knew there'd be an unrated/R-rated version. I think it's stupid. Some movies were just meant to be rated R. Fox used to be adamant about keeping films PG-13 to maximize box office profit, but lately they've seemed to be more lenient with films like Predators and Prometheus. There are a lot more successful R-rated films now anyway, so I think studios are shying away from favoring only PG-13 films. Look at The Hangover, Ted, etc. Even Django Unchained just crossed the $100 million mark.

But I also think there's an opposite end to the spectrum. If Sweeney Todd had been rated PG-13 instead of R, it would have made a lot more money. Besides excessive blood, it's got nothing that warrants an R rating.

Users who are viewing this thread

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"