The End of the Big Budget R rated movie?

[Bruce Malone]

It seems these days if you plan on making a block buster film the only way to go now is pg-13. Movies that should conceivably be rated r like Prometheus, the new Total Recall, the last terminator, even The Expendables 2 (before the big backlash) etc. they seem to keep finding themselves rated pg-13.

You used to have big budget/blockbuster movies that were rated r like the Matrix series, the bad boy series, 1st two terminators, pretty much every big action franchise in the 80's into the 90's. What's going on with all this watering down?

Are we ever going to have an adult big budget franchise again?

 

[The Morningstar]

Expendables 2 is going to be R last i heard. Prometheus we still don't know yet.

But yea, it seems studios are being more antsy than ever. And i don't really know why. Rated R movies can still appeal to big demographics. Kids and teenagers ain't the only ones who go to the movies. And like Ridley Scott said "The little bastards will get in anyway". lol.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I didn't live back then (80s), but I think it comes more down to the idea and film they are trying to make. Do you need nudity? Some films, like AMERICAN PIE for example, would seem odd without it. Other films it's just not called for. The 80s seemed, at least to me, more about pushing the envelope. Now that that envelope's been pushed, there doesn't seem to be as much of a call for it. Action on the other hand - it seems we've gotten to a point in movies where a lot of the action on screen is more fantasy based so that would naturally decrease the rating. Kill a monster graphically? All is good. Kill a human graphically? Better have a damned good reason. Would using the R word more than once improve the film? If so, use it. If not, what's the point?

Basically saying I can see how some people are upset that there are less R rated movies these days. But you also need to ask yourself what, if anything, is lost? Movies come down to the execution of story and character, not nudity or tons of gore.

Those angry about PG-13 movies to me it seems to come down to two camps - those who want to see nudity and those who want to see more gore, rather than caring about the story itself. A horror film can be just as scary as a PG film - so the problem there isn't even the rating, it's the writing and the execution of it. If the story calls for R? Then, yeah, it should be. If not? You're just selling out. Yes, seeing the studio system from the inside sometimes nudity is just added in with no concern to the story in hopes that it will draw more people in, same with everything else.

I think the thing here is film makers, and studio heads, want to reach as wide an audience as possible. If you can make a film PG-13 and lose absolutely nothing besides some quick cuts of gore or covered up nudity, why make it R? Plus, over the years, I believe due to pushing the envelope more and more - films that once were rated R, if released today, would probably be PG-13 without alterations. The MPAA is more easily manipulated, it seems, than they once were. Look beyond the rating itself and you'll probably see it's more lax or just less gratuitous since that envelope's already been pushed and nothing would draw people in from pushing it like it used to.

 

[Project862006]

watchmen did'nt help it

rated R 150 million dollar

and it flopped

 

[jmc]

We live in a vanilla film age where no-one is allowed to be offended.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Those angry about PG-13 movies to me it seems to come down to two camps - those who want to see nudity and those who want to see more gore, rather than caring about the story itself. A horror film can be just as scary as a PG film - so the problem there isn't even the rating, it's the writing and the execution of it. If the story calls for R? Then, yeah, it should be. If not? You're just selling out.

You're being way too simplistic it's not just about wanting to see boobs and gore, it's also language and just situations in general.

You ever hear a conversation between two cops/soldiers in a pg-13 movie? It comes off ridiculous because they have to hold back so much on language that it's no longer believable.

R is not about pushing things its that pg-13 holds things back. Sometime the repercussions of violence should be seen not as gore but as it makes more sense than 20 headshots without a drop of blood like in pg-13 movie. If anything that is more desensitizing to violence.

A good R rated film is not about shock value but presenting things without looking like you're holding one arm behind your back.

watchmen did'nt help it

rated R 150 million dollar

and it flopped

Yeah but that was the film not the rating can you imagine how much worse it would have been rated pg-13? I doubt it would have made much more money either.

 

[Laderlappen]

People are way obsessed about the rating. It seems like 90% of the time, people are not asking the movie to change. Just the rating itself.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You'd be one of the rare people wanting R for story-reasons, keep in mind I keep hearing this on IMDB where most just want it because it would make it "cooler" or "more hip." These are the people studio heads do sometimes reshoot pointless shower shots of actresses for, I've seen that in action first hand. So those camps do exist. Hell, Fox destroyed any sense of plot behind 'Daredevil' just because they wanted a sex scene. So, yeah - these people sadly exist.

Depends on the war movie. The last ones I remember are rated R. Unless others just flew under my radar. As I said, putting the story first.

Everyone curses under extreme situations. But for general action/adventure films or horror films? Most of the time, no - it really doesn't call for it. It doesn't need it. There are still plenty of R rated action movie that do take a more gritty approach rather than fantasy approach. These films usually call for it. Hell, even Safe House was. R But to me - those films call for R because they're aiming to be more grounded and narrowed in audience target. . And comedies? A LOT are R still. Believe me, if film studios were "selling out" - Project X would have been PG-13.

However, some of these films some people - or at least on IMDB - that are whining about not being R is because they want to see so or so naked or body parts flying. Basically situations which don't serve the story in any way.

 

[Figs]

We live in a vanilla film age where no-one is allowed to be offended.

Pretty much this.

In other threads, whenever there is an argument about an R rating vs a PG-13 rating, the people that are against having an R rating don't even have much of an argument. There stance is basically that no one should be able to enjoy an R rated action film anymore simply on the grounds that they don't want one or care for that rating.

From a studio standpoing it makes sense since you can get more people to see your film and make more money.

Overall, to me it's just another sign that some of the studios don't have the balls to take more chances and let directors make the film they want to make. That and a lot of movie fans don't have balls either that get offended too easily.

However, some of these films some people - or at least on IMDB - that are whining about not being R is because they want to see so or so naked or body parts flying. Basically situations which don't serve the story in any way.

For me I don't need unnecessary sex scenes and scenes where the violence was forced in. It's a case by case basis. Prometheus doesn't need to be R rated to fit the tone of the original Alien as well as be scary, but with a movie like Expendables, yeah it should definitely be R rated.

 

[jmc]

I look at the Hunger Games as a good example. It works well for what it is, but the deaths sequences are not nearly as shocking as they should be, we are talking about kids killing each other here and not once with the exception of maybe the beginning was the horror of what was actually taking place really shown. When one particular character died in the book it was upsetting, in the film because of the watered down nature of the film it's not nearly as emotionally impactful. It's should be horrific but it's not.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Those complaining, here's 2011 in review:

Spoiler

THE HANGOVER II
BRIDESMAIDS
HORRIBLE BOSSES
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
BAD TEACHER
IMMORTALS
NO STRINGS ATTACHED
THE IDES OF MARCH
THE DEBT
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS
HALL PASS
FINAL DESTINATION 5
SCREAM 4
J. EDGAR
THE CHANG-UP
30 MINUTES OR LESS
A VERY HAROLD AND KUMAR 3D
DRIVE
50/50
THE SITTER
THE MECHANIC
KILLER ELITE
TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER SPY
SANCTUM
YOUR HIGHNESS
CONAN THE BARBARIAN
FRIGHT NIGHT
THE THING
THE RUM DIARY
DRIVE ANGRY
STRAW DOGS
TAKE ME HOME TONIGHT

And 2012 (remember, we're only 3 months in!):

Spoiler

THE GREY
SILENT HOUSE
THE DEVIL INSIDE
ACT OF VALOR
HAYWIRE
21 JUMP STREET
SAFE HOUSE
CONTRABAND
WANDERLUST
PROJECT X

Thus, no - on the side of those questioning those yelling about "no R" movies - just looking at the list above, are you guys sleeping under a rock? Seriously??? I've seen people yelling about Spider-Man not being R, really?

Hunger Games was, okay thanks for a great IMDB example, based on a 'young adult' novel - so... wait... make a young adult novel... rated R???

 

[Figs]

I look at the Hunger Games as a good example. It works well for what it is, but the deaths sequences are not nearly as shocking as they should be, we are talking about kids killing each other here and not once with the exception of maybe the beginning was the horror of what was actually taking place really shown. When one particular character died in the book it was upsetting, in the film because of the watered down nature of the film it's not nearly as emotionally impactful. It's should be horrific but it's not.

Reminds me of the scene near the end of Watchmen. Instead of showing closeup all the bodies of people who died in New York to make the scene a bit more emotional as you put it, they just make a huge crater.

The movie was already R rated but that was one of the few changes I was surprised about.

 

[jmc]

The discussion is about big budget films.

 

[Liam_H]

Most of those I wouldn't call them 'big budget'.

 

[The Morningstar]

ve balls either that get offended too easily.



For me I don't need unnecessary sex scenes and scenes where the violence was forced in. It's a case by case basis. Prometheus doesn't need to be R rated to fit the tone of the original Alien as well as be scary, but with a movie like Expendables, yeah it should definitely be R rated.

Yea it does. Alien, even if you took out every single drop of blood, would still be rated R. It's about aliens raping and impregnating people. Prometheus seems to be going along the same route, in terms of tone and content. I mean even in the trailers we see Rapace's character having convulsions on a bed with a weird looking creature apparently coming out of her. Dialogue of people screaming "CUT IT OFF!"

Prometheus screams rated r.

 

[The Morningstar]

Reminds me of the scene near the end of Watchmen. Instead of showing closeup all the bodies of people who died in New York to make the scene a bit more emotional as you put it, they just make a huge crater.

The movie was already R rated but that was one of the few changes I was surprised about.

IIRC the directors cut shows people on street level being killed at the end. Like the news paper guy and the kid reading the Black Freighter comic.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The discussion is about big budget films.

What was once considered ' big budget' isn't big budget anymore. Lethal Weapon? Die Hard? All those classics? SAFE HOUSE - etc. - same budget. Films like Conan from the 80s? Were once considered "big budget" spectacles too. The ONLY series that is contrary to that list is 'The Matrix.' Everything else? Nope. That's the thing, many of the films that were once considered 'big budget' just aren't anymore because economically speaking - film has caught up that those movies are no longer considered "big budget." Even if you say Predators etc., the last one we got of that - was R.

 

[Figs]

Yea it does. Alien, even if you took out every single drop of blood, would still be rated R. It's about aliens raping and impregnating people. Prometheus seems to be going along the same route, in terms of tone and content. I mean even in the trailers we see Rapace's character having convulsions on a bed with a weird looking creature apparently coming out of her. Dialogue of people screaming "CUT IT OFF!"

Prometheus screams rated r.

Funny thing is that I'm a pro rated R in most cases. Let me clarify, I should have worded my post a bit better. While I said that it doesn't necessarily need to be R, I would like it to be R since all the past Alien films were R rated.

Just like how I was disappointed that they cut the last Die Hard film down to PG-13 and the talk in the past that the same was going to happen to The Expendables.

 

[Liam_H]

Only thing I can think of recently was Del Toro's At the Mountains of Madness being shot down.

 

[Figs]

IIRC the directors cut shows people on street level being killed at the end. Like the news paper guy and the kid reading the Black Freighter comic.

I remember that, but I'm talking about the kind of violence that was shown in the book. Not people getting vaporized but bloody corpses all over the place.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Also for those wondering 2010:

Spoiler

SHUTTER ISLAND
THE EXPENDABLES
THE BOOK OF ELI
THE TOWN
NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET
THE WOLF MAN
RESIDENT EVIL
PREDATORS (Just goes to show the 'Alien' theory...)
KICK-ASS
SAW
COP OUT
EDGE OF DARKNESS
LEGION
THE CRAZIES
GREEN ZONE
PIRANHA 3D
FASTER
MY SOUL TO TAKE
REPO MEN
LET ME IN
MACGRUBBER

This time I only honed in on action and horror movies. And again, for those stating budget, nothing has changed from the 80s and 90s to now. Only, apparently since these films aren't thought of as "big budgeted," like they used to be and would have been if they had come out years earlier, they're passed over and ignored. Nothing's changed. Only what was once considered "big budgeted" isn't anymore. If the movies from those years were released today? They wouldn't be "big budgeted." Also take in mind you're looking back at YEARS of movies cumulated, not just years singularly. I highly doubt the marketplace was flooding with R rated films, probably just the same as today - and amongst those a handful stand out beyond the rest.

The world hasn't changed. The economy has just caught up. If anything has changed, it's that these rated R films didn't really take a sequel route.

 

[Boom]

First of all, the MPAA's standards are ridiculously antiquated, and I long for the day when they are done away with. If people under the age of 17 want to see a Rated R film, more often than not they will find a way to do so. Whether it's sneaking into the theater, getting an older relative/friend to take them, pirating the film online, or waiting until the film comes out on DVD. There are plenty of ways around it, which makes the restriction ineffective.

If you want my opinion, drop ratings altogether. Just release a disclaimer thoroughly detailing the type of content found in the film. Then it's up to the parents to decide whether or not it's suitable for their children.

 

[Bruce Malone]

What was once considered ' big budget' isn't big budget anymore. Lethal Weapon? Die Hard? All those classics? SAFE HOUSE - etc. - same budget. Films like Conan from the 80s? Were once considered "big budget" spectacles too. The ONLY series that is contrary to that list is 'The Matrix.' Everything else? Nope. That's the thing, many of the films that were once considered 'big budget' just aren't anymore because economically speaking - film has caught up that those movies are no longer considered "big budget." Even if you say Predators etc., the last one we got of that - was R.

The point is they were considered big budget they were films studios put out expecting many people to see. I don't know why you keep bringing up "safe house" but it is not now nor will it ever be considered a big budget tent-pole film.

Even avatar will not be considered big budget 30 years from now it you don't count inflation.

Were talking about studios investing good amounts of money on mainstream blockbuster films/franchises. Not 20 million dollar comedies/horrors which is pretty much what 80% of r-rated films released have become.

 

[CrimsonMist]

I look at the Hunger Games as a good example. It works well for what it is, but the deaths sequences are not nearly as shocking as they should be, we are talking about kids killing each other here and not once with the exception of maybe the beginning was the horror of what was actually taking place really shown. When one particular character died in the book it was upsetting, in the film because of the watered down nature of the film it's not nearly as emotionally impactful. It's should be horrific but it's not.

I don't find that as a reason why the film should be R rated. Now, granted, I didn't care much for The Hunger Games at all. But the film's biggest fault was it's hand-held camera work and focus fishing. It was distracting. It was disorienting. And it didn't really serve a purpose, in my opinion. When all those kids killed each other, it didn't make an impact because of the poor way in which it was shot. Whipping the camera around and going in and out of focus is the reason why that whole scene failed. And perhaps it can be argued that it was a cheap and lazy way film the movie due to the rating.

They could have shot the film traditionally, on a tri-pod and gave us far more haunting and tragic moments simply by showing the action in well-composed frames, relying on close-ups and medium shots and clever editing. And it could still be PG-13.

 

[jmc]

Why don't they just fix the rating system. Down here the rating system is as follows:

G
PG
M (Mature Audiences)
MA15 (Adult required but generally not enforced)
R18 (Restricted)

That pretty much covers all bases and ensures bigger films can still reach teen demographics. Films like Dragon Tattoo and Expendables fall into the MA rating down here.