What's wrong with hollywood

[kanedaestes]

Soooo... .fellow MWers, i bring more bad news from hollywood. I just learned that Live Free or Die Hard will be PG-13. Wait what?? Okay as a (hopefully) future film maker i must nay i am required to express my self upon the masses.

So it all started or rather i first noticed this trend when AVP first came out. How are you going to take two rated r properties and make them into one PG-13 film? I understand that Hollywood is about money, you would have to be a moron to not see that. They don't make films like they should because they want to capitalize on them as much as possible. But do PG-13 films really make more money? Last i checked no they really don't. The PG-13 movies that make a ton of money are usually one connected to some sort of property that was already established before hand like comic movies, or they have a great star like Johnny Depp in pirates; but the mass majority of them fail. Sure there is a possibility of it since now more people can watch them but that isn't fair to those of us who want to watch and actual adult film (and i am not talking about porn). Who cares if Joey Bag O Donuts can't watch a movie because he isn't old enough? He can rent it later and the studios will still make money. Why must i be forced to watch films that should be amazing be turned into waterdowned trash so that i can sit next to a pimple faced kid and his talk-all-through-the-movie girlfriend always saying how hot Justin Long is. Come on. I for one praise people like Judd Apatow who continue to make the Rated R films that we need, and proving that they too can make money. 300 has made tons of money as a Rated R films. For furhter proof of what i say what the hell is with a PG-13 horror movie, honestly how can it be that damn scary if it is PG-13? I hope one day to continue to blazing down the paths of Tarantino, Smith, Rodriguez, Apatow, and many others who contine to make Rated R films for adults and not water them down for the sake of money. That's my two scents.

[Apollo Leader]

Soooo... .fellow MWers, i bring more bad news from hollywood. I just learned that Live Free or Die Hard will be PG-13. Wait what?? Okay as a (hopefully) future film maker i must nay i am required to express my self upon the masses.

So it all started or rather i first noticed this trend when AVP first came out. How are you going to take two rated r properties and make them into one PG-13 film? I understand that Hollywood is about money, you would have to be a moron to not see that. They don't make films like they should because they want to capitalize on them as much as possible. But do PG-13 films really make more money? Last i checked no they really don't. The PG-13 movies that make a ton of money are usually one connected to some sort of property that was already established before hand like comic movies, or they have a great star like Johnny Depp in pirates; but the mass majority of them fail. Sure there is a possibility of it since now more people can watch them but that isn't fair to those of us who want to watch and actual adult film (and i am not talking about porn). Who cares if Joey Bag O Donuts can't watch a movie because he isn't old enough? He can rent it later and the studios will still make money. Why must i be forced to watch films that should be amazing be turned into waterdowned trash so that i can sit next to a pimple faced kid and his talk-all-through-the-movie girlfriend always saying how hot Justin Long is. Come on. I for one praise people like Judd Apatow who continue to make the Rated R films that we need, and proving that they too can make money. 300 has made tons of money as a Rated R films. For furhter proof of what i say what the hell is with a PG-13 horror movie, honestly how can it be that damn scary if it is PG-13? I hope one day to continue to blazing down the paths of Tarantino, Smith, Rodriguez, Apatow, and many others who contine to make Rated R films for adults and not water them down for the sake of money. That's my two scents.

Look at the top 100 grossing movies of all time:

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

Of those only like 5 or 6 are R rated movies with The Passion of the Christ being the highest at 11. The reality is that G through PG-13 is where the money is to be made at film making. Don't you personally want a decent paycheck for what you do?

But I agree with you that in the case of a movie franchise like Die Hard which has built its house and foundation on being an over the top, R rated film it is a mistake to tone it down like this. It will probably be enjoyable on its own merits, hey I enjoyed AVP for what its worth, but Live Free or Die Hard will probably feel out of place with a series known for its over the top language and violence.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Apollo Leader

[JsARCLIGHT]

If you ask me it comes down to a feeling that you are "not seeing what you want to see"... which begs the question, do you really need to see someone's head get blown off? Do you really need to hear eighteen cuss words in a row? Do you just have to see those boobs? Most of the time the answer is no... you don't absolutely need to see R rated material to make a movie good. R rated material IMHO is a crutch in many cases... lack of story and substance are made up for by boobs, blood and cussing. It is more than possible to have a "mature" plot with none of those things in it. Being "mature themed" in my mind does not mean having to endure constant sailor talk, constant pointless T&A and a barrage of glorified blood and guts.

I myself would be complaining about the drop in overall quality first rather than the removal of R rated content from movies. After all, it takes a more talented movie maker to "rise above" the cheap exploitive R rated imagery. Think about it... you lust after someone a bit more when you don't see the boobs in every scene. You are twice as scared of the monster killing you when you don't actually see it happen. It's just that in today's CGI digital world directors now feel they have to tell a story through images rather than substance... hence we have all these styrofoam PG-13 movies. They are not bad because they lack R rated content, they are bad because they are just bad. They are poor cinema.

[Gunbuster]

Does this mean John won't say," Yippe Kaye MotherF@#$%!" ?

[Nightbat]

Do you just have to see those boobs?

....well.....

seriously: good point

but still, it gives a bad taste when you think PG-13 'never have to be good' to turn up the $$$

there are alot of bad 'R' sure, but they're heavily outclassed by bad 'PG'

[sketchley]

If you ask me it comes down to a feeling that you are "not seeing what you want to see"... which begs the question, do you really need to see someone's head get blown off? Do you really need to hear eighteen cuss words in a row? Do you just have to see those boobs? Most of the time the answer is no... you don't absolutely need to see R rated material to make a movie good. R rated material IMHO is a crutch in many cases... lack of story and substance are made up for by boobs, blood and cussing. It is more than possible to have a "mature" plot with none of those things in it. Being "mature themed" in my mind does not mean having to endure constant sailor talk, constant pointless T&A and a barrage of glorified blood and guts.

I myself would be complaining about the drop in overall quality first rather than the removal of R rated content from movies. After all, it takes a more talented movie maker to "rise above" the cheap exploitive R rated imagery. Think about it... you lust after someone a bit more when you don't see the boobs in every scene. You are twice as scared of the monster killing you when you don't actually see it happen. It's just that in today's CGI digital world directors now feel they have to tell a story through images rather than substance... hence we have all these styrofoam PG-13 movies. They are not bad because they lack R rated content, they are bad because they are just bad. They are poor cinema.

Agreed.

My personal opinion is that Hollywood went bad as soon as they started giving budgets (and there was the technology allowing it) for movie makers to make the first idea that comes to their head. I do miss the style of movie making were people had to rethink their initial ideas, and come up with a (usually) better idea that was able to be produced. Of course, there are exceptions, like Robert Rodriguez, who use creativity (aka rethinking the initial ideas) to create movies for less.

[kalvasflam]

Does this mean John won't say," Yippe Kaye MotherF@#$%!" ?

Exactly, that's just stupid. Why don't they kill the entire genere, I hope the bad guy is interesting this time. I liked Hans and Simon, but the colonel is the second movie was a bit subpar. I hope the villian this time is a little better.

Although in all fairness, Live Free or Die Hard shouldn't have been made. But let's face it, Hollywood for the most part is devoid of any creativity or new ideas. That's why the summer blockbusters are things with #s behind them, how many frigging sequels are there?

Shrek, Spiderman, Pirates, Die Hard, and so on....

Next year, there is Indiana Jones 4... at this rate, they need to start making things like ET2, and drag old stars out of retirement to do one more movie. I swear Pixar is the only studio that seem to be a little more original these days. Even they have Toy Story 3 on the books.

In that way, they're a lot like the Gundam series that is essentially the billionth rehash of the same old thing.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Another thing to consider is this: Do "good" R rated movies suddenly become "bad" when they are edited and run on broadcast TV? Does the first Die Hard become a travesty when all of 30 seconds of footage is removed and all the language is muted so it can run on NBC? Does Pulp Fiction become a terrible movie when the language is cut out so it can run on TNT on a Sunday afternoon? That IMHO shows they are good movies no matter how they are ever so slightly edited... their "quality" comes not from their language, nudity or violence but from the craftsmanship behind them.

In that same way of thinking would extra blood, gore and language have "saved" Aliens Vs. Predator from being a steaming pile of crap? Would added nudity, spilled guts and having Jack Sparrow burp out a few choice slurs have made Pirates of the Caribbean "better"? IMHO no... one is an example of a poor effort and the other is an example of a good effort, ratings regardless.

In all seriousness the difference between a good PG-13 movie and a good R movie should not be the R rating, they should both be good movies despite it. When you watch either on network TV you should be entertained and you should enjoy them... if an R rated movie suffers terribly from editing then perhaps that movie was not crafted too well to survive outside it's R rated trappings.

[The Shade]

Does this mean John won't say," Yippe Kaye MotherF@#$%!" ?

The MPAA will allow the use of the "F" word once in a PG-13 film, maybe twice, but that's it. It's the same with nudity, you can have a really fast fleeting shot of a woman's chest and you are allowed to show off either gender's rear ends. So, we might see these things in the movie, but keep your eyes peeled and ears open, or you'll miss them.

Edited June 13, 2007 by The Shade

[kanedaestes]

All good responses. Now i am not saying that i need to see blood and gore or need to hear a lot of cussing to enjoy a film because i do own more pg-13 movies than R. More boobies are nudity and violence doesn't not make a movie better, i hope that i didn't come off as that type of person. My main gripe is just the toning down of films for a bigger audience, especially if the film is part of a franchise that was adult oriented to begin with. And the person i am i don't want a big huge pay check i want to make entertaining films that you all will enjoy. I am not in it for the money. As long as my family is takin care of and i am not struggling i don't need to make millions. i just need you to say that was a kick ass movie. Its like watching terminator 4 as pg-13 or saw 5 as pg-13. Or better yet the moment scary movie became pg-13 movies the franchise became crap, well in my opinion anyway.

[JsARCLIGHT]

It's easy for an individual to have artistic merits and a sense of their product having worth, but Hollywood in general is a business machine now. The big slam-bang movies are going to be shoe-horned to fit into the widest audience they can. Hollywood's financiers are not concerned about "art" anymore, they are concerned about the bottom line for their multi million dollar business venture. They still want to entertain, but they want to entertain in a way that earns them the most money.

It's the standard side effect of turning art into business... the business side eventually corrupts the art side. Once something has to "make money" and be profitable it ceases to be art and becomes a manufactured good like a toaster, and toasters are designed to appeal to everyone. The way to "fix" this problem is for people to just simply stop "consuming" these kinds of movies... send Hollywood a message that we no longer want to see this kind of drivel. But that won't happen. People nowadays are so eaten-up with the marketing machine and the "you simply MUST see this movie" forceful trends that stopping the Hollywood business model now is impossible. The only thing that can bring back creativity and good movies is if directors find ways to finance themselves and remove themselves from the machine. Rodriguez did just that, as did Lucas and Mel Gibson. Then the problem becomes one that when you cut the purse strings you personally feel the impact of your decisions... and once again you get directors pandering to the most common denominator.

Art is art. Business is business. It's best to see what they both are and what they both hope to achieve.

[Mr March]

The state of modern studio film is suffering from such poor quality because of BOTH the excessiveness of low-quality pictures filled gratuitous sex/violence AND the uninspired homogeneity of films that remove sex/violence to sell to the lowest common denominator.

Many factors have contributed to the change in rating films. Generation X is finally growing up. Most of them are married and have kids now and are starting to understand the concerns their own parents had for the effect of media upon their own children. This is a powerful new force in effect for the market and rightly so studios have no choice but to appeal to the majority of their consumers. In conjunction with the more concerned tendencies of modern North American society, the international market has become much more dominant as a force for revenue than domestic sales. Many of the foreign markets can be even more discriminating regarding features filled with sex/violence, so again the film studios must change policy to suit.

Personally, I can understand both sides of the issue regarding sex and violence in film. It always has been a tough issue to judge. In light of all the lousy filmmakers who abuse the use of sex and violence in cinema it's no surprise that it's harder for the few good filmmakers to include mature content when it's appropriate for their own films. Ultimately, I have to vote against censorship simply because it ultimately limits what can and can't be told, at least within the bounds of credibility. You don't make a serious film about cops and gangsters with "acceptable" language suitable for showing at your local Boys and Girls Club. On the other hand, your average Michael Bay film is specifically aimed at 13-16 year old boys, so it's only fair that these actions films contain a limited amount of material not really suited for that age group. Granted, many in my age group are now "comfortable" with a roughly mid-1990's level of sex and violence to the point they feel we've gone "far enough" with the allowable presence of these elements in modern film. But at the same time, I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed TV-edited movies. In fact, the editing of film content for broadcast is one reason among many why I refuse to watch television. I'm fully capable of determining on my own what I should and should not watch and I don't need a television deciding for me. I already watch far more provocative film than most adults even consider watching, so there is no way a family friendly broadcast policy is going to satisfy my viewing tastes.

In the case of Live Free or Die Hard, I'm forced to agree with js on one point: the concern over the actual worth of this film as quality entertainment must take precedent over the trend to produce PG-13 fare for the summer box office. This is a film that by all rights shouldn't have even been made, along with scores of other examples from numerous other overblown film franchises. Audiences are more than ready for the next generation of filmmaking and the new talent, both in front of and behind the camera, who will realize quality product for that demand. I know Die Hard 4 and Indiana Jones 4 won't give me what I'm looking for and it's time the studios realized that as well. The decline of growth for domestic sales speaks louder than words.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Mr March

[JsARCLIGHT]

It should also be noted that the MPAA ratings system itself is an imperfect beast. As The Shade already hit on, movie ratings are more or less someone's opinion on the movie. The same amount of politics and back room chicanery that go on with making movies also go on with rating movies. You could submit two movies that have the same "content" level in them and have both receive different ratings. You can also expect a movie to be marketed for a certain demographic and then submitted and re-edited and re-submitted to the ratings board several times to hit their key rating required... sometimes with things hardly changed at all. For instance, look a the movie Scarface. They submitted it like fifty times to the ratings board and never got the rating they wanted. They kept cutting and cutting until finally they got fed up and sued to have their R rating, at which point they used the first cut of the movie which was originally rated X.

[The Shade]

The original Clerks movie by Kevin Smith was originally rated NC-17 based purely on its strong language. They appealed and got a R without cutting anything.

If you're into documentaries, check out "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". You may be surprised by what you see in there.

[kanedaestes]

and this is why i love bringing topics here instead of places like IMDB, there are intelligent comments and thoughts here.

[Mr March]

and this is why i love bringing topics here instead of places like IMDB, there are intelligent comments and thoughts here.

Hehehe, while the IMDB is a great site, the IMDB Message Boards are well known as one of the hell-holes of the internet community

[glane21]

This movie's gonna suck ass no matter what it's rated. From the ridiculous clips I've seen (launching cars at helicopters?, c'mon) it looks like Bruce Willis isn't even taking it seriously. Plus his sidekick is the Mac kid. If they had teamed him with PC, I'd see it.

[Radd]

The state of modern studio film is suffering from such poor quality because of BOTH the excessiveness of low-quality pictures filled gratuitous sex/violence AND the uninspired homogeneity of films that remove sex/violence to sell to the lowest common denominator.

Agreed, basically, what Hollywood does these days is to make their films appeal to the broadest audience possible. That means both an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and making their films a sort of generic catch-all mush that has "something for everybody". The saying "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind.

Different people have different tastes, and if you craft a really solid movie designed along specific tastes and ideas, it will be wildly successful...with the group it's targeted at. As studio executives who've backed Terry Gilliam movies could tell you, that's not where the money is.

Of course, on the other hand Hollywood's dominance of the industry seems to slowly, but surely, be on something of a decline, while independent films seem to be gaining popularity. Possibly because of too many AvP and Starship Troopers clunkers?

Specifically regarding PG-13 versus R ratings, I personally do not believe a movie needs to be R rated to be good, however, I would rather the creative side of movie makers stick to their guns and make the movie they have in mind, rather than fearing the almighty ratings board. Yes, abuse of language, violence, and sex to appeal to the lowest common denominator is bad. On the other hand, judicious and creative use of shocking language and imagery can make a movie better because of how it affects the audience.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Radd

[yellowlightman]

The the official website and current trailers running say "This film has not yet been rated." The IMDB lists no MPAA rating yet for it.

Wait until it actually gets a rating before you freak out.

[kanedaestes]

they listed the same for fantastic four 2 yet they had already gave it a PG rating for about a week before all the other sites were posting it. It wouldn't surprise me if it was PG-13

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Sometimes violent deaths add impact to the story. When someone gets shot several times you feel the shock of the moment as if it were real and then ...snap... you laugh uneasily because you know its just a movie. I miss all those things in violent movies. Maybe that shock was put there on purpose (south park movie with the number of times they swear?) as a way to make as much use of the rating as possible? Like the movie wants to say something about the society you live in or criticise the current system of how you do things, and make fun of it? (the only people getting the joke being the people who are against that system)

ED209 in robocop is much more funny when you have him overdo the shooting of the guy with the gun in the demonstration. This is funny because of that overdone violence.

The predator is all the more menacing when you see what it did to the bodies of the soldiers and make you feel scared. (skinning them, and you get to see the bodies hanging from the tree)

The aliens bursting out of people's chest violently and angrily shows the fierce nature of these beasts. It shouldn't be a pretty sight, it should give you nightmare.

Sanitising horror movies does make them less scary. I do want the predator to rip the spinal cord out of the human and take the skull as a trophy literally. That's why it is scary. Arnold won't survive, just because he has a gun in his hand or using brute strength now that he is up against something way out of his league. He is more an underdog now and the predator is the hunter now that we've seen what it is capable of from that scene.

So if they make horror, sci fi horror, or action movies with high kill count: please make them for the fans of that genre as opposed to the mainstream. It's not that the violence makes the movie better, or that you can't make good movies without it, so much as the already-violent genre means the violence is naturally a part of the movie itself (take saving private ryan as an example: the horror of war is still horror, people won't just die they might have to suffer before they die) and loses something when it is censored or sanitised.

Sure there are movies where the only reason they might make money is for people who just want to see the violence, titties and swearing and that's it, (sickos) but most of the good ones use them in a good way. The violence might just be saying something about the character, the titties might be part of sex scene which is healthy and natural, or the swearing is something you would expect given the moment.

People don't simply assume these things automatically make the movie good by themselves; that would be an insult to their intelligence. They just don't want everything to be sanitised to the point that it's no longer part of the genre it originally came from.

Edited June 13, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[JsARCLIGHT]

But you do have to see my point that those singular scenes of intense R rated content do not instantly make the whole movie good or bad. The movie still has to stand on it's own merits as a gestalt. The very brief R rated content itself does not directly contribute to the plot and it's removal in no way directly affects the movie. Using your example, take out the scenes of ED209 blowing away the yes man and take out the scene of Murphy getting shot up and the movie still holds up, it still is entertaining and funny. Sure it lost two split second moments but by and large the movie still holds up.

My comments on R rated material should not be seen as an argument to remove it from films but rather it should be seen for what it is, a gimmick. In purely numerical terms the difference between an R rated Robocop and a PG13 rated Robocop is the removal of literally less than one minute of footage and the altering of fewer than 15 words. If you had never, ever seen Robocop before and then saw the edited version... would you right off the bat call it crap and terrible because it was PG13? Would you be standing on your seat in the theater demanding blood, guts and cussing? That is the thrust of my argument... when R rated content is not present, does it "demean" the movie? No, it doesn't. It's silly to think that one movie which holds an R rating is instantly "better" or "more enjoyable" than a movie that holds a PG13 rating.

[Beltane70]

A PG-13 rating didn't hurt Red Dawn when it was released back in 1984. As I recall, it was a fairly violent film.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Not so much more enjoyable, just that I would prefer them to stay true to what the original creator had intended. I actually don't watch horror that much, but it is something that for me appeals to a small audience who pays money to see it. Taking some of the scenes out feels like having parts of the story altered and you feel like you missed out on something. Doesn't mean I won't watch it, in edited form, just that I like that it was aimed to please the fan of that type of show who are not offended that much by it. (everytime I boot up my robocop dvd I always choose the unedited one)

To use a macross example: It's like how in robotech you guys mention how hikaru and roy are totally different in their personality from their robotech versions due to how they censored the characters or removed some tiny scenes. Roy is much more clean and no sign of alcohol abuse and acting like a playboy in robotech. There is just more depth in a real character with those flaws in macross. He is not a perfect clean soldier with upstanding morals. He's human like us. He can have a dirty unshaven face, long hair, and a drinking problem and maybe act irresponsibly because that's how he was designed. Why censor it? You only take away from what was there?

Another example in Macross: DYRL milia seems all the more like a ruthless fighting machine when she is shown having no emotion and casually killing those soldiers with contempt for their weakness and angry at them being so inferior. The violent death makes you scared for anyone who has to encounter her on the battlefield because she won't go easy on you. The violence can make the threat or danger seem more realistic (even if overdone) because it has that psychological effect on the person. Like "War is not clean like in a videogame, it is dirty and ugly and people can die brutally and messily". Sometimes the violence is there for a good reason and the creator puts a lot of time into it to get the message across and has no intention to abuse it. It's just that it was naturally there in the story to begin with so it takes more work and more effort on their part to re-edit to please the censor. Robotech (which is often bashed for having altered the originals) wouldn't even seem all that kiddy if it weren't for having to tone it down for the ones that are sensitive and easily offended.

It reminds me of GTA hot coffee controversy. You can't have any hint of sex within a game because sex is evil. The system needs to change. Creators need to take a stand and say: "this is important to me and whatever fan I am aiming for. Yes I may not make as much money and people will get offeneded, but this is how I express the idea and having what seems like insignificant content to one person may be important to another person." I'm one of those that just prefers the creator to have the power more than 'the suits' as you get a less filtered version and a story that is more true to their original intent.

So when spike says "5hit!" in the animated transformers movie you feel like you have the truer version, however little it enhances the movie. Maybe it is offensive, but the character feels they are going to die, and being polite is the last thing on their mind. I personally think it would have been more like "oh fuq!" but then it wouldn't have been a kids movie.

Edited June 13, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[JsARCLIGHT]

Ah, but what if the original intent is a PG13 rating? Speaking of edits implies a knowledge of an unedited form, which predisposes people to a certain train of thought. For correct debate on this matter we should change gears and limit ourselves to the topic of what is in a movie and what could have been in a movie rather than what we know is in a movie and what we know has been taken out of a movie.

Using that logic, take favorite fanboy punching bag Aliens Vs. Predator. It is rated PG13. Everyone knows what is in the movie... but people feel that if the movie could have had more R rated material in it there is a possibility that the movie could have somehow been better. That simply "opening the door" for the director to show more R rated content would have somehow "fixed" the movie. IMHO that is flawed logic, it is implying that R rated content alone and not script rewrites or perhaps a different director would improve the movie.

This same logic applies to prejudging a movie that is yet to come out based on it's rating. To say that, for example, Die Hard 4 is going to suck because it's PG13 is indirectly saying that just the simple inclusion of R rated material would make the movie better. No plot changes and no dialog alteration (outside of perhaps adding a frakk! every few minutes), just making it so that every time John McClane kills a terrorist his body erupts in a fountain of blood, and that one time you see his daughter in the bathroom looking in the mirror this time she's topless. It really doesn't "fix" anything about the movie... it just adds R rated materials. The movie is still "the movie"... it will still be good or bad on it's gestalt merits.

Now if for instance Die Hard 4 is filmed to be an R movie and certain R rated scenes are taken out of the movie to award it a PG13 rating... still... is it noticeable? If the audience never knows the footage was there, is it missed? It's one thing to speak in known instances of edited scenes and altered movies for TV broadcast, but what if you never knew a scene existed? Would the thought of that color your perception of a movie before you even see it? Knowing there is a scene of John McClane cutting a guy's head off with a lawnmower that was "taken out"... does it really change how you would feel about the movie? But if you never knew about that scene you'd never have it as a point of contention.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Ah, but what if the original intent is a PG13 rating?

Ok then I can accept it. It's just that in the past, many videogames had lots of censorship in them and things were butchered as a result of pleasing censors. Something as insignificant as red blood having to be green just because those little red pixels might offend people or the removing of nude statues in the background of some games. Hello! These are people fighting each other and you would expect some bruising, bleeding, cuts from all the bashing up of each other. I just don't want to go back to the days when things got ridiculous and games/movies had to be butchered to be considered for release or just outright banned for tiny stuff. There are legit reasons for violence in some situations and some are just there for commercial reasons. I guess I am more sympathetic to the creators who feel they have legit reasons for putting it in there, than ones who consciously only add titties, swearing, and senseless killing because they think its some kind of cool trend that allows them to get rich just because people out there want it.

Movies can still be entertaining without it, totally agree. But I've seen the opposite extreme of too much handholding too. If you don't like gore, and get offended by it, as a parent you shouldn't be taking kids to see those types of movie imo.

Using that logic, take favorite fanboy punching bag Aliens Vs. Predator. It is rated PG13. Everyone knows what is in the movie... but people feel that if the movie could have had more R rated material in it there is a possibility that the movie could have somehow been better. That simply "opening the door" for the director to show more R rated content would have somehow "fixed" the movie. IMHO that is flawed logic, it is implying that R rated content alone and not script rewrites or perhaps a different director would improve the movie.

This same logic applies to prejudging a movie that is yet to come out based on it's rating. To say that, for example, Die Hard 4 is going to suck because it's PG13 is indirectly saying that just the simple inclusion of R rated material would make the movie better. No plot changes and no dialog alteration (outside of perhaps adding a fart! every few minutes), just making it so that every time John McClane kills a terrorist his body erupts in a fountain of blood, and that one time you see his daughter in the bathroom looking in the mirror this time she's topless. It really doesn't "fix" anything about the movie... it just adds R rated materials. The movie is still "the movie"... it will still be good or bad on it's gestalt merits.

Now if for instance Die Hard 4 is filmed to be an R movie and certain R rated scenes are taken out of the movie to award it a PG13 rating... still... is it noticeable? If the audience never knows the footage was there, is it missed? It's one thing to speak in known instances of edited scenes and altered movies for TV broadcast, but what if you never knew a scene existed? Would the thought of that color your perception of a movie before you even see it? Knowing there is a scene of John McClane cutting a guy's head off with a lawnmower that was "taken out"... does it really change how you would feel about the movie? But if you never knew about that scene you'd never have it as a point of contention.

Interesting question. Due to being a sequel maybe they are scared the character has to change and maybe that goes against how they think he would normally react to things and they just don't like change? Maybe it is as simple as people who watch violent movies have some expectation of what they want to see. eg: The violent scenes in rambo might be more of what they want: something gritty and heavy on gore due to what they've read in the novels so it is more true to the author of the book or something? I think sequels to things bring in all kinds of expectations that non-sequels can avoid. Predator for example started out as pretty violent, so they want that same fear of death of the main character or to be scared again. *shrugs shoulders* In terminator you saw arnies butt, and the nudity just carried over in later movies. By the third movie we didn't have any objection to seeing a naked chic's butt since we expect that from the first movie. I argue that maybe having the stuff there although not adding anything to the quality of the movie, maybe becomes the reason some people will see it. (like how chics might go see an action movie to perv at the handsome male lead, not for the fighting or story) Similarly seeing some titties might be what makes you go and see a kid's comic movie: if transformers had good looking women who were going to appear naked and you knew it, and a friend told you about it, it might tip the balance in favour of you seeing it. (I know that sounds shallow, but no more than how some girls might only be in it for romance scenes which doesn't really fit into the story at all or is handled artificially and feels tacked on.)

I think a good example is how some parents may not go see a children's movie by themselves, (only because they are bringing thier kids to see it) but with good writing, they can make movies that appeal to both. Have adult humor and kids humor in one. So that both want to see it. Even though it gets pg and started out as pg, if the sequel lacks some of the adult humor maybe they won't want to see it anymore because they sense that 'change' I talk about? That people just don't like changes due to expectations from the first movies. (you only have star wars original trilogy to see this: annoying talking animal characters pissed off the adult star wars fan. This wasn't there in the original and only included I think for the kids to laugh. It was an addition or change that is hard for people to accept)

Edited June 14, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[JsARCLIGHT]

A large problem lies in the fact that the ratings system is outdated and rather open to interpretation. Hence why most ratings systems have now opted to add "descriptive content ratings" to their ratings. After all, the only people who look at ratings are parents of children... and most of those parents have "hot button" topics that they wish their kids not to see but other topics they are fine and dandy with. When you slap an obtuse tag of "PG13" on something it doesn't really give a parent a good idea of what is actually in the film to give it that rating. Now they will say "PG13 for violence and brief language"... that gives a parent a better idea of what is actually in the movie and allows them to say "yes" or "no" based on information rather than just some cryptic rating.

Edit: It should also be noted that "ratings" are not "censorship". The MPAA and the ESRB do not prohibit certain movies from being made or marketed, they simply slap a grade on it and that's that. If someone wanted to make a movie or a video game that was all guts and boobs and cuss words they could... no one would stop them. The problem is that they would have a tainted product that no one would show in their theaters or sell in their stores. There are no laws stating that certain content cannot be put into movies or games and there is no system of regulation akin to a "black bar brigade" that would forcibly edit or alter movies or games. The "power" of ratings is in the power of the purse... people feel they have to restrain their content otherwise they won't be able to sell as many tickets or game cartridges. Every now and then you get someone who says "frakk you" to the ratings system and releases their art anyway... George Romero comes to mind with his classic movie Dawn of the Dead. He refused to edit his movie or submit it to the ratings board, he just handed it over to his distribution company and they released it for him... unrated. It still did very well. In the end the rating is nothing more than a social blessing or a social stigma, if your art is good enough it will overcome that rating and prosper.

[Penguin]

Using that logic, take favorite fanboy punching bag Aliens Vs. Predator. It is rated PG13. Everyone knows what is in the movie... but people feel that if the movie could have had more R rated material in it there is a possibility that the movie could have somehow been better. That simply "opening the door" for the director to show more R rated content would have somehow "fixed" the movie. IMHO that is flawed logic, it is implying that R rated content alone and not script rewrites or perhaps a different director would improve the movie.

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. A lot of the griping I hear about movies being "tamed" for greater appeal seems more to be about nostalgia for better movies that happened to have harsher ratings. AvP is a great example of this. "Alien" and "Aliens" are far superior, but it's got nothing to do with the elements that brought them harsher ratings (although, that first "chestburster" scene would have been a lot less viscerally terrifying if it was as bloodless as the similar scenes in AvP). An assemblage of film makers skilled in their arts made these films great, not their rating. A mediocre movie won't get any better just by adding "R"-rated elements.

My biggest concern about the Hollywood trend to mass appeal is more about how many interesting, provocative films are we not seeing for lack of funding and distribution, when the studios won't get behind anything that they can't exhibit to teenage boys? It's getting so that real fans of the art, the ones who will go to the theatre just to see a great film with the big-screen experience, are being driven to DVD and other home formats to find the films that the studios wouldn't distribute to real theatres. The biggest contributors to declines in ticket sales, IMHO, are the studios themselves.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

We can all agree that it's not the swearing, violence, titties etc that makes them good but that changes are what people are scared of. I believe if the original had no swearing, no one liners with attitude, then it wouldn't be a problem. But as time went on people accepted the idea that the main character "doesn't really care" and is in a situation that warrants the swearing and its changing stuff that they are scared of.

When arnie looks at the ugly alien predator and says "You are one ugly motherfuqer" that is sort of funny cuz it is so true and you only get to see it after the mask is off. "You are ugly" has no power to it. But saying motherfuqer makes it more powerful. It's like "GET AWAY FROM HER YOU b!tch!" in aliens to the alien queen or "THIS..IS..SPARTA!" because now that they've heard it, it is part of the character. It's not the swearing so much as the line itself getting changed or toned down. If they just swore and it wasn't warranted for the crucual moment in the movie where that is what the people are thinking, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. But it's like my transformers example: hearing spike say sh!t is so fitting.

Edited June 14, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[sketchley]

I think that the people looking at this in terms of "what was taken out of the move to get a lower rating" are mistaken.

Simply put: the mores, and opinions of the people who create the ratings have changed. They no longer deam what appears in the Die Hard movies as deserving of a higher rating or warning.

The movie is most likely exactly the same as what has been seen in the previous three movies. Since the release of the first movie (or the first three movies) there has been a relentless barrage of movies that equal, or are more extreme in content than the first movie. To prove this (same content deserves a lower rating) I suggest that you rewatch the original Die Hard movies. Do they come across as violent and extreme? Or do they come across as run-of-the-mill action movies? If your impression is the later, then rest assured that the newest film in the series will most likely have a similar content.

[chrono]

Wait. You mean there are actually people and cinemas that follow the ratings system? Not the last few times I've been to an R rated film they haven't! Freaking kids were everywhere.

And to debate the rating system is even more silly because the system is completely arbitrary to begin with, so a movie rating an R today could easily be either a PG-13 or PG-17 tomorrow. Only rating system more screwed up is the anime/manga age system.

[JsARCLIGHT]

The movie is most likely exactly the same as what has been seen in the previous three movies. Since the release of the first movie (or the first three movies) there has been a relentless barrage of movies that equal, or are more extreme in content than the first movie. To prove this (same content deserves a lower rating) I suggest that you rewatch the original Die Hard movies. Do they come across as violent and extreme? Or do they come across as run-of-the-mill action movies? If your impression is the later, then rest assured that the newest film in the series will most likely have a similar content.

The original Die Hard has some pretty harsh language in it (McClaine is quite the potty mouth if you listen), some very gory death scenes (Mr. Takagi gets his head blown off, other baddies get killed quite graphically) and at least two scenes with brief nudity (couple going at it in an office, nudie pics in the work areas). When it came out in '88 it met the criteria for a solid R rating, I would assume the same stands today. Just that single brief nude scene is enough to tip it to an R... and that is kind of the point I've been trying to make, the things that made the original Die Hard an "R" where so brief and fleeting that most people don't even remember them being in the movie. They contributed nothing to the plot other than being gratuitous and when they are edited out no one misses them.

[The Shade]

I've noticed one thing about most blockbuster movies these days: most of them are rated PG-13. G & PG are now considered too childish by the "important" movie going demographic (teens & young adults), so are usually not big blockbusters (with a few notable exceptions). R rated movies block out the teens (a significant portion of the "important" movie going demographic). PG-13 is the perfect rating, as you satisfy the "important" movie going demographic and are able generate the most revenue. Just look at the three big blockbusters from May: Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, & Pirates. They all have the PG-13 rating. That's no coincidence

So, to bring this back to the original topic, having Live Free or Die Hard rated PG-13 makes very good sense from a marketing point of view, but maybe not from an artistic one (though that is open to debate, which everyone above have discussed rather well). Also, I think it likely that we will probably see an unrated version on DVD later on. The only negative thing about that is that it wouldn't be a theatrical release.

[kanedaestes]

I do hate that most movies that are released in theaters windup with that unrated DVD. Most times the unrated version isn't all that different. They may say the f word one more time and that is about it. They stamp UNRATED on DVDs so that it will drive sales when the actual UNRATED footage isn't all that bad. God i hate the marketing machine hollywood has become.

[Valkyrie addict]

it's not just Hollywood, it's the whole entertainment industry, is like people just don't have any more good ideas, I mean, we're getting more old movies remake than ever, in fact, we even got once a remake of a remake, hollywood is clinging to his old names like Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, Bruckheimer, etcs, since their name bring the big bucks, also in music, I mean, how many old bands are left that have not been covered by new artist, really, in fact, we even have to go and remake Japanese movies (the ring, grudge) to get new ideas...I'm sick of this

I like listening and watching old movies for it's nostalgic appeal, but to have to rewatch something remade or see like the millionth sequel of something that should have just been led to die is annoying

As excited as I am to see Officer John Mclain kicking ass, when I see the trailer I feel a bit dissapointed with all this explosion and car flying and big bang effect going on and Bruce coming out without a scratch, how ridiculous can it get, Die Hard was about this officer that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and doing the best he can, I mean... and also this pathetic idea of making trilogies or long ass 4 hours movies to tell a story, what happened to the days when a movie lasted at most 2h and left you something to talk about after...

now we have to put up with 4 hours movies that are extremely boring or annoying, that at the end leave you with no conclusion and see the sequel of a trilogy that will be just as pointless...

all the big movies were getting now are based on a cartoon, a comic book, a sequel, a remake, a book, seriously????? what happened to originality