Warners announces no more R-Rated tentpole movies…

Look at Fox’s Live Free or Die Hard policy. Alot of people (including myself) complained about a Die Hard movie being trimmed or “neutered” to get a PG-13 rating. However, I (& I bet alot of the complainers as well) still checked it out at the theater.

Whether or not the audience liked the film, (I thought it was a good over-the-top action flick, 3 stars, though I was ticked off that McClane couldn’t say his signature one-liner), they already paid for their tickets & most of them would be interested in the unrated DVD to see where all the “HARDCORE BLOOD & SWEARING” went to. (Yes, I did buy the unrated LFODH DVD, so that policy did work on me)

So, I don’t blame Warner for changing Terminator Salvation to PG-13.

People will argue that back in the ’80s there were a lot of big R-rated hits.

Yeah. That was 20 years ago, too. Things change (such as budgets, as you point out). And the weirdest thing is, so often movies are rated R for stuff that… Ok, like I watched the Friday the 13th remake, which was… not that gory. I’m willing to bet the R-rating came from the language and the nudity. So… a horror movie with an R-rating that had NOTHING to do with it being a horror movie! You could see the same things in a sex comedy or, hell, a love story… They easily could have cut down on the swearing and nudity, and it would have been the same damn movie. I guess my point is, they often put R-rated content in movies that is completely irrelevant to the plot or the… purpose of the film, JUST to give it an R-rating.

I think part of the problem, and I admit up front that i speak as an Aussie, it the weird-ass American ratings system.

Again and again i see movies with absolutely sickening violence rated PG-13 or R (U.S. ratings) with comparatively minor sexual displays nudity being treated with far greater harshness.

Personally I would have been far more concerned about children viewing the graphic violence in Watchment than the sex scene.

In Australia (not that we’re perfect either) the system is :

G
PG
M – Any age can watch, but recommended for 15
MA – Under 15 must be accompanied by a guardian
R – Over 18 only

Very few commercially released movies in Australia have an R rating. Watchment, for example was MA, although i have no idea as to whether any cuts were required.

Generally, a movie that contains female breasts (not that i want to focus on them) can still be rated M. The f*** word can be contained in an m-rated movie. Violence or frontal nudity are the main criteria in getting a more restrictive rating.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I think part of the problem, and I admit up front that i speak as an Aussie, it the weird-ass American ratings system.

Pretty much everyone admits that our system is whack. Any use of the F word to reference the activity is an automatic R rating. You can use it once in a more general sense and still get PG-13. Yes, they count. Also, our stupid system leads to film makers jamming in extra stuff specifically to be cut to save things they want (see: Team America: World Police for that plan backfiring).

This Film Is Not Yet Rated presents a fascinating look into the MPAA.

I don’t think a Terminator movie (at least a good one) could work as PG-13, Look what to Robocop when it was dumbed down. Counter to my own point I will admit that was certainly not the only reason the franchise went downhill. I just don’t think some things should be dumbed down. Alternatively, making the release PG-13 and then the DVD unrated does sound like a good marketing tactic. Another possibility could be rereleaseing the film with a different rating? But I don’t know the costs of doing it, might not justify the expense. Or two simultaneous releases, each with a different rating, but that one would be far too complicated I’m sure.

Both Terminator and T2 would have easily worked as PG-13 movies instead of R. The most graphic scene in Terminator is when Arnie does surgery on himself; if you cut that out you have a 1980’s R movie; that is to say, you can show it on TV with only minor cuts (one F-word and a brief boob shot). I’m all for boobs in movies, but I have no problem with a PG-13 Terminator Salvation. Honestly, I have a hard time believing that 1 boob shot is the difference between a PG-13 and an R rating. There are boobs in lots of PG movies!

Haven’t “tentpole” movies almost always been rated PG/PG-13? James Bond, Back to the Future, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Rocky, etc. I mean very few exceptions and in most cases, like the Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Mad Max, Predator, Alien, even the Matrix, etc, the first films were sleepers…they weren’t pre-designed blockbusters based on pre-existing properties. They did relatively modest box office on thier initial theatrical runs, became huge on video and cable, and it was the R-rated sequels that really cleaned up. Le
And in terms of paid admissions, the fourth Die Hard installment and the Alien Vs. Predator movies were the least popular so far in their repspective franchises. Using Medved’s logic, ( which seems to be whatever the owtcome of a particular film’s box office is due to my political viewpoint) I could easily argue that it was because those films were not rated R. I mean it was probably more due to the fact that they weren’t that good but would somebody like Medved acknowledge that? After all, he argues in his book that Star Trek V did poor box office due to the fact that it offended America’s sensibilities about God! And Watchman did poor box office due to poor word of mouth. It had a huge opening. Had it been more action-packed, less esoteric, it could’ve easily generated enough box office to compete with the Transformers, Iron Man, or any of the other “tentpole” projects. Matrix Reloaded did almost $300 million domestically. Had it generated better word of mouth, it could have easily done $350 million. If audience are so adverse to R rated movies, how come T2 made well over $300 million (in adjusted) dollars and was the biggest hit of 1991. Believes, T4 doesn’t need to be rated PG-13 it just needs to be a movie that clicks with audiences the way the first two R-rated films did.

Ken, I’m not ignoring it, I just don’t entirely agree with it. The cutoff age for an R-rated film in the U.S. is 17, and anyone under that age can get in if accompanied by someone 17 or older. Basically R could be dubbed PG-17. The four year difference isn’t too drastic, and most 13-16 year olds probably know someone 17 or over who could get them in anyways, or just wait outside asking for adult patrons to guide them
in. I did it all the time when I was younger. Honestly I can say the R rating never once hindered me when I was a teenager. If the R rating was so limiting, then why were films like T2, the second Matrix movie, the Rambo, Lethal Weapon series, etc
such huge successes? I don’t believe it’s the kiss of death and I firmly believe word of mouth killed Watchmen’s box office legs, not its R rating. It was an adaptation of a fairly explicit graphic novel, so I see no reason why it should’ve been made any
less than R. In fact, a PG-13 rating may have alienated much of the novel’s fans, having them feel it was watered down to be made kid-friendly and instead op to wait for the unrated DVD. It may even hurt T4 since I’m aware, as many are, that the first 3 Terminator films were rated R, so why bother going to see a PG-13 rated Terminator film in the theater when I can get the unrated Blu Ray and watch it on my HDTV in 4 months or so.

As for T2, I’m pretty sure Cameron would’ve have had to trim a fair amount to get a PG-13 rating. It’s not overly graphic but it’s very
intense, with lots of loud, shock moments, etc. In comparing the two cuts of the 4th Die Hard films, more was cut than just gore and f-words
– sound effects had to be toned down, etc. I’m pretty sure the MPAA would’ve
had Cameron tone down the film quite a bit, cut out a lot of the carnage, even if most of it was just robot to robot, and I don’t think
they’d let him get away with some of the stuff the T1000 does to his victims. And it may have
hurt the film’s box office since I believe much of T2’s success had to do it with sheer, nail-biting excitement and intenstity and just how threatening and formidable of a villain the T1000 was. Toning it all down to make it PG-13 might have made the film come across as less intense and not had audiences as much on the edge of their seats so it might have not been as well liked as it was.

With T4, I understand it deals with the war between humans and machines intent, and as the backstory layed fourth in the previous Terminator films, initially very successful in exterminating humanity, so I feel it would be better served by being R. I doubt Bryce Howard’s boobs are the only thing that’s going to have to be cut and/or toned down. And if the film is released as an R and
sells nearly as much tickets as the second Terminator film did, I’m sure the studio would be happy.

As for Medved’s politics, it’s his skewed logic that I was focusing on. I’m no liberal, though I am on some issues. I pretty much agree with every word of your Superman IV review. But Medved definitely has a habit of having selectively interpreting things to fit his own political viewpoint, or to have an excuse to point fingers at Hollywood at the expense of logic. Do you really believe Star Trek V did poor box office because people were offended because of it’s religious message?

The movie business seems to have its own variation of “Good, Fast, or Cheap: pick two.” In this instance, “R-rating, Big Budget, or Wide Release: pick two.”