|
Post by punctuator on Feb 24, 2007 1:34:38 GMT -5
I have yet to see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." Want to-- but it's still on the "to watch" list. And I'm rambling, too. Just thinking of stuff I read way back when about how Rs are harder sells than PGs-- relative grosses for R films being lower than those for PG movies, or something like that.... Which would appear to be true, if you look at the box-office gargantuans for the last few years: "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Spider-Man," "Titanic," etc.
|
|
|
Post by brittany on Feb 24, 2007 13:24:39 GMT -5
Who are these "kids" you speak of? Sunshine is rated "hard R." It's not a "hard" R, is it...? (A hard R in the States usually requires graphic violence and/or graphic sex, which'll bump you up to NC-17 right quick.) And-- speaking, if nothing else, as a former theatre employee-- funny, isn't it, how the underaged always manage to find their way into R-rated features.... Sunshine is currently "rated R for violent content and language." I think it is safe to say that "violent content" is "graphic violence." (I think the Fox Chairman declared this a "hard R," unless he was talking about a different movie...) Nonetheless, you do bring up a good point in saying that kids will sneak into the theaters regardless of its rating restrictions. Based on this, why should the U.S. marketing people even consider this when it is ultimately out of their hands (it's sad, I know)? I don't think the rating has anything to do with the new U.S. release date... but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by punctuator on Feb 24, 2007 21:16:44 GMT -5
It's not a "hard" R, is it...? (A hard R in the States usually requires graphic violence and/or graphic sex, which'll bump you up to NC-17 right quick.) And-- speaking, if nothing else, as a former theatre employee-- funny, isn't it, how the underaged always manage to find their way into R-rated features.... Sunshine is currently "rated R for violent content and language." I think it is safe to say that "violent content" is "graphic violence." (I think the Fox Chairman declared this a "hard R," unless he was talking about a different movie...) Nonetheless, you do bring up a good point in saying that kids will sneak into the theaters regardless of its rating restrictions. Based on this, why should the U.S. marketing people even consider this when it is ultimately out of their hands (it's sad, I know)? I don't think the rating has anything to do with the new U.S. release date... but that's just me. He was talking about "AVP 2." "Hard R" violence is stuff like you see in an uncut print of "Scarface"-- that being a chainsaw going through a leg-- or the shenanigans in a flick like "Saw." "Violent" is not necessarily "graphic." Someone gets punched in the jaw: that's violent. Someone gets shot in the head, splattering brain and bone chunks on the wall: that's graphic. (Ironic that there's a good example of non-graphic violence in "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," when a character takes a whole torsoful of firing-squad bullets without said bullets leaving a single mark. [Which scene, tragic though it was meant to be, sent my suspension of disbelief thudding to the floor: this isn't Thirties Hollywood, Mr. Loach-- you can't have a character's fingernails graphically and horrifically pulled out early on, then expect us to believe later that bullets don't make holes.] Conversely, in "Miami Vice," there's a scene of graphic violence in which shots from a fifty-caliber rifle send shreds of human flesh and car seat into the air like confetti.) So here's an idea-- graphic or not: Cut a few dozen frames of people getting splattered or char-broiled in "Sunshine," loop out a few f-words, and release it as a PG-13. Then treat us all to the Director's Cut on DVD.... Actually, I think they're going to get a lot of mileage out of sheer tension in "Sunshine." Remember the rats-in-the-tunnel scene in "28 Days Later"...? Nothing really happens to anyone-- and yet I've heard viewers scream during that scene. But how does one-- as a good parent working for the good ol' MPA of A-- rate TENSION...? And PG and PG-13 films tend to make more money than Rs. That's what the suits at Fox-- including our red-carpet pal-- would be thinking. Minor point, but it's MONEY MONEY MONEY to the folks in Accounting....
|
|
|
Post by kagerou on Feb 25, 2007 0:03:03 GMT -5
DAs much as I would like to see the possible "hard R" things that may appear in Sunshine on the big screen, I agree with punctuator--allow it a timely release as a PG-13 in theaters and then a Director's Cut DVD. It'll please the fans and may make some people more money. o.O (I'm sure I sound very much like a child as I say this, but this whole thing is very unjust. Freakin' avaricious businessmen. )
|
|
|
Post by darkellipsis on Feb 25, 2007 13:56:55 GMT -5
I also agree. They would not have to cut much to make it a PG-13. It is amazing what you can get away with these days and still get that rating. All they would have to do is not fry the bacon(cast) as well done. Why not start the frying process, hear the scream, then fade away? Do we really need to see cast members getting broiled? I think the imagination can suffice.
|
|
|
Post by Amanda on Mar 2, 2007 17:06:45 GMT -5
|
|