PDA

View Full Version : The problem with movies (finally solved)



Daze
2007-11-16, 03:27 PM
One of the biggest problems with converting a story, novel, series or video game into a decent movie is the producer's seeming obsession with the LCD (lowest common denominator) of an audience, which unfortunately (for us) is the god-awful PG-13 movie.

A movie studio must salivate over a rating like that. Cool enough to get the money borrowing Tweens and Teens out in droves (I mean, who else really goes to the movies on a regular basis nowadays anyway?). But not so cool as to limit their audience or get parents raising a tizzy about their film. It's the Law of Large Numbers, and they have the science close to perfection.

Take an idea... whether original, adapted or stolen. Gut this idea of any of it's reality, tragedy, pain, or importance. Recpackage this idea in a shiny box starring the latest batch of bad 20-something actors and over the hill never-were's looking for a meal ticket. Hire a hack director to pull it all together from some indiscriminate sum of millions acquired by selling rights to various corporations who find movie-advertising an effective and viable way to promote their products. Advertise this movie on all the usual cool spots, beat the blog drums, run a few spots during key TV hours... and presto, a piece of the crap that no one will ever really want to see (if they knew better).

A notable example in recent years would be when they took two rated R powerhouses like Alien and Predator, and churned out a PG-13 piece of crap that was barely watchable. And I bring this up now, because they make a movie like "HitMan" and have it rated PG-13. Does that make sense to ANYONE?

A G movie can be good, a PG movie can be good... they pretend to be nothing more than they are. I can think of loads of movies in these categories which were fun for everyone in the family and well done besides. From Old Disney to ET to Nemo, and tons in between.

An R movie is of course ideal. Every major movie made in the last 50 years that's worth a damn is rated R. They can be adult and truthful. They do not have to pull punches and make lame compromises on the basic realities of language, sex and violence, even in a fantastical environment.

A PG-13 movie on the other hand [eyeroll] is like a man without a country. Too "grown up" to be comfortable in its innocence or simplicity like a G or PG flick, but not having the guts to show anything "real" like in an R movie. They always seem to end up feeling contrived, trivial and generally not worth the effort.

I'm sure there may have been a couple of decent PG 13 films, but honestly that'd be because of plain ol' dumb luck. The director had no intention of achieving that awful rating, it happened by sheer coincidence I assure you.

[/endrant]

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-16, 03:39 PM
I read the first paragraph of your rant, got bored and decieded you had nothing to say I haven't heard a hundred times before.

Daze
2007-11-16, 04:01 PM
I read the first paragraph of your rant, got bored and decieded you had nothing to say I haven't heard a hundred times before.

Well I'm so glad you contributed then.

Perhaps you should read more than the first paragraph of things before shooting off those amazing pearls of wisdom.

I guess I'll have to make sure to check with you first before bringing another topic up for discussion.

And incidently, Manchester United is overrated...
(so there).

Jasdoif
2007-11-16, 04:13 PM
The problem with "converting" from one medium to another is right there: It's a different medium. Things that work in a book don't always work as well in a movie...or other mediums, for that matter. Computer games based on movies tend to suffer from the exact same problem. Of course, producing a movie has a much higher monetary cost then engaging a reader's imagination, that doesn't help matters.

Daze
2007-11-16, 04:31 PM
The problem with "converting" from one medium to another is right there: It's a different medium. Things that work in a book don't always work as well in a movie...or other mediums, for that matter. Computer games based on movies tend to suffer from the exact same problem. Of course, producing a movie has a much higher monetary cost then engaging a reader's imagination, that doesn't help matters.

I agree with you mostly.

Some things are not meant to convert. Take a 1000 page book, there's no humanly way to be faithful to the full intent of the author in movie form, unless your willing to make a 12 hour film... and even then, you might not get it all!
Video games suffer also, because while it may be fun to play out a certain story, minus the interactivity the experience usually falters.

While all that is true, it doesn't really hold water in 100% of cases. There's been countless films that have been adapted quite successfully from novels and short stories. I see that as evidence not so much to the impossibility of switching mediums, but rather the inability of most film studios to put the effort beyond the base and typical, ever mindful of bottom lines and profit margins.

But back to my original rant. Can anyone even name a good PG-13 flick off the top of their heads? I can search the web for some I'm sure, but I'm curious as to what people think.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-16, 04:49 PM
An R movie is of course ideal. Every major movie made in the last 50 years that's worth a damn is rated R. They can be adult and truthful. They do not have to pull punches and make lame compromises on the basic realities of language, sex and violence, even in a fantastical environment.

Seriously? I mean, the R-rating itself isn't even 50 years old. (It's 39 years old.) So there were no movies "worth a damn" made between 1957 and 1968?

I could go on, but I suspect you're just making noise. Besides, attempting to analyze why you think that all of human reality is either perfectly idyllic and innocent or laced with sexualized nudity, drug abuse, and extreme violence -- with nothing ever lying naturally somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes -- is a task which is probably better-suited to a trained analyst and not web-forum musings.

Basically your rant can be better summarized like this: The problem with adapting video games to a movie is that 90% of everything is crap. Including movies adapted from video games.


But back to my original rant. Can anyone even name a good PG-13 flick off the top of their heads?

I don't actually pay much attention to movie ratings, as I find them to be totally dissociated from the quality of content. But a quick Google search (http://www.gazillionmovies.com/MPAA/PG-13.htm) gives me:

50 First Dates
A Beautiful Mind
A Knight's Tale
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Aeon Flux
Bulletproof Monk
Dances With Wolves
Daredevil
Die Another Day
Forrest Gump
Friday Night Lights
Ghost
Goldeneye
Gone in Sixty Seconds
I, Robot
Jurassic Park
Kindergarten Cop
Million Dollar Baby
Miss Congeniality
Mission Impossible
Mission Impossible 2
Mission Impossible 3
Mona Lisa Smile
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Music and Lyrics
O Brother Where Art Thou?
Ocean's Eleven
Rent
Romeo + Juliet
Rush Hour
Sahara
Seabiscuit
Serenity
Seven Years in Tibet
Signs
The Abyss
The American President
The Bourne Identity
The Bourne Supremacy
The Chronicles of Riddick

I could go on. There are movies on that list I liked a lot; there are movies on that list that are award-winners; there are movies on that list which are pure popcorn fun.

AvP wasn't a crappy movie because it was PG-13. It was a crappy movie because it had a mediocre script, piss-poor direction, and lackluster acting.

Hostel II wasn't the pinnacle of cinematic excellence because it had an R, rating.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Stijl
2007-11-16, 04:49 PM
A notable example in recent years would be when they took two rated R powerhouses like Alien and Predator, and churned out a PG-13 piece of crap that was barely watchable. And I bring this up now, because they make a movie like "HitMan" and have it rated PG-13. Does that make sense to ANYONE?

While I understand your complaint, two bones to pick... Hitman is rated R (in the US market at least), and I was indeed glad for it. That movie would be a waste as anything less.

Also, AVP failed as a PG-13 (as a movie, and didn't do so hot financially either), but 'Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem' that is coming out in another month or so... Well, they couldn't show the trailer at ComicCon because it was too violent, and was in itself rated R (the movie, of course, is rated R as well).

Hollywood is slowly learning that rated R movies can be successful, and hopefully will stop trying to force movies into a rating, and then just have a scene of nudity or extreme violence to add later if they fail to meet their goal.

Kjata
2007-11-16, 04:53 PM
Pirates and ... damn. There are some scary pg-13 movies. Uhh... yeah, thats about it.

WalkingTarget
2007-11-16, 04:56 PM
But back to my original rant. Can anyone even name a good PG-13 flick off the top of their heads? I can search the web for some I'm sure, but I'm curious as to what people think.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

I'm sure I could look up more.

Edit - damn sneaky ninjas and their long Google-assisted lists.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-16, 05:06 PM
Seriously? I mean, the R-rating itself isn't even 50 years old. (It's 39 years old.) So there were no movies "worth a damn" made between 1957 and 1968?

All the movies I'm using for my coursework in Film Studies are PG or U, not even PG-13 and one of these is Seven Samurai, one of the best films ever made.

Most films that get an 18 rating get that because they deliberately have to or nobody would go see them. This is because their target audience consists entirely of people who thinks that it's cool to sneak into a movie they're too young to see.


I could go on, but I suspect you're just making noise. Besides, attempting to analyze why you think that all of human reality is either perfectly idyllic and innocent or laced with sexualized nudity, drug abuse, and extreme violence -- with nothing ever lying naturally somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes -- is a task which is probably better-suited to a trained analyst and not web-forum musings.

Basically your rant can be better summarized like this: The problem with adapting video games to a movie is that 90% of everything is crap. Including movies adapted from video games.

Thankyou for taking the effort to say what I couldn't be bothered to.


It was a crappy movie because it had a mediocre script, piss-poor direction, and lackluster acting.

Yeah, it all basically comes down to crap being crap.

Anyway, lowest common denominator doesn't even mean what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_common_denominator

Read stuff, don't just repeat phrases that other people use because you think it's cool to be unique, since you've already failed.

Daze
2007-11-16, 05:39 PM
Seriously? I mean, the R-rating itself isn't even 50 years old. (It's 39 years old.) So there were no movies "worth a damn" made between 1957 and 1968?

Ok, wise guy... 39 years, allow me to restate timeframes. But I'm sure you'd acknowledge that in 1957 the practice of shoehorning scripts into neat little teeny-bopper ready packages did not exist (they had music for that).
Movies before the MPAA rating system was voluntarily instituted were of more adult-related content anyways and are effectively immune from your argument (minus the occasional early disney flick or pulp western).



I could go on, but I suspect you're just making noise. Besides, attempting to analyze why you think that all of human reality is either perfectly idyllic and innocent or laced with sexualized nudity, drug abuse, and extreme violence -- with nothing ever lying naturally somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes -- is a task which is probably better-suited to a trained analyst and not web-forum musings.

Basically your rant can be better summarized like this: The problem with adapting video games to a movie is that 90% of everything is crap. Including movies adapted from video games.


And wherein did I state that the entirety of the human experience fits neatly at the 2 extremes of the spectrum? If you read more carefully, you'd see I was speaking of the artificial practice of wedging what should by rights be a more "idyllic" or "venal" movie (usually the latter) into the make no sense, middle ground that is a PG-13 movie. This is a purposeful, co-opted construct of the major studio houses used to maximize profits.
Saying "90% of everything is crap" is a cop-out, ignoring the problems and underpinnings of monopolistic industry.

oh...and if this aint forum talk, then what is? sheesh... no one asked you to post.



I don't actually pay much attention to movie ratings, as I find them to be totally dissociated from the quality of content. But a quick Google search (http://www.gazillionmovies.com/MPAA/PG-13.htm) gives me:

50 First Dates
A Beautiful Mind
A Knight's Tale
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Aeon Flux
Bulletproof Monk
Dances With Wolves
Daredevil
Die Another Day
Forrest Gump
Friday Night Lights
Ghost
Goldeneye
Gone in Sixty Seconds
I, Robot
Jurassic Park
Kindergarten Cop
Million Dollar Baby
Miss Congeniality
Mission Impossible
Mission Impossible 2
Mission Impossible 3
Mona Lisa Smile
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Music and Lyrics
O Brother Where Art Thou?
Ocean's Eleven
Rent
Romeo + Juliet
Rush Hour
Sahara
Seabiscuit
Serenity
Seven Years in Tibet
Signs
The Abyss
The American President
The Bourne Identity
The Bourne Supremacy
The Chronicles of Riddick


I could go on. There are movies on that list I liked a lot; there are movies on that list that are award-winners; there are movies on that list which are pure popcorn fun.

Ok, I think I was quite specific of wanting PG-13 movies off the top of peoples heads, but thanks for the google search (which theres no way anyone else could have accomplished of course)

Some of those movies on there are good, as I knew there'd be some. But I can garuntee those are movies that fell where they are not because of
"grabbing" the rating for big $$, but rather it's where the movie naturally fell.

Some of those though.. sheesh, mission impossible 1, 2 AND 3? Miss
Congeniality? Even for popcorn munchers, they're pretty lousy.



AvP wasn't a crappy movie because it was PG-13. It was a crappy movie because it had a mediocre script, piss-poor direction, and lackluster acting.

Hostel II wasn't the pinnacle of cinematic excellence because it had an R, rating.

Justin Alexander


And I'd counter it was a mediocre script, had piss-poor direction and lackluster acting becasue as I said in my original post, the studios always try to achieve the trifecta of crappy film... putting all those elements on the same page trying to generate a PG-13 LCD movie.
A v P didnt do great, or well even.. but it still made a profit.

Jsut because something is R, doesnt make it good... please dont start twisting logic. Hostel (and saw, and the rest of this nu-horror) stand as crappy and overdone by themselves.

Daze
2007-11-16, 05:52 PM
All the movies I'm using for my coursework in Film Studies are PG or U, not even PG-13 and one of these is Seven Samurai, one of the best films ever made.

Most films that get an 18 rating get that because they deliberately have to or nobody would go see them. This is because their target audience consists entirely of people who thinks that it's cool to sneak into a movie they're too young to see.

Seven Samurai was indeed a great flick. (And if you remembered, I had nothing bad to say about PG movies)

Dude, I cant believe your a film major and dont at least see a little bit of what I'm saying. Maybe if you get lucky enough to work in the money making side of the business (and not the student art film snorefest side) you'll see things a bit differently.

By the by, I've been an editor for nearly a decade, so if your expecting a teenage no-nothing on the other end of these posts, think again.



Thankyou for taking the effort to say what I couldn't be bothered to.

If you cant be bothered to say things, then why post?




Yeah, it all basically comes down to crap being crap.

Anyway, lowest common denominator doesn't even mean what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_common_denominator

Read stuff, don't just repeat phrases that other people use because you think it's cool to be unique, since you've already failed.

Basically it all comes down to crap being crap? Wow, thats incredibly insightful.

And, um..maybe you should actually READ the wiki entries before you link them? (sorry, I know you got a hard time past the 1st paragraph). The lowest common denominator is exactly what I thought it was. "Appealing to the most basic needs of the intended audience". Things do have subtle meaning sometimes ya know.

Jasdoif
2007-11-16, 05:55 PM
Ok, I think I was quite specific of wanting PG-13 movies off the top of peoples heads, but thanks for the google search (which theres no way anyone else could have accomplished of course)I don't see what your point there is. What difference does it make if people remember a movie's rating off the top of their heads or not?



By the by, I've been an editor for nearly a decade, so if your expecting a teenage no-nothing on the other end of these posts, think again.Don't see your point here, either.

Daze
2007-11-16, 06:09 PM
I don't see what your point there is. What difference does it make if people remember a movie's rating off the top of their heads or not?

It makes a difference because if I asked people to make a list of good movies off the top of their heads, I bet you that the list of R, PG & G movies would be longer than the PG-13 list.
I thought that was more obvious, I apologize if my intentions weren't clear.

And my experience in the world of film and video is indeed relevant to this conversation. Particularly when someone 'drops' that there a film student.

Rutee
2007-11-16, 06:18 PM
It makes a difference because if I asked people to make a list of good movies off the top of their heads, I bet you that the list of R, PG & G movies would be longer than the PG-13 list.
I thought that was more obvious, I apologize if my intentions weren't clear.

Um... lrn2math if that comes as a shock to you. While I sincerely doubt that they break down evenly in terms of movies produced, that's still 3/4ths of the possible ratings. Oh no, the larger set of movie ratings would contain more instances of good movies, save us all?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-16, 06:19 PM
Dude, I cant believe your a film major and dont at least see a little bit of what I'm saying.

I'm not a film major. I'm doing film studies at school, I never said I was a major.


By the by, I've been an editor for nearly a decade, so if your expecting a teenage no-nothing on the other end of these posts, think again.

I'm a teenager, age has nothing to do with anything.


If you cant be bothered to say things, then why post?

I post because I like being heard, duh. Why would I go to a forum if I wanted anything but a conversation. If I'm feeling lazy I just converse badly.


Basically it all comes down to crap being crap? Wow, thats incredibly insightful.

I could go into a large list of factors that make things bad, but then I'm just shifting the blame around.

Here's my ignorant opinion on how to make a good film: Inspire your actors, if people who've been trained to act can't act it isn't their fault. Everyone, mainly the writer and director, should make sure the actors actually care about the movie you're making.

Actors tend to make films, camera work can ruin films but all the other odds and ends like special effects can't save a film.


And, um..maybe you should actually READ the wiki entries before you link them? (sorry, I know you got a hard time past the 1st paragraph). The lowest common denominator is exactly what I thought it was. "Appealing to the most basic needs of the intended audience". Things do have subtle meaning sometimes ya know.

I did, I was refering to the last line which says "Note that, in some of these cases, the concept being expressed is actually closer to the related-but-different mathematical concept of greatest common divisor." The article was merely mentioning how people use it, not that it's a legitimate use.

The lowest common denominator is the simplist thing everything in a given set shares. Using it as an 'insult to people who aren't as perceptive and cultured as me' is just annoying and put me off reading your post.

Beleriphon
2007-11-16, 06:22 PM
But back to my original rant. Can anyone even name a good PG-13 flick off the top of their heads? I can search the web for some I'm sure, but I'm curious as to what people think.

Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

I think its necessary to point out that George Lucas specifically made ESB and RotJ as PG movies since he felt that PG-13 wouldn't have the audience draw that a PG movie would have (the MPAA initially labelled them PG-13).

I also see the point of the OP. AvP failed on all fronts, but at least if it were R rated it would have copious amounts of gore to fall back on. Part of the appeal of the Alien franchise, and the Predator movies, was that they weren't exactly shy about showing you exactly what those creatures did.

For arguments sake lets take an R rate movie an make it PG-13. I'll nominate Pretty Woman just because I didn't know it was R rated. If you make that movie PG-13 what does it lose? Well it loses a scene involving oral sex, a lot of swearing, a pimp beating up a prostitute and some other things that help build the world our characters live in. But you could loses those things and still tell a good story as a PG-13 tale. If you were to try and make Dog Day Afternoon a PG-13 film I don't think it would really work at any level.

I think a large part of the problem is that a movie needs to be made the way it needs to be made and the creators just accept whatever rating is slapped onto it rather than aiming at a specific rating. The vast majority of Disney movies a G rated, mainly because they are told in a Disney manner. Martin Scorsese on the other hand tends towards making R rated movies because of who he is and the types of stories that he likes to tell. Same deal for Quintin Tarantino, I don't think that he could make a G rated movie if his life depended on it.

Daze
2007-11-16, 06:32 PM
Um... lrn2math if that comes as a shock to you. While I sincerely doubt that they break down evenly in terms of movies produced, that's still 3/4ths of the possible ratings. Oh no, the larger set of movie ratings would contain more instances of good movies, save us all?

Sorry Rutee, I'm not sure if I got exactly what your saying here...

But if you are saying that there are more rated R movies made than PG-13.. or more PG made than PG-13. Then I'm not sure that'd be correct, I cant find anything on the web at the moment, but I believe the amount of movies made in each category break down to PG, G, PG-13, R... in that order from most to least. (NC-17 is such a small percentage its not worth mentioning, studios consider it the death of a movie...much like AO in video games).
I remember that from a news story I saw, but i could be mistaken.

But if that holds true... then my point still stands, no? They make more PG-13 than R, yet you could probably name more good R movies.

Daze
2007-11-16, 06:36 PM
Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Interestingly enough, Raiders was actually given an initial PG rating, but bumped up to a '13' cause some felt some of the scenes were too intense for children... in terms of violence.

Thanks for the list though, I cant find fault with either of those series. Although I dont think Spielburg and Lucas were trying to intentionally achieve that rating. They made their movies and thats where they fell, much to everyone's enjoyment :)

Daze
2007-11-16, 06:46 PM
I'm not a film major. I'm doing film studies at school, I never said I was a major.

I'm a teenager, age has nothing to do with anything.


I apologize for my assumptions then.
But when I hear 'film studies', I tend to get a little overexcited... many a fine argument I had over in the bars by NYU.. they got a big film school there.





I post because I like being heard, duh. Why would I go to a forum if I wanted anything but a conversation. If I'm feeling lazy I just converse badly.

Well stop! :P Conversing badly on a forum really defeats the purpose.



I could go into a large list of factors that make things bad, but then I'm just shifting the blame around.

Here's my ignorant opinion on how to make a good film: Inspire your actors, if people who've been trained to act can't act it isn't their fault. Everyone, mainly the writer and director, should make sure the actors actually care about the movie you're making.

Actors tend to make films, camera work can ruin films but all the other odds and ends like special effects can't save a film.

Nothing you said that wasnt true... a movie that that the crew/actors believe in always shines moreso than one where they do not.
The director who can inspire is key... but I'd also argue that a good script/screenplay is an absolute neccessity. Clever writing makes any medium like this shine... books, movie, tv, games.. whatever.

And special effects only make a good film better. But if thats all thats to a movie, then forget about it. Your right. But keep in mind the post-production crew. Without editors and a good DP, all that footage the cameras get of good actors doing there thing is a big pile of mush and sound checks.




I did, I was refering to the last line which says "Note that, in some of these cases, the concept being expressed is actually closer to the related-but-different mathematical concept of greatest common divisor." The article was merely mentioning how people use it, not that it's a legitimate use.

The lowest common denominator is the simplist thing everything in a given set shares. Using it as an 'insult to people who aren't as perceptive and cultured as me' is just annoying and put me off reading your post.

Just as it annoys me when people say things like "Read stuff, don't just repeat phrases that other people use because you think it's cool to be unique, since you've already failed".

I dont parrot people and I'm a voracious reader, so that did irk me a bit. Condescension is the quickest way to bring sarcasm out of me, fair warning.

I never brought up LCD to insult or demean anyone... except perhaps the executives of movie studios. But who cares about them right?

Daze
2007-11-16, 07:00 PM
13).I also see the point of the OP. AvP failed on all fronts, but at least if it were R rated it would have copious amounts of gore to fall back on. Part of the appeal of the Alien franchise, and the Predator movies, was that they weren't exactly shy about showing you exactly what those creatures did.

For arguments sake lets take an R rate movie an make it PG-13. I'll nominate Pretty Woman just because I didn't know it was R rated. If you make that movie PG-13 what does it lose? Well it loses a scene involving oral sex, a lot of swearing, a pimp beating up a prostitute and some other things that help build the world our characters live in. But you could loses those things and still tell a good story as a PG-13 tale. If you were to try and make Dog Day Afternoon a PG-13 film I don't think it would really work at any level.

I think a large part of the problem is that a movie needs to be made the way it needs to be made and the creators just accept whatever rating is slapped onto it rather than aiming at a specific rating. The vast majority of Disney movies a G rated, mainly because they are told in a Disney manner. Martin Scorsese on the other hand tends towards making R rated movies because of who he is and the types of stories that he likes to tell. Same deal for Quintin Tarantino, I don't think that he could make a G rated movie if his life depended on it.

And thank you for seeing what I mean. (and much props to the Dog Day Afternoon mention!)

And thats the problem I have with PG-13, its where a large majority of these "non-true" movies fall. By non-true, meaning the creator/director/producer make the movie to fit a pigeon hole for a certain audience... not that there aren't PG-13 movies that are an exception... and not that there arent other rated movies that are guilty of the same thing.

But generally speaking, the Disneys, Scorceses, Tarantinos and Camerons of the world dont make PG-13 movies....
If some believes fully in their project and gives no mind to niche audiences or ratings and it happens to come out at the PG-13 level, then that's no matter.

I'm referring to the fakers of the movie world...and we know who they are. They're name is Legion.

Hawriel
2007-11-16, 08:30 PM
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

I'm sure I could look up more.

Edit - damn sneaky ninjas and their long Google-assisted lists.

Raiders of the Lost ark was the FIRST PG-13 movie. Why was it the first? Because Steven and George wanted to melt Nazies and they created the PG-13 rating for this vary purpose. To have a rating not quite R but not child friendly like PG. I dont know what happened to movies but for TV every thing you see on prime time, CSI, Heros, NYPD Blue ect ect is all PG-13 content. Hollywood for what ever reason dumbed it down to PG +1.

I do see Dase's point. Look at Die Hard 4. They nurfed the line, and there was less blood in the whole movie than in half of a gun fight from the first. On the other hand there are movies that stay true to the comic or novel. Sin City, and 300 are two of them. Then again Frank Miller had controle, unlike vidio game movies that are made by lawyers. To be honest Im thinking it was a leagal nighmare to let the creative minds that made Batman and Spiderman do what they wanted. It sure helped that the directors and other peaple invalved loved the characters they where working with.

de-trick
2007-11-16, 08:54 PM
Answer me 1 question, are you the only one who watches movies? Your not there's other people too, younger people and people who cant stand over done gore. I'm fine with 'R' rated movies, I'll agree that there are some good 1's. But doesn't mean there better or worse than a PG13 movie.

rubakhin
2007-11-16, 09:06 PM
I think what we have here is a case of Sturgeon's Law. 90% of all PG-13 movies are crap, but 90% of anything is crap. And yeah, studios do try to make PG-13 movies when their primary goal is to turn a profit, because their wide demographic appeal means they outsell the other brackets by far. But really, that doesn't automatically make them crap. And making something deliberately low-brow and forgettable in order to make cash is nothing restricted to the PG-13 rating.

The restrictions are draconian, sure, but really, what are they restricting other than explicit sex, violence, drug use, and profanity? There are plenty of films that just wouldn't work if these elements were toned down or removed (Irreversible, A Clockwork Orange, 8MM, Crash, Requiem for a Dream, Salo, the list goes on) but for a lot of films, if a director isn't producing some sort of spiritual and artistic truth without these elements (or, if he isn't making a sufficiently entertaining film), something's wrong and it's not the rating. I've never seen AvP, but it likely would have been crap even if it were rated R.

And every major movie made in the last 50 years that's worth a damn is rated R? Good lord, no. Okay, off the top of my head - erm - Kukushka, A Beautiful Mind, Whale Rider, tons more. Really, pick any genre, and you'll find a PG-13 film that's considered one of the best of its kind. Animation has Princess Mononoke, fantasy has LoTR, romance has Titanic, the spaghetti western has Once Upon a Time in the West, martial arts has Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and the superhero genre has X-Men, Spiderman, and Superman. Life Is Beautiful and Wings of Desire routinely make lists of the greatest films ever made, period. Hell, Life is Beautiful made the Holocaust PG-13 and still managed to be a valid and truthful work of art.

Semidi
2007-11-16, 09:16 PM
I'm not a film major. I've only briefly studied film history at all (two semesters), but I watch a lot of movies.

I would argue that an R film isn't necessarily great but many, many, many great films are rated R. Therefore stating that Hostel 2 is a better film than Raiders of the Lost Arc due to its Rness is a logical fallacy.

Thinking back on what I've enjoyed, I'll admit that the vast majority of what I think of as great films are rated R. Deer Hunter, Clockwork Orange (originally rated X), Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, and so on. Though I think some PG-13 films are good as well, such as the above mentioned Raiders of the Lost Arc and *checks his movies he just rented* Ok so I didn't rent any PG-13 movies this time but I'm sure there are a few great ones out there like Forest Gump. (incase you cared I rented Dark City, Evil Dead 2, 1984, and Blade Runner)

However, this is probably just correlation and not causation. I don't think any amount of blood or F words would have made, let's say AvP a watch able movie.

I look at it this way as a writer. If you have a story, tell it like it needs to be told and bollocks to all the taboos or rating systems. I feel like Hollywood intentionally tries to make stories that arenít PG-13 into PG-13 stories (The Punisher comes to mind). When that happens it correlates that the director/writer doesnít care about the story or the universe. When the director feels that way youíre going to have a steaming pile of **** (The Punisher comes to mind).

So in conclusion (Itís ok, you can just read this part): R doesnít mean a film is good, and PG-13 doesnít mean a film is utter crap. Iíve found that it usually just lands that way for one reason or another.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-17, 12:49 PM
Ok, wise guy... 39 years, allow me to restate timeframes. But I'm sure you'd acknowledge that in 1957 the practice of shoehorning scripts into neat little teeny-bopper ready packages did not exist (they had music for that).

No, actually, I won't "acknowledge" that. The idea that Hollywood only recently discovered the concept that certain types of films appeal to certain types of audiences is actually quite absurd.


Movies before the MPAA rating system was voluntarily instituted were of more adult-related content anyways and are effectively immune from your argument (minus the occasional early disney flick or pulp western).

The "occasional" pulp western? Seriously? You can say that with a straight face?

Well, in that case, I'm forced to conclude that you're fundamentally ignorant when it comes to film history.


And wherein did I state that the entirety of the human experience fits neatly at the 2 extremes of the spectrum?

When you claimed that PG-13 movies are inherently incapable of depicting reality.


Ok, I think I was quite specific of wanting PG-13 movies off the top of peoples heads, but thanks for the google search (which theres no way anyone else could have accomplished of course)

You're missing the point: I haven't paid attention to film ratings since I was 17 years old. Why? Because film ratings have absolutely no impact on the quality of a film. The only people who care about film ratings are pimply 16 year olds who wish they could see blood, gore, and nudity without using a fake ID.


And I'd counter it was a mediocre script, had piss-poor direction and lackluster acting becasue as I said in my original post, the studios always try to achieve the trifecta of crappy film... putting all those elements on the same page trying to generate a PG-13 LCD movie.

On the one hand you admit that having a mediocre script, piss-poor direction, and lackluster acting have absolutely nothing to do with getting a PG-13 rating... and then you turn around and claim that they do.

That's fundamentally irrational behavior.

And in your next post you attributed several quotes to me which were said by other people -- indicating that you are, apparently, incapable of mastering the "intricacies" of posting to a web-forum.

So I see little point in continuing this discussion with you.


Raiders of the Lost ark was the FIRST PG-13 movie. Why was it the first? Because Steven and George wanted to melt Nazies and they created the PG-13 rating for this vary purpose.

(1) Raiders was rated PG, not PG-13. So was Temple of Doom. The first Indiana Jones movie rated PG-13 was Last Crusade.

(2) The PG-13 rating wasn't created until 1984, three years after the release of Raiders.

(3) The first film given a wide-release with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Setra
2007-11-17, 01:09 PM
I'm sure this won't sit well with all the film fans and whatnot but my opinion is thus: Advent Children was PG-13, and pretty good.

On another note, I'd just like to note: In my opinion a horror movie should never be anything less than R.

Daze
2007-11-19, 02:13 PM
No, actually, I won't "acknowledge" that. The idea that Hollywood only recently discovered the concept that certain types of films appeal to certain types of audiences is actually quite absurd.

There were of course movie producers who understood the concept of market appeal, but my point was it was restricted to more "adult" based markets. No concerted attempt was made to reach the teen-young adult market like there is now. Granted a "mature rating" in 1957 takes quite a different meaning than it would now, tame by today's standards really. But a fade to black when a starlet kisses the leading man was once considered pretty racy.
So please, dont put claims on me that I didnt make.




The "occasional" pulp western? Seriously? You can say that with a straight face?

Well, in that case, I'm forced to conclude that you're fundamentally ignorant when it comes to film history.

I use "occasional" in referring to western movies that have stood the test of time in terms of quality. I am fully aware of the plethera of the B movies which preceeded every major reel, from westerns, to cliffhangers, to spy movies... (news reels and propoganda pieces not withstanding)

Am I the most ignorant? When your the one who refuses to acknowledge that the MPAA rating structure has had a signifigant impact on the film industry?




When you claimed that PG-13 movies are inherently incapable of depicting reality.
I never claimed that. You are using selective reading to berate me in a dishonest, non-intellectual way. P




You're missing the point: I haven't paid attention to film ratings since I was 17 years old. Why? Because film ratings have absolutely no impact on the quality of a film. The only people who care about film ratings are pimply 16 year olds who wish they could see blood, gore, and nudity without using a fake ID.
Again, YOU miss the point.
I never said film ratings directly affect the quality of a film. What I'm saying is film directors and prodcuers that push out crappy, overfunded pieces of junk (which we can all assume as fact to be on the rise in recent years) tend to AIM for the PG-13 rating.
Yes, we all know about the pimply teenagers who get a thrill out of sneaking into R movies or enjoy the latest trash movies, But we're not talking about them, at least not directly.




On the one hand you admit that having a mediocre script, piss-poor direction, and lackluster acting have absolutely nothing to do with getting a PG-13 rating... and then you turn around and claim that they do.

That's fundamentally irrational behavior.

And in your next post you attributed several quotes to me which were said by other people -- indicating that you are, apparently, incapable of mastering the "intricacies" of posting to a web-forum.

So I see little point in continuing this discussion with you.

Upon further review, I read my previous response to you and verified that everything I said was in DIRECT response to your comments. So please before tossing out bombs, why dont you more carefully craft your responses.
I know how to use a forum just fine... as a place for discussion, not insults.

As far as what you consider "irrational", it's just multi-layered my friend. You see, sometimes you have to peel away many layers of a subject to see whats really there.

Piss poor direction, etc... they exist in any film format, but they seem to inordinately colleace around the PG-13 rating. Clearer now?




(1) Raiders was rated PG, not PG-13. So was Temple of Doom. The first Indiana Jones movie rated PG-13 was Last Crusade.

(2) The PG-13 rating wasn't created until 1984, three years after the release of Raiders.

(3) The first film given a wide-release with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn.

Red Dawn was indeed the first movie given a PG-13 wide release (Wolverines, ho! strange movie... Patrick Swayze... but I digress.). But again, you accuse others of being ignorant of history but make fundamental flaws of your own. Fact is movies like Raiders, Temple, Poltergeist, E.T., etc... grew the demand for the rating when many parents (and the subsequent lobbying groups) were upset after bringing their children to these films. Heck, Poltergeist alone scarred an entire generation with visions of evil clowns dragging them under beds and giant trees grabbing and eating them. So Red Dawn stands on the shoulders of what came previously, strangly enough Spielburg being at the center of it.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-19, 03:42 PM
There were of course movie producers who understood the concept of market appeal, but my point was it was restricted to more "adult" based markets. No concerted attempt was made to reach the teen-young adult market like there is now.

I don't know how to respond to such a completely nonsensical statement. It's completely disconnected from reality.


Am I the most ignorant? When your the one who refuses to acknowledge that the MPAA rating structure has had a signifigant impact on the film industry?

Since I didn't actually say that, I'm forced to conclude that you are both ignorant and a liar.



When you claimed that PG-13 movies are inherently incapable of depicting reality.

I never claimed that. You are using selective reading to berate me in a dishonest, non-intellectual way. P

Really? You didn't say: "A PG-13 movie on the other hand [eyeroll] is like a man without a country. Too "grown up" to be comfortable in its innocence or simplicity like a G or PG flick, but not having the guts to show anything "real" like in an R movie."?

Liar.


Upon further review, I read my previous response to you and verified that everything I said was in DIRECT response to your comments.

This is either more incompetency or more lying. (Look at post #12.)


Red Dawn was indeed the first movie given a PG-13 wide release (Wolverines, ho! strange movie... Patrick Swayze... but I digress.). But again, you accuse others of being ignorant of history but make fundamental flaws of your own. Fact is movies like Raiders, Temple, Poltergeist, E.T., etc... grew the demand for the rating when many parents (and the subsequent lobbying groups) were upset after bringing their children to these films.

This is true. But I never claimed that those movies didn't grow the demand for an intermediate rating between PG movies and R movies. I simply disputed the completely erroneous claim that Lucas and Spielberg created the rating so that they could melt Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

But obviously I was right in my assessment: Attempting to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you is pointless. You'll either lie, leap to irrational conclusions, or throw around "facts" that are nothing more fictive manifestations of your ignorance.

You owe me an apology for lying about me and mis-attributing quotes to me. But I doubt you'll make it.

Ciao.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

EvilElitest
2007-11-19, 04:22 PM
while i really don't have much of an option as yet, as anyone watched Avatar last Airbender? Pretty good child cartoon eh? Now imagine it if it was aimed for adults, or at least 13-18 teens. If they were allowed to kill characters on screen, if the villians were allowed to be a bit successfully (in that i mean killing characters, not just knocking them down) and the story generally more realistic. You see were i'm going. However, i don't believe a film needs to be rated R to be good
from,
EE

Daze
2007-11-19, 04:45 PM
I don't know how to respond to such a completely nonsensical statement. It's completely disconnected from reality.

So you say nothing with facts, evidence or even opinion. Just insults...



Since I didn't actually say that, I'm forced to conclude that you are both ignorant and a liar.
Brave man, insulting via forum...
So you havent been doing everything humanly possible to disprove my point here? Ok....




Really? You didn't say: "A PG-13 movie on the other hand [eyeroll] is like a man without a country. Too "grown up" to be comfortable in its innocence or simplicity like a G or PG flick, but not having the guts to show anything "real" like in an R movie."?

Liar.

Ah, the favorite tactic of the selective debater, ignore the forest for the trees... You didnt see the point as it related to the rest of the points I was making about the movie industry? About producers shoehorning scripts to fit market demand?



This is either more incompetency or more lying. (Look at post #12.)

I actually apologize for this (and yes I'm man enough to do that). Must have copy/pasted your tag instead of closet skeletons. Simply an oversight, updated now, so dont cry or anything.



But obviously I was right in my assessment: Attempting to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you is pointless. You'll either lie, leap to irrational conclusions, or throw around "facts" that are nothing more fictive manifestations of your ignorance.

You owe me an apology for lying about me and mis-attributing quotes to me. But I doubt you'll make it.


Let's see here... you respond to an initial public musing by me with contempt, insults and a general condescension which surely by this point in your life must realize wins no friends and generally contributes to a substandard life satisfaction.
Who owes who the apology?
I stand on the record correcting my typographical mistake in misattributing quotes, whats your excuse?

Point being to all of this though ... and I'll be as simple as possible:

"Movie "creators" in recent years have altered the context and application of their craft by attempting to push their films towards the standard fit of a protypical PG-13 movie, regardless of the intent of the original subject matter. The financial considerations for doing this are imposed by the percieved greater market for this film rating, even though a more mature (or sometime "less" mature) rating would be more appropriate. Less talented actors, writers and production people tend to be associated with these types of films."

Anything unclear about that?

Daze
2007-11-19, 04:53 PM
while i really don't have much of an option as yet, as anyone watched Avatar last Airbender? Pretty good child cartoon eh? Now imagine it if it was aimed for adults, or at least 13-18 teens. If they were allowed to kill characters on screen, if the villians were allowed to be a bit successfully (in that i mean killing characters, not just knocking them down) and the story generally more realistic. You see were i'm going. However, i don't believe a film needs to be rated R to be good
from,
EE

Haven't seen that, anime?

I never meant to imply a movie had to be rated "R" to be any good. In fact there's many fine general audience movies. I was just trying to shine some light on a problem within the movie industry.

EvilElitest
2007-11-19, 06:00 PM
Haven't seen that, anime?

I never meant to imply a movie had to be rated "R" to be any good. In fact there's many fine general audience movies. I was just trying to shine some light on a problem within the movie industry.

What i am saying is that sometimes in order to make a movie more realistic and therefor believable, one must make it aimed at an older audience. Full Metal Alchemist is a great anime, but it is certianly rated R.
from,
EE

Toliudar
2007-11-19, 06:00 PM
Attempting to synthesize here, Daze:

Because PG-13 ratings are perceived to appeal to a lucrative demographic, many purveyors of fairly bad films adjust the content of those films to achieve that rating. Is that a fair distillation of your argument?

I'm cautious about that premise, because of course it could also be argued that many purveyors of fairly bad films adjust their content to achieve a G rating to better target a family demographic. Or that still others throw in a lot of gore and nudity, achieving an R rating, because they know that such things will appeal to a different demographic.

The MPAA system seems to me to be a short-hand for demographic target marketing, mixed with an impulse to separate young people from certain aspects of life. But it's the cynical target-marketing of tripe, rather than the rating system that helps to encode it, that encourages the creation of such bad films.

Prophaniti
2007-11-19, 06:35 PM
Wow, Daze, they just unloaded on you in this thread, didn't they...:smalleek:
I agree with your original statement to a point, there really are some amazingly crappy PG-13 movies out there and perhaps quite a few resulted from what you mentioned, a crappy script being shoved through as a quick money-maker. Honestly I expect that from hollywood. I'm genuinely surprised and delighted when a truly good movie comes out.

Don't really see why some of these people got so worked up about your post... I may not totally agree, but that doesn't mean I have to be antagonistic or derogatory about it. My only suggestion after skimming some of the 'discussions' here is watch the double (and triple+) posting... it's against forum rules and that's why there's an 'edit' feature.

Nothing fundamentaly wrong with your point of view however, and I read some amazingly hostile replies for such a simple statement. Calm down, people, or we'll ration your coffee:smallannoyed:

Daimbert
2007-11-19, 06:44 PM
A notable example in recent years would be when they took two rated R powerhouses like Alien and Predator, and churned out a PG-13 piece of crap that was barely watchable.

I strongly disagree with you, and this example is why: out of all the recent conversions, this was one of the best. It was, generally, entertaining. And Silent Hill was a good conversion of a video game to a movie. Again, it was entertaining. And why? Because, for the most part, the movies didn't make the cardinal sin of doing these conversions: having the writers decide that the source material needs to be "altered" by the writers, or "modernized" or "changed". These two movies basically took similar premises to the things that they were trying to deal with, and made it a good movie. Silent Hill is VERY similar to the walkthrough for the game except for some details that, in my opinion, did indeed make the movie worse than the game ... but that's okay, it was entertaining anyway.

The rating is irrelevant; the attitude of the writers towards the source material determines it.

Daze
2007-11-19, 07:15 PM
What i am saying is that sometimes in order to make a movie more realistic and therefor believable, one must make it aimed at an older audience. Full Metal Alchemist is a great anime, but it is certianly rated R.

I agree in many cases. Particulary when the subject matter your tackling involves war, violence or horror. In order to stay "true" to what happens in a realistic manner a mature rating is usually neccessary. Full Metal Alchemist is a good example. Although I dont feel the japanese movie/manga scene has the same problems as the US...


Attempting to synthesize here, Daze:

Because PG-13 ratings are perceived to appeal to a lucrative demographic, many purveyors of fairly bad films adjust the content of those films to achieve that rating. Is that a fair distillation of your argument?

I'm cautious about that premise, because of course it could also be argued that many purveyors of fairly bad films adjust their content to achieve a G rating to better target a family demographic. Or that still others throw in a lot of gore and nudity, achieving an R rating, because they know that such things will appeal to a different demographic.

The MPAA system seems to me to be a short-hand for demographic target marketing, mixed with an impulse to separate young people from certain aspects of life. But it's the cynical target-marketing of tripe, rather than the rating system that helps to encode it, that encourages the creation of such bad films.

In a nutshell (what is this nutshell?? How on earth did I get in this great big nutshell?? heh) that would be a correct interpretation of my argument.

And I agree that this not unique just to PG-13 films, there's plenty of examples of movies being "bloodied" up for no good reason.. and conversely made more palatable to a wide audience by removing controversial scenage. This does apply to film-making in general, but I felt it necessary to point out the problem in the PG-13 demographic as I feel it outweighs the other situations, particulary in recent years.

and thank you for a clear, concise, non-threatening post amigo, much appreciated ;)


Wow, Daze, they just unloaded on you in this thread, didn't they...
I agree with your original statement to a point, there really are some amazingly crappy PG-13 movies out there and perhaps quite a few resulted from what you mentioned, a crappy script being shoved through as a quick money-maker. Honestly I expect that from hollywood. I'm genuinely surprised and delighted when a truly good movie comes out.

Don't really see why some of these people got so worked up about your post... I may not totally agree, but that doesn't mean I have to be antagonistic or derogatory about it. My only suggestion after skimming some of the 'discussions' here is watch the double (and triple+) posting... it's against forum rules and that's why there's an 'edit' feature.

Nothing fundamentaly wrong with your point of view however, and I read some amazingly hostile replies for such a simple statement. Calm down, people, or we'll ration your coffee

Man, they sure did... made me wonder if I really hit a nerve? I never meant for it to be some big shoving match. I just like talking about things, not a matter of right or wrong... just wanted some decent opinions and thoughts out of people, see if they see what I see.... guess that's an intellectual crime in some books.

Didnt mean to double/triple post... but it seemed like I had a lot to say and didnt wanna make one mega-post...but it does look silly 3 times in a row, I'll have to double (triple) up my quotes like this... just have to be careful to keep my copy/paste straight, since the multi-quote function was taken away.

Thanks for your polite convo, nice to know it still exists!

And I see what your saying too... I'm also surprised when a decent movie comes out. It seems to purvey all of Hollywood... only a few production studios left now (even the so-called "independents" are really just branches of the larger production companies). Sad isnt it? All about the money though...
Hmmm, brings up an interesting question... what industry do you think is in a worse state: Movies, Publishing or Music?


I strongly disagree with you, and this example is why: out of all the recent conversions, this was one of the best. It was, generally, entertaining. And Silent Hill was a good conversion of a video game to a movie. Again, it was entertaining. And why? Because, for the most part, the movies didn't make the cardinal sin of doing these conversions: having the writers decide that the source material needs to be "altered" by the writers, or "modernized" or "changed". These two movies basically took similar premises to the things that they were trying to deal with, and made it a good movie. Silent Hill is VERY similar to the walkthrough for the game except for some details that, in my opinion, did indeed make the movie worse than the game ... but that's okay, it was entertaining anyway.

The rating is irrelevant; the attitude of the writers towards the source material determines it.

Attitude is definitely important... and thats the problem I'm kinda talking about. The prevailing attitude is "lets dampen down mature" and "lets ramp up general audience"...

and for the record, Silent Hill was probably the best video game conversion done to date... was actually somewhat enjoyable.. in a dark, twisted way ;)

But did you mean to say AvP was a good flick?

Prophaniti
2007-11-19, 07:55 PM
well, one thing you could try with a huge post like that is this:

originally posted by me:put the text of the quotes, especially long ones, in spoilers, which is done by [ spoiler]*text*[ /spoiler ] minus the spaces. That would cut down on the visible volume and make it so people dont have to read what they've already read.

I didnt like Silent Hill, but that's because I dont like horror films in general and ones in the spirit of Saw in particular. (I find it difficult to describe the contempt I feel for that genre of filmmaking.) I didnt like the game much either. The last horror game I played and liked was F.E.A.R. now that was fun, especially at 2am with the lights off (dont try that at home, its bad for your eyes.)!

Rigel Cyrosea
2007-11-19, 09:34 PM
I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the 14A rating yet. I've seen a lot of good movies that were 14A. Wait... do you even have 14A in the US?

Anyway, the main topic:
I agree with you on your main point about shunting movies into PG-13 to target demographics. However, I do not agree with some of your earlier posts (those in the first 20 or so), as the your point in those seemed to be much larger, targeting almost all PG-13 movies, which is frankly not true. I'm glad to see that you've now droped that part of your arguement, but you must admit, some of your first posts were quite inflamatory.

Semidi
2007-11-19, 09:53 PM
I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the 14A rating yet. I've seen a lot of good movies that were 14A. Wait... do you even have 14A in the US?


Nope. We have Non-rated films, G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (replaced X).

....
2007-11-19, 10:00 PM
Wasn't Jaws rated PG? :smallcool:

Turcano
2007-11-19, 10:11 PM
I think the problem is a combination of three factors:

1. The qualities of a good plot for a film and a good plot for a video game tend to be mutually exclusive.

2. The executives are counting the game's fanbase, who will probably see the movie no matter how horrible it is, for most of its revenue, which lowers the incentive for quality work considerably.

3. A video game movie has a highly disproportionate chance of being directed by Uwe Boll, who is a real-life version of The Producers (with the difference that instead of cheating the investors, he and the investors are cheating the German government).

BlackStaticWolf
2007-11-19, 10:18 PM
Nope. We have Non-rated films, G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (replaced X).

I was under the impression that the X rating still exists... as porn.

Semidi
2007-11-19, 10:28 PM
I was under the impression that the X rating still exists... as porn.

It's not part of the MPAA ratings system. Porn films stick that on to make their movies seem extreme. I'll go into the short and sweet of it all.

When the ratings systems were made X rated films weren't taboo. Midnight Cowboy and Clockwork Orange both won awards and were rated X. Any film could get an X rating if they wanted it. So all of the porno films would rate their film as X to express the bad assness of the film. The MPAA didn't sit around and talk about what rating Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas should get.

This ruined the market for X rated films because reputable theaters wouldn't show films that weren't rated or were rated X. So the MPAA changed X to NC-17; NC-17 is trademarked so to get the rating a bunch of old white guys have to review it. Iíll not get into how stupid the MPAA is. Maybe I will. You can show someone getting shot and get a PG-13 rating, but donít you dare show a womanís nipples.

X stuck though, and it's still used (unofficially) today.

The more you know. And knowing is half the battle.
(I just read all of this on wikipedia)

Turcano
2007-11-19, 10:28 PM
Unofficially yes, but there's no legal difference.

Edit: Damn you ninjas!

BlackStaticWolf
2007-11-19, 10:32 PM
Snip interesting, but useless facts that have now replaced something essential in my memory.

The more you know. And knowing is half the battle.
(I just read all of this on wikipedia)

Damn you! I wanted to say the GI Joe line...

Winterwind
2007-11-19, 10:44 PM
1. The qualities of a good plot for a film and a good plot for a video game tend to be mutually exclusive.This one sounds interesting to me. Care to elaborate?

TRM
2007-11-19, 10:44 PM
PG-13 Movies That I Didn't Think Were Junk:
All three x-mens, Spider Man 1-3, Superman, Batman Begins, Lord of the Rings, Dodgeball, Disturbia, Pursuit of Happyness, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, A Prarie Home Companion and I can think of others (like the ones on a list like this (http://www.gazillionmovies.com/MPAA/PG-13.htm)Many PG-13 movies are junk of course, but so are many G, PG and PG-13.

And some people don't like movies with intense gore/graphic sex (in fact the only R movies that I enjoy are ones without these elements.


Um... lrn2math if that comes as a shock to you. While I sincerely doubt that they break down evenly in terms of movies produced, that's still 3/4ths of the possible ratings. Oh no, the larger set of movie ratings would contain more instances of good movies, save us all?


Sorry Rutee, I'm not sure if I got exactly what your saying here...

But if you are saying that there are more rated R movies made than PG-13.. or more PG made than PG-13.

I believe that what Rutee is saying is that G, PG and R movies make up about 3/4 of the movies made. And so therefore it seems likely that there will be more good movies among them because there are more movies rated either G, PG or R compared to those rated PG-13 (3 ratings compared to 1).

Edit: I guess I'm the last in a long string of people to post this stuff. That'll teach me to just skim the thread :smallfrown:
Edit2: Stupid HTML not working.

Turcano
2007-11-19, 11:12 PM
This one sounds interesting to me. Care to elaborate?

Typically, there's either not enough plot for an adequate adaptation or, in the case of RPGs, too much plot, which means that you are almost guaranteed to have to either stretch it out or cut stuff out, and the adaptation will most likely suffer for it. Direct control of the game (or the illusion thereof) is an essential element to gameplay that can't be translated to film in any way whatsoever. And finally, the actual plot is less important to a video game; it's often just a pretext for blowing/hacking stuff up. And then there's the whole issue of multiple player-induced plotlines and endings...

Moreover, any changes you make to the source material are certain to make the fanboys howl, so you you'll either keep said changes to a minimum because you're a film executive and have no spine, or completely revamp it in an apparent attempt to piss everyone off.

Daimbert
2007-11-20, 06:10 AM
Attitude is definitely important... and thats the problem I'm kinda talking about. The prevailing attitude is "lets dampen down mature" and "lets ramp up general audience"...

and for the record, Silent Hill was probably the best video game conversion done to date... was actually somewhat enjoyable.. in a dark, twisted way ;)

But did you mean to say AvP was a good flick?

The attitude I'M referring to is: "Let's play with the story and background and basic ideas of the game because it was only a game and so we need to introduce more issues and more maturity into the game." Oddly enough, I know, but mostly the problem is that writers want to change the story of the game and make it "good" when the reason it was made into a movie was because the game's story was so good.

See "Wing Commander" and "Street Fighter" for the prime examples of this.

This is why Silent Hill WAS so good; with minor changes, it pretty much followed the game exactly.

And yes, I DID mean to say AvP was a good flick. It was entertaining, didn't insult fans of the series, and didn't really violate any of the major conventions of the series. It was, at least, better than Alien 3 and probably better than the fourth movie (I refused to watch that one, so can't say for sure) which, while it wouldn't make it good, certainly makes it a step in the right direction [grin].