|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 03/26/07 05:17
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:52:10 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> At 8:42am -0400, 03/25/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:56:50 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>At 10:29pm -0400, 03/24/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>
>>>MPAA is the gatekeeper in this instance.
>
>>The MPAA did not restrict the exhibition of this film in any way. What
>>"gate" did the MPAA "keep" in this instance?
>
> R rated movies are not as widely exhibited. You'll argue 50 more rounds that
> it isn't true, but that's your problem.
Well, it really is your problem, because it isn't true. R rated movies
aren't *typically* as widely distributed maybe, but there are plenty of
examples of R rated films getting wide distribution and raking in
blockbuster box-office. The R-rating itself does not pose any
restrictions on distribution.
> btw, the R in the rating stands for "Restricted".
The highest grossing R rated picture has grossed more than the highest
grossing G rated picture, despite the latter having no age restrictions.
So an R rating does not preclude a picture from being profitable or highly
successful.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/
> Movies have to be rated to get into NATO theaters and others that enforce
> ratings, nearly every screen in the United States except exhibitions at
> festivals and colleges and what few art houses remain.
ARe you sure about that? Can you quote anywhere that says a film *has* to
be rated to screen at a theater that's part of NATO? NATO theaters will
enforce the MPAA rating if a film has one, sure, but I can't find anywhere
that says NATO requires all films exhibited to be rated.
When I lived in Madison, WI there was a local "art house" theater that was
actually part of Marcus Theaters, undoubtedly part of NATO, yet it screened
films like Happiness.
> To get onto even more screens, movies can't be rated R.
I'm not sure where you get this "R rated movies can't get as many screens"
logic. The Matrix Reloaded opened in 3,603 theaters. Finding Nemo opened
in 3,425 theaters.
This conversation has drifted off into massive tangents about the ratings
system as a whole. However, it *started* with a rather innocuous statement
that I feel is still true. That the editing of Casino Royale from an R to
a PG-13 for a US audience was a voluntary measure on the part of the
studio.
Let's look at it this way:
-Even if *all* film exhibitors were required *by law* to enforce the
ratings and were forbidden *by law* from showing unrated films...
-And even if the film ratings themselves were manditory for *all* films.
-The decision to edit Casino Royale would still be a voluntary measure,
since in its original R rating it still could've been distributed to as
many theaters as it was. Likewise, the more restricted rating wouldn't
preclude it from being popular or profitable, even more popular than a G
rated film.
However, the filmmakers decided that, even though an R rating didn't
restrict their distribution of the film in any way, they'd prefer a rating
that had a larger potential audience, and thus *voluntarily* made edits to
the film.
If you can provide an resonable argument for why this *specific* instance
of editing does not count as voluntary on the part of the studio, feel free
to respond to this post. If you want to rant and rail about the MPAA
rating system in general, please move on to my other post.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|