Posts Tagged ‘MPAA’

Short Take: Delightfully obscene

Director: Jorma Taccone (debut)

Screenwriters: Jorma Taccone (Saturday Night Live), Will Forte, John Solomon (Saturday Night Live)

Cast: Will Forte (Saturday Night Live), Kristen Wiig (Whip It), Ryan Phillippe (Breach), Val Kilmer (The Bad Lieutenant)

Length: 1h 39m

Synopsis: International terror financier Dieter Von Cunth (Kilmer) has just stolen a nuclear warhead and is looking to blow up Washington D.C. In his way stands a man known only as MacGruber (Forte), who faked his death ten years ago and is being reinstated by the U.S. military to intercept the warhead. His methods are perplexing, but he gets results. Highly decorated and highly unstable, MacGruber and his team try their best to thwart Cunth’s evil plan in any way they can – even if it means having to rip some throats out. Read the rest of this entry »

2009's "Watchmen" made only a few million more than its budget. Is its "R" rating partially to blame?

In an article for Variety.com columnist Tatiana Siegel reports how lately Hollywood has been growing more and more averse to having their films stamped with an “R” rating. The topic gets introduced with the upcoming Clash of the Titans remake, which if you’ve seen the trailer or any commercials you’ll understand is supposed to have its fair share of violence.

Basically, the rule of thumb has been growing more and more into the overall standard. The bigger the budget, the less likely a studio will accept an “R” rating. The logic is of course that PG-13 ratings draw the widest audiences, which means the highest possible returns. Small budget films receive more slack (such as selective horror projects), but studios even insist that they shoot for PG-13 if possible (ex., Prom Night (2008)).

Some requirements are easy to satisfy. For instance, to avoid an “R” rating a film can only show violence against monsters or limited violence against people. If there is blood it must be limited, and if not it must be a different color than red – typically black. And of course, foul language must be kept to a minimum (the F word can only be uttered once).

Studios are more weary of releasing “R” rated pics lately because they’re failing to bring in big returns. Two recent examples are Watchmen and The Wolfman. Both cost over $100 million to produce but failed to make back their budgets with domestic grosses (Wolfman only managed to make back $61 million domestically, and even its worldwide B.O. failed to make it break even).

Screenwriters have stopped writing scripts that are intended to be “R” rated because studios are refusing to pick them up. However there are people within the industry who are willing to be more cavalier with raunchy material. Director/Producer Todd Phillips (The Hangover) supposedly told writer Phil Hay regarding the topic, “Write [the script] the best it can be. And we’ll figure it out later.” – Variety

What is your opinion on the “R” and/or “PG-13″ ratings? As a moviegoer, do you care about what the rating is of the movie you want to see? Do ratings affect which movies you see? What if a film is rated “R” but proves satisfying and entertaining enough to justify its ticket price?

Tell us what you have to say!

Quick Opinion: The movies mentioned by Siegel (The Wolfman, Watchmen, Prom Night) may not be the best examples to list on this topic. Based on reviews and audience reactions, as well as talks with friends, both The Wolfman and Watchmen‘s lack of success is not due to their being “R” rated. People seem to agree that The Wolfman‘s plot was too generic and its characters too flat, and seemed undecided about whether it wanted to be new or nostalgic. Fans of the Watchmen comics conceded that there was too much story to pack into a single film, which made the screen adaptation feel overstuffed and lack concentration. The remake of Prom Night suffered from arguably too little violence, and might have actually made more money had it shared the same “R” rating as its original. Because of how popular the horror genre is with teenagers, though, business logic tells you that you don’t make a product for a particular audience and then make it inaccessible to them (remember the No Admittance Under 17 “rule”). However, sometimes I think that studios who make horror films fail to recognize that there are plenty of horror fans over the age of 17 as well (in fact most of them). All in all, I’m convinced that it’s not the “R” ratings on certain films that are the issue, but the overall poor quality of those films and their inability to satisfy their audiences.

Dan Glickman

Current CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Dan Glickman has announced that he will retire his position once his current contract expires at the end of 2010. The reason for this is reportedly so he can pursue other personal interests.

“The search for a successor is expected to be of intense interest in Los Angeles and Washington, as it is viewed as one of the prized lobbying posts for its prestige and perks.” – Variety

Harold Ford Jr., Disney lobbyist Richard Bates, Howard Berman, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have been mentioned as possible successors.

Source: Variety

Quick Opinion: Usually when an opportunity like this arises it’s as if it’s handled like an opening in the Supreme Court. Whomever will be the next CEO of the MPAA will likely be a democrat due to that party’s current holding of the majority in Congress. Washington likes to keep a close eye on Hollywood without directly interfering (which is the main function of the MPAA), so having a representative of the ruling party only makes sense in order to buy enough trust to let the MPAA run itself without constant oversight.