PG-13, for the love of God, make them stop!!!

[The_Driller_Killer]

Just saw the TV spots for the upcoming horror flick, Boogeyman. Thought it looked pretty cool until I saw that this new flick is following the herd. That's right, yet another new movie in our favorite genre has taken on the PG-13 rating. Why, why, why?? I hadn't realized until Scream what a copycat genre horror actually is. I mean, if one movie does something, they all do it. When is somebody going to stop them?? This means that for at least a few more years, if we decide to see these films in theaters, they'll be cut to shreds. I'm so sick of waiting for a DVD just to see a film uncut. But guess what? That's not always the case. Some movies are still tacked with the PG-13 rating after being released to video. It's completely ridiculous and must stop!!!

[Ratlehed]

Its funny on the Fog DVD commentary JC said he had to add a few kill scenes. The directors who do commentary on F-13 part 6 and JGTH said the same thing. I am sure other older films had the same thing happen. Way back when producers etc. actually wanted movies to be bloodier and more violent. The Darkness looked good but from what I hear after they made the cuts it doesnt make sense and the movie is ruined by it. The Boogeyman looks good but I wont see it until the R rated version comes out.
Hopefully the day will return when movies will be made with senseless violence and extra gore.

[Mr-Blonde]

You have pointed out what is indeed a disturbing trend in the genre. I refer to it as the watering down of horror movies. The reason for this is pretty obvious. The movie studious are marketing more and more to kids. It seems like this is their key demographic anymore.

I first started to realize this after watching AvP. That was a perfect example of a movie studio taking a beloved horror movie franchise(s) and cleaning them up just for the kiddie crowd. Not to mention the fact that the movie completely fucked up the series' continuity.

Back in the day, kids like me still watched horror movies but had to rent them or sneak into the horror movie theatre after buying a ticket for whatever Disney film was on the marquee. These films were made for an adult audience in mind and as a result were strikingly more graphic and disturbing. You just don't get the same power and impact out of these shitty PG-13 releases we get force-fed these days. Personally, I wish that more directors would make unrated movies and start shocking us again. This kiddie-horror trend blows big time! :mad:

[Tony_Montana]

Hollywood producers rarely care about making a good movie. Instead they care more about making $$$. And whats the biggest source of $$$? Teenagers.
Teens won't see a PG rated movie becuase it looks like something for the kids (unless it's something like Star Wars). They won't see an R rated movie either becuase they can't get in. Therefore, PG-13 is the moneymaker.
Which is why so many films these days have PG-13 ratings. Producers tone down the language, nudity and gore in favor of making money.
I've enjoyed many PG-13 movies before (Forrest Gump, Lord of the Rings, Dodgeball, the last Indiana Jones film) but whenever I see that an upcoming movie has a PG-13 rating, chances of it being crap increase by 30%.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Tony_Montana
Hollywood producers rarely care about making a good movie. Instead they care more about making $$$. And whats the biggest source of $$$? Teenagers.
Teens won't see a PG rated movie becuase it looks like something for the kids (unless it's something like Star Wars). They won't see an R rated movie either becuase they can't get in. Therefore, PG-13 is the moneymaker.
Which is why so many films these days have PG-13 ratings. Producers tone down the language, nudity and gore in favor of making money.


That pretty much sums up why certain movies in case horror flicks gets the PG-13 rating slapped on....

[C-Desecration-]

Its funny on the Fog DVD commentary JC said he had to add a few kill scenes. The directors who do commentary on F-13 part 6 and JGTH said the same thing. I am sure other older films had the same thing happen. Way back when producers etc. actually wanted movies to be bloodier and more violent


. . . to appeal to the fans.
There's not much point and all to argue this even more, but, this is something I hadn't thought of before.
Now that PG-13 is pretty much an official trend, movies will be written for it, not written to be R and snipped.
So either they add blood and gore to appeal to blood-n-gore loving teens/adults, or they take it all out to appeal to . . . the opposite. Neither is more "true" to the genre. As driller pointed out, horror genre is basically a bitch to itself (oh how dirty). But it is. One popular trend sweeps every single one of them. So they're always trying to cater, no matter if it's with blood, gore, or dry violence. So it just comes down to what you prefer. Not the genre being true itself or any of that hogwash (again, this is excluding those films that were trimmed and butchered, like apparently Darkness).

[IamNoOne666]

Now I don't have a problem with horror movies being pg-13, UNLESS of course it wasn't ment to be. Like if someone has a movie its gets an R rating and the studio makes them cut into a PG-13 then I'll have a problem.

[RogueSpear]

To be perfectly honest, I prefer the recent PG-13 horror movies that have come out to any R rated ones. I can't remember the last time I saw a decent R rated horror movie in theatres (I have yet to see Saw), whereas a large portion of the PG-13 ones I have seen have been very good. I'm getting to the point in my life now where gore and nudity don't really do it for me anymore. I prefer the more restrained PG-13 movies that have to rely more on atmosphere and story than the R rated ones that focus solely on gore.

[Tony_Montana]

Some PG-13 horror movies are OK (The Ring), but some could definetely use the R rating. See Alien vs. Predator and Darkness Falls.

I always think an R rating (that's a 15 or an 18 rating for fellow UK schmoes) is better for horror movies. For example, Alien didn't have a lot of gore besides the chestburster scene (there was a little more, but not alot), but the R rating left that possibility open. We didn't know which deaths would be offscreen and which resulted in tidal waves of blood.

Action and thriller movies are also guilty of this. i watched SWAT when it came out and a bunch of people got shot, someone's throat was even slit, but there was practically NO BLOOD. And nobody used profanity even in life-threatening situations.
I miss old action movies with brutal voilence, like Die Hard and Terminator, hell even PG rated stuff like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Thunderball are more graphic than this PG-13 shit.

[C-Desecration-]

I'm going to pretend Mystic River is a horror movie right now, so, like that, 8mm, Se7en, those sorts. Now whether or not you liked those movies, their content, premises, are adult. And no matter when they came out I'm almost positive they were going to be R. 8mm, that was butchered (darkness,? no: 8mm had 3 hours of footage they shot), but there were no complaints about that butchering, I don't 'think'. So it makes me think that most of the butchering complaints aren't for so the movie so much as "I like blood and gore, so show some for me", like AVP, so on and so on. Because most of the complaints aren't "They originally had this whole character subplot but they cut it!", it's just "they cut the screen when the dude died", which is not art, it's just you want to see blood and gore because you like it. Just like there are people who go "Gosh, I'm glad they cut away".
I know I'm putting words in people's mouths, which I of course love doing, but am I right? The only point of saying this is because I'm starting to think most of the schmoes complaining aren't doing it for any artistic reasons, the director's vision or any of that. They just want more red splashy. Which is fine. But if it's true, then the genre is in about as much danger as a giraffe drowning in a kiddie pool.

[The_Driller_Killer]

Originally posted by IamNoOne666
Now I don't have a problem with horror movies being pg-13, UNLESS of course it wasn't ment to be. Like if someone has a movie its gets an R rating and the studio makes them cut into a PG-13 then I'll have a problem.

That's basically what all filmmakers are doing nowadays, cutting their films to such extremes in order to get a PG-13. Basically no horror film being released nowadays (okay, maybe except for a very select few) is being shown as it was originally intended.

You know what's funny? Filmmakers used to strive for the R rating when doing a horror film. I remember hearing countless stories from directors saying how much had to be cut in order to avoid an X. Now, it seems, so much has to be cut in order to avoid an R. Blasphemy!

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by C-Desecration:

So it makes me think that most of the butchering complaints aren't for so the movie so much as "I like blood and gore, so show some for me", like AVP, so on and so on. Because most of the complaints aren't "They originally had this whole character subplot but they cut it!", it's just "they cut the screen when the dude died", which is not art, it's just you want to see blood and gore because you like it.

I take offense to that line of thinking. Who says that gore in horror movies cannot be considered art? What about the first couple of Hellraiser movies for instance? I thought that both movies, particulary Hellbound: Hellraiser II were particularly artistic gore movies. The same goes for any of the effects that guys like Tom Savini and Rick Baker have done over the years. These gorehounds are incredibly talented, artistic, and innovative and they have pulled off some of the most realistic FX to grace the screen. What's unartistic about their contributions to their respective films? Do you think that they could ever get something as provacative as demons from hell coming to rip your skin off in a PG-13 movie? Or do you think that Romero's Dead movies would've somehow been just as good if they quickly cut away every time a zombie would eat someone? I am not advocating gore for gore's sake, but I think that is absolutley essential to some movies for not only shock (which is key to a good horror movie IMO) but to also to advance the plot.

[C-Desecration-]

Gore can be artistic, you're right, and I was just about to go on about how most of the, the artistic gore, isn't going to be found in things like AVP and Darkness, that'll be CGI gore and I'll bet you know it, until I saw . . .

The same goes for any of the effects that guys like Tom Savini and Rick Baker have done over the years. These gorehounds are incredibly talented, artistic, and innovative and they have pulled off some of the most realistic FX to grace the screen.

And I realized, cutting gore, and I don't mean a CGI effect, but, say, in the Dead film, for Savini would be the equivalent of cutting Sean Penn's "Is that my daughter in there!" scene from mystic river. Both are artists doing artistic work. So then there's the whole studios don't respect those effects, don't respect those artists, and they need to start doing so, etc etc . . .
So that means you win this round, blonde.

. . . but next time?
It's personal.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by C-Desecration:

So that means you win this round, blonde.

. . . but next time?
It's personal.

Glad to hear you see things my way!

Welcome to the Dark Side! Mwu-hahahahaha! ;)

[Tony_Montana]

C-Desecration -- Actually I do have a problem when there's a subplot that was cut out, perhaps even more so than voilence being cut. That's why I always try to seek out the version of the film that was closer to what the director intended (the only exeption being "Last of the Mohicans", but that's a different story).

IMO the degree of voilence, sex, etc. = type of movie it is, no more, no less.
For example, in Bambi the mother was shot offscreen (I don't think we even saw the body). But we see the hunter shoot her in the face at point-blank range with a shotgun, blowing part of her head off, that wouldn't seem right.
But in AvP, a film about the TWO MOST FUCKING VICIOUS CREATURES IN THE GALAXY, the most we get is some blood splattering onto snow from an offscreen killing. That was fucking wrong!

[TheAxeGrinder]

While the mind may be a better scare tactic than the eyes, doing cutaways and dry bullet hits is NOT how a horror movie should be, specifically if the film calls for it. So let's see, in AVP, no human head munching, no spine ripping by the pred, just goo from aliens. BOOOORRING! Horror movies aren't just about scares, they're about the gore which results in scares. Plus it's a cathartic thing in some ways to see a guy's head explode, knowing it's not real and that in some instances it's funny (read: the original Dawn Of The Dead). You want a fluffy PG-13 horror film that appeals to the FCC and MPAA (aka The Demon Spawn)? Make your own damn movie. Keep my hor-ruh with the gor-ruh, and quit pussyfooting around telling fans what they can and can't watch. Fuck Janet Jackson and fuck her boob that started this mess.

[slasherfan]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
Fuck Janet Jackson and fuck her boob that started this mess.

Janet Jacksons boob started this mother fucking PG-13 trand! How??

[dellamorte dellamore]

Bring back Fulci , Bava , Fragasso , Lenzi , Argento , i want visceral horror again , i dont want to see something that can be broadcast on the Disney channel at 10 in the morning .

I want to see the brutality , the blood flowing , the dismemberments , the flesh tearing . I don't want any more quick cut , heart attack deaths anymore , i want to see what happens to these people , i want to see how horrific their experience with some " evil " creature / entity really is . I dont want to see a shocked look on someone's face and then cut to the next scene , show me the goods babes , dont be shy . Fuck the MPAA and their little clique , freak the kiddie crowd all hopped up on sugar and red bull , freak the uptight older crowd , give us some horror again in all it's violent glory , bring back unapologetic horror from the late 70's early 80's . I want to see something raw , unsettling , i want to get the urge to hide my eyes again , i want to feel the violent visceral impact of gore done right . I want to see people in hopeless situations with no chance of escape , i want to see a high body count , i want to see women running around naked for no reason , i want to see unsympathetic characters , i want 2 dimensional rejects who only exist to get ravaged , i want horror .



Thank god there have been some recent films that have contained many of these elements , so its not a total loss , Haute Tension is terrific ( and Dawn 04 and Shaun are two other examples of throwback films ) , but i want to see the bold , exploitative , fuck everyone's sensabilities horror when it hit it's high note in the golden age .


Now that i think about it , Haute Tension will go along way towards making that dream a reality . It's going to be released in its uncut form , so depending on it's success level , we just may see a return to those type of horror films , i'm hoping . It will be like the early 80's all over again , i'll feel like im a teenager again getting shocked and mesmerized by the likes of Dawn , Day , Evil Dead , City of the Living Dead , and those other gorefests . Not too mention all the cheap Italian horror i consumed once i got a VCR ( Demons 1 and 2 , oh boy they are still amazing and Pieces is a z buget crapfest masterpiece ) , and all the cheap American horror like Driller Killer and Maniac .

[C-Desecration-]

Well, there is an upcoming flick that's NC-17, and supposed to be good, that'll definitely make you want to twitch those eyes away. What's interesting there is, I can't remember the last NC-17 horror movie to be released in theaters (I'm just a pup, but still), and horror fans are generally a loyal bunch, and is that movie does well . . . who knows.
Like driller said, horror movies, whenever one is popular all the others copy it until some new fad comes. The current fad is dry. It won't take much to turn it back to wet.
That's why it's a bummer that Constantine is PG-13. That movie looks so interesting, and is getting so much buzz, that if it's any good it could've done great business even if it was R. Could've started a new trend.

But even with the studios not really respecting gore makeup, or whatever they call it, effects, I'm fine with the low blood level. So I'm not complaining.

[TheDeadWalk]

I have my own filtering system.

Alien Vs. Predator pisses me off being PG-13, while I can understand why White Noise is probably PG-13, and I'll still go see it.

The dialogue and storylines just usually seem like their typed up for the seventh grade reader, except for the part where they want to sound scientific and talk about what planet this being comes from, or how the T-Virus is created. The cinematography talents used are too quick and shaky, as if the target audience is for a crowd full of youngsters with ADHD who can't sit still long enough for the film, so the camera must wobble a few times every minute or so to get their attention.

I like the horror films that are more open and welcome to the adult audience. They appeal to me more.

[The_Driller_Killer]

Good call about the upcoming NC-17 flick, Desecration. I believe it's called Murder-Set-Pieces and judging by the trailer, it's going to blow the lid off all current horror trends. It is, in fact, the first horror film rated NC-17 to be released to theaters.

Oh, and I just saw the previews for Alone in the Dark and it does appear to be rated R, so there's still some hope left.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Dont get me wrong , i do like pg 13 horror , but i still want more of a balance , i want that unleashed , unhinged physical horror film to make a little comeback , the cut for content ones are dominating way too much as of late . I think all three dead films were released unrated , i could be wrong , but im almost positive they were , so an NC 17 film or unrated isnt something new , its just rarer than spottings of the Loch Ness monster . Not only MSP will get released in NC 17 form , but Haute Tension . I'm not saying just because the film is a certain rating automatically means its good or bad , there are still other factors involved , but Haute gets everything right , so im hoping it does well .


Still holding out hope that if a film such as that , with that rating can make a nice little profit , then the upcoming Land can be released unrated or NC 17 in at least select theaters . I would go out of my way to see something like that , im indifferent about catching the R cut version then watching the uncut on DVD , let me see the damn thing the way it was intended the first time . I know , i've said this countless times , just hope one of the studio execs reads it and takes heed :) . Land of the Dead in its unrated form would seel out easily , it would be a raucous experience . I still remember how unreal seeing Dawn and Day were in the theater , peep couldnt get enough of it , it was way bonkers .

[C-Desecration-]

I can't remember exactly, but wasn't there this, I mean didn't Day get quite a bit of money, even unrated? I remember on the DVD they said that tapered off and all, yadda yadda, but the opening was pretty big. Got all it's budget back on the opening weekend, I believe.
They could still get away with that, it has enough of a following. Of course an unrated Land would be released in selected cities like you said, but still. It's progress.

ANd just as another chance to plug murder set pieces (boy will all be for not if it turns out to really suck):

(snippets from filmthreat review)

"
“Murder-Set-Pieces” is so much more violent and so much better than anything I’ve seen before in the genre. I cannot stress enough how shocking and unsettling “Murder-Set-Pieces” is, and how terribly moved I was, in a terrible way."

". . .that’s why “Murder-Set-Pieces” is about to blow everyone’s minds. It’s incredibly good. It’s well made. It’s directed impeccably, and it’s definitely, no holds barred, the most brutal and graphic film I’ve ever seen (that includes porn and all horror films. I know I’m a girl, but that still means something)."

All right, I'm done.



EDIT:
One more bit on MSP to add (arrow's):
If extreme gore and jugs alone are all you need in a "dramatic" horror movie (I'm not talking Bad Taste types of efforts here), you'll love this film. To me Murder Set Pieces was a soulless, tediously redundant, un- scary, pitifully attention-seeking and choppily written affair that only had one card to play and that was the “shock” card. Too bad that isn’t worth dick to me within a "character study" unless there’s a solid base backing the goodies up. Granted the affair was well shot, the gore kicked serious butt in its realism and Jade Vesser rocked; hopefully those talents will one day be applied on a better project as opposed to this “Look at me, look at me, 911 footage, look at me!" opus.


Hmm. Those reviews are completely opposite, but one's from a genre site (who are usually easier on genre fair) and the other is from a mainstream, reviews-every-genre site (which are usually tougher on horror flicks).
So confused.

[pyscho dude]

Also Dawn was released unrated and managed to rank in more than 50mil so an unrated horror movie is capable of making good money. Personally I've yet to see a PG-13 or PG horror movie that I actually liked.

[bob]

If a horror film is good, it does not need gore to succeed.

Films shot for "R" and then cut to "PG-13" are going to be a mess, true.

But a horror film that is shot for "PG-13" cannot necessarily be judged by how much blood it has.

Horror has nothing to do with violence in definition.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Check out that link , sheds some light on its perf . It had a great per screen average , and it only played in select theaters , imagine if it was in even 500 - 600 theaters . I feel lucky now that it played in a theater near me . It doesnt say anything about its international box office , but i would guess , it was no doubt a profitable film for the studio .



http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dayofthedead.htm

[ANTBond007]

Which Dawn? Romero's didn't pull in $50 million worldwide, and Universal's was released as an R-rated film.

PG-13 isn't bad as long as it doesn't hamper the film. The Ring was fine with the rating, as it was never intended to be a "gross-out-the-audience" kind of film. But Darkness Falls was butchered by Sony to obtain the rating tag. So there's a difference.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by ANTBond007:

PG-13 isn't bad as long as it doesn't hamper the film. The Ring was fine with the rating, as it was never intended to be a "gross-out-the-audience" kind of film. But Darkness Falls was butchered by Sony to obtain the rating tag. So there's a difference.


But wouldn't you admit that horror movies used to be written almost exclusively as R-rated affairs? Wheras now thanks to greedy studio execs trying to snatch the kiddie crowd that more and more are being written to market to this demographic? I for one am fucking sick of it! :mad: I'm not saying that gore is essential to a great horror movie, just more often than not that great horror movies have ample amounts of gore or disturbing adult content. So far I haven't seen anything of what I'd consider great in PG-13 horror.

[pyscho dude]

Romero's Dawn did pull in 50mil worldwide. Check your resources.