Well, I hate to dissagree with you since you seem to be trying to agree with me, but thats the exact opposite of the truth. Nowadays, most movies released try to get lower than rated R. Rated R movies make LESS money because their audience pool is much smaller. Especially when you consider the biggest portion of the movie going audience is under 18. Check up on the highest grossing movies of all time, not many rated R movies on there I bet. Movie studios often edit movies to get them down to PG 13. Theyve started doing this even more now that movie theaters are being forced to really crack down on kids getting into rated R movies(THANKS LIEBERMAN AND TIPPER....what the hell kind of name is Tipper anyway?). Ive never heard of one making a movie more violent so it gets an R rating. This kind of stuff sucks too cause it often ruins what could have been good, or atleast entertaining movies. Although im not saying this was a good movie to begin with, a recent example of this would be Roller Ball. which was originally rated R, but then had a whole bunch of stuff taken out to make it PG 13....and unwatchable....I know there a bunch more but I cant think of any.jonmartensen wrote:
One also has to keep in mind that many movies add just a little extra profanity or violence in order to get the R rating. As far as earnings go, having an R rating will make this movie more money than if it was PG-13.
And for that guy who mentioned Jurrasic Park, have you watched that movie recently? I mean, I know when I was a kid I thought it was some pretty hardcore shit, but when I recently rewatched it, I realized that it actually was pretty tame. The scenes with people gettting eaten where hardly graphic. Has for titanic, nudity is treated more liberally that violence(youll notice in Titanic the gun shot rule still in effect, like when that guy killed himself, right before he pulled the trigger the camera switch to a really wide angle shot) It all depends on the context and how important it is to the movie, and what kind of movie it is.