What's wrong with movies

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's wrong with movies

    Check out this link about the licensing people all worried about how in 2008 there aren't enough movies that have merchandising potential the way 2007 did with Pirates, Shrek, etc.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...b76c460818205a

    The worst part was this paragraph: they said Dark Knight and Speed Racer had the best chances but "But with the "Batman" sequel being described as a bit dark, there was concern it could limit sales among younger children who may not see the film."

    That's the deal! They're making these movies and they make them PG13 or whatever (instead of R so they can get SOME kids into it) and then they MARKET their crap at these little kids. And the little kids, of course, want the toys. So then people are faced with two choices: take a 5 year old to a movie that any person who wrote the show would agree it's not intended for them, OR make them miss out on it and be the only kid who hasn't seen the movie. And doesn't get the toy. Because, really, does Terry Rossio expect to see a 3 or 4 year old sitting in front of a huge screen watching a little boy get hanged in the first five minutes of Pirates 3? No. Totally not. He's thinking an 8 year old. Definitely 13. But the marketing people are marketing those toys and the little kids want them. Ugh.

    Sometimes you can dodge it by buying the kids book or by taking the original source material (those Spiderman 1968 cool DVDs) and showing those. But the long and the short of it is they're accepting their rating from MPAA but their marketing people are totally ignoring it because it's about making money at all costs. Which I can see, it's a business. But jeez, make a 30 minute cartoon thing to stick on TV then if you want kids to buy the junk and eat the cereal and be excited for the Happy Meal.

    Argh. And I'm not picking on pirates. I loved Pirates. But these marketing people are just kind of sleazirific. I hope the Dark Knight doesn't get watered down just so they can sell more toys.
    Last edited by cvolante; 06-19-2007, 05:34 AM.

  • #2
    Re: What's wrong with movies

    Dark Knight will be PG-13. The first one (Batman Begins) and it was a great film.

    This sounds odd coming from me... One who started a thread on how "Live Free, or Die Hard" is PG-13, and is going to SUCK... But there is a big difference between these two franchises. Let me explain.

    Batman has always been "for kids".

    It's about a guy who dresses up in a giant bat suit and fights guys with green hair, and clown makeup for Pete's sake. I'm fine with a PG-13 rating as long as the MOOD and ATMOSPHERE of "Batman Begins" is in tact.

    The difference is when an R rated franchise (like Die Hard; Aliens; Predator) originally intended for adults (people over 17-years old in the U.S.) is purposefully toned down (violence; language; gore) to appeal to pre-teens and others who have no business seeing these kinds of films in the first place. Also, most of the pre-teens being targeted don't even know (or care) about the original films and characters of these franchises. Most of the pre-teens weren't even alive when the original Alien or Die Hard SEQUELS were released!

    I have more of a problem with the latter (younger audiences) because when you sanitize inherently violent content by taking out the blood and gore it does more to desensitize young audiences than "protect" them.

    For example, movies like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" have people being shot all over the place. However, a PG-13 demands you don't SEE any entry or exit wounds (or pools of blood). You don't even see people writhing around on the ground in pain as they would in real life. This is why I have a huge problem with these "family / kid friendly" PG-13 action movies. They are a false portrayal of gun violence... Even for an escapist action movie!

    Gun violence is not bloodless or "sexy". I don't mean to sound like some prude (I'm a pretty liberal person), but these PG-13 portrayals are insulting to adult audiences (people over 12) and glamorize violence in ways that is not healthy for young viewers. No one in the entertainment biz wants to admit this, but there is evidence that exists kids ARE effected by what they watch, regardless if a parent is present or not.

    I can back this up with a personal anecdote.

    A friend of mine had a five year old son. She just plopped him down in front of the TV and let him watch whatever he wanted. This included R-Rated movies like "Rambo" and "Die Hard".

    Well, the kid kept getting into a lot of trouble at school. Trouble for fighting and attacking other kids. My friend was shocked as to why this was happening, but I think everyone reading knows exactly why: Her son was being exposed to violent images where people solve disagreements by being violent. So, he was imitating what he was watching in real life.

    Granted, she should have been a more responsible parent and explained the difference between fantasy and reality... But the fact remains portrayals of violence can and DO effect younger audiences whether this industry wants to admit it or not.

    This ties directly in with what you are upset about:

    Marketers don't care about whether something is appropriate for younger audiences (or not) and will do whatever it takes to sell to them. Studios are all too willing to accommodate them at the same time. This leads to movies that aren't very good and or artistically limited due to having to be "family friendly" like "Live Free, or Die Hard", or "Aliens vs. Predator" that are both PG-13 and toned down.

    More importantly, however, is these bloodless portrayals of violence are having on young impressionable minds in our society as a whole. With fewer and fewer parents actually in the home to explain the difference between fantasy and reality (and the consequences of real life violence) you get kids being wheeled into the emergency rooms saying they didn't know it hurt when they shot someone. This is the most frightening aspect of all that no one wants to admit to because it would mean actual responsibility and less profits more or less.
    Positive outcomes. Only.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What's wrong with movies

      Originally posted by crustygibblet
      That's the funniest thing you ever said, WB.

      I don't need to see exit wounds to enjoy a movie and I thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while pretty weak because of Pitt, was still a very enjoyable popcorn flick.
      That's funny... Because you totally missed the entire point I was trying to make I guess.

      My point is that movies should treat gun violence and other depictions of violence as realistically as possible. Even the action movies of the 70s, 80s and 90s were more realistic in their portrayal of the brutality and gore that firearms can wreak on a person. How's that for irony? They were over-the-top in one sense, but more realistic in another.

      The fact is the PG-13 rating sanitizes violence for mass consumption to be "family friendly". As stated, this does MORE to harm young minds than protect them because it gives them a false sense of reality. It doesn't matter if you, or I can tell the difference. We're not talking about us. I'm talking about kids who show up in ERs with gunshot wounds and are amazed they are in pain. These are true stories. Call them "idiots" and victims of "their own stupidity" and "bad parenting" if you want...

      But the fact is mainstream Hollywood does have a responsibility in my personal opinion to portray violence honestly. That's the whole irony of the this issue. They are trying to protect (young) people from the realities of the brutality of gun violence, but at the same time are doing the exact oppostie by presenting a false representation and reality as a result. Talk about a Catch-22.

      I know this view point may seem very odd for an aspiring screenwriter like myself. I don't believe in censorship, nor in restricting artistic freedom.
      But I am also adult enough to realize the current climate of PG-13 films is doing more harm than good (IMO) and I will state that fact. This industry needs to be more responsible IMO. Especially when the target audience IS impressionalbe and raising themselves more than any other previous generation has had to because Mom and Dad are absent (both working) trying to make ends meat.
      Positive outcomes. Only.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What's wrong with movies

        That's the funniest thing you ever said, WB.

        I don't need to see exit wounds to enjoy a movie and I thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while pretty weak because of Pitt, was still a very enjoyable popcorn flick.
        This is what you garnered from reading what he posted about the sanitation of violence for the protection of children? I suggest you read it again.
        Frosties are just Cornflakes for people who can't face reality.

        Comment

        Working...
        X