Prometheus Forum
We are the Gods now
Ridley seems to be in denial regarding the film rating
  • deadinspacedeadinspace  
    Colonist

    Sorry folks but art has collided with business in a very big way and that's all there is to it. I'm fairly sure that I don't have to outline the current financial situation facing businesses in the so-called "West" to anybody here, it's pretty obvious that times are hard and nobody can afford to lose on a new venture.

    For the sake of argument, "your" R rated version hits the cinemas in June. Financially, it doesn't do so well and Scott is unable to justify to anybody the expense of expanding his vision through a second film. Happy now? Ok, let's rewind. Prometheus is released as a PG-13, and in the UK a very likely 15. It makes money, a second movie is greenlit and by Christmas you get your DC on BR and DVD which you can then watch any time you like whilst looking forward to the questions it raises being resolved in a couple of years time. Happier?




    Sorry, man, but I gotta disagree.

    The movie already has a franchise to build the marketing on. It already has two hemispheres that it will play well in (Europe and North America). And it has star power. In other words, it already has the support system to support a box office performance, which makes your hypothetical about the R rating not very likely.

    That's why to me, the obsession with getting the PG 13 rating isn't about covering their expenses; it's about milking the cow.

  • kjohnson26kjohnson26  (3 like this)
    Colonist

    Sorry folks but art has collided with business in a very big way and that's all there is to it. I'm fairly sure that I don't have to outline the current financial situation facing businesses in the so-called "West" to anybody here, it's pretty obvious that times are hard and nobody can afford to lose on a new venture.

    For the sake of argument, "your" R rated version hits the cinemas in June. Financially, it doesn't do so well and Scott is unable to justify to anybody the expense of expanding his vision through a second film. Happy now? Ok, let's rewind. Prometheus is released as a PG-13, and in the UK a very likely 15. It makes money, a second movie is greenlit and by Christmas you get your DC on BR and DVD which you can then watch any time you like whilst looking forward to the questions it raises being resolved in a couple of years time. Happier?




    Sorry, man, but I gotta disagree.

    The movie already has a franchise to build the marketing on. It already has two hemispheres that it will play well in (Europe and North America). And it has star power. In other words, it already has the support system to support a box office performance, which makes your hypothetical about the R rating not very likely.

    That's why to me, the obsession with getting the PG 13 rating isn't about covering their expenses; it's about milking the cow.



    Gotta milk the cow if you want milk and butter and cheese. (I mean cheese in a good way, not bad.)
  • deadinspacedeadinspace  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    tifosi77 said:

    Look at the list of the highest grossing films of all time (worldwide boxoffice).


    Avatar (PG-13)
    Titanic (PG-13)
    Transformers: Dark of the Moon (PG-13)
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt 2 (PG-13)
    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (PG-13)
    Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (PG-13)
    Toy Story 3 (G)
    Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (PG-13)
    Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (PG)
    Alice in Wonderland (PG)

    The highest ranking R-rated film is The Matrix Reloaded, down in the 40s.

    "Prometheus" does not need to make it on to that list in order to be a successful film.  It doesn't even have to earn back its production costs to all but ensure a sequel.  There has to be another reason for the PG-13 mania.

    My feeling is that Ridley Scott fancies himself a better film maker than any of the directors on that list, and I would say he's got a strong argument.  But huge commercial success on the scale of a Michael Bay (horrible troll person that he is) or Peter Jackson or George Lucas is about the only thing missing from his CV.  I really think he wants to see his name on that list, and "Prometheus" is his best avenue to achieve that goal. (I don't think that's his motive for making the movie, btw.  Just that it is shaping his opinion as to how the movie should be presented to its audience.)



    Not sure where you got your numbers. Alien made $111M worldwide; Aliens made $185M worldwide. And that's from days when the cost of a ticket was three times less than what it now costs.

    If any relevant argument can be made, it's that box office attendence has dwindled thanks to competing media platforms such as games and the internet, etc. But ticket sales have increased, so while studios continue to act paranoid about their investments, it's almost always baseless when it comes to still seeing a profit.

    Actually it isn't baseless. They use their paranoia as a cover up to hide the fact that enough to them is never enough.

    But you may have touched on something very true about Ridley's legacy. It's very possible that he wants a cameronesque achievement.

    But Cameron directed an R rated Aliens sequel, didn't he. The sequel appealed to a wider audience because it was more frenetic whereas Alien was a slow burn. That it the slightly inferior sequel had more appeal to audiences when it hit theaters probably galled him I bet.

  • roguedesignerroguedesigner  (2 like this)
    Colonist
    Deadinspace, your argument is watertight but that isn't big business these days. Commercially speaking we live in a hostile environment and playing it safe is the word. 

    The point is not whether you approve or if the studio is justified in their actions. The point is that they can, and will, behave in whatever way they feel maximises profits. Fox does not exist to make movies. Fox exists to make profits for its stakeholders. If making movies stopped allowing them to do that tomorrow, they would go off and make washing machines or something. Ok, not literally but you get the idea. 

    People just need to deal with it and move on. Life has worse to offer you than a PG-13 rating. Which hasn't been confirmed or denied yet anyway.
  • NickIsSmartNickIsSmart  (3 like this)
    Flaming_Telepath
    If Ridley wanted to play it safe, he'd make movies like Avatar like James Cameron. Kudos to him for trying to make something slightly more original - a paradox with nothing new under the sun, but at least he tries.
    "It's all in the reflexes."
  • xinauxinau  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    To me it seems a bit as if Ridley wanted to have his cake & eat it too -- I think he wanted to make and release the film he wanted (one that was "kinda R"), but for the MPAA to give it a PG-13, based on what he perceived were pretty lax or inconsistent standards recently.

    It seems they're not playing ball, and now he's whining about it.

    There's probably a defining scene or two in the film that he really, really wants to keep (Noomi's equivalent "chestburster") but that the MPAA thinks is R material.  Irresistible force, meet immovable object.
     
    That's my theory anyway :)

    "If Lindelof's script sucks I will wage my own personal jihad on the man and not rest until the streets are flowing with the blood of him and his children." -- ViGiLaNzA on IMDB
  • deadinspacedeadinspace  
    Colonist

    Deadinspace, your argument is watertight but that isn't big business these days. Commercially speaking we live in a hostile environment and playing it safe is the word. 

    The point is not whether you approve or if the studio is justified in their actions. The point is that they can, and will, behave in whatever way they feel maximises profits. Fox does not exist to make movies. Fox exists to make profits for its stakeholders. If making movies stopped allowing them to do that tomorrow, they would go off and make washing machines or something. Ok, not literally but you get the idea. 

    People just need to deal with it and move on. Life has worse to offer you than a PG-13 rating. Which hasn't been confirmed or denied yet anyway.



    What you're saying about big business and WHY they're in business is obvious and I think we're all pretty aware of this fact...but again, I keep coming back to the same thing--Alien made $111 worldwide with an R rating. And for as bad as you think the economy is now, the 70s were every bit as bad economically if not worse. 

    Back then it was inflation, now it's debt, but it's the same fix the average moviegoer is in, and Alien still launched the franchise, which, as Ridely Scott has pointed out, now resides in Disney world.

    Yeah, life offers a lot worse, but isn't this kind of saboteur greed a microcosm of why a lot worse exists?

    I'm just sayin.

     

  • ummesterummester  (2 like this)
    AssFlower
    When an irresitable force meets an imovable object:

    explosion!

    or the 2 things can't exist in the same universe.

    Anyways, I agree with what you have written xinau, there are scenes in this film that are conceptually too much for a US PG.

    I take my boys to see PG films, like Avatar and Transformers, they are 10 & 12. Those films never even get close to concepts like: Is God real? Self administered c-sections. Destroy yourself or let your species be destroyed. worms in eyes. Scary dark corridors for half the film and so on.
    Suck fuddlety!
  • ummesterummester  
    AssFlower
    You know what I don't get - how a section of scociety that doesn't even earn income for the most part (12-15 YOs) can have such an effect on box office results. Guess I should stop taking my kids to the flicks - make a stand, calim the cinemas back for the wage earners!
    Suck fuddlety!
  • Dancing_FrogDancing_Frog  
    Colonist
    Well, nuts....(If it's true)

    I thought I was going to spend the whole movie looking at the screen through my fingers. I guess I can just relax and enjoy the beautiful scenery.

    I guess we know who the "real" evil corporation is. I was seriously hoping art would win out over commerce this time. Never underestimate the power of the almighty dollar.
    Rocket Scientist
  • Dancing_FrogDancing_Frog  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    ummester said:

    You know what I don't get - how a section of scociety that doesn't even earn income for the most part (12-15 YOs) can have such an effect on box office results. Guess I should stop taking my kids to the flicks - make a stand, calim the cinemas back for the wage earners!



    Wage earners usually don't have the time to see it five times in a row.
    Rocket Scientist
  • Bakes03Bakes03  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    They should just allow both cuts into theaters. Your choice. Everybody wins.
  • xenosapienxenosapien  
    Colonist
    I maybe the only guy in this forum who is happy to see a PG 13. Its a challenge to scott , scare me , make me think , ask the big question without the gore
  • TerraformerTerraformer  (1 like this)
    Biggus_Diccus
    if they do water down the film then it will probably just blood they'll edit out. i mean the hunger games was originally going to be rated 15 over here and NC-17 in america i think but to make it a pg-13 they cut out 13 seconds of footage and edited out 80% of blood and when violence or action was appearing on screen the footage was edited to be shaky. There were moments i laughed out loud when someone got slashed by a sword and there was no blood or even a slash mark and the sword never had any blood on it. to me violence and everything the director puts into a final cut is important.

    sure we'll get the uncut version on dvd BUT i want to see the true uncut version in cinema. watching it on my TV is nothing compared to a cinema/IMAX screen. so to me its important that not one second gets cut or edited. Im sure davinci fans would be upset like us alien fanboys if the museum in Paris began scrubbing out certain colors to the mona lisa = hope that makes sense

    As stated by the cast and crew Prometheus is a hard scifi/horror film that is a slow burner of a thriller. It's dealing with morales,the origin of man, gods and engineers. There will probably be little action in the film so a young teenage audience would HATE this film. they want epic explosions, Call of duty shootouts, transformer style action scenes, slow motion back flips and martial arts and cheesy cliched one liners = this film will have none of that. Trust me if it is a PG-13 these kids will go and see it in their millions but will HATE the film and will NOT see the sequel.

    It's an adults movie - simple as that
    Any views, opinions or comments by Terraformer are not those of Prometheusforum.net and purely for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously and not to be read by anyone.
  • ummesterummester  
    AssFlower

    Do adults movies get sequels now though terra? That is the question Fox and Ridley seem to be asking. In this day and age, can an adults film become a franchise?

    They want Prometheus to be a HP, LOTRs, Twilight, Batman, Ironman/Thor/Avengers type thing - which is probably the wrong thing to want it to be from the start.

    Suck fuddlety!
  • TerraformerTerraformer  
    Biggus_Diccus
    ummester said:

    Do adults movies get sequels now though terra? That is the question Fox and Ridley seem to be asking. In this day and age, can an adults film become a franchise?

    They want Prometheus to be a HP, LOTRs, Twilight, Batman, Ironman/Thor/Avengers type thing - which is probably the wrong thing to want it to be from the start.



    I hope it doesnt get a sequel unless it really needs one to finish off the story. turning this into a franchise may be the wrong direction. but since this film is bringing back a dormant interest in the alien franchise maybe they can make a sequel to the alien franchise and give it a closure. 6 films are enough for the series
    Any views, opinions or comments by Terraformer are not those of Prometheusforum.net and purely for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously and not to be read by anyone.
  • ummesterummester  
    AssFlower
    I think it would be better a a stand alone also - but they want a sequel and we aren't the ones making it.
    Suck fuddlety!
  • edou777edou777  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    I maybe the only guy in this forum who is happy to see a PG 13. Its a challenge to scott , scare me , make me think , ask the big question without the gore


    "scare me". If its really scary, it will be a R rating, with or without gore. An Alien sequel with a PG-13 is a non-sense.

    Scott shows us that is not a director anymore, but a business man
  • VodiVodi  (3 like this)
    Predator
    "scare me". If its really scary, it will be a R rating, with or without gore. An Alien sequel with a PG-13 is a non-sense.

    Scott shows us that is not a director anymore, but a business man


    All big budget directors have to be business men to a certain degree to work with the huge amounts of cash, crew and to guarantee profit for the investors.

    To say otherwise would be denying the reality of Hollywood movies.

    All Hollywood directors are business men, but some happen to make amazing films.

    Ridley Scott is one of these people.
    Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
  • deadinspacedeadinspace  
    Colonist

     

    I wonder if we're selling kids short though. The tendency throughout all of time is to think it's just this generation of kids. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is, I was about eight or nine when I saw the first one and loved it, and I was 11 years old when my dad took me to see Aliens and I loved it.

    My point here is, an R rating just means no children without the supervision of a parent or guardian, so it's not exactly a hard cap restriction.

    But I agree, they should release both cuts and let them compete despite what someone said about the MPAA not usually allowing that. And if the R rated version made more, that would certainly disprove what the execs have been thinking. And if not, everybody still wins.

     

     

  • TerraformerTerraformer  
    Biggus_Diccus

     

    I wonder if we're selling kids short though. The tendency throughout all of time is to think it's just this generation of kids. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is, I was about eight or nine when I saw the first one and loved it, and I was 11 years old when my dad took me to see Aliens and I loved it.

    My point here is, an R rating just means no children without the supervision of a parent or guardian, so it's not exactly a hard cap restriction.

    But I agree, they should release both cuts and let them compete despite what someone said about the MPAA not usually allowing that. And if the R rated version made more, that would certainly disprove what the execs have been thinking. And if not, everybody still wins.

     

     



    i agree with you dead. I was 9 years old when my dad took me to see the 20th anniversary re-release of alien. they could keep it rated R (18) or even rate it 15/NC-17. kids can still go and see it as long as they are with adults. make sense. so can anyone explain to me he reasons why they cant release both versions?
    Any views, opinions or comments by Terraformer are not those of Prometheusforum.net and purely for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously and not to be read by anyone.
  • deadinspacedeadinspace  
    Colonist

     

    In any case, the original point is that Ridley seems to be in denial about the film's true rating. He did say that what they have is what will be shown, so if additional cuts get made for the PG13 rating, he'll have caved to their demands big time.

    That being said, it's worth pointing out that Blade Runner was rated R by MPAA back in 1982, mostly because of the female replicant's booby shots. By today's standards, that movie would get a soft PG13, so their standards have definitely changed, which means Prometheus, if released in 1982 would get a hard R rating even if they cut it.

  • deadinspacedeadinspace  
    Colonist

     

    I wonder if we're selling kids short though. The tendency throughout all of time is to think it's just this generation of kids. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is, I was about eight or nine when I saw the first one and loved it, and I was 11 years old when my dad took me to see Aliens and I loved it.

    My point here is, an R rating just means no children without the supervision of a parent or guardian, so it's not exactly a hard cap restriction.

    But I agree, they should release both cuts and let them compete despite what someone said about the MPAA not usually allowing that. And if the R rated version made more, that would certainly disprove what the execs have been thinking. And if not, everybody still wins.

     

     



    i agree with you dead. I was 9 years old when my dad took me to see the 20th anniversary re-release of alien. they could keep it rated R (18) or even rate it 15/NC-17. kids can still go and see it as long as they are with adults. make sense. so can anyone explain to me he reasons why they cant release both versions?



    IDK. Someone back in this thread mentioned that MPAA requires that the different versions be released about 50 days apart or something, which would still water down the initial experience if PG13 came first. Don't know why though. If anyone can answer that, feel free to explain.


     

  • ummesterummester  
    AssFlower

    An R in America is equivelent to an MA in Oz, isn't it? 15+ (yeah right, the ushers are lucky if they are over 15 and wouldn't argue with a kid bigger than them).

    What is an Oz R (18+) in America? When Alien first came out in Australia it was an Oz R, now it is either an M American PG) or MA.

    Suck fuddlety!
  • edou777edou777  (1 like this)
    Colonist
    "scare me". If its really scary, it will be a R rating, with or without gore. An Alien sequel with a PG-13 is a non-sense.

    Scott shows us that is not a director anymore, but a business man


    All big budget directors have to be business men to a certain degree to work with the huge amounts of cash, crew and to guarantee profit for the investors.

    To say otherwise would be denying the reality of Hollywood movies.

    All Hollywood directors are business men, but some happen to make amazing films.

    Ridley Scott is one of these people.


    Yes of course Vodi. But you know what I mean. Ridley Scott knows he s killing the soul of his movie for money.

    I think we can definitely forget the time of big budget movies like Alien, Aliens, etc.. where you could see real fear, violence, more than 30 seconds without dialogs, etc...

    Today Money is more important than Art

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Forum Tips

• Bookmark All Discussions to catch all of the action.
• Introduce yourself here.
• Click your username for more options.
Dismiss to unsticky discussions.
Imgur for hosting images.
• Email: prometheusforum@gmail.com
• More forum tips.