Home     |     Reviews      |       Forum         |      Nuggets        |      Events       |       Links    


The Olde Foruhms of Jabewtoo
You have been granted an audience with Jabootu...
The Olde Foruhms of Jabewtoo
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Jabootu's Threads
 Jabootubbs - Enter Here!
 Decline of the R-Rated Adventure Film
 Forum Locked  Topic Locked
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  09:02:44 AM  Show Profile
On a related note, why did Stallone make so many R-rated films? He kept returning to the Rocky movies without making them R-rated. As many observed, the Rocky series kept him afloat during some pretty hard times.

First Blood (the film), even for its time (1982, same year as Assante's I, the Jury and Conan the Barbarian) stood as quite restrained. So why did Stallone seem to embrace the R-rating?
Go to Top of Page

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  09:15:54 AM  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Neville

I think you're looking too early for the causes of all these. Cannon's bankrupcy and the decline of those actors as action heroes had already took place by the early 90s. It doesn't account for the current state of action films.

I think the causes of action films being watered down really took place during Clinton's period. It was then when the politically correct trend started hitting hard, and all Hollywood films, not only action movies, started getting sanitized. If you take a look at action blockbusters from the 90s, like Speed or Mission Impossible, the differences from their 80s equivalents are very noticeable: no sex, no eroticism, watered down violence, no swearing, no racism, no sexism.

The posterior abuse of CGI vs. practical stunts would also take its toll, ation became more spectacular than ever, but also more unrealistic (see MI2 and Speed 2). This also affected ratings, because when violence doesn't feel real, the "ouch" factor diminishes. Thankfully, the 00s seem to have seen some of a reversal. The films are still too PC when compared to their 80s counterparts, but blood and practical stunts seem to be coming back.



I should think that we encourage the omission of sexism and racism. Also, practical stunts should not get done; do you want someone to risk his life just to make a popcorn movie?
Go to Top of Page

Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu

Spain
1590 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  11:34:08 AM  Show Profile
I'm against the promotion of racism and sexism, but by completely ignoring these issues movieland became as dull and boring as a diet cake, not to mention coward. I've always understood action movies as a down and dirty business, not as some kind of family-friendly theme park ride with explosions.

I mean, punches are thrown, shots fired, cars blown up, and people get hurt or die. If you show somebody getting shot, show the blood and the pain, don't be a hipocryte and pretend the bad guy just went to sleep, or that mowing down guys with a machine gun is some kind of innocent activity. And also don't be afraid of showing what's not working in our world, that there are people out there who hate people from other races / countries / religions / hairstyles, or who think of women as nice decoration without a brain.

As for the stunts, of course I'm against people getting hurt without need. But I'm certainly not against trained professionals under the adequate supervision to do their jobs. Athletes also might get hurt or die as a result of their performances, but nobody seems to care about them.

Edited by - Neville on 02/28/2009 11:54:12 AM
Go to Top of Page

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 02/28/2009 :  2:38:20 PM  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Neville

I'm against the promotion of racism and sexism, but by completely ignoring these issues movieland became as dull and boring as a diet cake, not to mention coward. I've always understood action movies as a down and dirty business, not as some kind of family-friendly theme park ride with explosions.

I mean, punches are thrown, shots fired, cars blown up, and people get hurt or die. If you show somebody getting shot, show the blood and the pain, don't be a hipocryte and pretend the bad guy just went to sleep, or that mowing down guys with a machine gun is some kind of innocent activity. And also don't be afraid of showing what's not working in our world, that there are people out there who hate people from other races / countries / religions / hairstyles, or who think of women as nice decoration without a brain.

As for the stunts, of course I'm against people getting hurt without need. But I'm certainly not against trained professionals under the adequate supervision to do their jobs. Athletes also might get hurt or die as a result of their performances, but nobody seems to care about them.



Very well then, you referred to acknowledging the presence of racism and sexism, not promoting it.

"I've always understood action movies as a down and dirty business, not as some kind of family-friendly theme park ride with explosions."

Indiana Jones never reached an R-rating. Nor did Star Wars. MGM/UA largely goes for PG to PG-13.

(It would help if I could mention the Rocky films, 5/6 of which never reached PG-13, and never reached R, but I consider those as sports films, not adventure films or thrillers.)

Edited by - Enda80 on 02/28/2009 2:42:36 PM
Go to Top of Page

hbrennan
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu

Philippines
1455 Posts

Posted - 03/01/2009 :  03:15:02 AM  Show Profile  Visit hbrennan's Homepage
Let's face it - it's ALWAYS about the money. It's my opinion that the inconsistencies that can be found in the ratings system is ample proof that ratings are purchased on many occasions. In 1969, an "R" rating was a novelty that drew in the crowds. My dad drove me to the theater to see "Cotton" and "Gaily" but I was nowhere near old enough to get in on my own - but they let me in, anyway. I was all set to see something "naughty" from "Gaily" - but it was just a silly, very tame, bawdy comedy. "Cotton" is a solid PG in my book. The same with "Shaft" (1971) - also rated "R"

"...yet it hadn't destroyed his brain."
re: Charles "The Butcher" Benton (1956)

http://www.henrybrennan.com/
Go to Top of Page

dconner
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

USA
104 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2009 :  1:36:05 PM  Show Profile
I've long thought the creation of the PG-13 rating *itself* had lots of odd unintentional consequences. The main one being that all movies gravitate toward PG-13 now - from both directions. Adventure movies that are truly fine for the whole family (but not intended *exclusively* for kids) tend to have some gratuitous bit of language or violence or innuendo slipped in with the express intent of drawing the PG-13 rating (since "PG" has come to be viewed as the rating for "kid stuff.") And movies that are a little *too* edgy want to file that down to a PG-13, so as not to lose the legal teen audience.

I think movies were better served when there was just G, PG, and R. Back in the old days, you could have some pretty strong stuff in a PG movie (JAWS comes to mind as just one example), or even a G (lots of classic action type movies got a G, whereas today, pretty much any violence whatsoever tags you with a PG minimum.)
Go to Top of Page

hbrennan
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu

Philippines
1455 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2009 :  03:30:55 AM  Show Profile  Visit hbrennan's Homepage
The ratings are more part of the advertising strategy than an actual guide to content. This is the main reason why they have become useless.

"...yet it hadn't destroyed his brain."
re: Charles "The Butcher" Benton (1956)

http://www.henrybrennan.com/
Go to Top of Page

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 03/21/2009 :  08:35:50 AM  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker

Enda80, you make a reasonable deduction. Unfortunately, even back in the day of Cotton Comes to Harlem the MPAA was usually not so reasonable.

Take Beneath the Planet of the Apes. That film's climax offered gun battle violence, a wince-inducing fight scene between James Fransiscus and Charlton Heston, gory-looking mutant humanoids, and a final shot of a dying Heston calling Dr. Zaius a "bloody bastard" before activating the doomsday bomb and nuking the entire world.

It got rated G.



Yes, but obviously African-Americans in Harlem did and do exist, but mutants pace Planet of the Apes as yet do not.
Go to Top of Page

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 03/21/2009 :  08:37:47 AM  Show Profile
MGM/UA seems to have followed an "Oh no, we do not encourage ultra-right wing jingoism" strategy for years-note that Mr. Begg positied that they forced that about face at the end of Rocky IV. So they have probably managed to use their reputation to get PG-13 ratings.
Go to Top of Page

Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu

108 Posts

Posted - 03/29/2009 :  01:27:55 AM  Show Profile
Twelve Rounds came out recently, with a PG-13. That tends to support the idea of the decline of the R-rating.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 Forum Locked  Topic Locked
Jump To:
The Olde Foruhms of Jabewtoo © 1999-2014 Jabootu. Don't Mess With Jabootu! Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000