|
Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
108 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2009 : 09:39:58 AM
|
Somebody wrote in response to the question of whether the R-rating limited potential audiences:
"If the R rating was so limiting, then why were films like T2, the second Matrix movie, the Rambo, Lethal Weapon series, etc
such huge successes?"
Regarding Rambo, one must remember that from 1976 to 1985, Sylvester Stallone mostly made PG films. Rocky I-IV, F.I.S.T., Rhinestone Paradise Alley, Victory, Staying Alive, etc. all received PG or PG-13 ratings. 1981's Nighthawks served as probably his first R-rated adventure film since emerging as a headliner. First Blood itself remains a low R-rated film, with no nudity and a minimal body count compared to, for example, the same year's Conan the Barbarian, I, the Jury; and Death Wish II. After 1985, Stallone increasingly made R-rated films, but at the time Rambo: First Blood II arrived, he had not specialized in them. Of course, doing so may have eventually cost him the demographics that made the Rocky films so successful. |
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2009 : 09:42:00 AM
|
One thing people are forgetting is that theaters have cracked down since the mid-90's on underage kids getting into R-rated films. It's not perfect but it is a lot more strict. Before that time, most theaters wouldn't stop you from going to whatever you wanted regardless of age. That is some of it.
The other reason I believe has to do with a side effect of cheap adult online entertainment. One thing that guarantees an R is sex. Earlier, it was a cheap way to get a soft core scene to satisfy one demographic which didn't have easy access to it. Now with it being readily available, it's not going to attract people it would have drawn in in the past. And it is going to discourage other demographics.
I summon Bigger Fish! |
 |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
