3D Theory applied to R-Rating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message

Russ Whitfield -> 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:32:17 AM)

"Lair of Nerds" tweeted something today that I thought was a really neat idea (not sure if its new, but I'd certainly never heard/thought of it).

We accept that we have to pay extra for watching a 3D movie. Could this be applied to R-Rated cuts.

So we could have "The Expendables" PG-13 and "The Expendables" Hard-R. Clearly, you'd have to change reels for the evening showings (I can't imagine taking up two screens for one movie would work financially) - the morning to early evening showings are "lite" the evening ones are hard-R.

I thought it was genius and I'd happily pay an extra fiver or whatever to see the films as they were supposed to be seen.




Shifty Bench -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:35:59 AM)

But.....what if I could only watch a film during the day and wanted to see the R rated version? [sm=33.gif]



st3veebee -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:39:18 AM)

Interesting point. An extra 2/3 euro to see a film such as the Expendables with full on swearing ad gore? I'm sure I'd take that offer without any hesitation. 

I still think just later screenings for the hard R versions would be best: what under 15s are going to the cinema at 9.00pm anyway? The majority are surely of that age anyway..and if any are of the mindset to want to see a throwback to the 80s action days, I'm fairly sure they won't be afraid of a little blood and guts.





elab49 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:42:08 AM)

I'm not sure where the justification would be for the price increase though? For 3D it's simply because of the technology - pressing a button for a different cut to show wouldn't justify the cost. And most cinemas already take up two screens for one film when 3D films are out - one for the 3D version and one for the version people want to see ([:D]). Perhaps some kind of cinema club thing that could circumvent ratings would be an option, and a more justified cost.

It seems a bit of an odd example, genuinely. How many younger kids want to go and see The Expendables to make a kiddy friendly version required - shouldn't they just be going for the 18 version anyway?  I can't see a BBFC decision yet so I don't know what cut they've submitted over here.




Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:47:34 AM)

It could be applied to so many of these franchises... Imagine an 18 certificate "The Dark Knight" (the Frank Millar one). Or, imagine the Star Wars prequels made for the grown ups that supported the originals when they came out... it'd be amazing.

The studios could have a double-whammy on sales (you and your mrs go to see the R version, you and your mrs take the kids to the PG 13 version, the kids by the merchandise, you buy the DVD with the two versions on it - or they release two versions of the DVD....) So they win. The kids win. The grown ups win. Everybody wins.

I'm sure that this must have gone over the tables in Hollywood - can someone burst the bubble here and say why this can't work (clearly, it can't or we'd have it, right?)



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:48:58 AM)

Elab posted as I posted.

The Expendables is probably not a great example. What about Starship Troopers, Robocop, Batman, Aliens vs Predator, Resident Evil... basically stuff you can market to kids and grown ups.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 9:50:33 AM)

But on the "kiddie expendables" there was a massive out cry when it leaked that Chuck Norris was insisting the movie didn't have blood and swearing... its back to 18 now, but there was a real fear amongst fans of the first one that the kiddie-cut would be the one we got



elab49 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 10:01:58 AM)

That's a BS commercial decision from the studio though - I'm not sure it properly reflects their market (I'd say Norris was bang on with that).

I think there might be an argument for a commercial decision (although I'm still not convinced there is any justification for increased ticket prices) but what about artistically? Would a director be happy to make his precious film kiddy friendly or, more likely, to be outed as a hack shovelling out easily adjusted product at commercial behest? For more complex and mature films, themes will be so ingrained I'd have thought those kind of cuts must be more difficult, if not impossible?





Harry Tuttle -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 10:25:09 AM)

I think it sounds great.

Only the other day I was bemoaning the fact that the cinema experience doesn't cost me enough money...



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 10:56:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
... For more complex and mature films, themes will be so ingrained I'd have thought those kind of cuts must be more difficult, if not impossible?





Certainly. But most films that could be marketed to kids and grown ups aren't that complex (or indeed mature... there's nothing mature about a man dressed up as a bat. He'd be arrested and sent to the loony bin).

I remember as I type this recutting actually happened with Saturday Night Fever, didn't it? So many kids were sneaking in to see that they released a PG cut.

I'm not (and nor were "Lair of Nerds") suggesting that it could be done for every single film in every single franchise. But for the Robocops and Starship Troopers (and indeed Expendables) of this world, I think it could work.

The increased cost, though - I guess that would be because as you point out, some stuff you can't cut away from and would have to be reshot?

@Harry Tuttle. Well, the beauty of it is that it gives you the choice not go and see the more expensive version.





Harry Tuttle -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:14:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

@Harry Tuttle. Well, the beauty of it is that it gives you the choice not go and see the more expensive version.



But what if the more expensive version is the only version worth watching. What if they set out to make an 18 rated film and then cut it into a kiddy friendlier 12A or 15 just so that they can charge extra for the proper cut?

Fuck. That.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:34:20 AM)

@Harry Tuttle. Or Fuck. You? If (in this instance) you don't want to pay for a premium service, you don't have to - but you don't get the premium service. Like Sky Sports, for instance. You want Sports, you gotta pay. You want tits and violence, you gotta pay.

At the moment, we have a half-way house - clearly the pressure is on to make money. I keep thinking of AvP that was famously forced into a (I think) 15 movie when it wanted to be an 18. I think the "pay-for-the-R" idea would be perfect for this sort of movie. As Elab says, there's probably no real reason to charge extra, but if they were to do this, they WOULD charge extra and blame it on the reshoots.

Clearly, in this scenario, you're not prepared to pay an extra couple of quid to see the "more bang for your buck" version, which is your prerogative. I would, St3eeve would...I really think if the studios considered this it'd offer the viewers more choice, I think most directors would be happy with it, the studios would make a tonne of money and the viewer gets more choice. Though I get that you think it'd be a colossal rip off




DancingClown -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:36:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

@Harry Tuttle. Well, the beauty of it is that it gives you the choice not go and see the more expensive version.



But what if the more expensive version is the only version worth watching. What if they set out to make an 18 rated film and then cut it into a kiddy friendlier 12A or 15 just so that they can charge extra for the proper cut?

Fuck. That.



Agree with this. It would be massively exploited. And cinemagoers will just lose out and stay home.



adambatman82 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:39:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

@Harry Tuttle. Or Fuck. You? If (in this instance) you don't want to pay for a premium service, you don't have to - but you don't get the premium service. Like Sky Sports, for instance. You want Sports, you gotta pay. You want tits and violence, you gotta pay.



The cinema already is a "premium experience" though.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:39:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Agree with this. It would be massively exploited. And cinemagoers will just lose out and stay home.


But they don't when offered the choice of an "enhanced" 3D experience or 2D experience. I think that's the point - if people are prepared to pay more for 3D, they would be prepared to pay more for an uncut version of a movie (or an "as the director intended" version).



elab49 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:40:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield
The increased cost, though - I guess that would be because as you point out, some stuff you can't cut away from and would have to be reshot?



I wasn't expecting reshoots to be an issue. That makes it slightly odder. But if they do choose that as a commercial decision, it tends to be DVDs where they normally do the scalping.

I think the first film they tried it with, depending on the film, might get some business for the novelty - but the 2nd? I think it's a nice theory for people who want to see more violence, but I'm not sure how viable a business model it would ever be. Especially if they're already seeing business fall for 3D as people don't see the point of paying more on what is, as Harry rightly points out, already a very expensive night out.

And I think it would have to be multiple cinemas rather than the same screen - most of the business is still in the evening I think? Or does that not hold true in the US?



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:42:30 AM)


quote:

The cinema already is a "premium experience" though.


With or without 3D? Two costs for different experiences, one supposedly better than the other currently exists already.



DancingClown -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:44:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Agree with this. It would be massively exploited. And cinemagoers will just lose out and stay home.


But they don't when offered the choice of an "enhanced" 3D experience or 2D experience. I think that's the point - if people are prepared to pay more for 3D, they would be prepared to pay more for an uncut version of a movie (or an "as the director intended" version).



I see what you're saying, but 3D is much more of a tangible and accessible gimmick. It has the element of spectacle, whereas selling different cuts of a movie would surely be a much harder sell.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:47:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I wasn't expecting reshoots to be an issue. That makes it slightly odder. But if they do choose that as a commercial decision, it tends to be DVDs where they normally do the scalping.

I think the first film they tried it with, depending on the film, might get some business for the novelty - but the 2nd? I think it's a nice theory for people who want to see more violence, but I'm not sure how viable a business model it would ever be. Especially if they're already seeing business fall for 3D as people don't see the point of paying more on what is, as Harry rightly points out, already a very expensive night out.

And I think it would have to be multiple cinemas rather than the same screen - most of the business is still in the evening I think? Or does that not hold true in the US?



I don't know - This must have been discussed over big tables and decided this was the case. The screens issue - as you say, they have the two screens for 3D and 2D already, so that's possible.

Or maybe its not been discussed and "lair of nerds" has come up with the idea.

I don't agree on the novelty thing... I genuinely think with these "half-way-house" movies that want the teen buck but always leave adults feeling short changed there's a market for it... but as I say, I really don't think "lair of nerds" came up with this in isolation - I'd love to know, though!



adambatman82 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:48:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I think there might be an argument for a commercial decision (although I'm still not convinced there is any justification for increased ticket prices) but what about artistically? Would a director be happy to make his precious film kiddy friendly or, more likely, to be outed as a hack shovelling out easily adjusted product at commercial behest? For more complex and mature films, themes will be so ingrained I'd have thought those kind of cuts must be more difficult, if not impossible?



This echoes my own thoughts.

Also, which version would be considered the definitive cut? And would there be shoehorned attempts to do the opposite of what the OP is proposing (make a sexualised, swear-laden R-rated version of a previously designed PG flick)? It just seems like an odd move to make, and ultimately it's not like works of great vision are the ones struggling with attracting a specific rating, it's shitty muscle flicks, rubbish comedies and Paul W S Anderson films that seem to be given "Unrated"* cuts on video, not the works of compromised artists (ergo, it's commercially led, not creatively).

*The term Unrated is a bit of a misnomer in the UK anyway, as all films have to be certified for release, even DVD's. It's a marketing buzzword, nothing more, and these things are usually produced at the behest/without the knowledge of the films director. Here's a really interesting insight in to the world of the secondary cut and "unrated edition" DVD courtesy of The Hangover director Todd Phillips -

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/17190/todd-phillips-slams-the-culture-of-unrated-dvds



Harry Tuttle -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:50:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

@Harry Tuttle. Or Fuck. You? If (in this instance) you don't want to pay for a premium service, you don't have to - but you don't get the premium service. Like Sky Sports, for instance. You want Sports, you gotta pay. You want tits and violence, you gotta pay.


Que?

I pay for the tits and violence by, y'know, buying a ticket to watch a film containing tits and violence. If they want to charge extra just because there's tits and violence in it they can jog the fuck on. I'll go download it out of spite.

quote:

At the moment, we have a half-way house - clearly the pressure is on to make money. I keep thinking of AvP that was famously forced into a (I think) 15 movie when it wanted to be an 18. I think the "pay-for-the-R" idea would be perfect for this sort of movie. As Elab says, there's probably no real reason to charge extra, but if they were to do this, they WOULD charge extra and blame it on the reshoots.

Clearly, in this scenario, you're not prepared to pay an extra couple of quid to see the "more bang for your buck" version, which is your prerogative. I would, St3eeve would...I really think if the studios considered this it'd offer the viewers more choice, I think most directors would be happy with it, the studios would make a tonne of money and the viewer gets more choice. Though I get that you think it'd be a colossal rip off




It would be a colossal rip off. I am absolutely 100% certain that the studios would market what was originally intended as an 18 rated film as a 12A or 15 and then release the intended version of the film as the "more bang for your buck" (although you're not getting more bang for your buck, you're getting more bang for more bucks) premium version.



adambatman82 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:50:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield


quote:

The cinema already is a "premium experience" though.


With or without 3D? Two costs for different experiences, one supposedly better than the other currently exists already.



Regardless of bolt-ons, the base experience remains a premium one, at least by the measure you're throwing out there. The extra surcharges for 3D, DBOX and screenings at certain times of the day are an aside (and universally derided at that).



adambatman82 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:52:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm not sure where the justification would be for the price increase though?



They'd blame certification. I'm fairly certain it would cost more for two cuts of the same film to be certified.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 11:53:44 AM)


quote:

it's shitty muscle flicks, rubbish comedies and Paul W S Anderson films that seem to be given "Unrated"* cuts on video, not the works of compromised artists (ergo, it's commercially led, not creatively).


Precisely. As Elab pointed out, this really can't apply to proper grown up movies, but for the AvPs, Resident Evils, Expendables and all those sorts of things, we tend to get 15 rated movies for what really ought to be 18 rated movies. As I say, I'd happily pay a few quid more and not have the "lite" version.



elab49 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:03:40 PM)

From what I understand from previous BBFC discussions the duplication of cost has been given within a variety of excuses for new versions not making it to different formats, so it does seem to be a significant cost. I know the fee structure for DVD is on the website, and they talk about 3d/2d (although that seems pretty expensive for the same film) - but all I've ever read is it costs '£1000s' for a theatrical cut. Although there was talk of going for an unrated cut generally - I guess that's down to the oddity of local authorities being able to make decisions on films too. In the UK Russ, the actual veto rests with individual localities who only technically accept the BBFC recommendation but are not required to.

But, as Adam says, the issue of ratings is very different in the UK than in the US. Not to mention the oddity of the closed-off body of the MPAA being significantly different to the transparent BBFC.



adambatman82 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:07:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield


quote:

it's shitty muscle flicks, rubbish comedies and Paul W S Anderson films that seem to be given "Unrated"* cuts on video, not the works of compromised artists (ergo, it's commercially led, not creatively).


Precisely. As Elab pointed out, this really can't apply to proper grown up movies, but for the AvPs, Resident Evils, Expendables and all those sorts of things, we tend to get 15 rated movies for what really ought to be 18 rated movies. As I say, I'd happily pay a few quid more and not have the "lite" version.


But don't you think it would set a dangerous precedent, especially if it proves to actually bring in significant amounts of money for the studios? Do you not anticipate deliberately created "weaker" versions just so they could sell a R-rated cut as the premium version? Or what about genuine "R-rated" movies? Would you automatically pay the subsidy for those films, even if there isn't a "lite"-iteration?

If you feel so strongly about seeing an unhindered vision of these kind of films then you should petition and communicate with the powers that be, let them know that you're not happy about what you consider to be a watered down product etc. And to be fair its actually the studios that are holding back the "cut" material. Saw 3 for example, was released theatrically as an 18 rated movie. 5 months later the "Unrated" cut of the film was released on DVD, which was also 18 rated! It's little more than a cynical marketing technique.



Rgirvan44 -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:07:23 PM)

Maybe the premium  should be for the PG13

If a film was made as an R, that is how it was meant to be seen. A PG13 version is an edited down one for da children, and as such is in fact the alternative cut. Charge more for that I say.



DancingClown -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:09:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Maybe the premium  should be for the PG13

If a film was made as an R, that is how it was meant to be seen. A PG13 version is an edited down one for da children, and as such is in fact the alternative cut. Charge more for that I say.


That sounds more probable. Especially as the edited down cut would bring in more families. More potential money.

Still a badly flawed idea though.



Russ Whitfield -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:17:14 PM)

@AdamBatman82: I thought it was a neat idea, I'd like to see it. But not enough to chain myself outside the powers that be offices with a placard.

@Rgiven/Dancing Clown - Brilliant. Now I will chain myself outside the powers that be offices with a placard.

No, this is a good point - again, I'd happily do that too.



blue_lion -> RE: 3D Theory applied to R-Rating (4/7/2012 12:36:01 PM)

not sure if I would like to see a two tier approach to movies. We have already seen the evil hack jobs that happen if you catch say "Gremlins" being shown pre watershed. My wife made me laugh when they have even editited "Sex And The City" for a daytime audience. Each show is approximatly 5 minutes long and Kim Catteral is not even credited, lol Do you really want to have this rubbish at the cinima, am sure the writers would get frustrated too. Imagine a PG13 Clockwork Orange, it would be a disaster and with so many scenes missing you would have no idea what was going on. The whole tone of the film would be different if you substutued scenes !



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.027344E-02