I'm not sure he'd have that kind of clout but your idea does make sense (get an R). The movie industry has long asserted that they get a better draw from an R than a PG-13 than a PG than a G (the lower rating lowers the draw).
That may or not be true, I believe it's not; the draw is based on many factors, including the rating. I think the principal factor is how they position the film in advertising. Present it as a kiddie movie and you couldn't get a teenager to see it for free (there are, of course, exceptions).
It seems to me the thing to do is let the movie company decide on the film's rating, but only upwards not downwards. In other words, they claim that a higher rating gets a higher draw - so make the movie, have it rated, then adjust the rating to whatever you'd like higher than that. Your film receives a G rating - adjust the rating to anything you'd like (PG, PG-13, R, X); receive a PG rating adjust it to anything but a G, and so on. No need to change the film, simply ask for the higher rating. Should save a bit of money as well.
A film can then be made without gratuitous sex, violence, language and yet still indicate the audience it was made for. The movie the artists would like to make can be made free of such pettiness. It allows them to include sex, violence, language where they believe the story calls for it, not because some bean counter says they should. It allows us to watch a movie to which they haven't added ridiculous language in the first 5 minutes ("penis breath" in ET, for example) just for the rating. Meanwhile movies like "Patton" could still have language that the story required (it actually needed more, IMO).
reply
share