Why R?
Why?
Merry Christmas Everyone!And Happy New Year!Praise God this Season For He Loves You All!
Merry Christmas, MattchuLB . ;)
share
MovieChat Forums > TerrorVision (1986) Discussion > Why R?
A little more gore and maybe some bare breasts would have made for a more solid R. The whole thing did feel a little closer to a PG-13. Still, what a great movie! It was like a more twisted, less musical version of Little Shop of Horrors. Kudos to the Medusa character for the copious cleavage.
sharePG-13 was still new and I suspect the studios were still thinking of it as "hard PG" instead of "soft R"
Plus the MPAA was more likely to restrict movies for "adult themes" back then, like swinging and monster vore.
Oh, and Randi Brooks' voice.
[deleted]
Maybe the bar for the R rating has been raised since then...
shareMaybe the bar for the R rating has been raised since then...I'll avoid the temptation to make a cheap joke, but I assume you mean that it's tougher for a film to get an R-rating these days, and I completely agree.
I'm really surprised this got an R and not a PG-13, because it's very much an adolescents' film. Lots of double entendres and cartoonish gore, but nothing inappropriate for middle-schoolers. There's artwork of nude bodies on the walls, but it's abstract enough not to count as "real" nudity.
I suspect his film missed its intended audience with the R-rating, and it probably disappointed a lot of people wanting a more "adult" film.
Those horrible "Meet the Spartans"-type films have a lot cruder content than this, and those get away with PG-13. Even for 1986, this seems a severely soft R. And yes, I said "severely soft." share
If they had to put in the text they do nowadays, it would have to be:
[R] For violence, gore and sexual references
Gun and explosive play as well as vore action usually registers a score for violence.
Yeah, it's fake gore, no blood, just slime, but it's bodies being mutilated by the monster's saliva. That counts.
And that bed scene... WHAT a sexual reference!
I'll avoid the temptation to make a cheap joke, but I assume you mean that it's tougher for a film to get an R-rating these days, and I completely agree.
I'm really surprised this got an R and not a PG-13, because it's very much an adolescents' film. Lots of double entendres and cartoonish gore, but nothing inappropriate for middle-schoolers. There's artwork of nude bodies on the walls, but it's abstract enough not to count as "real" nudity.
I suspect his film missed its intended audience with the R-rating, and it probably disappointed a lot of people wanting a more "adult" film.
Those horrible "Meet the Spartans"-type films have a lot cruder content than this, and those get away with PG-13. Even for 1986, this seems a severely soft R. And yes, I said "severely soft."
PG-13 was very new at the time. It was practically less than two years old and was not about to be handed out like candy yet. And with the mutilation of humans by the alien's saliva along with the fact that horror movies back then were treated more respectfully especially with a horrific looking monster that would give any kids nightmare, combined with the sexual content of the swingers couple, it would then be normal to be given a R rating.
share
I just watched the film and it is definitely a PG-13 movie. I know the rating was new at the time, but it derserved a PG-13, not an R rating. I am very strict when it comes to what I think is an R rating. There were no F words and not too much profanity. I would say about 20-25 profane words. the gun play and the sexual stuff was not too bad either.
shareI'm guessing the sexual content and violence put this one into R territory. There's nude paintings on the wall, two brief glimpses of a pornographic movie on the television and the violence (more slimy than gory) is probably just enough for the MPAA to have shaken their heads in shame.
I know who I am! I'm the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!
I do believe that it had more to do with politics then anything else; this is an independent film whereas the Indiana Jones movies (that feature people melting, getting shot, an exploding head, a heart being ripped-out...) are mainstream movies so they get PG-13 and even PG ratings. The MPAA is famous for being tougher on independent productions as Lloyd Kaufman would be all too happy to tell you.
I mean, the mother told her kids about it and everything.
Still probably wouldn't get an R rating now, although my understanding is that the industry does have some weird rules and regulations that might put it into that category anyway.
OT, but another horror movie from near the same time that I feel is closer to PG-13 than R but was given an R rating is the original FRIGHT NIGHT (1985).
share