Posted on 03/18/2008 10:27:51 AM PDT by Between the Lines
More than 20 years of data is in – and the conventional wisdom is wrong.
The chances a Hollywood movie will win big at the box office are greatly enhanced by a family-friendly rating and strong moral content, defying the notion the entertainment industry is merely serving up what consumers want when they produce so many R-rated movies full of foul language, sex, drugs and immorality, shows a new study by the Christian Film and Television Commission, publishers of Movieguide.
According to the study, G-rated movies averaged nearly $92.2 million, more than 438 percent better than R-rated movies, making only $17.1 million.
"Our annual report to Hollywood shows once again, with relevant financial statistics, that people, including most moviegoers, want good to conquer evil, truth to triumph over falsehood, justice to prevail over injustice and beauty to overcome ugliness," explains Ted Baehr, the president of the group. "They also want to take their whole family to the movies more often (assuming, of course, that ticket prices, concession prices and gasoline prices don't get too high or prohibitive). And they want to see their religious faith respected and celebrated."
Last year, seven films with a G or PG rating earned more than $100 million at the domestic box office, and three PG-rated films ("Shrek the Third," $322 million; "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," $216 million; and "Alvin and the Chipmunks," $213 million) were among the year's top 10 earners.
Only one R-rated film made the top 10, and it was No. 10, "300," with earnings of $210 million.
No. 11 on the list was G-rated "Ratatouille" with $206 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
G-rated Horton Hears a Who just got $45M over the weekend.
They should clean up at the Oscars/sarc
Bad analogy...R-rated films are only intended for a specific audience thus will make less money, the only exception I know of is Passion of the Christ.
I’ve read this before.
Hollywood makes more money with family friendly movies. So why do they pump out more filthy movies that do poorly at the box office?
Answer: To further their agenda.
Well . . . yeah.
It’s nothing new. If you read the original script for what became “Casablanca” it was raw enough to make “Brokeback Mountain” look tame. The Warners loved the concept of the play (refugees in North Africa) but did not think a movie centered on adultery, betrayal, and selfish desire would sell many tickets.
They changed it to the version beloved today — a movie about unselfish love and sacrifice. Does anyone think that if they stuck to a script that had Rick and Ilsa behaving like rutting pigs oblivious to the impact of their actions on others would be a movie that is still valued today?
This has been the situation for many years and is well known in Hollywood. I have no idea why anyone whould invest in an R rated film rather than in a g rated production. The potential payout for r is very limited.
2007 top box office:
1 Spider-Man 3 Sony
2 Shrek the Third P/DW
3 Transformers P/DW
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End BV
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix WB
6 I Am Legend WB
7 The Bourne Ultimatum Uni.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets BV
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks Fox
10 300 WB
11 Ratatouille BV
12 The Simpsons Movie Fox
G movies will always have the higher probability of drawing larger audiences because they can pull from a larger population of people. That and of course if you want to clam your kids down for 90-minutes you don't take them to the new blood and guts horror movie, the drama which puts them to sleep, or the techno triller that they couldn't follow unless you updated them every 5 minutes.
I agree, but “The Postman Always Rings Twice” (the Garfield/Turner original, not that Nicholson/Lange abomination) still holds its value.
A lot of people forget that we really need both types of morality plays. Without one, the other wears easily and fades fast.
That is really the only rational answer that one is left with.
I got the impression that “300” was bad, too violent, explicit, etc. I liked it very much when I finally watched it. It is violent, explicit and cruel but the message was outstanding and to me that is the strength of this movie. The objectionable things didn’t at all distract. The men’s muscular development was also something to behold and I learned that they had a special workout to get that way.
They get it. They just refuse to accept it. It’s actually interesting and a little surprising because it demonstrates that their ideology is more important to them than money. Makes the industry more dangerous too, imo - I’d like them better if money was their number one god rather than liberalism.
They get it just fine, that’s why they’re making G-rated movies. They also get that there are 300 million other people in the country, and some of them don’t want to see G-rated movies.
Last movie I went to the theater for....Cars.
Wife's last movie was Shrek the Third.
We wait for the DVD. Last two DVD’s? Hang Em High (replacing my VHS’s) and 101 Dalmatians.
Of course there’s still plenty of adultery, betrayal and selfish desire in the movie. Rick’s basically a rotten SOB (with a seriously wicked sense of humor) until the last 5 minutes of the movie, and even then in 4:30 of that last 5 minutes he’s still ACTING like a rotten SOB, it’s only the final reveal is his real plan that redeems his character.
They are not comparing apples and oranges - they’re comparing dollars and dollars - and, since family friendly movies get more dollars, so why don’t they make more?
The answer is “Because they don’t want to.”
So the real question is “Why doesn’t Hollyweirdstan want to make more profitable family movies?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.