Banking On Movie Ratings

[James Harvey]

Here's an interesting article from http://movies.yahoo.com :


Think the combination of talented actors, well-written script and a director with a vision will yield a box-office hit?

Not necessarily, says an industry research report released Wednesday. The key to a bankable movie might have more to do with its rating.

MarketCast, which tracks movie box-office performance for studios and production companies, reports in its study that movies aimed at teens (an integral part of the ticket-buying demographic) that get an R rating are missing out on some big bucks.


The study says films like DreamWorks' The Mexican, starring Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, and Franchise Pictures' Angel Eyes with Jennifer Lopez each could have earned as much as 40 percent more money in the first weekend if they had been rated PG-13 instead of R.

The MarketCast study backs up the current belief that ticket sales for R-rated films have plummeted since movie theaters, responding to political pressure, began tightening enforcement of age restrictions. The study, conducted via telephone polls of moviegoers, revealed that out of 37 R-rated movies that earned more than $5 million during their opening weekends, at least 15 would have attracted one-third more viewers with PG-13 ratings.

According to MarketCast, a sucky R-rated movie will be slightly less sucky with a PG rating.

Take Tomcats, for instance. The R-rated Revolution Studios movie geared to young audience would have benefited from some edits to get a PG-13. In Canada, where younger children are allowed to watch the American equivalent of an R-rated movie, Tomcats was a hit.

"I'm consciously steering away from the R," Joe Roth, a veteran Hollywood executive who heads Revolution, tells the Washington Post. "My one-line philosophy on the R rating is if you're making an R-rated movie, you'd better want to. You can't just slip into it."

And MarketCast says Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 could have earned as much as $20 million more during its first weekend had it been rated PG-13. It's R-rating kept the first-week earnings at $13 million.

The study is quick to point out that the reduced box office only applies to teen-targeted films with the R rating. More adult fare, like the R-rated Nurse Betty or Enemy at the Gates, is not affected by the rating. The study also notes that R-rated movies targeting teen girls are more affected than those targeting adolescent males, possibly because males can pass for older.

Of course, Hollywood has had its share of battles between directors, who believe certain scenes may be intrinsic to their film, and studio execs, who prefer to cut racier bits to get the lower, potentially more lucrative rating. Filmmakers say it's dangerous to forgo an R just to improve the bottom line.

And cutting out R-rated scenes won't do everything, the study admits. Saving Silverman was cut to get a PG-13 rating and still made only $7.4 million in its opening weekend.

"Bad movies will still make a little more money [with the PG-13]," says Vincent Bruzzese, chief tracking analyst at MarketCast.

Imagine if it had kept the R rating.

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by DickGrayson

According to MarketCast, a sucky R-rated movie will be slightly less sucky with a PG rating.

Well that's nice they did all that investigating there, but I'll always feel uneasy they never include the slim possibility that a "good" movie doesn't always mean the one that makes the most money.

And MarketCast says Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 could have earned as much as $20 million more during its first weekend had it been rated PG-13. It's R-rating kept the first-week earnings at $13 million.

I think this proves my criticism on their method of "theories". The Blair Witch movies are a great idea [b]in theory[\b] because the fact that these movies actually make money is scary enough, so the movies themselves must be off the scale!