http://www.fangoria.com/forums/index.ph ... opic=55743
Un post assez intéressant, en gros la MPAA inciterait les studios à produire plus de films "horrifiques" classé PG-13 plutôt que R.
D'après la MPAA, ces films d'horreur/d'angoisse "pour les 13 ans et plus" seraient nettement plus rentables que les films d'horreur "adultes" ou en tous cas destiné au plus de 17 ans (films classé R).
Les ados (et notamment les filles) de 13 à 17 ans seraient particulièrement client(e)s de ce genre de production qui font peur mais qui ne sombrent pas dans l'horreur ou le graphique (=qui restent visibles par toute la famille).
Cela correspond en tout cas à une tendance récente:
Darkness Falls - PG-13
The Grudge - PG-13
The Boogeyman - PG-13
Ring US - PG-13
Ring 2 US - PG-13
Alien vs Predator - PG-13
Cursed - PG-13
Cursed est vraiment symbolique du changement de cap, car bien qu'étant un produit Craven-Williamson, le choix a été de ne pas en faire un film R à la Scream (franchise pourtant ooooh combien rentable pour Disney/Miramax).
Les risques étant bien sur de cantonner les films de genre au public "jeunes ados", ou encore de voir des films initialement conçu pour être R subir les multiples coupes nécessaires à leur classification en PG-13...
Yesterday at ShowWest, the annual convention for movie theater owners held in Las Vegas (yours truly has attended twice in the past) new MPAA President and CEO Dan Glickman told a packed house that "PG" and "PG-13" films raked in a combined total of $6.7 Billion dollars in 2004, whereas "R" rated films only brought in a paltry $2.1 Billion dollars.
Glickman and the MPAA are using these numbers to tout the success of the "family film" and are passing the message that "sex and violence" don't do as well as "family" movies.
However, the numbers lie. As does the ratings system.
What Mr. Glickman fails to take into account is that most of those so called "PG" & "PG-13" films were, in fact, NOT "family" films, but in reality they were intended to be "R" rated films that were cut down by studio heads fearing the "R" rating which is starting to become as maligned as it's cousin, the dreaded NC-17.
Not to mention that a "PG" or "PG-13" rating does not neccessarily mean that the film is suitable for the whole family.
If you recall, films like "The Grudge" were released as a "PG-13" film. Does that mean that "The Grudge" is suitable for thirteen-year-old Sally? How about "The Ring" released as a "PG-13" in 2002?
Not to mention the varios comedies riddled with "adult themes" that are given "PG" and "PG-13" ratings simply because they contain no nudity, foul language, or overt acts of violence. Adam Sandler's highly successful films "Happy Gilmore" and "Billy Madison" were "PG-13" films, yet they are wrought with sexual references and scenes of over consumption of alcohol.
The numbers lie. The MPAA knows this but are willingly leading the public into thinking they are "stamping out inappropriate films" in Hollywood.
However what Mr. Glickman fails to realize is that the MPAA is making the problem worse.
Having managed a movie theater for ten years in my past, I tell you there is no more irate customer than the parent who takes their thirteen-year-old-child to see "The Ring" (it's rated "PG-13" after all) only to come out twenty minutes into the film with little Sally wrapped around her leg with eyes as wide as saucers and telling her mommy she wants to get rid of all her video tapes and never wants to watch TV again.
The numbers lie. And what's worse, they lie to the people who matter the most in this industry -- the consumer.
Mr. Glickman knows it... but has no intention of changing the message.
The reality is that only a handful of "family" films did well in 2004. Namely "Shrek 2", "The Incredibles", "Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban" and a handful of others like "Songebob Squarepants: The Movie".
The rest of those so called "PG" and "PG-13" "family" films were made up of trimmed down horror films (most of which sucked ass because they were not seen in the rated "R" cut they were meant for), faux suspense thrillers like "The Village", "Cellular", "Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid" and a plethora of others which I would not call "family" films.
But according to Mr. Glickman, they are.
Unfortunately the MPAA has gone out of its way to hide the truth -- the ratings system simply doesn't work and the box office is in fact suffering because of it. Yes, overall grosses were up in 2004 -- but ticket sales were down over all and have been on a steady decline for years. And while there are a wide variety of reasons for this, the ratings system and the stigma the MPAA has been trying to stick to films that are released with "R" ratings doesn't help.
People are more inclined to pay to go see an "R" rated horror film than they are a "PG-13" film. "The Ring" (which should have been rated "R" -- but Spielberg pulls a lot of weight in Hollywood) is one of the few examples of a film that was able to overcome it's "PG-13" rating and still pack a wallop, but the words "PG-13" and "horror" simply don't go hand in hand.
The ratings system needs an overhaul. Distributors have been grumbling for some time now that there needs to be a rating in between "PG-13" and "R". "R-16" has been mentioned as a possibility. Given the fact you are able to drive a loaded weapon on the nation's highways at that age, surely you are old enough to see an uncut version of "The Grudge".
But, given that the MPAA has fought nearly every attempt to overhaul its antiquated ratings system, just as the BCS has refused to add playoff games to its NCAA schedule, chances are you'll be seeing more sanitized horror films coming your way.
