|
Grex > Music3 > #171: Grammy Awards, 2004 presentation |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 86 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 63 of 86:
| 
Feb 12 20:23 UTC 2004 |
O.K., Mr. other. Do you give up yet?
Top 20 Grossing Movies by Rating (Top 100 Since 1998)
Year G PG PG-13 R
2002 1 6 13 0
2001 2 4 10 4
2000 0 3 12 5
1999 2 3 7 8
1998 3 3 9 5
8 19 51 22
|
gull
|
|
response 64 of 86:
|
Feb 12 20:40 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:59: I wonder that, too. I find the "violence is okay, but sex
is not" attitude kind of odd when I stop to think about it.
Re resp:63: Those numbers square pretty well with what I've heard. An R
rating is considered somewhat of a negative, but a G rating is
considered the kiss of death for anything but a children's film. I've
heard in some cases studios will intentionally notch up the content of a
film so it will get a PG or PG-13 instead of a G, just like they'll
sometimes tone it down to get a PG-13 instead of an R.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 65 of 86:
|
Feb 12 20:46 UTC 2004 |
Speaking as a parent, I did in fact raise my children without letting tv be
the babysitter. There was only one tv in the house and if they were watching,
so was a parent. If there was any violence or nudity that went beyond my
comfort boundaries, off it went. (And I admit it, I am a big prude. Sex in
movies -- even the PG13 varieties -- is something that makes me uncomfortable.
Violence in most contexts (unless very clearly sf/fantasy, as in rayguns and
swords) also makes me really uncomfortable. I don't watch it. I carefully read
spoiler reviews of movies so I don't go to things that will make me
uncomfortable, and I tend to like Disney movies A LOT.) I may have made
mistakes as a parent, but I do feel happy that I was careful about this when
they were small.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 66 of 86:
|
Feb 13 03:43 UTC 2004 |
i'm glad you're a prude.
|
rational
|
|
response 67 of 86:
|
Feb 13 03:52 UTC 2004 |
I'm just glad in general.
|
other
|
|
response 68 of 86:
|
Feb 13 03:55 UTC 2004 |
Get out your calendars: I admit I'm wrong that R rated films
outsell PG rated according to the numbers you provided. I'd like to
ask, however, if those numbers reflect first run, box office only,
or total earnings.
|
gsibbery
|
|
response 69 of 86:
|
Feb 13 13:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 70 of 86:
|
Feb 14 16:15 UTC 2004 |
Considering that their is only 3 ways for an animated
Disney Villian to die (mostly all by their own actins):
1) Fall of a cliff, ledge or whatnot, from high above to unsurvivable
below.
2) Consumed by fire.
3) Fall of a cliff into a firey pit.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 71 of 86:
|
Feb 14 16:17 UTC 2004 |
I would be interested in profit per rating type.
|
aruba
|
|
response 72 of 86:
|
Feb 15 23:05 UTC 2004 |
Right, I was going to say: The statistic you really want, to judge the power
of different types of movies, is the total profit/revenue from R-rated
movies last year vs. the total profit/revenue from PG-13 movies last year.
It might be (I really don't know) that the top few movies are all G/PG-13,
but that there are many more R-rated movies than the rest, and so they make
up the difference in volume.
|
klg
|
|
response 73 of 86:
|
Feb 16 02:51 UTC 2004 |
"Profit" is a much more easily manipulated figure, particularly with
respect to motion pictures.
Further, would not the number of releases by rating category not also
be relevant??
|
gull
|
|
response 74 of 86:
|
Feb 16 15:55 UTC 2004 |
"Always ask for a piece of the gross, not a piece of the net. The net
is fantasy." -- Freakazoid.
|
jp2
|
|
response 75 of 86:
|
Feb 17 01:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 76 of 86:
|
Feb 17 04:24 UTC 2004 |
Fair enough, then - the number of movies in each category, and their total
gross. That should tell you the relative power of the rating classes.
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 86:
|
Feb 17 15:10 UTC 2004 |
Movie industry accounting is as crooked as it comes.
|
rational
|
|
response 78 of 86:
|
Feb 17 16:02 UTC 2004 |
EFVEN FAMOUS HOLLYWOOD MOVIE STARS WEAR FR#EDOM RIBBONS
|
janc
|
|
response 79 of 86:
|
Feb 18 16:02 UTC 2004 |
I think in most cases you can assume that the number of movies made in any
given catagory closely tracks the amount of revenue earned in the previous
few years by movies in that category.
|
klg
|
|
response 80 of 86:
|
Feb 19 02:44 UTC 2004 |
We don't believe that Hollyweird has figured that trick out yet.
|
twenex
|
|
response 81 of 86:
|
Feb 19 16:03 UTC 2004 |
When blind idiocy can replace pure reason at will, like that, it's no wonder
the planet's still in such a state.
|
krj
|
|
response 82 of 86:
|
Feb 19 23:22 UTC 2004 |
I've sort of managed to lose the thread here, but I would remind folks
that free-market theory claims that all profitable projects will be done.
Thus, even if one proves that a PG-13 movie is more profitable than an
R-rated movie, as long as the R-rated movie can be made profitably,
it will be.
Michael Medved, who used to be a fun bad-movie critic before he
veered off into cultural conservatism, complained that Hollywood creative
types make movies which offend mainstream America in order to gain
status with their peers, and he mostly thought this was a bad thing.
Seems like normal human behavior to me, though. Arts markets are
not entirely about return on investment.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 83 of 86:
|
Feb 25 07:26 UTC 2004 |
Being offensive for any other reason than that you've got something to
say that just happens to be offensive, is -- offensive.
|
bmoran
|
|
response 84 of 86:
|
Feb 8 03:38 UTC 2006 |
Hey, the 2006 Grammys are tomorrow night. Maybe this years will generate
some interest, eh? I'm looking foreward to the Gorillaz/Madonna bit!
|
krj
|
|
response 85 of 86:
|
Feb 9 04:36 UTC 2006 |
(( I started a new item for the 2006 Grammy Awards, so it can be
linked into the new Music conference which should open to the
public any hour now. item:211 in the old music conference. ))
|
krj
|
|
response 86 of 86:
|
Jan 28 07:41 UTC 2007 |
Note from the future...
I wish I'd backed up this conference before response deletion became
such a fad.
|