Why is it so important that the Universal Monsters be rated R?

[Serpenthrope]

This is something that absolutely baffles me, and I was hoping I could get some explanation. Don't get me wrong, Dracula Untold was a bad movie. But, it seems like alot of people want to blame it's failure, and the presumed failure of the upcoming Universal Monsters franchise, on the PG-13.

Honestly, I think DU failed mainly because the performances were wooden, and they stupidly tried to make Dracula heroic. Would a lot of gore and some boobs have really changed that?

In general I think the outrage of PG-13 horror films is wildly overblown, but I think it's particularly baffling in the case of the Universal Monsters. Their original films were made under the Hayes Code, and would probably get a PG today.

Furthermore, it's clear that no one minds when the monsters are used to appeal to kids. No one minded Hotel Transylvania using the monsters in a children's film.

So, if there's no objection to either PG or R, then why does the rating between them cause a problem?

Honestly, if I ever have kids, I'd love to have a modern Universal Monsters series to introduce them to (along with the originals, of course) that they could handle at the age of 11 or 12.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not bashing the use of these Monsters in R-rated films either. I actually liked Benecio Del Toro's Wolfman. But it certainly isn't the film to draw a new generation of children to these classic Monsters.

[Roiffalo]

Originally Posted by Serpenthrope

I'd like to clarify that I'm not bashing the use of these Monsters in R-rated films either. I actually liked Benecio Del Toro's Wolfman. But it certainly isn't the film to draw a new generation of children to these classic Monsters.

Ohhhh I dunno. I'm rather fond of Del Toro's Wolfman *not at all obvious by sig*


But forgive my slowness, I'm rather lost on what you have a problem with. Although I have much to say in the rating of horror/monster movies. Like why is it necessary to have sex in a movie that focuses on death and the abominations of life. To me it just takes away focus and wastes time better used on more gore. Something I loved about 2010 Wolfman, the closest it had to a sex scene was a side boob and it was still rated R. That to me is how a rating is done.

As far as what kids could handle, have you ever considered what many of us were raised on? Apparently the people who rate today's flicks do not. I grew up on Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Beetlejuice, Batman, Underworld (towards my early-mid teens), etc. A lot of that stuff is fairly inappropriate for kids with a rating that allowed us to watch it, but I like to think I turned out just fine.

Personally I think kids do just fine with a little gore. I knew a kid who was like 10 when I was 15 and she could better handle horror movies I at the time never would've considered watching. It depends on the child and how they're raised. If they're shown images that are all sunshine, puppies, and rainbows and taught that the world is a bright beautiful CareBears world, then yeah, they're going to be squeamish, sensitive, pansies. Treating kids with kid gloves won't protect them. The sooner we can introduce them to the real world the better.

The films I mentioned before probably had a PG-13 rating at worst, and most are considered classics to this day. Making a good PG-13 movie successful isn't impossible. But finding writers that can accomplish that is another story. They ham up everything, over sex characters, do jack shit for story, and CGI everything to death, hoping that we're too distracted by the shiny pictures to notice all it's obvious flaws. Today's movie makers (not ALL mind you), consider their audience to be simple cave folk.


In short; a movie's rating is nothing, without good writing.

[Serpenthrope]

Originally Posted by Roiffalo

But forgive my slowness, I'm rather lost on what you have a problem with.

Let me put it in more general horror terms:

Coraline and ParaNorman were rated PG: Fine, kids like to be scared too.

Saw was rated R: Was a torture porn movie for adults.

Anything that falls between those two ratings: Is selling out for teenagers. (...because apparently teenagers are the only demographic horror movie directors aren't allowed to target...)

[Serpenthrope]

I apologize for the double-post, but I'm a little confused on why this was moved. I thought that, since the new Universal Monster movies are "Upcoming," that would be the appropriate section. Could someone clarify?

[horcrux2007]

Originally Posted by Serpenthrope

This is something that absolutely baffles me, and I was hoping I could get some explanation. Don't get me wrong, Dracula Untold was a bad movie. But, it seems like alot of people want to blame it's failure, and the presumed failure of the upcoming Universal Monsters franchise, on the PG-13.

Honestly, I think DU failed mainly because the performances were wooden, and they stupidly tried to make Dracula heroic. Would a lot of gore and some boobs have really changed that?

In general I think the outrage of PG-13 horror films is wildly overblown, but I think it's particularly baffling in the case of the Universal Monsters. Their original films were made under the Hayes Code, and would probably get a PG today.

Furthermore, it's clear that no one minds when the monsters are used to appeal to kids. No one minded Hotel Transylvania using the monsters in a children's film.

So, if there's no objection to either PG or R, then why does the rating between them cause a problem?

Honestly, if I ever have kids, I'd love to have a modern Universal Monsters series to introduce them to (along with the originals, of course) that they could handle at the age of 11 or 12.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not bashing the use of these Monsters in R-rated films either. I actually liked Benecio Del Toro's Wolfman. But it certainly isn't the film to draw a new generation of children to these classic Monsters.

I personally believe that if a horror movie doesn't require gore, sex, or profanity in order to be effective, scary, and tell the story how it is intended, then I think it should be PG-13. If a movie does have sexual or violent themes that would be undermined if it were PG-13, then, yes, it should be rated R. A lot of monster movies are typically violent, so I feel they should typically be rated R. However, something like Poltergeist or Insidious should be PG-13 because there's no use for gore or sex to tell the story.

[horcrux2007]

**accidental double post**

[MichaelMyers]

I think teens like horrorcrux would question the integrity of a horror movie rated PG. It would probably bomb at the box office. The rating is a cue. But IMO especially in an internet-age, the MPAA is an outdated and rarely enforced entity anyway. I was never turned away from a PG-13 or R-rated movie and it's even harder to imagine that is a common practice now.

[horcrux2007]

Is PG horror even a thing?

[MichaelMyers]

Originally Posted by horcrux2007

Is PG horror even a thing?

The original Poltergeist, believe it or not. Steven Spielberg bribed the MPAA to bring it down from an R rating.

[horcrux2007]

Originally Posted by MichaelMyers

The original Poltergeist, believe it or not. Steven Spielberg bribed the MPAA to bring it down from an R rating.

I mean modern horror. I knew Poltergeist was PG, but it would be PG-13 if it were released today. That kinda doesn't count since PG-13 didn't exist at the time.