Quote:
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.