Movies With No Sex, Foul Language and Nudity Win At Box Office

These statistics are just meaningless customers voting with their pocketbooks. Who cares about that. What's important is being accepted by the Hollywood community.

I suspected this to be the case – I'm pretty sure I've heard something along these lines before – but to see just how dramatic the differences are in stark naked statistics (Sorry for the intentional pun) is a real eye opener. The sexual content and drug reference categories are particularly dramatic: 3x difference between none and much. Wow.

Any chance we could arrange for studio executives to be beaten about the head with these stats every day for the next hundred years or so?

Hollywood will never admit it, but the use of sex and violence (i.e., Kiss kiss, bang bang) are crutches. People like a good story, from a 'real world' perspective. Nothing replaces creative writing which reflects the way we live. Sex and violence, while present in our lives, do not and never will be at the forefront of our perception. Values are where we find ourselves in this morality play of life. Writing and directing that captures 'reality', be it dramatic, comedic, science fiction – pick your genre – is what we want to see. Think 'Gone With the Wind.'

Jake is right. To Hollyweird, obeying lifes biological impulses is a part of their religion of liberalism. After all, the liberal elites in political office work hard to remove consequences for destructive behaviors, and they work even harder at removing personal responsibility.

Obeying life's biological impulses is one thing but seeing how characters react and deal with the consequences is the interesting part. As Mr. Kriskey says above, context matters.

I sympathize with you. When I was 7, my mom was a little strict with this stuff (more than my dad). The film might be a little too intense for a 7 year old anyway (what with the action and special FX and all that) but you can always ask someone on this website what they think after the film is released or see it for yourself first. I'd be more than happy to give you my honest opinion (albeit as a 26 year old non-parent).

As for PG vs PG-13 versions, that's another issue entirely. I understand your idea but I don't believe a director should be obligated to provide different versions (if a film was rated one thing but the studio contractually mandated something else, that's different).

You can also wait for the DVD and fast forward through any naughty stuff (that's what my folks did). But, and I say this as a Star Trek fan, I doubt it'll be too steamy.

To asist parents kids-in-mind.com gives detailed analysis of movie content.

If they eliminate the f-bomb and its multiple variations, most movies today could be cut by fiteen to forty-five minutes. Considering the lack of depth in most of them, those cuts would be a blessed relief.

I'd like to see a breakdown comparing content that's humorous, so over-the-top it's satirical and a warning message, to dead-on serious. For example, there's a world of difference showing drug use between a Cheech and Chong movie and Pulp Fiction.

**Warning, dark malignant humorous film concept now crawling from under my psyche, read at you own risk.**

Bill Clinton Does Harlem: The Legend Continues. Should hit NC-17 for any nudity.

Interesting statistics, but what were the movies?! What were the movies that had no nudity or foul language? The figures above are averages. Was there one blockbuster in the bunch that is pulling the average up? I'm all for the point the author of the post is making, but these statistics aren't enough; more data is needed.

this reminds me of when I used to supply 16MM Prints of current movies to country halls/schools etc about 25-30 years ago and one school had the priest as head censor. All he would do is stand next to the projector with a piece of cardboard and place it in front of the lens when he saw anything he felt was inappropriate. Sort of censoring on the fly.

Gratuitous sex, violence, drug use, and foul langaunge – sounds like my kind of movie!!!

Honestly, I think if Shakespeare were alive today, he'd write sex scenes. Violence too for sure.

Personally, being a single male in my 20s without offspring – I don't think Hollywood should make movies with "less sex/violence" – I'm old enough to make my own decisions about what I want to see. And I like seeing nekkid people. And if I had kids, well I would have to guide their viewing – just like my Dad did with me… let's face it, there's nothing more annoying than going to a "R" rated film and having the experience ruined by a crying infant…

Which brings me another thing. What's this bizarre prejudice against sex/nudity? Under my clothes, I'm naked – and so are you! God forbid we see that! Too much nudity and sex and a film gets the death sentence "NC-17".

Depict the torture and gruesome murder of a dozen helpless victim and you get an "R" and a cult following.

Keep in mind that with these stats -they're cumulative over the industry and it basically says that family movies make more money on whole than non-family movies.

But you can't use these stats as a guide to going foward on how to make a movie.

The fallacy of the logic would be akin to saying since McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain – that all future restaurants ought to be just like McDonald's. Not that I don't like a Big Mac now and then, but there's room in the market for all kinds of different foods (movies) appealing to different tastes.

And yet people will always welcome a McDonald's as a sign of civilization, and keep coming back for comforting normalcy all the time.

Meanwhile the last time I hit up Taco Bell to remember what it was like, and ordered from the cheap menu, I wondered how they got away with putting dog food in a burrito.

Hey man, I wasn't dissing Mickey D's – I get my annual Big Mac every year on my pilgrimage to Vegas.

But Taco Bell…. well I think you explained why that talking Chihuahua loved their food so much.

Which brings me another thing. What's this bizarre prejudice against sex/nudity? Under my clothes, I'm naked – and so are you! God forbid we see that!

Helen Thomas, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi. Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy. All together.

Praise God in the Highest for forbidding such abominations from my sight.

What, no Elliot Spitzer? Larry Craig?

Not to mention: Gary Condit, Jesse Jackson, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Gary Hart, Bob Packwood, Strom Thurmond, JFK, Grover Cleveland, Thomas Jefferson….

We didn't start the fire…

Since your casting choices for "sex/nudity" scenes invoke necrophilia, I must assume you are deranged.

But I'll give you a pass on Elliot Spitzer, he already has connections to a related industry.

Dr. Baehr refers to "sex, foul language and nudity" in movies, not to the ever-present violence which I find much more disturbing. Of course, it all depends on how it's presented, but I would wager that seeing a pair of boobs every now is a lot less damaging to the psyche than witnessing brutal acts of violence.

Still Helen Thomas…. what a fox!

The White House correspondent? Does "close enough to necrophilia" exist?

Perhaps it'd be best for you to get some sleep while whatever substances they were wear off. And best for everyone else too.

Yep if Hollywerd could just keep pumping out the ole ultra-violence we wouldn't need to viddy the ole in out with some weepy young devotchka going ooh ooh and flashing the naughty bits.

No what really makes the filthy lucre is some good ole Harry Potter and the atheist stone.

Are you the one who sent Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea to my school in the early 70's??? I've been looking for that person for a long, long time. We had to watch that abysmal crap about 3 times a year, for 3 years! I have always hated movies like that, and I remember thinking it was a punishment, instead of a treat. I started getting in trouble right before the movie started in order to go to the library, instead.

This guy is not a "Dr." of anything, so how can I trust his stats when he uses a title to imply he is something he is not?

This guy is not a "Dr." of anything, so how can I trust his stats when he uses a title to imply he is something he is not? And now his bio claims he helped produce "The Chronicles of Narnia," but it fails to explain that it's referring to another version of the story from many years ago, not the more recent box-office smash that everyone has seen. It's "conservatives" like this that give the rest of us a bad name.

Yeah, he just put the Dr. in front of his name to look cool…

Not sure I buy the statistics. Much of them could be skewed by the blockbuster Pixar animation films–which are enjoyed by both adults and kids with repeat business.

I don't have a problem with movies that contain strong language, violence, and sex. It's bad writing, directing, and acting that offend me.

Dr. Doolittle,

Where's your proof that Dr. Baehr isn't a doctor

In his bio. It says he got his "juris doctor" from a NY law school. A "juris doctor" is a first-level law degree, most often referred to as a "JD." It's the same degree that any ambulance chaser has. In the field of law, you can get a doctorate, which is a PhD, but that's two degrees higher than the basic "juris doctor." Ask any law school. So he calls himself "Dr." based on having a law degree that's not a doctorate. That seems pretty slimy to me.

Good question. I submitted it in the Big Hollywood contact form. Interesting to see what they say.

And, 3) He's not a "Dr."

Jazus, dude, give it a rest! You posted the "he's not a doctor" crap about 4 times in this thread! We all can read, and saw it the first time. What did this dude do to you? Who even cares what he is? If you didn't like his article just say so, and why.

You don't know what a Juris Doctor is:

from Wikipedia:

Juris Doctor (see etymology and abbreviations below) is a first professional[2] graduate degree[3] and professional doctorate[4] in law.

If youre under the impression that someone with professional doctorate in law can't refer to themselves as a 'Dr.' you're so freaking stupid you should refrain from commenting on subjects like this.

Another fun exercise for those who don't 'trust' Baehr but DO have an internet connection and are willing to spend, oh I don't know, let's say, FIVE MINUTES looking something up on-line?

Google 'Top Box Office By Year'.

Near the top will be the Internet Movie Database's all time list of top grossing films in in America, listed from 1 to 420.

Here's your research: Break down the films in the list (you can just do the top 100 if you want) by 'G', 'PG-13" and 'R' ratings.

If you think R Rated fare is pretty much comparable to G Rated fare when it comes to box office take, prepare to have that idea confronted by some ugly facts.

R-Rated films in the top 100:

12. Passion of the Christ (and we KNOW how typical Hollywood THAT movie was, right?)
36. The Matrix Reloaded
42. Jaws (would probably be a PG-13 today)
56. Beverly Hills Cop
73. Saving Private Ryan
79. 300
86. The Exorcist
99. Gladiator

Hey what the hell………..I'm on a roll, I'll keep going. Note that thus far in the top 100 all time box office grossing films thus far, only EIGHT had an 'R' rating. The other 92 films in the top 100 DIDN'T have an R rating.

Still with me?

OK here we go……..

117. Pretty Woman (? yeah I know, this seems to be for the Director's Cut, but it says 'R', so….)
132. The Matrix
143. Hannibal
154. The Firm
158. Fatal Attraction
165. Beverly Hills Cop II
166. Jerry McGuire (wtf? must be for language, maybe Cuba's butt in the shower scene I guess)
169. Sex And The City
171. Rambo: First Blood Part II
172. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
173. Knocked Up
177. Lethal Weapon 2
178. True Lies
180. American Pie 2
181. Gran Torino
184. Lethal Weapon 3
192. Animal House
194. A Few Good Men (for language)
198. The Blair Witch Project

Out of the top 200 all time box office earning movies in American history, how many TOTAL are 'R Rated' thus far?

A grand total of TWENTY-SEVEN out of 173.

Note how many of these 'R Rated' films are from the 1970's, 1980's, or very early 1990's:

Animal House, Pretty Woman, Rambo, The Exorcist, Beverly Hills Cop, and Jaws. You look at a lot of the movies on this list and they are QUITE TAME compared to alot of the stuff Hollywood puts out today. Jerry McGuire? Pretty Woman? Beverly Hills Cop?

In other words, these AREN'T the REALLY, REALLY OVER THE TOP, chock full o' profanity, gore, explicit sex type of stuff Hollywood puts in most of it's 'R Rated' fare the past decade or so. Like Grindhouse for instance. Or Saw.

300 was different, tho. 300 was COOL. [ ]

You're right – what was I thinking?

That if you'd marry her first you'd get a quick inheritance? Seriously, she'd need a month of conditioning by Oprah's personal trainer, Dr. Ruth nearby with everything from her bedroom, and the entire cast of Grey's Anatomy on standby.

If you really want a cougar, avoid the ones that look stuffed and mounted.

But if that's really your thing, go take a private moment to contemplate a hot threesome. The sultry Andrea Mitchell, her hubby the buff Alan Greenspan, and a bottle of Viagra.

Mano, ironically, there was the follow up to "Get Shorty" (Be Cool), which stated explicitly a few of the rules for getting an "R" rating today… When John Travolta's talking to James Woods' character, he says If the word "F—" is used twice, it gets an R rating, but if it's only used once, it could still qualify as a "PG-13", and that description was the only time they used the word…. I think there was a line in there about the amount of time of partial nudity that got an "R" rating, but i don't remember for sure.

Pardon me. I missed the fine print requiring a particular IQ before one was allowed to voice one's opinion. During the 1960s, most American law schools replaced the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) with the Juris Doctor (J.D.), even though the actual requirements for the law degree remained substantially the same. A "bachelor" is not the same as a "doctorate." Nor is it commonly interchangeable for one. The Florida State Bar, possibly as reliable as Wikipedia, says it is professionally unethical for a lawyer to refer to himself as "doctor," as it is misleading when the title is commonly accepted for those practicing medicine or those holding a Ph.D. While the Latin phrase itself may cause ambiguity, it should not be used to imply expertise or credibility in an unrelated field. Would it be acceptable for George W. Bush to call himself Dr. Bush? Or perhaps Barack Obama to call himself Dr. Obama? What about the guy on late night TV advertising for your whiplash or divorce case? How absurd. But all three possess law degrees. Perhaps I did a poor job making my original point, that the title "Dr." is in this instance grossly misleading, making the gentleman's premise and statistics suspect. I have meant no offense to those more freaking intelligent than myself, and so I humbly apologize. I merely submit that misleading and manipulating should be left to politicians, not those claiming to be experts in morality.

Did you not read the rest of his bio? The man attended so many universities, where he more likely than not got his PhD. It just mentioned that he got his JD from NYU because that was the one post-grad school that had a different type of degree given.

[...] If the numbers compiled by Movieguide that are quoted in this article  are accurate, I guess I was [...]