Audiences Prefer Family-Friendly Movies with No Foul Language
by Ted BaehrThere is a common misconception in our popular culture that sex, violence, and obscenity usually sell, but nearly eighty years of experience and research prove that this is not true.
For example, for nearly 30 years, when Hollywood was run according to the Motion Picture Code of Decency, enforced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Film Office, the movie industry saw an unprecedented economic boom. That fiscal prosperity only began to wane when Christian churches pulled away from Hollywood in the 1960s and movies reached increasingly new levels of immorality featuring more and more graphic sex, violence, and obscene language.
Toward the end of this Golden Age of Hollywood, the movie industry was selling 9.43 tickets per person in the United States and Canada, but now sells only about 4.1 tickets per person.
Also, nearly two decades of research by Movieguide, a non-profit family guide to movies and entertainment supported by Christian donors and general subscriptions, shows that family friendly movies with no graphic sex, violence, and obscene language earn more than two to six times as much money at the box office, on average, as movies with such graphic content.
That’s exactly what Movieguide tells Hollywood’s top executives each year in Movieguide’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry (which is also highlighted at the Annual Movieguide Faith & Values Awards Gala held each February and attended by many of those executives).
Ironically, a study released by the Parents Television Council in 2008 revealed that the amount of foul language on primetime network TV has skyrocketed since 1998. Meanwhile, a study of foul language in G, PG, and PG-13 movies revolving around teenagers by three Brigham Young University professors shows that the 1980s movies they studied averaged 35 obscenities or profanities per movie, but decreased to 25 per movie in the 1990s and 16 per movie in the current decade, in the wake of Movieguide®’s annual study, which began in 1991.
This is no surprise to Movieguide®, which reported a 2006 poll by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg that most teenagers are offended by depictions of foul language and sex in movies and television.
Teenagers are the most frequent moviegoers, according to annual statistics from the Motion Picture Association of America.
Their preference for movies with little or no foul language is reflected in annual statistics from Movieguide’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry.
According to those statistics, in the last five years, movies with no foul language averaged nearly $51.48 million at the box office, but movies with 26 or more obscenities or profanities averaged less than $24.20 million.
That’s more than twice as much money!
Is it any wonder, then, that the movie industry, despite the decline in movie attendance in the past 40 years since the end of the movie production code of decency, still seems to be economically sound, while the major television networks have noticed a significant decrease in viewers in the last 10 to 15 years?
Clearly, the depiction of foul language and obscenity in movies and television does not usually sell. Neither do graphic depictions of sex, nudity, and extreme violence.
In fact, clean family movies and clean action thrillers remain the most financially successful types of movies, not only at the North American box office, but also internationally and on DVD and Blu-Ray.
The movie studios and their stockholders seem to be listening to this well-established fact. When will the major television networks in the United States?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
117 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez and DNC DUDES, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: Audiences Prefer Family-Friendly Movies with No Foul Language http://tinyurl.com/yas24fm [...]
What's happened to Hollyweird is a lack of creativity. It's not difficult to be profane and scatalogical and increased usage of such just proves laziness geared to the lowest common denominator. Add Hollyweirds' left wing bent and you have just the right ingredients for the failure of its industry to appeal to everyone. In other words these idiots leave alot of money on the table. Name another industry that curses and prothlecize to its customers?
As I have said many times I know nothing about the inner workings of the movie business and will
bow to Mr. Baehr's assessment of how it survives by watching the return on dollars and changing their
philosophy to maximize that return. Perhaps Mr Baehr will explain what I see as a severe detriment to their
return on investment and number of tickets sold in producing over and over pictures that abuse those on the right, their love of the constitution, their love of home, marriage and protection of this country borders. Those movies for the most part fail to have a return on investment I'm told yet they make them over an over. Its seems strange that they can reconize as in Mr Baehr's examples yet fail to see the political example. Someone will till me if I'm off base here, I'm sure.
All I'll say is there's a time and a place for everything, and that's coming from someone who can enjoy a Three Stooges short and a film like The Hangover equally. And that hasn't stopped plenty of folks on this site from naming favorite films that feature plenty of sex and violence.
And they, Hollywood, always like to tell people if they don't like what people see they should change the channel or not watch a particular movie. Yet when people do indeed follow that advice and movies and shows are money losers, the same Hollywood deep thinkers blame those same people they encouraged to turn away!
I don't disagree in any way that a Hollywood and TV execs would do well to learn that people like to see movies with less gratuitous sex and profanity, but I think it's specious to make it sound like the end of the production code was the only (or the most significant) contributor to the decline of theater ticket sales. Ticket sales started to decline in the late 40s/early 50s, just as television was becoming widespread across the US, and while the production code was still very much in effect. That's also when people started moving out of urban centers and into suburbs — making it much easier to watch TV than to go back into town to the theater.
That said, I do wish Hollywood and TV would wise up to the fact that there is a much bigger audience to be had today if only they could resist the temptation to stuff a normally good film with unnecessary and unwelcome junk. A creative, well-written story wouldn't hurt either.
It takes a lot more creativity and inventiveness to write about and then express in acting without gratuitous sex and foul language, the kinds of emotions and situations so many writers and actors think need jarring scenes that no parent wants the kids to see.
My Dad used to tell me that foul language was the refuge of people with limited vocabularies, and who lacked depth of expression.
Watching the quality of most scripts and acting these days, I can see where he was spot on.
I don't know whether or not I have an answer for that because I'm in theatre and not film but I think it has to do with making a statement and being severely egocentric. Maybe they're a kind of inside joke they want to try to share with America at large and some of America at large is still going to see their little jabs at anything decent in this country. I may be wrong so I agree with you on your last statement. Someone will be doing the correcting soon I'm sure.
Even in the latest comedy with Hugh Grant, they have to take a stab at Sarah Palin. I would have gone but I am no longer paying to see Christians or conservative treated in the manner Hollywood is doing. Half this country did not vote for Obama and they need to realize when they do this, they are alienating half the country. How stupid is that? Even in Blind side, they took a cheap shot at Bush. It is disgusting. Are they film makers with something to say or are they puppets of the liberal left. They need to make up their minds because they turning out trash.
How ironic is it that the drivel being spewed from Hollywood makes me want to cuss and swear?
I agree to a point. It is true that Family riendly Movies and Movies without excessive Foul Language do better on average than others do and TV ratings and viewers have been seen to be decreasing. I object to the over simplification of the analysis. TV since the mid 50's to today have changed the entertainment industry. Now we have hundreds of available TV channels further dividing the audience into smaller and smaller groups. Movies as stated are primarily made with a Dating Teenage audience in mind as that seems to be the major ticket buyers. Families simply cannot afford to see evrything at the movies regardless of content. DVD's further complicate the environment and now the Internet has added an order of magnitude complication.
The theatre is in no great shacks either!
RENT isn't La Boheme, no matter what anyone says, IN THE HEIGHTS is garbage, making a show out of an old movie or a cartoon is patently ridiculous, and revivals of ancient old show ( which was okay when the City Center did them, but not when thrown up on Broadway, with $100 tickets! ) just to muck about with them, because they weren't PC ( FINIANAN'S RAINBOW ), shows that there is absolutely NO talent out there !
Oh, okay, the revival of THE WOMEN, quite a long time ago, was good, very good and the script wasn't compromised, but the curtain call in underwear, for shock value, or whatever, was beyond stupid!
But there were movie theatres in those suburbs, back in the '40s and '50s and people did go; they just didn't go on nights when Uncle Miltie was on.
Children, back then, went to the movies every Saturday afternoon and in the summer, many theatres showed cartoons, shorts, and such, on a week day morning, in the summers,for very little money. They were known as "children shows".
You want to talk about T.V. ? You bet people stayed home and watched it! There was PLAYHOUSE 90 and a whole raft of such shows, where original plays, such a MARTY were the norm.
Then there were all of the shows that featured classical music, "pops" ( which is lighter classical fare", and light comic operettas. NBC did THE MIKADO in the summer of 1949 and that was only the beginning of that station doing G&S, quite regularly. And that was just one of many operettas, by others, that were regularly shown. Then there were Broadway and off Boradway shows that often the original casts brought to T.V.!
Sure there was QUEEN FOR A DAY and other garbage, but the tone and quality of T.V., back then, was spectacular.
Today, there's mostly dross and when an inventive show, such as PUSHING DAISIES is allowed on air, it gets cancelled. Cable is a bit better, but also ditches shows out of hand; with MAD MEN being the exception.
God's Little Acre was our first pass around teehee in grade school. My
first experience with the seamier side of literature. There wasn't much
titillation in Dick, Jane and Spot.
I appreciate the statistics re foul language and gratuitous sex scenes leading to a decline in viewers and ticket buyers but I think the amount of trash in US films and TV today relates primarily to a huge decrease in the talent pool. Theater and film schools are like most schools & universities in America where PC attitudes prevail and that leads to group think, which never has and never will stimulate originality regarding writing, producing, directing, or acting. 'Back in the day' folks learned their crafts by doing, failing, and doing again until they got it right. Today both industries are full of wanabes and posers.
Shortly after it came to video, Mrs. AndJew and I rented Get Shorty. We tolerated the first five minutes, replete with innumerable uses of the F-Bomb. Now, we're not prudes, nor have we virgin ears, but we agreed simultaneously the movie deserved no more of our time. It was one of two occasions where we marched back to Blockbuster and demanded a refund. We got it.
Look at the hopelessly out-of-touch graphic above. Daddy puts on a tie to watch some nice, wholesome entertainment — in this case, some mis-shapen, pervy clown. If that's "family-friendly," you can have it!
Go look at Baehr's site, or read some of the nonsense that's come out of him over the years. He plays the role of a matter-of-fact boxoffice analyst when it's convenient to him, but what you're "reading into this" is his essential mission: Like most self-appointed moral arbiters, the overriding goal is getting the rest of the world to bend to THEIR hangups and arcane superstitions.
Here's the thing, though: Your numbers are wrong. "Half" of the country didn't vote for Obama OR McCain.
Only 56.8% of voting-elligible Americans actually voted in the last election, meaning that roughly HALF of the country (or, rather, the elligible voters so it's really an even LOWER number) didn't go to polls, period. So, basically, you're talking about 25-29% of the U.S. being potentially "alienated" by "anti-conservative" (well, anti-religious-traditionalist really, but I'll use your lingo for expediency's sake) content in movies – except that since that 56.8 was the HIGHEST turnout since 1968 (it's usually in the mid-30s) it stands to reason that the real number is probably HALF that.
(continued)
(continued)
So, at MOST, you're looking at MAYBE a ceiling of 10-15% of Americans likely to be aliented enough by a Sarah Palin jab – in a movie, mind you, that's all about selling the same "rural culture saintly, city culture evil" b.s. that Palin's acolytes gorge themselves on. Now, then… can you imagine ANY industry considering the notion that they're product is easily sale-able to "only" 80 to 90% of the United States to be BAD NEWS? Especially when even that MASSIVE number – i.e. 80 to 90% of 304,000,000+ people – still pales in comparison to the numbers in foreign territories where the percentage of people who'll be "offended" by percieved sleights against American "conservatives" is essentially nonexistant.
In other words, here's a new definition of irony: The Market, aka CAPITALISM, is rapidly rendereding American conservatism – or at least the hodgepodge of superstition and inertia that today passes for it – economically obsolete for this particular medium
Its been awhile since I attended a theater event. My lady friend at the time
suggested we see the Vagina Monologues. I not only passed on the opportunity
but the young lady and I had other issues so the relationship faltered as well
as my interest in most theater offerings thereafter.
I'm no prude by a long shot, but I really believe it depends on the movie. PULP FICTION was riddled with curses, and SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER AND UNCUT was so far over the top you couldn't help but laugh (SP:BL&U holds the Guinness world records for curses and acts of violence, BTW). Both were highly entertaining films, IMHO.
All that said, perhaps the key word here is GRATUITOUS, and that goes for language, sex, and violence. In most cases, I believe it follows my father's axiom that cursing displays a severe lack of eloquence. In some films, I believe cursing can be used sparingly to great effect when it's used unexpectedly by cool-headed characters in moments of heated conflict. Hits you like a hammer. I'm sure opinions will vary greatly with mine, but that's my take.
FYI My first three scripts contain NO foul language, graphic sex or violence at all. The one I'm wrapping now has a few sprinkles, but just a few. Because that's how the story goes. It's an adult romantic comedy. Consider this. I thought one of the funniest scenes in WEDDING CRASHERS was at the beginning, when one bridesmaid after another was thrown naked on a bed in rapid-fire fashion. It can work, when it's done sparingly and right. IMHO.
Good for you guys!!
I find myself looking up the movie on IMdb first to see who's in it and what the premise is, then I try to find out what Michael Medved has to say about it. I'm really picky about what I watch (strange coming from an actress I know!) and highly critical as well. By the way: hope hanukkah was happy..Greetings to the missus.
I was not inferring that theatre was any better than film so retract your claws and breathe deeply. I merely said that my experiences were in theatre. And the very nonsense you brought up is why I don't work very much! I'm picky! There's lots of talent out there, really. There are lots of creative people with a lot to say. It's a matter of money, position, and compromise: not having enough money, not being in a position to know people who can help, and not wanting to compromise with those people who might want to help but want to make changes.
Pushing the envelope! That's what they're doing. They think they're cutting edge–that they are going to be written into theatre history like Brecht or Sam Shepard but they are realistically cutting their throats.
And $100 to see a PC version of an old Musical? Oh please…Our stimulus money at work.
I wasn't berating you; you gave me a small opening and I took it, to rfant against the sorry state of American theatre.
There might be creative people out there, but they're not given a chance and somehow, I wonder if anyone truly can write, out there, now. WHY? Because of the sorry state of education and what young people have been and are exposed to.
"Cutting edge" is so far from what is being fobbed off on us, that it is to laugh!
FINIAN'S RAINBOW was hackneyed tripe 43 years ago, when I saw it at the City Center, but the music is lovely. Today's revival sent shivers up and down all of the idiot PCers, due to the last scene, where all of big shots turn into Negros and appear in black-face. I don't remember how they have resolved that or even if they did. LOL
But NO, money from the Porkulus Bill didn't go into that show and the crazy $100 and up ticket prices ( which have been around for about a decade now ) have more to do with Unions and greedy producers.
Couldn't agree more. Older films had quite a bit more passion and all without the need for incessant puerile humor or gratuitous sex scenes. Without the ability to show a sexual situation, they had to pour more feeling and passion into romantic scenes. Modern movies, bereft of this "handicap", now no longer have to concern themselves with conveying passion to the audience. They can just show a quick (usually terrible) sex scene and be done with it. Really by including the sex scenes they've lost creativity.
Quite the history lesson there 1red. And then to tie it all into how good Pushing Daisies was? Wow! Ok, today you're my BH hero.
I would say, though, the 60s social movement had a large part to play in films demise along with, arguably, the whole of society. But there are people out here trying to make it better.
The execs miss the importance of the stats, bottom line. I get a bit shakey when I enter most offices, so you know I don't wear suits and sit around tables usually. But I know what is being said. There will still be a market for the sex, violence, action, horror, whatever – just give the public some more films without all that crap in them. You will sell tickets. Do you want some "lousy" script from a church group, or do you want to start learning how to tell stories "like they used to"? ??
I particularly love it when they claim: "The audience wasn't sophisticated enough to understand our film."
Any excuse aside from the fact that the film stunk, right?
SPBLU was made just to push buttons. But you just named two of my favorite films.
I feel that if the violence/sex/language has a reasonable place,then let it be.
I wish there was more graphic sex, violence, and obscene language in today's films. I'd go to the movies a lot more. Instead were being force fed politically correct, tween approved, PG-13 crap. Does anyone in Hollywood have the guts to make an NC-17 film?
ISTC, the industry as you know will never make 'films like they use to' because of the political mindset which reeks all over Avatar. The leftist that run Hollywood will never allow another point of view out there no matter how small the film is. They can't afford to allow one film that honors America, our Veterans, our Judeo-Christian ideals, family values because they will lose if one film gets out there and break records. Look how they went after Mel and his PASSION film. They all lost their minds and threw everything at him including the kitchen sink. He still made 600 million, the audience is out there for the kind of films that Dr. Baehr talks about.
It has to come from filmmakers like myself who was always out there with my political opinion and still am. The funding will have to come from the private sector. These film will have to be made by filmmakers like myself who are totally fed up with the swill coming out of Hollywood.
It takes a filmmaker who doesn't care if he gets blacklisted for twenty years. Liberals will never understand a person who refuses to quit or sell out or be beaten by rejection. They have thrown everything at me since 1990 and I am as determined now as I was when I produced and directed my film. I have known hundreds of filmmakers we all came out of that meat grinder called the AFM in the 80s and there are only a couple of us 'warrior filmmakers' that will never ever say die. I have a film, the kind that Hollywood use to make, they tried everything to take my film, I even sued a distributor and won. I won't ever go away until I stick my film down their throats. They have NO right to tell me or any filmmaker here on this site or in this country what we can make or say on film. This is the reason BIG HOLLYWOOD even exist. If there was a fair playing ground for filmmakers like myself there would be no need for BIG HOLLYWOOD and the countless blogs out there screaming for our title shot in the ring.
The American public is buying my film off my website. My wife, my son, a combat vet from Iraq is in my garage, stuffing DVDs in envelopes and mailing them out to Americans, who are hungry to see a Vietnam film with NO F words, a film that shows our troops as real heroes. My film isn't a big film like a BRIDGE TO FAR its a small little film with a big message that hasn't been see or felt in a theater in 40 years. FORGOTTEN HEROES is a film that President Bush got to see and he sent me a personal letter which is on my website.
We can make these films but you have to make a total commitment that this will eat your life away and all your dreams. Then you are left with one choice and that is the one thing in your life that is worth throwing everything away. They can't defeat this kind of determination because we are willing to die because we are committed.
Then there is the alternative, which is to sell out and run with the leftist zombies making the films they tell you to make and we have been living in this 45 year cinematic blur that seems to have no ending.
http://www.movieguide.org/dvd-releases/5/9997-for...
http://bit.ly/7yi7Bx
"Apocalypse Now has the big movie stars. Platoon has the budget. Full Metal Jacket has Kubrick. But Forgotten Heroes has the truth. And when history does what history always does best and shakes itself loose of the blistering lies told of and about America's involvement in Vietnam, it will be Jack Marino's Forgotten Heroes that's first acquitted."
This was written by one of the best film critics I have ever known and he has written countless reviews of many films on this and other sites. I have always known him to be fair, honest and he always tells the truth. If you notice the word TRUTH is in his first line of his review and that is a word that the leftist malcontents of Hollywood fear the most, this is why they refuse to let us draw water from the well.
We as conservative filmmaker must all band together in a Brotherhood and make films that we deal with the public and not Hollywood. The money is out in America not on these studio lots, we can make these films, if I can do you so can you. I just don't give a crap what anyone thinks, I made this film and I am going to get it out there on a national level because that is what I wanted and it is my right as an American in my pursuit of happiness. On the other hand I have this love of fight, risk and adventure. Join me and lets take back Hollywood…. one film at a time.
All I'll say is there's a time and a place for everything, and that's coming from someone who can enjoy a Three Stooges short and a film like The Hangover equally. And that hasn't stopped plenty of folks on this site from naming favorite films that feature plenty of sex and violence.
Hollywood will never make 'films like they use to' because they are not forced to anymore. Now censorship is down to a relatively small level, artists have more freedom to express themselves. This is called progress.
Maths are a bit off there Bob, by your reasoning, the 44% who didn't vote would be liberal voters? Don't think so, actually I would believe that a majority of those who didn't vote would be offended at cracks at Palin.
PS: As newly-minted teenagers, my friends and I thought Holden Caulfield's few obscene words in "The Cather in the Rye" were titillating and we guffawed about them. However, we quickly outgrew that phase. I wonder when Hollywood will?
I agree wholeheartedly!
It's a mistake to think that the lower number of tickets is *purely* due to movie content. Technological innovations, the rise of home theaters, and a general unwillingness to pay inflated prices for going to the theater all play a part. However, it seems pretty obvious that Hollywood *should* be making more family-friendly fare.
But that assumes that Hollywood is really a business. It *is* that, but it also sees itself as part of the liberal cultural movement. So even family-friendly fare has political and cultural messages parents may not like. Gone are the days of stories that were just stories. Everything is political, now. Everything has larger cultural messages. If Hollywood just wanted to make money, it would make family-friendly movies that espoused uncontroversial messages about fairness, goodness, personal honesty, generosity, etc. But those movies are boring to most filmmakers, who would rather "push boundaries" in content rather than make movies people want to see. I still think the most common dream among filmmakers is not making the great blockbuster that everyone sees and loves, but the small movie, hated by most Americans, but is nevertheless a critical success among their peers.
Popular filmmakers are derided in elitist Hollywood circles, which is why popular movie makers like Michael Bay are so loathed, and why other directors like James Cameron feel it necessary to inflate their blockbusters with ridiculous, nonsensical political BS like Avatar.
The reason "family friendly" films make more money is so staggeringly simple I'm shocked you need it pointing out: it's because a family as a group makes up a larger number than just the parents or children. The larger a potential audience a film has, the more tickets can be sold for it. Adult films can do very well, teen films too, and films aimed at very young children. But a film (like Up, for example) that has something for everyone can pull in everyone, and so can make more money. It's not rocket science, is it? And it's certainly not an excuse to revert back to some over-censored time where adult themes couldn't be dealt with. Nor does is mean family films are superior to films for adults.
Do you only watch films which can also be enjoyed by people several decades younger than you? Does this go for music, pantings and any other forms of art which you like? How limiting that would be.
I tend to agree with you because there are stories that need to be told that might have those elements in them. I think maybe what Hollywood has lost sight of something I learned at acting school: less is more. There's also the statement that says to use things like foul language and violence and sex only if it helps propel the plot forward. That has been my problem with movies and tv shows: an over use of those things just for the sake of titilation.
Driefromseattle –
I agree with you re: using those things for the sake of titillation. This might not be the best example but take the two versions of The Taking of Pelham 123. The original has plenty of cursing but for some reason, it seems to work in that context (gritty 70s-era New York City, heavy accents, etc.). Now in the remake, you pretty much just have John Travolta cursing up a storm and you know what? It gets tiresome after a while. (And it doesn't help that Robert Shaw's a much better villain than Travolta.)
I also like Judd Apatow's films (like, not love) but the nonstop F-words actually get boring after a while. Contrast that with the great 70s/80s comedies like Stripes and Animal House.
Being in rural Australia, I find current movies are easily accessible, while older ones are not. It's interesting that I never go to the video store, preferring to read in the evenings. Yet if a Bud Boetticher or Delmer Daves western is on in a late night slot…I cancel other arrangements.
Obscenity and profanity are a package with mumbled lines, directorial affectation, faux grittiness, overly literate dialogue and techno-bloat. Modern films – even vulgar splatterfests – challenge viewers to rise to some "auteur's" level of cool and knowingness. The cultural intimidation works a bit…but it will never work as well as that other thing called entertainment. Just compare the operatic and enervating remake of 3:10 to Yuma with the gripping original.
Best movie of recent times? While giving credit to some good B flicks like Red Eye and Cellular, and every third Eastwood, I'd have to plump for The Incredibles, a family friendly cartoon. That babysitter has to be the greatest minor character since Frank Capra's day!
My problem with movies like South Park is that the creators say that they aren't for children and then do everything they can to get an R rating rather than taking the NC-17. Yes, I know that there are economic reasons for this but if they really believe their movies aren't for children, then take the "not for children" NC-17 rating and make it for adults only.
When the football got boring or filled with too many ads, spouse and I switched over to "Ben Hur". The film is fifty years old and yet is better than 80% of the new films today. I was particularly impressed by the rescue scene where Judah and the man who would become his adopted father (forget his name) are taken aboard a Roman vessel. In the background, one can see the raft floating away. This is a detail modern films don't bother with. And though the moderator later claimed the film's writer (who got sole credit) had "help" from the likes of Gore Vidal, one writer had credit for the movie – not nominated for an Oscar so the moderator said because the other writers didn't get credit. (Frankly, I'm skeptical. I can claim I helped write "Ben Hur", too, but unless it is acknowledged by the film's director, producer and primary writer, it's just words.) Unlike modern films, "Ben Hur" did not suffer from poor casting. Charleton Heston was the epic king back then, of course, but he filled the role magnificently. His character changed during the course of the movie. Haya Harareet (disappeared after "Ben Hur" was perfect as the silent, patient, loving Esther) and Stephen Boyd a three dimensional villain whose ambition destroyed his character. You don't see those kinds of movies these days, not in the acting, not in the writing, not in the details.
MovieBob:
Really inane analysis. Typical leftist tactic–throw "facts" and statistics about to sound important while ignoring (and attempting to hide) the core reality: 1: Not a single state has a non-conservative majority. 2: Clean, family-oriented movies outsell "artistes" thinking they are being creative when they are simply vulgar.
Sigh… Why is it that leftists consider a thoroughly discredited, century-old hodgepodge of economic fantasy, political viciousness, and pseudo-scientific drivel to be "modern" or "progressive?" It has failed every test it has ever been put to–except in its ability to gain simple minded converts and political power.
I don't know the inside workings of Ho'wood either, but I suspect—-
1) dispensing propaganda has become more important than making movies that have artistic value or might become classics
2) when you live a decadent life, you want to believe it's the norm. (Psst Ho'wood. We out here in flyover country don't sniff cocaine at our parties or ply 14 year olds with drugs and then escape to Europe. That's for the druggies and perverts. If we find one of the latter, we don't try to get him out of jail. We also don't sleep with the dog or make love to blue people with big ears, and our SUVs emit less carbon than your private jet)
and 3) When you're not real bright, you don't want people to know it.
Lefty students from the Vietnam Era went to grad school, got PH.D's, gained control of the universities, and are now promoted by propaganda media as "the intelligentsia". Nothing could be further from the truth. They're just political hacks. (See the East Anglia emails re "climate change").
Cinema actors make beautiful "useful idiots" (Lenin's term) but they don't like being coat hangers who can talk so they parrot what the "smart people" say. Unfortunately, the propaganda media do not promote the truly intelligent members of the community like Michael Crichton, Andrew Breitbart, Andrew Klavan, John Nolte, Robert Davi, Michael Moriarity, John Voight, James Woods (grad of MIT), etc., etc.
Like all good political tools, and like our Democratic politicians themselves, Hollywood explains their diminishing American box office with gobbledegook. Until recently, they have been able to convince themselves the reason for the Lefty propaganda films' failure is NOT the message but rather the stupidity of the American people who didn't "get it". Now, however, with the Internet and sites like Big Hollywood, those of us who've had it with propaganda films and have stopped paying to see this crap have a voice and a forum, and while I doubt Hollywood will admit it, I suspect the movers and shakers haunt this site like Banquo's ghost.
Now that Obama is in office and driving us over the socialist cliff, look for films to start loving America again, or at least not hating it. Big Corporations save the Big Corporations of Hollywood will not be exempt, however. Long winded answer to say that dispensing propaganda is more important than making excellent art.
I rented Superbad over a year ago because I had heard and read so many positive things about the movie (including on some conservative-leaning websites). But I found the excessive swearing by the fat kid as well as the plot line (three awkward teenaged boys attempt to score beer and booze for a high school binge-drinking/sex party) unsettling and rather creepy. And I gave up on The Big Lebowski after a half-hour after watching the unnerving, obscenity-laced performance by John Goodman in the bowling alley. I don't rent movies anymore – I check them out for free from the public library. The last movie I saw at a theater was the Owen Wilson/Jeffifer Anniston movie, Marley and Me.
They still make movies??????
The last time they got a penny from me was "Castaway"? with Tom Hanks
You sound too much like a capitalist—— STOP IT
The same can be said for "The Passion of the Christ". There were churches that took children in droves to see that snuff film too. I obviously don't have anything against the message of the Passion, just that it was not a movie for children so why didn't Mel Gibson push for the NC-17 rating?
I vote to not get too heavy on Dr. Baehr. You'll have your opinions and that's fine, but I say let the man speak. He has good intentions. It's a good goal to shoot for because we know we're going to get more shyte from this town anyway. And it's always good to push the limits. We know the Far Left does.
Thunder – I understand. I know not every movie will appeal to everyone and there are plenty of movies I don't like either. I can't say I'm easily offended but the latest example would be Woody Allen's last movie, Whatever Works. Now I'm a fan of both Woody and Larry David and, while this film has no profanity, the general plotline was so cynical and pessimistic, I don't know how I lasted as long as I did.
As for anything of my own that I write in the future, well, I'll just have to live with the fact that some folks might be offended, even though it's not my intention.
Sorry about the underlining in my post – forgot the "/u" after Superbad (still think that foul-mouthed fat kid was creepy; thought the plot line where the two cops befriended the gawky kid with the glasses was oddly touching, if highly improbable).
Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Baehr. I like all kinds of movies, even the ones with profanity, violence, and sex.
Lame article. Instead if "tickets per person*, I would suggest a comparative analysis of the gross earnings, including the total amount of money spent in motion picture entertainment, which includes sales of these naughty R-rated dvds, and TV rights. Then we can see whether R-rated content has really driven away audiences.
Sorry, we don't live in a Theocracy. I would honestly sit prefer to sit through the torture of liberal clap trap like Avatar than have my entertainment screened by the Catholic church. Total BS article.
I don't supprt pedophiles (Polanskank)
I dont support druggiesb(Downer)
I don't support the Global Warming Hoax (di Crapio)
I don't support dictators (Pennhead)
I don't support socialist/ marxist presidents (99% of Hollywood)
Why should they get any money from me to help them push their Progressive philosophy
I want it! But no one is selling it anymore. I would gladly give you whatever you wanted if I could have what I want as well.
Well, it used to be that adult themes could be dealt with and still be family friendly. That you think otherwise only shows to me that you don't watch many movies older than your own age. You have bought into the leftist propaganda that the censors held back creativity. What it did do was force creativity because there was no simple answers. Today the *lack* of at least personal censoring has made movies lazy drivel full of needless sex, drugs, and offensive language.
"I would honestly sit prefer to sit through the torture of liberal clap trap like Avatar than have my entertainment screened by the Catholic church."
I would at least like the choice of sitting through an entertainment screened by the Catholic Church. Not that I would either, but we already have enough liberal clap trap. That, I think, is the message that should be coming from Beahr, even if his overall position is questionable.
"2) when you live a decadent life, you want to believe it's the norm. (Psst Ho'wood. We out here in flyover country don't sniff cocaine at our parties or ply 14 year olds with drugs and then escape to Europe. That's for the druggies and perverts. If we find one of the latter, we don't try to get him out of jail."
In some places they don't even make it to jail. Elliy Nester was a neighbor.
And you spend your time on a website whining about Hollywood? Why?
So i can get losers like you to ask stupid questions
I'm pretty skeptical of this post. First, the fact that tickets per person in this country has dropped from 9.43 to 4.1 over the last 40-50 years is pretty meaningless. In 1960 network television was still in it's early stages, there was no cable television, no video rental business, no download services, and no home video business at all. Not only were there fewer options for content, but if you wanted to see a movie your only chance was to catch it in the theater. I'm actually surprised the numbers have held up so well over the years. It is absurd to try to tie these numbers to your cause.
Also, I'd really like to see how the statistics regarding the profitability of movies with and without foul language/violence/sex break down. Are children's films lumped in with here? Are the Pixar/Dreamworks money machines figured into this? If so, mixing the highly profitable children's market in with other "clean" films is really not a fair comparison. I would be interested to see a comparison of films aimed at an adult audience.
David Cronenburg famously said that once an NC-17 film makes $100 million, then the stigma will evaporate. If the MPAA had remembered to copyright X when they came up with the ratings system, then the porno film crowd wouldn't have appropriated the rating.
You do realize that there actually is very little nudity in a lot of major movies. Most A-list actresses shy away from nude scenes because they don't want to be screencapped on the internet for eternity. The WSJ did a really interesting article about this a few years ago.
By the by, I don't think returning to the Production Code is feasible, and it is comical that so-called "conservatives" like the author of this original post keep agitating for that. I guess "liberty" and "freedom" doesn't always mean "liberty" and "freedom".
Actually, when it came to Superbad, NEITHER lead character ended up carrying out their plan for conquest that night. In fact, Michael Cera's character did the right thing instead of taking advantage of the drunk girl.
As for Big Lebowski, that's YOUR loss. The Dude abides, he's out there taking it easy for all of us sinners.
Because a lot of Christian groups bought Gibson's lies that he was a pious believer, failing to notice either his filmography's penchant for horrific violence, or the the fact that he was never really ever faithful to his wife.
Thanks; ISITC !
This is WHY it helps to talk to "older" people, who lived through times when you ( the generic you, not specifically "YOU" ) were either too young to know, or weren't born.
Confession…………………………my parents and their friends were in that first time done on American T.V. THE MIKADO, the summer of '49. Dick Smith, the renowned Hollywood makeup artists ( he did Dustin Hoffman's makeup for "LITTLE BIG MAN" ) , did the make-up and I had the chance to ask him some questions, when he came to dinner at my house. And before anyone starts assuming things, I was a tiny child,but having grown up backstage, I was very interested in all aspects of the theatre, so I didn't ask "dumb" questions.
The RED DIAPER BABIES/extreme lefties did really got the ball rolling, re the ruination of American culture, in the 1960s; you're right.
Want to started all the foul language seeping into every aspect of America ? Mario Savio and his pals at Berkeley, with their obscene "FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT" ! It wasn't really about "freedom of speech"; no, no,. no….it was about saying the F word and worse; not to mention keeping opposing views quiet. It took a number of years to creep throughout the entire nation, but by the late '60s, it was a fait accompli.
I loved "PUSHING DAISIES". It was a clever, witty show and what was done to it ( the cancellation being the wost of it ) was disgraceful ! I stopped watching network shows long before that one, but came back to watching a few network shows, when there was something of worth to see………………..only to have them all killed off. Now, there's not a damned thing to see on those stations.
I've given up on movies a long time ago. I got tired of being slammed for my morals. I also got tired of the way they where forcing the cuss words into PG rated movies that are geared to families. You can tell because it's so fake. The writing is now second rate at best and forget about actually acting. But the worst is the love fest that goes on in Hollywood. "Ohhhh let's have an award for this or that because we're just so cool". This doesn't even include the politics of a lot of these people. I think I speak for a very large part of the population when I say if you want our money then make watchable movies and KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF. Thank you for listening.
I wouldn't know how "leftists" think, as I've never been one. Well, not honestly anyway… I've lied about it a few times, but always in the service of a lower calling
No, the 44% who didn't vote are largely unengaged, and thus don't CARE ENOUGH about political figures to skip a movie because of a political swipe.
Think about how HUGE this last election was, in terms of historical import, issues at stake, the dichotomy of the candidates and the EPIC media saturation. Even in the face of THAT, this 44% of Americans STILL couldn't be bothered to go to the polls. If ACTUAL politics doesn't move them one way or the other, political humor won't.
What Liberals and Conservatives both refuse to admit is that BARELY more than half of people, at any given time, are intelligent enough to give a damn about anything other than their own immediate engagements, if that. Which is why both "In the Valley of Elah" AND "American Carol" both tanked while useless tripe like "Transformers" and "Blind Side" cleaned up.
Or perhaps Christ's death on the cross was THAT horrific.
Violence is fine IF it is intended to serve the good story (real or not) rather than serve as a smokescreen for poor writing. This is what separates "Schindler's List" from a "Jason" sequel.
What I find "comical" is that people continue to defend that which is clearly debased. A testament to the state of society? Or perhaps, more likely the result of an intemperate minority? I'll let you ponder that one.
No nudity hmm? Let's check the recent films of 09 for some nudity shalllll we?
Watchmen: Malin Akerman
The Informers: Amber Heard
Spread: Rachel Blanchard
Powder Blue: Jessica Biel
Crossing Over: Alice Eve
Friday the 13th: Julianna Guill
That's just what I could find in a grand total of 5 seconds on Google. Now the definition of "A-list" I realize is a bit ambiguous. I don't consider anyone on that list an "A-lister". But then, I don't consider any modern actors "A-list" material anyway. You are free to conjure up your own definition as you will.
I watch "Lion in Winter" every year at Christmas time. The writing is superb with some of the best lines ever written (and the funniest). The acting is beyond reproach — not one actor turned in a less than Oscar worthy performance. It dealt with homosexuality (Richard and Dalton), pedophilia (Richard seducing the young French king, Henry's affair with the girl whom he and Eleanor raised from age 8 who was supposed to marry his son), adultery (he was married to Eleanor, did Eleanor really sleep with his father). I could go on and on and on, yet there were no "f words", no scatological references and not a single scene with naked people copulating.
THAT is film making.
Your assumption is so ignorant I almost didn't dignify it with a response, but what can I say, I couldn't resist. I am a massive film fan and watch many films much older than me, including silent films, as well as plenty of foreign films. Censorship by defininition DOES hold back creativity, but of course you are right that plenty of talented filmmakers have created great scenes and films while working around the restrictions forced upon them.
But I do not want to see versions of modern masterpeices like Fargo, Pulp Fiction, and The Hurt Locker that had to fit themselves around hardline anti-sex, violence and swearing regulations. I got to see the filmmaker's pure vision instead. There were plenty of bad, stupid and lazy films made during the days of the Hays Code – you probably haven't seen any of those, because only the best have survived this long.
It IS possible to deal with adult themes and still be (to a degree) family friendly. I want to live in a world where there are both options.
If it deserved an NC-17 or was edited to skirt the edge of R to get an R, then it should have been given an NC-17. I'm not giving a pass to anyone on this. If it's intended for adults only, then rate it for adults only.
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
Our Trackback…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Great website…
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Awesome website…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
Great website…
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
Great website…
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
[…] … great article that everyone should read […]…
[...]The information mentioned in the article is some of the best available [...]……
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
Blogs ou should be reading…
[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
Recent Blogroll Additions……
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……
Recent Blogroll Additions……
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.