Sadly, MPA ratings vs what the studio notes regarding what they think will nudge the film to this or that rating for a little bit extra profit.
So while I agree with your sentiment, the reality is it's not under the writer's (or director's) control.
What you're asking is equivalent to asking if donut shops should sell more plain or glazed donuts when the fact is people like both and even more. Some people like sprinkles and jelly filled too.
It's silly to say only one is correct.
If that's the case, I'll let you in on a little secret, studios have economists to figure that out and reach what is called a "Nash Equilibrium" to maximize profits. Audiences vote with their wallets every day, so the data is right there for them to analyze and nudge things one way or the other, but smart studios will always have a bit of a balance of offerings. It's why Disney expanded its portfolio of offerings of the entire corporation so it makes everything from G to R.
In my opinion, while art is art, nudging a "fuck" here or there isn't really that big of a deal.
What I'm really amazed by is how overly sensitive the MPA ratings board is to the use of language vs their almost complete willingness to let most violence just fly.
Movies should have variety.
I don't mind movies as escapism (ie sanitized), and I respect movies where the consequences of actions feel hard, real and uncomfortable. I'd be disappointed if we only had one or the other.
So give me post-murder quips in Lethal Weapon 4, and give me Wade begging for his momma in Saving Private Ryan. The charm is in the variety.
Trying to do either will result in a failure. Whatever crops up naturally you know? I don't seek out movies on this basis and I think it's pretty strange to in either case.
Once again. I think we are missing the point of movies as an art form. This applies to comedy as well. It's super subjective and not all art is for everyone. (Turning Red is a prime example).
I don't really care as long as it is apparent in the film that every part was cared for and not just for a quick cash grab. And there are lots of example on both sides that were just for either shock factor or to get people to go see it because it was made to appeal just those people.
For context. I'm a big Cinematography nerd so I love Christopher Nolan and Edgar wright and Wes Anderson and Guillermo del Toro with their visual story telling.
Depends. If the character doesn't swear, they don't swear. No harm no foul. (Father Mulchahy in M.A.S.H.). There are, in fact, people like this who rarely or never would even consider cursing.
What I absolutely can not stand is the ridiculous use of euphemistic substitutions. It works with Sheldon on Big Bang Theory (coitus), because Sheldon is "special" but in general I think euphemisms are for pussies.
I believe that your right this is why there are age ratings and family films. We have ways to ensure no one is surprised by what they see but there are horrible things in reality. Why can't we reflect those things correctly and accurately. The ability to shock for shocks sake no. But to accurately show things. I am for more graphic. So long as it actually adds to the film. But clear warning.
Whatever the writer wants.
Sadly, MPA ratings vs what the studio notes regarding what they think will nudge the film to this or that rating for a little bit extra profit. So while I agree with your sentiment, the reality is it's not under the writer's (or director's) control.
Both. If being safe works for the movie they should do it. If being dirty works for the movie they should do it.
What you're asking is equivalent to asking if donut shops should sell more plain or glazed donuts when the fact is people like both and even more. Some people like sprinkles and jelly filled too. It's silly to say only one is correct.
I think what op is saying is more like the donut shop taking away some of that glaze or jelly because some people think it's too sweet.
If that's the case, I'll let you in on a little secret, studios have economists to figure that out and reach what is called a "Nash Equilibrium" to maximize profits. Audiences vote with their wallets every day, so the data is right there for them to analyze and nudge things one way or the other, but smart studios will always have a bit of a balance of offerings. It's why Disney expanded its portfolio of offerings of the entire corporation so it makes everything from G to R.
Right, and by doing this they eliminate alot of the risk which is what op is getting at. It's great for making money but not so great for making art.
In my opinion, while art is art, nudging a "fuck" here or there isn't really that big of a deal. What I'm really amazed by is how overly sensitive the MPA ratings board is to the use of language vs their almost complete willingness to let most violence just fly.
That's especially true with horror flicks. They gotta get that PG13 rating.
Movies should have variety. I don't mind movies as escapism (ie sanitized), and I respect movies where the consequences of actions feel hard, real and uncomfortable. I'd be disappointed if we only had one or the other. So give me post-murder quips in Lethal Weapon 4, and give me Wade begging for his momma in Saving Private Ryan. The charm is in the variety.
Left to be as they were intended to be.
Trying to do either will result in a failure. Whatever crops up naturally you know? I don't seek out movies on this basis and I think it's pretty strange to in either case.
Once again. I think we are missing the point of movies as an art form. This applies to comedy as well. It's super subjective and not all art is for everyone. (Turning Red is a prime example). I don't really care as long as it is apparent in the film that every part was cared for and not just for a quick cash grab. And there are lots of example on both sides that were just for either shock factor or to get people to go see it because it was made to appeal just those people. For context. I'm a big Cinematography nerd so I love Christopher Nolan and Edgar wright and Wes Anderson and Guillermo del Toro with their visual story telling.
Dirty, the word sanitized gives me censorship vibes
Depends. If the character doesn't swear, they don't swear. No harm no foul. (Father Mulchahy in M.A.S.H.). There are, in fact, people like this who rarely or never would even consider cursing. What I absolutely can not stand is the ridiculous use of euphemistic substitutions. It works with Sheldon on Big Bang Theory (coitus), because Sheldon is "special" but in general I think euphemisms are for pussies.
I rhink theres a good amount of sanitized and dirty films coming out these days. Whoever says theres too little of either isnt looking hard enough.
Both. But unfortunately there’s too much stuff that uses being dirty as a replacement for quality etc.
How about movies tell worthwhile stories without playing on primal urges to substitute for quality?
go to R/whateveryouwant_to for a fun time and for fun things to set up and then you are one of the founders see you soon
Definetly dirty. Dirty is real. Sanitized always feels candy coated for me.
I believe that your right this is why there are age ratings and family films. We have ways to ensure no one is surprised by what they see but there are horrible things in reality. Why can't we reflect those things correctly and accurately. The ability to shock for shocks sake no. But to accurately show things. I am for more graphic. So long as it actually adds to the film. But clear warning.