Bullshit claims that movies producers still believe

[Vetusomaru]

Bullshit claims that movies producers still believe:

R-movies don't sell as much as family-friendly and teen-rated movies

- Robocop 1, an R-Rated movie, was a huge hit and Robocop, a family-friendly movie, 3 flopped.
- The Expendables 1 and 2, R-Rated movies, were huge hits, and the 3rd movie, a Teen-rated one, flopped with the producers blaming piracy
- Joker and Deadpool, two R-rated movies based on comics, sold much better than most family-friendly/Teen-rated Marvel/DC movies and with much smaller budget

 

[Machine]

Viewers want deep, introspective stories

The endless deluge of marvelslop, success of avatar movies, and basically all the most successful movies disprove this.

 

[lain is here]

Viewers want deep, introspective stories

I don't think any Hollywood execs think this at all. It's exactly as you said afterward, the movies they actually invest big money into are the total opposite of deep and introspective. Although plenty of film reviewers hold the stance that people want introspective movies, hardly any of them have any real influence on the production side of things. If anything, movie execs and producers are probably the most cynical people alive, and given what proves to make them the most money, their cynicism is fully warranted.

 

[Machine]

I don't think any Hollywood execs think this at all. It's exactly as you said afterward, the movies they actually invest big money into are the total opposite of deep and introspective. Although plenty of film reviewers hold the stance that people want introspective movies, hardly any of them have any real influence on the production side of things. If anything, movie execs and producers are probably the most cynical people alive, and given what proves to make them the most money, their cynicism is fully warranted.

Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I think I misinterpreted the idea here.

In the words of Sam Hyde-

'IT'S MISANTHROPIC LECHEROUS BIGOTS ALL THE WAY UP THE CHAIN!'

 

[bnuungus]

After recently watching Terminator for the first time I came to a conclusion about R rated movies and how they've changed over the years. In the case of Terminator, the movie is incredibly dark, violent, and shocking, but it was all for the sake of the story. The writers had a story to tell that was gritty and they told that story, not caring about what rating they got. Modern R rated movies are kind of inverted where the writers try to tailor their stories to be as offensive as possible in order to get people's attention, and thus receiving an R rating along the way. Previously, R rated movies were where writers could let loose and fully flesh out their stories, no matter how shocking they got. But nowadays it seems that writers try to chase the shock factor, rather than actually make a good story with a good set of characters. The only modern movie I that I've seen that I would argue classifies as the former would be Wolf of Wall Street, but even still that movie suffers from being incredibly vile. Yes, a paramount point of the story is to show that the main characters were horrible and vile people, but the film did not have to go as far as it did to show that aspect of the characters. Long story short, I respect films that have shock value in them as long as that shock factor actually enhances the groundwork that the plot and characters provide, but I'm getting increasingly tired of films chasing shock factor for its own sake.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

tired of films chasing shock factor for its own sake.

For the most part I agree, but what about something like John Carpenter's The Thing? It's engaging as a general suspense film, could've theoretically kept the gore and violence rather tame and it still could've worked much like the original version of the film (from what I've heard, never seen it) but something about all the shocking/disgusting effects does add something to the overall film.
Maybe I'm just a bit of an outlier since it came out before my time (I think Roger/Ebert lampooned the gore) and I have a fondness for the artistry of pre-CG effects, from what I read it kind of flopped upon release.

 

[bnuungus]

For the most part I agree, but what about something like John Carpenter's The Thing? It's engaging as a general suspense film, could've theoretically kept the gore and violence rather tame and it still could've worked much like the original version of the film (from what I've heard, never seen it) but something about all the shocking/disgusting effects does add something to the overall film.
Maybe I'm just a bit of an outlier since it came out before my time (I think Roger/Ebert lampooned the gore) and I have a fondness for the artistry of pre-CG effects, from what I read it kind of flopped upon release.

I haven't seen it. I'm sure there are movies/shows that are outliers but it's just a general trend I'm seeing. I like a good shock factor in media, but only if the characters and plot are actually good.