Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The Seahawks are going to make me $750 today as they are up by 21 in the 2nd quarter. That is not offensive.>>> < suggestion - keep your money in your pockets when they come to visit the Bears next week -- they won't be scoring 42 points, that you can bank on
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "When you take-out those low-budget R-rated films, you're still left with a preponderance of R-rated and PG-13-rated films." << I did a little research and have been unable to find anything that would statistically verify that. Film budgets are not very widely reported and, even when they are, they tend to be pretty rough estimates. Looking at sites like BoxOfficeMojo.com or even Variety.com, their box-office charts don't provide any easy way to correlate box-office, ratings, and production costs. That said, you are very likely correct that PG-13 and R rated films are still the majority. Inclusing PG-13 films is an expansion of the old Medved argument and it really doesn't help your case. Right now, the majority of studio films are PG-13, but the trend has generally been for PG-13 films to make more money than those at either higher or lower ratings. >> "When you look at individual film income, the more general an audience a film can accomodate with its content, the more successful the film. Look at all the mega-blockbusters that have been fit for family viewing: The Disney golden age films of the early 90s. The Star Wars films. Harry Potter. (Arguably) Lord of the Rings." << You are right that more money is made by reaching the widest audience, but that pretty much places the sweet spot at the high end of PG and low end of PG-13. Pretty much with the exception of Disney/Pixar releases, G-rated films almost entirely get dismissed as being for children only as do many low-end PG films. Even in the examples you cited, the "Lord of the Rings" films were all PG-13 as was the most recent "Harry Potter" film. Other blockbuster franchises like "Spider-man", "Batman", and "Jurassic Park" have also been PG-13 as have individual blockbusters like "Titanic" (the top-grossing film of all-time). Of course, some of the biggest PG-rated hits of the 70s and 80s almost certainly would have been PG-13 had that rating been available. Those include "Jaws", the first two "Indiana Jones" films (the third was PG-13), "Poltergeist", "Gremlins", "Ghostbusters", etc. Once again, the basic point is that the studios generally do seem to be targeting their films at the type of content that maximizes the audience. The argument that they are working against their own interests in some attempt to coursen society just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. >> "Also, can we lay-off the "right wing Christian" gripes? Yes, Christians get upset and annoyed at things (we all do) but we are talking about at EXTREME behavior in the media. I don't hear Bozell, or Pat Robertson, or anyone protesting Desparate Housewives, or your everyday run-of-the-mill nonsense and garbage. Someone says the B-word on Law and Order at 9:00, and the world (including the Christian one) goes on its way." << Have you closely followed what organizations like the PRC and AFA protest against? For a while there, I actually subscribed to and regularly read the AFA's newsletter (which was free) simply to keep up with what I considered to be a dangerous organization. Their protests did not just center on the occasional outrageous incident. Instead, they protested against pretty much every broadcast TV show that dealt with adult subjects (particularly sex or any depiction of homosexual relationships), regardless of the time slot. The big, prominent protests like the Janet Jackson incident are now the main ones that actually get press coverage, but these groups pretty clearly have a goal to get all broadcast programming sanitized to their own very strict, pretty far from the mainstream standards. Fortunately, these organizations have been largely unsuccessful (look at how many years the excellent "NYPD Blue" managed to keep running and how much acclaim it received), but I do believe it is disturbing that they seem to be starting to make some headway with the FCC and the legislature. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<suggestion - keep your money in your pockets when they come to visit the Bears next week -- they won't be scoring 42 points, that you can bank on>> The Bears are good this year, very good. They have something special going but its not 1985 again. LOL The Seahawks are better and I look for them to cover the spread now that they are starting to come together as a team. No way I but $750 on this though!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The Bears are good this year, very good. They have something special going but its not 1985 again. LOL < you're right - not yet but getting closer. Exact same formula though - but we do not have Walter Payton. <The Seahawks are better and I look for them to cover the spread now that they are starting to come together as a team. No way I but $750 on this though< I wish the game as later in the year ( weather wise) - but outdoors in Chicago, I still think the Bears win this game straight up - I haven't seen the spread yet but I doubt it wil be more than 3
