There is no question that a family film will be rated either PG or G. Within the parameters of a PG film, Nielsen released a new study which showed that the less profanity in a PG film, the more money is made.
"The reality is that profanity, within PG, is the big demarcation between box office winner and box office loser," research and marketing director Dan O'Toole said at ShoWest.
"Parents are choosing PG films for their kids that have very, very low levels of profanity. We're talking one-third the level of the average PG film," he said.
Let's see if Hollywood can understand this. If less profanity means more money, I wonder what little or no profanity would mean? How many parents take their children to a movie thinking, "I sure hope there's little profanity in there for all of us to enjoy?" It's ludicrous, but that's how Hollywood makes their PG films for the most part; although there are of course exceptions to that.
Nielsen, using a 10-point profanity scale found, that a film with a profanity rating of 0.8 on the scale, averaged a box office take of $69 million, on the other hand, a film with a 2.8 rating, plunged in box office take to a $38 million average.
So are there any questions? If I was an investor in a PG-rated film, I would insist on little, or better yet, no profanity in it. Think of how much money is being left on the table because ignorant directors don't understand this basic principle.
In this genre they better learn to find directors that do understand it and have the will to enforce it. The stakes are to hide to play the "creative control" game. Let directors and others involved put their own money up if they want to produce profanity-laced films for families.
Losing a few million does a lot to build better character, as well as learn a few lessons. It's easy to play the "creative" card when it's someone else's money. Investors our there need to take note and respond accordingly. I won't be putting any of my money in a PG film full of profanity; I'm in the business to make money, so should the rest of Hollywood be.
I've thought this for years. If they can cleanup a movie for TV by voiceovers- why not run THAT version during the day ( when the theater is usually empty) and they MIGHT get retired folks to go. I know a lot of 60+ folks and NONE of them go to the movies any longer. Even IF the movie THEY want to see does not have profanity/ nudity/ violence, the coming attractions do: so they stopped going years ago. I asked why don't they just go 'later' - to miss the coming attractions and they say that they "need to get in early: 'while the lights are on'", to see /walk without tripping. There is no downside for the theatres as often when we go to the show during the day , there might be 4 or 5 people there.
Posted by: Boston Bob | March 14, 2008 8:38 AM | Permalink to Comment