The Year One has been handed the dreaded demographic limiting R-Rating, and while Apatow and Ramis fought to have the rating reduced, the Ratings Board is firm on their call.
The film’s producer Judd Apatow and its director, co-writer and producer Harold Ramis appeared before the board to argue for a more lenient rating. Black and Cera play barely-out-of-the-cave men who travel through the ancient world.
But the appeals board still opted for the R rating, which requires that moviegoers younger than 17 be accompanied by an adult, because of “some sexual content and language.”
Harold Ramis and Judd Apatow have their pull in Hollywood, but it doesn’t seem to sway the ratings board.
Likely in a film like this, they already know Apatow’s brand of humour going in, so its not like they were surprised by every f-bomb or suggestive sheep raping.
Being an Apatow film, are they really that surprised? The Year One does seem like a lighter comedy that may do just as well without some of that cussing and sex references, but there is no word as to whether they will shave some of the offending material out (doutful they would want to start the review process with the movie coming out in about 2 months) of the film or just accept their fate and slap that R on it.
That’s to bad that it has an R. I guess parents will put this on there DVD list.
Just so you know Apatow bowed from the pressure and has cut the film to reach the PG13 rating.
But it’s not like we won’t see the unrated version.
Raunchy** Its too early to be typing
I dont see a problem with having an R rating for this film. Its a Judd Apatow film, he’s known for his crude and raunhy humour, that most teens and adults love. Remember when Kevin Smith went down the whole PG-13 road with Jersey Girl (I just puked a little in my mouth typing that) that movie A. Sucked donkey balls and B. Was his worst film to date. The PG-13 rating is a good rating for certain film makers and certain films. I mean who would ever want to watch a PG-13 Tarantino film? I sure as hell wouldnt, then why should people suffer through a watered down Apatow film. Teens will see this movie regardless, and trust me there are ignorant parents out there, I’ve written numerous research papers on movie ratings and parental guidance into R rated films, and its shocking the amount of parents that will bring their child to go see an R rated film. I do not believe that an R rating is the next worse thing to an NC-17 and people need to realize this, just because a movie gets an R rating does not mean it ultimately recieved the kiss of death, it just means ” Hey we might say ‘fuck’ alot and show some tits and maybe someone’s head will explode”. This movie will do fine in theatres, Im not worried about it at all.
Mark Kermode would have a thing or two to say on this subject!
The guidelines the MPAA sets forth are fairly straight forward for the most part. If a film has nudity that involves sexual situations, it generally won’t be found with a PG-13 rating. If a film has more than two uses of the f-word, it generally won’t be PG-13. There are instances where one or the other is subjective, but generally no.
And as far as conspiracy, I wouldn’t go so far as to discount it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word, but if you read Richard Heffner’s personal notes (he was the head of the ratings board in the 1980s), he mentions several meetings – most of which were spearheaded by Jack Valenti (head of the MPAA) – with studio heads talking about how a certain rating would doom them financially.
One such meeting involved MGM and Steven Spielberg, about the movie “Poltergeist.” It originally received an R. The studio, and Valenti, wanted the lighter PG rating so MGM could make money and avoid bankruptcy. The board didn’t sway and Tobe Hooper had to cut “Poltergeist” to make a PG rating.
On the way back to the airport (Spielberg drove Heffner), Spielberg told Heffner the industry needed another rating, a middle rating between PG and R, to save Hollywood. Heffner writes that Spielberg said, “I’m going to get that rating for you.” And low and behold, a year later, PG-13 was born soon after the controversy with “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.”
If you look at the numbers financially, Hollywood hasn’t really had an off year, and has upped box office totals nearly every year since PG-13 was introduced. Look at the top 100 grossing films of all time, nearly 75% are PG-13. Smartest move ever made, both for the raters and the moviemakers.
What a coinkidink. I just finished watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
What a weird shadow operation that is.
Conspiracy theory.
There is nothing in that film that convinces me that the MPAA is controlling anything. Its all subjective spin artists blaming the wrong people.
MPAA simply categorizes. If you can convince them otherwise or edit the materials they can change the category. They are not changing films.
No, they are pretty inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to rating films. You know that as well as I do.
And the fact that a filmmaker can’t reference precedent in order to up hold his cut says more about this group than anything else.
I think there is needs to be more “R” rated movies, so this is good news as far as I am concerned. Granted I should say I want more “R” rated movies for selfish reasons. An “R” rated movie, if I am lucky, means less people in the theater and less chance of ADD teenagers spending an entire movie making noises-a-plenty. Occasionally this fails, my viewing of Watchmen had plenty of babies, kids, and teens, but on those good days that “R” rating makes a showing the ideal experience. Suppose what I want is direct opposite of what the studio wants, but screw them! :D
I like the Robert Altman rule of thought when it comes to film ratings. Altman believed that his films were too sophisticated for children to understand and he’d intentionally make them R rated so they wouldn’t even bother with it. More filmmakers should do that: make smart, adult films; wallow in questionable content; forget the child tickets; and embrace the R. This would be much better, in my opinion, than going for the R, just so your hero can have sex with an inanimate object, or you can’t think of pithy dialogue, so you just have a character say “any four letter word” every other word.
That being said, I doubt “Year One” will win any “smartest movie” awards. Although, “The Office” is very smart at times, especially considerring it’s a television show. Apatow is also smart and so is Ramis. Hopefully I’m wrong…… I still think it looks pretty good though.
You lost every Hollywood exec with “forget the child tickets”
The ratings board just categorizes, the film makers earn the ratings. If they can broaden the ticket sales by sacrificing the integrity of the film the bean counters will be in favour of it everytime. Plus, it means they can release their raunchy version on DVD to boost sales. Its a win win that has nothing to do with the quality of the film.
Remember that no matter how well thought out your intentions are, its about money. Always money.
Rodney, you are aware that every year there are R rated films that are approved by Hollywood executives, produced, and released, don’t you? So, apparently your comment about me “losing every Hollywood exec with ‘forget the child tickets'” isn’t as accurate as you believe. Yes, of course, I am very aware that the studios are more likely to spend money on a film that will reach as broad a demographic as possible, so they can make the largest ammount of profit, but there ARE undeniably R rated films, ones that deal with subject matter that cannot be mistaken for PG-13, released every single year. I’m not just talking about teen sex comedies here, how often do movies other than sex comedies, horror, or the rare actioner get a PG-13 theatrical rating, then an unrated DVD release? Even those are pretty rare. I haven’t counted, but I would bet that most movies that get unrated DVD releases were released in the theater with an R rating, rather than a PG-13 one.
Also, like I said, Robert Altman followed the thought process that I listed above. Yet, somehow, he worked steadily. In fact, he worked steadily, diecting films, from the mid 1950s until 2006 (not all R rated, I’m sure, but many were). That would be very hard if no Hollywood execs would back him up, wouldn’t it?
Please do explain to me, how bean counters “sacrificing the INTEGRITY of the film” is “a win win that has nothing to do with the QUALITY of the film”??? You and I are in total dissagreement with that statement, at the moment.
And I agree, in Hollywood it’s is ALWAYS about money, they are a business, but sometimes, I believe, it’s not ONLY about money. Sometimes, as long as they aren’t going in thinking “we’re not gonna make a cent off this picture”, Hollywood will take a chance on a smart R rated film, even if they risk not getting the child’s ticket. And that’s a fact Jack.
Matt, I didn’t say there WASNT R rated films.
But if you use “integrity of the art” as a defense the bean counters will tell ya to lose the gratuitous boobshot and edit out the fuck words in a heartbeat.
Hmmn, Rodney, I don’t think you and I are quite getting our points across to eachother. I, also, don’t think I was using “integrity of the art” as my defense, but that’s okay.
I swear I saw an AD for this a month or so ago that said it was pg-13.
Meh, I still see some parents bringing their 4-5 year old kids to see this.
Those would be some mighty ignorant parents.
This one might take off at the box office, or it will fail miserably. Now, it looks funny, so does Bruno, but I think Bruno will fail at the box office even though Borat was a HUGE success, an R rating for Year One though might be enough to promote it
I really don’t know why they are surprised. Most of Apatow’s productions are rated r. Besides R comedies are making a comeback.
I think you’ll find that there is a huge movie going audience in early to late teens who now won’t be able to see this film without having a parent with them, I’m guessing the point is this far outways any extra audiance they would have got from making this targetted at Adults only, which slapping this with an R rating has done.
You can’t compare our rating system in the UK to that of the US, I’m guessing this will get slapped with a 15 rating over here in the UK, meaning anyone over 15 can see it – The way I see it is that this type of film, with crude and filthy humour is targetted directly at 14 to 18 years olds.
Do you know many parents who want to sit with a load of 13 to 17 yr olds watching a film like this? No me niether, thus they are losing a big no of targetted movie goers.
DVD sales don’t always make up for disappointing box office numbers.
@Rodney
Apatow films are generally targeted not towards kids but late teens/early twenties no?
They will start to lose even more ticket sales if they keep toning it down to get a lower rating on release then sticking out on an ‘unrated’ dvd that seems to be the norm thesedays. With these films lacking big set pieces that really shine on the big screen most people i know wait till the definitive dvd is out to watch on their home setup.
again what is the issue with an R. i understand it can reduce ticket sales, but in the uk even with a 15 you cant be taken by an adult and be allowed in, 18 is the same. ppl see apatow films for the filthy humour, i cant think of many teenages who’d want to see an apatow film with their mum or dad!
@James
Many responsible parents won’t take their kids to see a movie like this because of the sex references and language. And even if they did, like you mention that they wont want to go to it with their parents.
You answered your own question. The R-rating reduces the demographic that will be able to buy tickets.
yep parents will let them rip a mans head off, cut him in two, and pull the veins out of his arm one by one, but they wont let him hear the word fuck.