PG-13 Horror is NOT Hurting R-rated Horror

R-rated horror is hurting R-rated horror people!

By: Brad Brevet
Published: Monday, June 25th 2007 at 10:53 AM

Okay, after Evan Almighty rightly shit the bed this weekend and 1408 over achieved I saw two articles that really started to hurt my head. The first was at Cinematical titled "Evan's Numbers Mighty Disappointing, R-Rated Horror Now In Serious Peril" and the other was at Bloody-Disgusting called "'1408' Scores Big at #2, Has PG-13 Horror Prevailed?".

The Cinematical article says:

The biggest loser of the weekend might have been R-rated horror films. 1408, which is PG-13, had one of the biggest horror openings in a while, and was noticeably more successful than Eli Roth's torture-fest, Hostel: Part II.

…and the Bloody-Disgusting article says:

This also makes 1408 the only really successful horror film of 2007, further prepping the genre for a major climate change… to PG-13. Could it be that the general horror audience is sick of the buckets of blood and guts? I personally can care less about ratings so long as the film is meant to be PG-13 (can you imagine a PG-13 Halloween or Saw IV?)

Hey guys it isn't that PG-13 horror is hurting R-rated horrors. The issue is that R-rated horrors are hurting R-rated horrors and both R-rated and Pg-13-rated horrors are treating their audience like idiots that will suck down anything put in front of them. No, Bloody-Disgusting, it isn't that audiences are necessarily "sick of the buckets of blood and guts," it is that they are sick of the buckets of blood and guts in a movie with a story that is mind-numbingly stupid as it tries and tries to get to the next scene where they can kill someone. I like gore just as much as the next guy, but it needs to be accompanied by a new and fresh story for me to enjoy it. Not the same old thing all over again, that is why Saw III was so shitty.

This whole R vs. PG-13 rated films debate pretty much came up lately when Hostel: Part II tanked hard at the box-office, and Eli Roth begged and pleaded with people on his MySpace page to go see the movie and continue to support the torture-horror genre or it would die and then he won't make a movie for a long time. Boo-freaking-hoo! Cry me a river.

However, guess what, the torture-horror genre is fucking tiny and not worth a single tear! Look here at Box Office Mojo, they have 19 films they are tracking in the torture horror genre with two films from 1998 and the other 17 go back as far as only 2003. Only 19 movies people! With Captivity and Saw IV it will be a whopping 21! This is a new genre and it is a fad folks. Just like leg warmers and Garbage Pail Kids. It was new and interesting when Saw first came out and then we were bombarded with 15 more films like it in the span of four years. That is too much, especially when the stories hardly change and offer very little overall.

Let's take a look back at the success of some of the horror releases over the past seven years and see what we are actually looking at:

1. 1408 ($20 million opening weekend)*
2. Hostel: Part II ($17 million)
3. Bug ($7 million)
4. 28 Weeks Later ($28 million)
5. Dead Silence ($16 million)
6. Hannibal Rising ($27 million)
7. The Hills Have Eyes II ($20 million)
8. The Messengers ($35 million)*
9. Blood and Chocolate ($3 million)*
10. Vacancy ($18 million)
11. The Hitcher ($16 million)
12. Turistas ($7 million)
13. Primeval ($10 million)
14. The Descent ($26 million)
15. The Omen ($54 million)
16. Wolf Creek ($16 million)
17. Saw III ($80 million)
18. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning ($39 million)
19. See No Evil ($15 million)
20. Silent Hill ($46 million)
21. Final Destination 3 ($54 million)
22. Black Christmas ($16 million)
23. Slither ($7 million)
24. The Hills Have Eyes ($41 million)
25. When a Stranger Calls ($47 million)*
26. Hostel ($47 million)
27. Saw II ($87 million)
28. The Fog ($29 million)*
29. The Devil's Rejects ($17 million)
30. The Ring Two ($76 million)*
31. High Tension ($3 million)
32. House of Wax ($32 million)
33. The Grudge ($110 million)*
34. The Amityville Horror ($65 million)
35. Seed of Chucky ($17 million)
36. Saw ($55 million)
37. Dawn of the Dead ($59 million)
38. Exorcist: The Beginning ($41 million)
39. Texas Chainsaw Massacre ($80 million)
40. Cabin Fever ($21 million)
41. Freddy vs. Jason ($82 million)
42. 28 Days Later ($45 million)
43. Wrong Turn ($15 million)
44. The Ring ($129 million)*
45. House of 1000 Corpses ($12 million)
46. Final Destination 2 ($46 million)
47. Final Destination ($53 million)
48. Scream 3 ($89 million)

Sorry that list is so long, but I wanted to make sure we had enough examples. Notice there are only two movies over $100 million out of 48! Since The Grudge in 2004 there hasn't been a movie other than a Saw movie to crack $80 million. Look at those first 16 movies, the only one worth mentioning is The Descent. Yeah, The Omen made $54 million but it sucked ass and only hurt the R-rated horror. The Messengers made $35 million, but who remembers that one? Certainly not me, I didn't go see it.

Oh, I should also mention out of those movies on that list the ones that weren't screened for critics here in Seattle include Hostel: Part II, Bug, Dead Silence, The Hills Have Eyes II, The Messengers, Primeval, Wolf Creek, Saw III, The Descent, Silent Hill, When a Stranger Calls, Hostel, The Fog and Seed of Chucky. You tell me, does that mean the studio has confidence in their films or not? It tells me, as a movie reviewer, that the films are crap and should be viewed as such.

The thing to notice here is that it doesn't take much for a horror movie to be a hit. The first Hostel only made $47 million, which if you compare it to box-office numbers now days is small. However, it was only working off a budget of $4.7 million, which is appropriate considering Eli Roth's first flick Cabin Fever was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Roth is lucky he is still allowed to make movies after that mess.

Looking at this list let's say it takes about $16 million to make a horror movie. This is just an average number and not a strict science, also most directors get more money than Eli gets. Let's also remember that a movie doesn't have to just make its production budget back since the theater takes about half of the box-office take. So let's say it takes double the production budget to simply break even. By that math 24 of those 48 films made their money back at the box-office and before DVD and "unrated" DVD sales. If you count 1408, which will make its money back we have 25 films and that is over half of them.

Now, out of those 25 only six of them are rated PG-13. Yup, you guessed it, that means the other 19 are rated R. Hmmmm, yeah, looks like that R-rated horror is really having a hard time.

I will reiterate the problem with R-rated horrors, other than the fact that people are getting tired of this torture-horror shit, people are tired of BAD R-rated horrors. Movies like that Omen remake and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning absolutely suck, and yeah, they made their money back, but they are terrible and therefore forgettable, but don't think for an instant studios are going to stop making R-rated movies. Especially if 50% of them make more than their money back in theaters before they are stamped "Unrated" and released on DVD. That pic of Jordana above is all I remember from Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.

This year horror fans still have Captivity, the Rob Zombie Halloween remake to look forward to as well as Saw IV. I am not yet sure if Warner Bros. will release Trick 'r Treat as PG-13 or if Sony will go the PG-13 route with 30 Days of Night, but looking at the two of them I am expecting at least an R-rating for 30 Days of Night, but we will see. Horror fans should be taken care of one way or another.

Hostel: Part II is going to make its money back and Lionsgate will have to settle for the fact that it wasn't a complete loss. It does mean Eli Roth better come up with something original and interesting if he doesn't want to be looked at as a one-hit-wonder.

The R-rated horror genre is doing just fine folks, you just need to demand better movies and original ideas. Be thankful 1408 wasn't rated R, it would have been ruined if they tried to gore it up. There was no need for gore in that movie. 1408, like The Ring, was a movie about creeping you out, not grossing you out. The PG-13 rating was perfect in this case and didn't hurt at all.

What we really need is a movie to revitalize the genre the way that Scream, Saw and even Hostel, for that matter, did. Then studios can go ahead and saturate the audience all over again and we will get tired of whatever new direction horror goes in and then we will need another original idea. Until then let's see which filmmaker will try to break the mold instead of crying that people aren't fitting into the current one like good little boys and girls.