"R" rating versus "PG13"

[exnihilo]

Although fantasy series have been successful lately, none have ever had an "R" rating before. Questions:

1) Can an "R" rated epic fantasy series ever find backing?
2) Can a fantasy series that not only does not seek but eschews the children's market ever be viable as a big production (i.e., get made with enough money to do the books justice)?
3) Can TCTC survive the "PG13" rating without serious harm?
4) Can issues like rape be "implied" over the heads of children? Should they in this context?

[Nerdanel]

I want an R!

For me the essence of the series is that there is great goodness and beauty and on the other side horrible evil with Thomas Covenant a shade of gray caught between the extremes and the emotional force of the series comes from making the reader fall in love with the Land and then breaking the reader's heart by doing worst things imaginable to the Land. A PG-13 version would have to hide the worst of the darker elements, resulting in a skewed whole. I think a Thomas Covenant film should not shy from showing extremes.

I think even LotR should have been an R, even though this wasn't as necessary for it as it would be for Thomas Covenant. The extended DVD versions are commonly considered superior to the theatrical versions, and the extended ones were unrated and in my country rated the equivalent of R. In this you can see that even Peter Jackson thought the film would have been better as an R, but the studio forced him to make a PG-13. The only thing he could do was to make as hard a PG-13 as possible.

[The Somberlain]

Are those two ratings consecutive ones in the states, then?

Here we have 12, 15 and 18... which I think works much better. I could see the Chronicles as a 15 rating (LOTR was a 12) - which would presumably make it an R over there. There needn't be anything OVERTLY graphic in the films; but the themes and some scenes are fairly dark.


Then again, if I were a parent, I'd have no problem with letting my twelve year old child read the Chronicles... so what do I know.

[exnihilo]

That does sound like a better system. There is a big jump between what a 13 year old ought to be seeing and what a 17 year old ought to be seeing. An intermediate 15 year old standard would be useful for certain projects (although the studios would probably resist the added complexity -- they've been using PG13 as more of a marketing benchmark -- attracting the largest possible audience -- than anything else.) The R rating restricts children less than 16 without a parent or guardian (i.e., somebody 18 or older) to accompany them, for those that may be unfamiliar with the ratings system we have in the US.

I am grieved by the puritanical attitudes that persist in the US -- UK and EU certainly have a much healthier attitude to social issues IMO. We can't show a woman's breast, the fountain of life, yet violence is not only acceptable, it seems to be encouraged in our culture. Quoting Col. Kurtz, "They train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write [f***] on their airplanes because it's obscene!" (Noting the irony of self-editing that quote...) OK, stepping down off the soap box...

As far as a PG13 Covenant, I've given it some more thought. PG13 would dilute the series far too much. Making a PG13 version would likely be worse than not doing it at all. Just enough of a tease to make us all rue it.

Quoting the bible: (Revelations 3:15-16) "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."

[Avatar]

Excellent post ExNihilo...my favourite quote from Apocalypse Now too. (Plenty of soap-boxes available in the 'Tank. )

I certainly agree with Nerdanel that it shouldn't shy away from the deeper, darker issues too.

How successful it would be with that kind of rating, (ratings here are PG, PG13, 16 and 18 btw) I don't know.

In fact, I'm somewhat torn. I want to say that I don't care how successful it is. And as a purist, I want it just like the books. However, on the eternal other hand, if it's not successful, nobody would do the sequels.

Unfortunately, success seems to equal playing for the right audience, dumbing down, cutting out, and simplifying. Not a recipe that would suit the Chrons. Hell, if we let it happen, next thing you know,

(WGW Spoiler)

Spoiler

TC will survive the end of the last book

I dunno. Perhaps I'm starting to tend toward the "A movie will ruin it" side, but perhaps that's to be expected from the purist perspective.

The number of films of books that I've enjoyed can probably be counted on the fingers of 1 hand. *sigh*

--A

[Nerdanel]

That's why I think TC should be filmed on a less than huge budget. If it doesn't cost that much in the first place, it wouln't need to make massive money to be profitable. I've been saying this before, but I think an indie film would be the right way. We really need decent actors, costumes, sets, horses, and sceneries, but I think the special effects don't need to be LotR level.

- Drool Rockworm and other Cavewights (doable with puppets?)
- Wraiths of Andelain (very simple CGI)
- Foamfollower (forced perspective and/or blue-screen. Probably the worst special effects offender.)
- Kresh (real wolves can be used as a base?)
- ur-viles (scary things are more scary when they are shown less and darkness can hide many technical flaws)
- griffin (probably doesn't need to get enough screentime to move realistically. Could be cut in a pinch but I'd prefer not to. I recommend not making a simple lion-eagle combination but something more alien and scary. I think the Hebrew angel connection is potentially very fertile.)
- magical blasts and glows (simple)
- Lord Foul's eyes (matter of art design)

The next book has Hile Troy's eyeless face which thankfully doesn't need to be shown a lot and the ghost of Kevin which is easy to do with bluescreen.

[Matthias]

My opinion?

pg-13

1. rape CAN be implied.
2. morally, i cannot see rated R movies (beliefs, whatnot, no matter how old i am)
3. sex in the movie is just as, or even more unecessary than sex in the book. (clean-book purist speaking here)
4. It would Definitely be better for the audience. (more will actually be inclined to come see it without being reviled by the rape scene.)

[Nerdanel]

I read that the Mormons declared the R-rating sinful but I don't understand that. All the ratings are just what some local secular committee decided.

In my country ratings are given out differently. You can basically have consensual soft porn in PG-13 (that's not the rating but I'm using the rough American equivalents for clarity) as long as that's not the main point of the film, and non-sexual full nudity in G (or in primetime TV advertisements). On the other hand, Narnia (American PG) ended up getting PG-13 for being so violent (which means that it's against the law for children under 11 to see Narnia unattended and children under 9 at all), and and South Park: the Movie (American R) got PG-13 because bad language doesn't really count for ratings here. Lord of the Rings originally got an R and was downgraded only after a complaint by the distributor and a narrow vote in the ratings committee.

Anyway, I've seen many good movies that would be completely destroyed if they were cut down to PG-13. Thomas Covenant might not be Braindead, but it isn't Mary Poppins either. When I first read Lord Foul's Bane at the age of 19 I was SHOCKED. The books are somewhat a niche fare, and I wouldn't wish to see them watered down for the people who would get nightmares from the books in the first place.

I'm not saying that the moviemakers should go out of their way to make the rape as brutal as possible, but I think it should be on screen somehow, even if behind a convenient boulder. That would never make K-11 (PG-13) here but I don't mind.

[Warmark]

Kinda Offtopic but i dont think there should be any restrictions on the films i can see, no matter what age i am.

[Sgt. Mhoram]

Let's take a look at Revenge of the Sith. Toward the end Obi-Wan cuts his best friend's legs and left arm off, yells at him while he screams in pain and slowly slides toward a lava bank, and watches while his face is melted off. After all that it still got a PG-13 rating.

And in X-Men 3 the Juggernaut actually says I'm the Juggernaut Bitch(that was awesome by the way).

So I think if they have Covenant smack Lena and climb on top of her while she screams, adults will get the gist, children might be a little frightened, and no R rating is necessary. They can also get away with labeling it with fantasy violence like in LOTR.

[sgt.null]

even an implied rape will garner an R. remember in America you can kill scores of people and it is ok, but any mention of sex will get you in trouble.

hello sgt.Mhoram btw.

[wayfriend]

Sex-related violence is different altogether from super-hero violence.

[Sgt. Mhoram]

Who said anything about superhero violence..I was just using that as an example of how someone can say a derrogatory thing to women in a movie that probably had a fairly child audience and get away with it, but if a man actually physically derrogates a woman it gets an R-rating..thats bull honky to me.

Good to be onboard sgtnull. Nice name btw.

[Buckarama]

I agree that the movie should be "R" and then *gasp!* let the parents be parnets and take their kids to a movie or wait until they are old enough to understand. Movie Theaters, like TV are not a baby sitter!

I think to properly portray the rape, they need to show the horror of it, and why it effect TC through out the entire movie and how his guilt motivates him to do the right thing.

[sgt.null]

why not make a film for adults. oh yeah, money. i would like the movie to be true to the book.

[spacemonkey]

By all the Gods STAY TRUE TO THE BOOKS!!! I cannot stand a movie *based* on the original story,and give it a damned "R" rating this story will not stand for anything less than an R!!! Otherwise the story itself will be raped to fit the *Genre*!!! F$#@! the genre!!! We want a true rendition of the actual story,not some washed up junk that isn't TC!! Even if only the leprosy was addressed that alone will garner an "R" rating....

[sgt.null]

i don't think leprosy gets the R. it will be the rape.

[spacemonkey]

If the full story of the leprosium is included in all it's gore that was descibed by SRD and not to mention the fierce mental issues that leprosy induces,and not just the rape but the battle scenes,language,and *adult* thematics then by all means it would garner an "R" rating.Look does everybody remember the old movie Excaliber?Yeah the old "Le Morte De Arthur" story that had Patrick Stewart in?That was a five star movie and was given an "R" rating for the battle scenes alone...Never mind the sex scenes in it,I remember the ratings commitee on that one years ago,the sex scenes definately sealed the rating,but battle gore got it there first.

[sgt.null]

but that was a while ago. the problem is that the movie makers want the teen crowd, because they are the most likely to see a movie more than once. so if a major studio gots ahold of this property expect some generic male star who is popular with teen girls to get the lead. and a soundtrack by Nicklecreek-type bands.

[Holsety]

even an implied rape will garner an R. remember in America you can kill scores of people and it is ok, but any mention of sex will get you in trouble.

hello sgt.Mhoram btw.

Well implied sex is actually done without notice. North by Northwest was made when censoring movies under Breen was the cool thing to do IIRC, and there's that train scene at the end where the final shot has the train going into the tunnel. Yup, that was implication of sex, and boldly done during an age when it was usually not allowed.

But such a thing for something like the rape of lena would greatly weaken the gravity of the event, and weaken the movie greatly if'n you ask me. Not to mention that, unless I'm seriously missing something, there are neither trains nor train tunnels in The Land.

but that was a while ago. the problem is that the movie makers want the teen crowd, because they are the most likely to see a movie more than once. so if a major studio gots ahold of this property expect some generic male star who is popular with teen girls to get the lead. and a soundtrack by Nicklecreek-type bands.

This might not be true. The people who make LFB might be willing to make a movie that's true to the books even if it means less money. But, you're...probably right

Then again, I think Snakes On a Plane is doing well, and that's R-rated. You have to remember that an R demographic doesn't mean a movie won't pull teenagers - in fact, the "cool factor" of going to an R movie is extant and powerful. All this being said I think LFB will have a hard time appealing to the teen demographic or any demographic since it hasn't sold well as a book - LotR and HP as movies did well not only because they got marketed well but because there was already a market for those particular movies.