What we read, listen to and watch helps shape who we are and the values we hold.
If that were not so, businesses would not spend millions to fill one quarter of every hour on our televisions with advertising. They wouldn't pump advertising out on radio stations, fill our magazines with it, or even delay the start of our movies with it at the theater. Advertising obviously influences our actions.
But the same is true with the actual programing we take in on TV, from the radio and at the movie theater. Does that programming consist of wholesome themes, wholesome visuals and wholesome dialogue? Or does it debase virtue and teach us bad attitudes and habits?
With so much of what is offered at the movie theater being R-rated (and so many of the PG-13 movies as bad as an R of a few years ago), these movies that push the moral envelope must certainly be raking in lots of money for movie companies to continue producing them.
Actually, that's not the case at all. In fact, you might be surprised at how poorly the average R rated movie performs.
From WorldNetDaily comes an article about a recent study done by the Christian Film and Television Commission, publishers of Movieguide.
According to the study, G-rated movies averaged nearly $92.2 million, more than 438 percent better than R-rated movies, making only $17.1 million.
Last year, seven films with a G or PG rating earned more than $100 million at the domestic box office, and three PG-rated films ("Shrek the Third," $322 million; "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," $216 million; and "Alvin and the Chipmunks," $213 million) were among the year's top 10 earners.
Only one R-rated film made the top 10, and it was No. 10, "300," with earnings of $210 million.
No. 11 on the list was G-rated "Ratatouille" with $206 million.
I've seen both 300 and Ratatouille, and they were both good movies.
300 had a couple of scenes with (for these days) fairly mild nudity and a couple of brief scenes with sexual themes, and of course since it dealt with the battle between King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans against Xerxes' Persians at Thermopylae, it was pretty violent. The movie could have been just as good without the nudity or sex scenes, and I would therefore consider them purely gratuitous, but at least the violence of the movie was contextual for the brutality of the period. It did contain redeeming qualities which elevated the virtues of honor, courage, loyalty, family, military service, professional excellence, fighting tyranny, and giving one's life for others.
Ratatouille, which I saw with my wife and children, was a different sort. It was an animated film about a rat who wanted to be a master chef. It was funny, featured good quality animation, and was pretty clean. We all walked away from it having had some good laughs, and more importantly, a good time as a family.
Not only do most people want to see something redeeming and uplifting, there are other reasons why G movies do better financially.
What responsible parent is going to bring their child to the average R movie, especially young children? A G movie has a shot at selling 3, 4 or more tickets per family per showing. Meanwhile, the R probably only has a shot at selling two tickets per family per showing. Do the math.
This trend holds true overseas as well:
The report adds that 90 percent of the top 20 movies overseas had no graphic sexual content and no homosexual content or references, while 85 percent had no explicit nudity.
So why don't we see more positive, wholesome fare from Hollywood? It certainly can't be the math, or the profit margin. They aren't stupid; they know very well which movies are most likely to rake in the cash.
Could it then be an agenda of promoting a certain set of moral values? What else could it be?
0 comments:
Post a Comment