Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Ted Baehr :: Townhall.com Columnist
Reading Between the Frames
by Ted Baehr
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the six major movie studios in Hollywood and helps them beat their competition, was very excited this month about touting Hollywood's record-breaking year in 2007.

Figures released by the MPAA showed that worldwide box office totals increased 4.9 percent to $26.72 billion in 2007. In those totals, the domestic box office also set a record, increasing 5.4 percent to $9.629 billion.

These figures, however, do not reflect the underlying concern movie executives have in the overall decline in movie going in the United States. Total admissions in the United States and Canada increased only 0.3 percent in 2007, to 1.4 billion tickets sold. Also, that number represents a whopping 12 percent decline from Contemporary Hollywood's best year in 2002, when it sold 1.599 billion tickets.

Furthermore, the MPAA forgot to mention that annual movie admissions for the domestic box office in 2007 are still 29 percent below the 1.98 billion admissions in the middle 1960s, before the six major Hollywood studios' immoral ratings system (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) came into being and alienated family audiences and mainstream moviegoers.

Considering that the population in the United States and Canada has increased from about 210 million people to more than 336 million people, the number of ticket sales in North America has continued to drop — nearly 56 percent — since 1966, from 9.43 tickets sold per person to only about 4.17 tickets sold per person annually.

The situation is even worse if you go back to 1946, the heyday of the Golden Age of Hollywood, when 55 percent of the American population, about 78 million people, went to the movies every week, for about 4 billion ticket sales. Today, only between 27 percent and 30 percent of the American people go to movies every week.

In other words, the amount of movie admissions today has declined 66 percent, or two-thirds, since the heights of the Golden Age, when "Mr. Smith [Went] To Washington" and when George Bailey learned that "It's A Wonderful Life."

In 1993, with the Movieguide Report to the Entertainment Industry, we began to how various kinds of movies have translated into sales. We have seen a dramatic increase in family films with traditional moral values based on the Bible, and many more movies with Christian content. Since then, annual ticket sales for Hollywood have increased 27.4 percent.

Furthermore, recent studies by us and other organizations, including The Nielsen Co., show G-rated movies with no sex, foul language, explicit nudity nor graphic violence make at least 3 to 5 times more money per movie at the box office than R-rated movies.

Thus, it has become ever clearer that, if Hollywood wants to make more money, it needs to ditch the cumbersome MPAA content ratings, stop making R-rated and NC-17 movies altogether, clean up the content of the remaining movies, and go back to the Code of Decency that fueled Hollywood's Golden Age from 1933 to 1966, when God and His values ruled the box office, instead of the values of senile hedonists like Hugh Hefner and angry radical atheists like Michael Moore.

Contrary to what many journalists and other pundits say, sex, obscenity and graphic violence usually don't sell all that well.

Our study shows the more graphic the sex and violence, the less likely a movie will make back its investment. All these facts and figures lead us to ask Hollywood executives and owners of America's movie theater chains one question: How many more empty seats do you want?

Most moviegoers, and most non-moviegoers for that matter, want to see good conquer evil, truth triumph over falsehood, justice prevail over injustice, and beauty overcome ugliness. They also would like to take their whole family, including their grandparents, to the movies more often.

That's why "Horton Hears A Who" was the top movie over the weekend in the United States and Canada. It also explains why "American Idol" has 25 million viewers any given night, 2½ times more than its closest competition.

The next time someone says, when an ultraviolent movie with explicit sex and nudity earns big bucks on an opening weekend, "Hollywood is just making what the people want to see," please remember that the actual facts show the exact opposite.

It's time for Hollywood to give the public what it really wants.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Baehr is the founder and Publisher of Movieguide®: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment and Chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Much more important than $$$???

Ted writes; "It's time for Hollywood to give the public what it really wants."

Hate to disappoint you, friend... but not as long as the current crop of leftist studio heads are in charge. Period.

It would SURELY seem that "they" would have (by now) figured out the glaringly obvious - that family films make a LOT more $$$.

But no... here ideology trumps big bucks.

Very telling.

Not everyone...
...wants to see family-oriented films all the time. Sure, my wife and I took our daughter to see "Penelope" over the weekend and we had a good time. But we also liked "Michael Clayton", "The Departed", and "Breach".

A few years ago, people like Baehr were complaining there weren't enough family films. Now there are plenty of family films and he is still complaining. He doesn't want anyone watching to watch the films he doesn't like.

Instead of complaining about content, he should be complaining about quality. It isn't the sex and violence that turn people off. It is the fact that some filmmakers believe that if they put in enough sex and violence, they can omit things like plot and character development. Scorsese's The Departed was a violent movie, but it was very well done. Nightmare on Elm Street 17: Freddie Goes to Pismo Beach, not so much.

Why are people like Baehr so concerned by what other people watch? They said they wanted more family films and the studios complied. Why isn't that enough?

JJBiener: you answered your own question
Q:"Why are people like Baehr so concerned by what other people watch? They said they wanted more family films and the studios complied. Why isn't that enough?"

A: "He doesn't want anyone watching to watch the films he doesn't like."

I wonder how much research they did anyway? Here is some quick info from IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

I won't rehash the list, but in the top 20 are 3 Star Wars movies (talk amongst yourselves about how family friendly they are), 2 Lord of the Rings movies (violent), Pirates of the Carribean, Jurassic Park and the Passion of the Christ. Ironically, the most violent and graphic of them all is the last one, but it's probably Mr Baehr's number one pick.

I won't speak for everyone, but I think that fewer people go to the theaters because a "date night" for two costs about $30 - "oh, you wanted a large popcorn?" - make that $40! Why would I stand in line and watch a movie for $40 when I can wait about 2 months for it to come out on DVD for $20? Plus, I don't have to listen to 200 18-year old idiots talk on their cell phones during the movie when I watch it at home.

Picking data to fit a pre-determined agenda is a Democrat game, Mr Baehr. Leave it to the pros, please!

Why I Don't Go
1. The expense
2. The generally dirty environment
3. The generally rude audience
4. The generally dull movies.

Violence and sex which have something to do with the plot and/or character development do not bother me at all (one of my all-time favorites is A Clockwork Orange). That said, I prefer family-oriented films, as long as there is enough intellectual content to engage me (another all-time favorite: The Incredibles). I'll cast my lot with JJBiener, and get my reviews from RottenTomatoes, rather than a wowser who thinks he knows better than I do what's good for me.

Bring back quality
"Most moviegoers, and most non-moviegoers for that matter, want to see good conquer evil, truth triumph over falsehood, justice prevail over injustice, and beauty overcome ugliness."

That is it. (But it cannot be parsed into simple sex-and-violence terms, as the author suggests). To get a ticket sale from the average American, Hollywood needs to create movies that jibe with the average American's beliefs and values instead of self-indulging in its own. Hollywood goes gaga over movies about anti-heroes (morally gray or even black) who muddle through a hostile, depressing, dark world. But Americans believe that disaster is the exception and individuals can overcome adversity, and they want to see a heroic (good) person succeed. Why would the average American pay $9 to watch the former? We can get that in some of the news. It is totally uninspiring, depressing, and wasteful. Bring back Spartacus and Ben-Hur, then people will come. It worked in the 50s.

Ahhh Wendy. Another Eternal Child
Bulletin to Wendy. Dateline March 25th.

This is not 1950.

1946 - The Heyday

In 1946 following things were missing:

- Very few homes actually had TV and if they did, it was B/W
- Cable service "On demand" was not there
- VHS/Betamax players were not invented yet
- HDTV was not invented yet
- Blue-Ray was not invented yet
- Home theater sound didn't exist

... and, ABOVE all, moviegoing was adult's business. Not to mention children were educated back then.

As a side note, because of the last thing mentioned above, I refuse to pay admission ticket for the movie that is NOT R-rated.

Hollywood is Pricing out of the Market
Have you noticed that Hollywood is raising ticket prices every year. I just went to my local theater last week, and sure enough, there was the annual $.75 price hike, just like last year and the year before. Box office prices continue to rise, ostensibly to cover the higher costs of modern films and because of "piracy." In reality, Hollywood now makes more money from DVD sales than the box office. In fact, Hollywood makes vastly more than it could have dreamed of 15 years ago.

They could probably stimulate ticket sales to record high numbers if they would just lower their prices, and allow the theaters to at least make enough from tickets that they can keep clean facilities without having to charge $4.85 for popcorn (thus driving away even more moviegoers).

Hollywood and the MPAA whine and cry about "piracy" and point at the plunging ticket sales and say, "See, we lost $XX Billion to pirates!" Then they raise ticket prices and say, "We lost XX Billion more to pirates this year than last!"

What's really happening is that the MPAA is too lazy and stupid to price to demand at the box office, and people simply turn to alternatives for entertainment. They wait for the DVD, watch cable, surf the web, or play video games, since going to the overpriced, dirty theater to watch a movie you can see at home on the HDTV in 3 months is stupid.

Didn't He Praise Alvin & The Chipmunks?
"Thus, it has become ever clearer that, if Hollywood wants to make more money, it needs to ditch the cumbersome MPAA content ratings, stop making R-rated and NC-17 movies altogether, clean up the content of the remaining movies, and go back to the Code of Decency that fueled Hollywood's Golden Age from 1933 to 1966, when God and His values ruled the box office, instead of the values of senile hedonists like Hugh Hefner and angry radical atheists like Michael Moore."

Wow, if Hugh Hefner is a senile hedonist, then I guess Dr. Baehr is a senile fundamentalist Christian. Sorry to tell it like it is, but if you make a loaded statement like that, you have to expect a loaded response. And it doesn't exactly help your case when you are quoted praising "Alvin & The Chipmunks", which seems to me more of the same garbage that keeps turning out by the current crop of mindless media moguls. I mean, in the trailers for the film (if you can even call it that), there's jokes about chipmunk feces. That's Christian?

Hollywood does not make movies simply to make a profit. They are usually made for the sake of art (Hence, the latin motto for the old MGM Studios, "Ars Gratia Artis - Art For Art's Sake", before it was trashed by Kirk Kerkorian and Jim Aubrey in the early 1970s.)

Granted, I liked Ratatouille, not because it's a G-rated film, but because it's a smart, gorgeous, well crafted film. I would say the same for "No Country For Old Men", an R-rated movie, which kept me rivited at the edge of my seat the entire time. Really, it's more than just that coin-toss scene with Anton Chigur and him saying "Friend-O". It's an enthralling chase film that also delves into the mind of a man of pure intrinsic evil.

And Another Thing...
Thus, it has become ever clearer that, if Hollywood wants to make more money, it needs to ditch the cumbersome MPAA content ratings, stop making R-rated and NC-17 movies altogether, clean up the content of the remaining movies, and go back to the Code of Decency that fueled Hollywood's Golden Age from 1933 to 1966, when God and His values ruled the box office..."

Really? You want to make it so that the hard-left liberals are even more inscensed towards Christianity then they are now? There will be calls by the hard left to prosecute Christian groups as terrorists if that ever happened again, which most likely will not because it's just not feasible in application.

The reason that so many liberals are so antagonistic towards Christianity and Catholicism in the first place is because of these moves toward censorship. The "golden age" of Hollywood is really not that much different than any other era in Hollywood. Even though the Hays codes existed at that time, there were still calls from Catholic bishops for even more sweeping censorship. Take for example Cardinal Dennis Joeseph Dougherty, the archbishop of Philadelphia, who, in 1934, ordered every Philadelphian Catholic to boycott ALL movies (That included the films in the golden age of Hollywood like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and "It's A Wonderful Life".) The boycott continued until the archbishop's death in 1951, even though some Catholics went to the movies against his declaration.

The point of the matter is that there will always be films that certain groups object to, yet it is up to the moviegoer whether they want to purchase that $10 ticket or not.

The public arena
has become a place dominatd by Wireheads who obliviously and continuously blabber, blabber, blabber, throw garbage around, and murmur to their shriking children -- then tell anyone who asks if they can all plase be quiet, to Eff Off. Recently I actually had a parent slap his child with a rolled up magazine, tell her to *cry louder* and then tell ME to eff off.

And for this I am supposed to pay $50.00? I can get the same delightful experience on the subway. In fact, last night on the way home, one of these brats responded to his Murmuring Daddy with a shriek that literally pierced my eardrum with exactly the force of a Formula One car passing the front grandstand at full song between concrete walls. Daddy continued to murmur about *making choices*. I only paid $2.75 for that experience. I told Daddy that if this had been my kid he would have had a consequence on the spot that he never would have forgotten.

Until there are such places as communities again, I will limit my moviegoing to my home.

Value
The problem with movies today is simply that they aren't worth watching any more. There is no value in the entertainment and the same themes are replayed over and over again. What do we get from the overpaid purveyors of celluloid fantasy that is thought provoking and truly entertaining? Disaster movies? We've seen the world or some city destroyed a thousand times in a thousand different ways. Love stories? We've been treated to every variation on that theme including every variation of perversion that hollywierd can dream up. Cops and robbers, war stories, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

The problem is that there is nothing new under the sun. We're down to judging the excellence of special effects and whatever plot twist some clown in movieland dreams up. The value of the experience is diminished and in most cases absent. I've found my best entertainment is life, not as depicted in the fanciful and often corrupt imaginings of hollywierd, but the real day to day thing. In my opinion it's time for Americans to go back outside and play.

RE: "stop making R and NC-17 movies"
I was with you until that proposal.

I fully endorse pressure to get the movie-makers to start making more family-friendly movies. And I believe that this pressure has worked, proven by the success of the afore-mentioned Star Wars movies, Disney animated classics, every Pixar movie, Juno, etc.

But I cannot endorse restricting the kinds of movies that can be made. Movie-makers must be totally free to make the movies that they want to make, even if they produce things like Saw or Farenheit 911.

People must be free to make the movies they want to make, to pay their money to see those movies or to stay home in droves, and even to write articles decrying some kinds of movies.

Right now people are protesting the kind of censorship you advocate, which is in full effect in China, and they are right to do so.

Mr Baehr is right--clean entertainment!
Our society is in a mess right now due to many factors. I think promotion of premarital sex, nudity and violence in films is one of the factors because it lends credibility to the lifestyles of Hollywood. Young people are still learning about life choices well into their 20's and even 30's. They make decisions based on the people they admire. Why not give them people TO ADMIRE? There is nothing to admire in R-rated films except the possible creativity by the producers and actors but the lessons there are often foul and degrading.

I personally wrote off R rated films back in the 1980's and can say my brain has not been polluted by it since that time. I go to PG-13 films but I am careful about what I view and hear. It is a presonal choice for everyone but for me the choice is clear. I don't want to see or hear it and I don't want to promote what has now been rationalzed and sold as adult entertainment.

Each person has to vote with their own movie ticket but my vote is with Mr. Baehr for good and clean entertainment. I want to be entertained, and even sometime inspired, when I make a choice to go to a movie. Is that too much to ask?

Get some plots!
I love to read good books and I love to watch good movies. But too many of both have no plots! Most sex and violence movies have just that - no real plot. I've been kicked out of a movie theater for laughing at the inane plot of a 'thriller'. It bothered everyone else to hear me laughing. I've seen love stories that were ridiculous - and I generally like them. (My wife once said I should be more romantic, like in her books. I suggested that I should then move out so she could be in the same troubles that her heroines were in. She didn't appreciate the humor.) One show was so bad that everyone laughed - and it was supposed to be a sober thing. I like any type of book or movie with a plot but at least half don't really have one. Either the writer doesn't care, the director doesn't care, or one of them wants to 'teach a lesson'. (I haven't seen an Oliver Stone movie in years. He stated that every movie he makes has a lesson. It is primarily that people should not defend their country or trust their government.)

I very seldom watch television. I haven't seen anything with a good plot in years on it unless it is a ten plus hour special. And, while they are at it, try to get your facts right! I saw a book recently that spoke of a 50mm handgun. That is a 2 inch bullet, people!

There are a lot of good plots out there. Let's see a few of them!

45caliber
Moi aussi! One of my former brothers-in-law and his friends were kicked out of the original "Alien" movie for shouting "BLOW THE AIRLOCK" at the screen as soon as they knew the alien was aboard. Of cousre, 2 hours later when everyone but the girl was dead, that's just what she did.

My sister and I were escorted from a theatre showing of "Drivel", er, "Driven" in which methanol burned with a visible flame, cars stopped on an oval and reversed, as the drivers went into a pond to save someone who went off into the (flaming) pond, cars that had been wrecked five minutes before were back on the track in pristine condition, and Max Papis entered low earth orbit ("HEY, YOU GOT THE WINGS ON UPSIDE DOWN!" was the shout that got us turfed.)

There's suspension of disbelief and there's the idiot plot.

P.S. I am looking forward to the "Speed Racer" movie. Some poor girl in the Car Show was showing the trailer and trying to give the posters to kids, who didn't know Speed Racer from Sylvester Stallone. All the people grabbing the posters and avidly discussing the movie (the kid playing Speed Racer looks uncannily like his Anime original) were over 45.

Porn On the Brain
Dear Dr. Baehr:

When you take a stand against public displays of filth and perversion, you can expect many of the trollers you see above as a matter of course. And you see the same excuses:

1. "Just don't watch it."- Sure. Just try to avoid it or protect your children from it when it's everywhere.

2. "That's (gasp!) censorship."- Citizens and communities have the right to protect themselves and their families against material that promotes immoral and unlawful conduct. This principle was once universally recognized. The First Amendment was never intended to protect this as "free speech".

3. "It'll raise awareness of the issue."- This is the classic ploy of pornmongers. No "art" production was ever intended to do more than advance the profits and notoriety of its makers. Nor could it.

4. "This is not 1950."- No, it's not. In the '50s and early '60s, there was no ratings system. Anyone could attend a first-run film in a theater who was old enough to buy a ticket. As a child then, I did so frequently every Saturday morning. Until Jack Valenti came to Hollywood and legitimized what was before regarded (rightfully) as immoral and outright pornography, parents didn't have to worry about such things. Now they do- and from multiple venues- and to such an extent as was never dreamed possible.

Not only do we now see "entertainment" people degrading themselves before us for money (as in "prostitution"), but now and increasingly, these productions are aimed at children and include actual children in their making. And decent people are supposed to stand by and see their kids' souls polluted for Hollywood's sake? I don't think so.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.