(intentionally?) unrealistic gore and the mpaa

::SPOILERS ABOUT TCM (2003) AHEAD::




the other day i was watching the remake of texas chainsaw massacre and in the scene where the hitchiker shoots herself, when her heads falls back, her head looked really fake- it almost looked like it was made of paper mache. i'm sure they could've had a much more realistic-looking head (the budget wasn't THAT low...), but it seemed to me like it was intentionally made to look fake to soften the blow of the gore to the ratings system? maybe in order to avoid any problems that they might have with the mpaa, such as getting that whole long camera shot cut or heavily edited?

i've seen other instances of badly done gore that made me think it was done in that way to dodge an NC-17 or an unwelcome edit. most common would be the color of blood in most movies... what is the point of making it look fake?

am i right about this?

I thought that scene was the best part of the movie. Mind you, I've only seen it once and that was at the theater.

As for your question, according to the Evil Dead 2 DVD, the blood was made in colors other than red to appease the MPAA. Blood though is only one thing. You still have to take into consideration the act of violence that produced the blood/gore/decapitation/castration/etc.

Language, nudity, drug references and other asanine shit goes into consideration too. Of course, you already know this. Just realize that one can always suggest these themes without ever outright performing them.

I think when it comes to horror, go for the NC17 rating. It's horror for fucks sake! Go all out! Nobody makes horror movies for little kids (arguable, I know )

[rxfiend]

actually that scene was edited. Check out the deleted scenes on the disc2 of the SE for the full scene.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I remember an article in USA Today about a year ago talked about what you can and can't do to get a PG-13 rating, and why some movies full of violence get Pg-13's while others without any get R's.
Bottom line, 3 "fucks" and you have an R. No matter what else is in the film. 2 fucks, some chessy gore, a handful of shits and a big studio behind you, you get PG-13. Same thing with an indie film, NC-17!
It's all politics and bullshit. The system is warpped, outdated, plays favorites, and should be abolished!

Billy Bob Thorton, during an interview, explained how in the "Monster's Ball" sex scene had to be cut to include only 3 humps per shot. Going over the hump limit would've earned the movie an NC17.

Regarding the new TCM, I think I read somewhere michael Bay or one of the producers of the movie sits on the MPAA board. I noticed lots of scenes could have been gorier (even by 'R' rating standards). Particularly where...

Spoiler: Pepper (Erica Leerhsen) gets hers...I think all I saw was chicken feathers floating around despite 'ol Leatherface chopping her up with a chainsaw.

Yeah, the whole rating thing is such a load of crippy-crap! Til this day, I look at the theatrical cut of Army of Darkness and don't see why it got the 'R' rating it did. I honestly can't think of a scene in the theatrical cut that merits it an 'R'. In comparison, I just saw Hellboy yesterday and I'd say it was a lot gorier (mind U, lots of BLUE blood) & much more violent than AOD...and it gets a PG-13! What in the name of Jesse James?.....

Oh well.

[speanroc]

so u think "army" should have gotten a PG-13 ????????

[Grim]

Army of Darkness should have been PG-13, The director's cut is debatible, but looking at some of the stuff these days, I think it might pass by the skin of its teeth with a PG-13.

I can't see why those scenes in the TCM remake had to be edited when there was that much gore and then some in the DOTD remake.

I mean we see

Spoiler: a girl get chainsawed right down her body, and we can't see some blood fall and a little wall splatter in the TCM remake? It's bullshit. Although I didn't mind the gore one bit.

[TobalRox]

How is the director's cut of AOD debatable? It adds dialogue and a love scene that doesn't show anything. Still could pass for the same rating.

Tobalrox:
The scene in the windmill is longer in DC. Alot more "evilspirited". I also think that the end fight has more action to it than the Theatrical version. It got the rating "Forbidden for children" here in sweden (our highest rating) which means no one under 15 allowed admittance.

[Grim]

Originally Posted by TobalRox

How is the director's cut of AOD debatable? It adds dialogue and a love scene that doesn't show anything. Still could pass for the same rating.

Well, there was that big splash of blood. The MPAA usually throws a fit about that.

[TobalRox]

Originally Posted by MrGrim13

Well, there was that big splash of blood. The MPAA usually throws a fit about that.

It's been a while since I've seen this, and I really do not remember that part. As for the other stuff mentioned, I know those scenes are longer, but to me it still didn't seem much worse. It definitely is not a case of it being a director's cut because they had to cut the stuff to get an R, it was all for pacing issues. I agree with anyone who says that it should have been PG-13.