April 5th, 2004

Filed under:
Movies
6 Comments »

Sex Doesn’t Sell?

A new survey, compiled for the Christian Film and Television Commission (CFTC), proffers the dubious argument that ‘moral’ films without sex and nudity sell better than their tawdrier equivalents:

An analysis of 1,120 cinematic releases over the past four years has shown that films without sex scenes, such as Disney’s Finding Nemo or Toy Story 2, earned an average of $41.1 million (£22.3 million), while films with sex have grossed 38 per cent less with an average of $16.7 million.

This is absurd propaganda and it’s shameful that major newspapers agreed to publish the results. Of course films without sex sell more than films with sex, for blatantly obvious reasons:

  • Children only attend G-rated films.
  • Successful G-rated films are produced and marketed by marketing giants such as Disney. They receive maximum exposure and are shown in the maximum number of theatres.
  • As the ratings increase, the possible viewership decreases. For R-rated films, instead of having a viewership demographic of 0-65, you’ve got 18-65.

It’s an idiotically obvious conclusion for the surveying company to draw, and the CFTC masquerades these ‘facts’ as an argument against sex in cinema. Notably, the survey only covers the last three years. Historically, when a country is in conflict, values become more conservative. This is exacerbated by a right-wing president in the Whitehouse. Is it any surprise that Finding Nemo is tops at the box office?

The most shameful journalism occurs when the journalist Elizabeth Day compares My Big Fat Greek Wedding to Spiderman (which had no sex but plenty o’ violence). Spiderman had a massive marketing budget behind it, and for the first six weeks of its run never appeared in less than 3000 cinemas across the US. It generated it’s US $403 million box office gross in a 16-week blitzkrieg of publicity. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, on the other hand, never appeared in more than 2016 cinemas, succeeded on word of mouth, and took a year to earn its (very impressive) US $241 million. Furthermore, the writer stupidly compares the two films in the British market, where Wedding only took 46% of the box office of Spiderman, considerably less than the global take of 60%.

This is a classic example of the media ignorantly glomming onto highly-dubious survey results, and therefore endorsing them. It’s a truism to argue that films without nudity and sex will always top the box office–it’s not front page news.

Though, now that I look at the all-time box office successes, I see that put-your-hands-on-me-Jack-and-sketch-me-naked Titanic is in first place. So, there’s still hope for skin in cinema. Skinema. Whatever.

Comments: 6 Responses so far

Jason
April 5th, 2004
4:09 pm

It is pretty funny, given that they must have had to look REALLY hard to find enough recent movies with sex in them to even do a study. I personally can’t think of any that had anything racier than the odd shot of a semi-naked person. Plenty of violence though. Is it considered ‘moral’ if the bad guy gets blown up and/or decapitated by the end of the movie? I guess so - as long as he’s fully clothed at all times.

[Reply]

Mel
April 5th, 2004
7:01 pm

Call me a advocate for seniors, but I really dislike that your demographics for movie-goers tops off at 65.

[Reply]

Mel
April 5th, 2004
7:02 pm

And I apologize for my horrible, useless grammar skills ;)

[Reply]

Darren
April 5th, 2004
7:20 pm

In truth, I thought about topping out my movie-goer demographic at 50. The movie studios don’t give much thought to viewers over 50, let alone 65. I did a quick Google search, and this was the best I could come up with:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6484&More=Y

It indicates in 2001, only 15% of people 35 and over go to a movie at least once a month, compared to half of 15-24-year-olds. I’m pretty sure that number drops off considerably once you get 50+.

[Reply]

Augie De Blieck Jr.
April 6th, 2004
6:24 am

PLENTY of G-rated movies tank, too. But I’m not sure whose point that assists…

If you’re a big company looking to produce a movie to maximize your financial returns, you’d be best off making a G or PG-rated movie. They tend to be cheaper and bring in the most returns. (Actually, your best bet is a PG-rated movie with a teenaged romance in it. Those female teenagers love to see the same movie a dozen times in the summer. Or, in the case of TITANIC, in the winter.)

That’s no politics or any hysterical White House-bashing. That’s just sound economics.

As for this poll — yeah, of course it’s a bit askew with the data it’s presenting, but I don’t think it’s all wrong. And what is so wrong with the suggestion of Hollywood cleaning itself up a little bit? Any time a group rallies for that or comes out with a survey for that, the wagons get circled really quickly.

Oh, and as for kids only attending G-rated films: You don’t go to movies when there are crowds in them anymore, so it’s not unexpected that you’d conclude this. I didn’t see an R rated movie until I was 17 or 18. Today’s kids? Parents don’t look at ratings anymore. I saw a ten year old in the SOUTH PARK movie (although Dad ripped her right out after the opening musical number) and R-rated movies seem to be populated mostly by 16 year olds with their friends. Heck, the toys for R-rated movies are aimed at kids. That’s just wrong.

I’m sure there are plenty of pre-teens in PG-13 movies, too. Parents are stupid.

[Reply]

Chris
April 6th, 2004
9:04 am

I suspect part of the drop-off in attendance in the over-35 crowd is the child factor. My partner and I have been to exactly one movie a year in the last 3 years (LOTR 1, 2 & 3). For everything else, we wait til it’s out on video - it’s jsut not worth the hassle and expense of finding a sitter. My parents, who are in their 60’s, see 10 times as many movies as we do.

[Reply]

Add a comment