5 ms·
If Harvey believes so strongly in the film, that everyone should see it, especially teenagers, he should just release it for free on youtube. Teenagers aren't g
by angrycoder 15y ago
If Harvey believes so strongly in the film, that everyone should see it, especially teenagers, he should just release it for free on youtube. Teenagers aren't going to spend their own money to see this and if their parents take them, the R rating isn't an issue anyway.
- the-cakeboss 15y agoAnd how are they going to recoup the heavy loses incurred when they release it for free?
- olegious 15y agoI doubt these types of films are expected to make a profit or even break even.
- kingkawn 15y agoAll films can make a profit. A doc like this has deals with foreign public television distributors and other entities where if it's box office reaches some minimal american threshold they automatically will buy the film regardless of their take on it. Production costs are low enough that in fact they can have a really good ROI, even if it doesn't contribute huge amounts to the overall company bottom line.
- neilparikh 15y agoThe problem is that he wanted to show it in classrooms. Most teenagers aren't going to bother to go watch a documentary on their own time (speaking as a teenager, most of my peers probably wouldn't). Also, not everyone is going hear about this movie. If it is shown in classrooms, way more kids will get to watch it. Edit: Here's the relevant quote: "That's a problem for producer Harvey Weinstein, who had lobbied for a PG-13 label so he could tour the film in middle and high schools"
- gry 15y agoIn other words, to get to the classroom, an official PG-13 is easier than an official R-rated and quasi-unrated path. This is not a technology problem. It's cultural. MPAA and consumers included.