Well I'll answer my own question, to draw in more people and get more money. Yeah well they failed there, I think the film would of been a success if they just stuck with an R rating as the film could of shown off its full potential. It just felt too striped down, it had a good story but it didn't have enough gore (as we'd expect from a zombie film). I think it could of made more money if it kept its R rating.
shareI think they made it PG-13 because it's primarily a movie aimed at teenagers.
shareI thought it was good for a PG13 horror, but it needed a little edge. Just a touch more.
shareI'd say it's because the story being told didn't need to be any higher.
It wasn't a movie about gore and violence. It was a movie about love and loss.
Adding gore to the movie would have done nothing to further the story or help in telling it. If more gore would have been added, then the story of love and loss would have not even been noticed or thought about. Look at the examples:Prom Night, Terror Train-both movies about someone seeing something or being treated badly and no one ever thinks about or talks about that-how sad it was for the crazed killer or the victims. No it is always, "oh did you see how that head rolled across the floor?", or some such nonsense. People only focus on the gore.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
Pure speculation on my part, but I believe the film probably would've had an R-rating in a previous version (perhaps the one that was supposed to screen at TIFF) but when Lionsgate acquired it, they decided it would sell better with a more accessible rating. There are clear edits to some of the gore (mainly cutaways) which suggest we would've seen more blood. Without the original version playing TIFF there couldn't be an angry uprising of horror fans.
Again, purely speculation but in the suspicious context of a movie being yanked from an international film festival, it makes sense.
- David
Breaking Down Bergman
http://www.youtube.com/breakingdownfilms