Front Office Football Central - This time Hollywood has gone too far!

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - This time Hollywood has gone too far! (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=39607)

This time Hollywood has gone too far!

Quote:

Lohan Has Digital Breast Reduction

Teen actress Lindsay Lohan's breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences. Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan's character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children's film. Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes - especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts. Amused at her digital bosom reduction, Lohan says, "I don't know how Renee Zellweger kept swelling and shrinking for Bridget Jones. It's no fun. Bring on the computer guys."

In an unrelated story, the projected opening weekend gross for Herbie: Fully Loaded has been downgraded by 98 percent.

How do you get that job?

this is a crime against humanity.

Concur, though IRL she's already committed the same crime by turning into a "stick-figure".

I'm surprised there was enough time to get her away from her powder diet to get a comment.

Just another example of corporate fuckheads catering to every prim and proper conservative commentary. Its how she physically LOOKS people, good grief.

were you all planning to see this movie?

Not for an instant, but it doesn't make what they did right either. just all the more lame because they did this to what is obviously a sucks ballz movie in the first place.

Movie studios are digitally altering breasts to make them look smaller? We are through the looking glass, people.

Hmm... Odd..

My Seismowhogivesafuckograph didn't register.

Maybe they should go back and digitally enhance Don Knotts into Robert Redford.

They need new focus groups.

If they can do work like this and still make everything look real and untouched, I'd say that is pretty cool.

That they actually did it is not cool.

Does anyone really think the kids are going to notice a little extra bouncing? This was the only thing that would make it worthwhile to see this movie with their kids.

Maybe this is why:

Quote:

Study: G-rated movies most profitable
Film industry produces many more R-rated flicks
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:21 a.m. ET June 7, 2005

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - A study commissioned by a group that encourages the production of family friendly movies found that G-rated movies are more profitable than R-rated films, yet far more of the racier films get made.

The study, released Tuesday by The Dove Foundation, showed that the average G-rated flick was 11 times more profitable than its R-rated counterpart, but the film industry made more than 12 times as many R-rated as G-rated movies from 1989-2003.

The study examined the costs and revenues associated with the 200 most widely distributed films released by major Hollywood studios each year over the 15-year period. All the figures used were limited to the first two years of each movie’s release.

There were 2,982 films studied. The number was less than 3,000 because some movies were among the top 200 for two years.

Slightly more than half, or 51.4 percent, of the releases received an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. The next-most popular ratings category was PG-13 at 28.4 percent, followed by PG at 16.1 percent and G at 4.1 percent.

While the average G-rated movie earned a $79 million profit, the average R-rated film was $6.9 million in the black, the study said.

An average film with a PG rating was more profitable ($28.3 million) than a PG-13-rated one ($23.5 million).

“Basically, what we’re pointing out is, what is considered to be conventional wisdom in Hollywood does not hold up when you look at the actual profitability and compare it with what the people want,” said Dick Rolfe, founder and chairman of the Grand Rapids-based organization.

His group recently criticized Burger King Corp. for a children’s promotion linked to “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith” because the hit movie is rated PG-13.

The study used figures provided by Kagan Research LLC, a Monterey, Calif.-based media business research firm. Grand Valley State University’s Siedman College of Business then analyzed the numbers, Rolfe said.

Messages seeking comment on the study were left at the MPAA’s press office in Washington.

“I have been speaking and writing about this phenomenon, literally, for 14 years,” said film critic, book author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved.

His 1992 book, “Hollywood vs. America,” devotes a chapter to a computer study in which he compared the box office receipts of all 600 movies that Hollywood released a year earlier. Medved found the average PG-rated film performed three times better than the average R-rated picture in 1991.

Then again, just thinking about consumer economics, if there are fewer G rated movies, of course they're going to be more profitable since there is less competition. Three G rated movies come out this year and a family sees all three of them. 100 R rated movies come out this year and there is no way a family will see all of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD

I disagree. Do you really think kids will care about the bouncing? Furthermore, it would at least be a draw for men to see the movie with their kids.

those results are very affected by the phenominal success of just a couple Pixar and animated movies.

I'd be curious as to the live action G-rated numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I disagree. Do you really think kids will care about the bouncing? Furthermore, it would at least be a draw for men to see the movie with their kids.

That is exactly what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is exactly what I said.

Ooops...my bad. My argument with you from another thread bled over into this one. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Ooops...my bad. My argument with you from another thread bled over into this one. ;)

No worries, I probably wasn't clear in my original statement.

I think it is very cool that the technology is available to do something like this without it being obvious that anything was changed (can't say that it isn't obvious without seeing the movie). Actually making this kind of change for the stated reason seems pretty stupid.

This is a disappointment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Just another example of corporate fuckheads catering to every prim and proper conservative commentary. Its how she physically LOOKS people, good grief.

But a large part of the market that they are seeking are the prim and proper conservatives, and as such they cater the movie to them. That is how you make money in that business.

It's a Disney flick: what was she doing wearing T-shirts with revealing necklines in the first place?

Don't worry, I'm sure she'll be in a wet T-shirt contest in a forthcoming movie soon for all of you...

I heard they did a similar thing with Ewan McGregor's schlong in Revenge of the Sith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I heard they did a similar thing with Ewan McGregor's schlong in Revenge of the Sith.

Priceless.

I feared this day would come: technology is finally being used for evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Priceless.

Thank you. I will be appearing at the Laugh Factory in LA on July 16 . . . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

They need new focus groups.

My thoughts exactly...

Quote:

A study commissioned by a group that encourages the production of family friendly movies found that G-rated movies are more profitable than R-rated films, yet far more of the racier films get made.

But I'm sure the first third of that sentence has nothing to do with the middle third.