How does a film's content influence its reception by moviegoers and critics? What movie qualities result in better reviews, a higher box office, and more awards? This study investigates these questions in the specific genre of family films. One strategy is to “push the envelope” by intensifying adult themes and hints of sex and violence. An alternative strategy is to “tone it down,” and keep any adult content to a minimum. A sample of 220 family films was assessed on (a) 15 measures of mature content; (b) multiple measures of film evaluations (3), box office performance (4), and movie honors (3, including children and teenager awards); and (c) 5 control variables. Broadly, this study supports the “pushing the envelope” strategy, especially regarding violence, topics to talk about, jump scenes, blood/gore, and inappropriate music. The optimal mature content for a family film differs markedly from that needed for films in general.
ArnheimR. (1957). Film as art. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
BaerJ.KaufmanJ. C., & RiggsM. (2009). Rater-domain interactions in the Consensual Assessment Technique. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19, 87–92.
4.
BasuroyS.ChatterjeeS., & RavidS. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117.
5.
BeckwithD. C. (2009). Values of protagonists in best pictures and blockbusters: Implications for marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 445–469.
6.
CattaniG., & FerrianiS. (2008). A core-periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19, 824–844.
7.
CerridwenA., & SimontonD. K. (2009). Sex doesn't sell—nor impress: Content, box office, critics, and awards in mainstream cinema. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 200–210.
8.
ChangB.-H., & KiE.-J. (2005). Devising a practical model for predicting theatrical movie success: Focusing on the experience good property. Journal of Media Economics, 18, 247–269.
9.
CollinsA., & HandC. (2006). Vote clustering in tournaments: What can Oscar tell us?Creativity Research Journal, 18, 427–434.
10.
DeuchertE.AdjamahK., & PaulyF. (2005). For Oscar glory or Oscar money? Academy Awards and movie success. Journal of Cultural Economics, 29, 159–176.
11.
de VanyA. (2004). Hollywood economics. London and New York: Routledge.
12.
de VanyA., & WallsW. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star power reduce the terror of the box office?Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 285–318.
13.
de VanyA., & WallsW. D. (2002). Does Hollywood make too many R-rated movies? Risk, stochastic dominance, and the illusion of expectation. Journal of Business, 75, 425–451.
14.
FaulknerR. R., & AndersonA. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 879–909.
15.
GinsburghV. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 99–111.
16.
HadidaA. L. (2008). Motion picture performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 297–335.
17.
HarveyJ. (1953). The content characteristics of best-selling novels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, 91–114.
18.
HolbrookM. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144–155.
19.
Internet Movie Database. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://IMDb.com/.
20.
KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ., & ColeJ. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223–233.
21.
KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ.ColeJ. C., & SextonJ. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171–178.
22.
KaufmanJ. C.GentileC. A., & BaerJ. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way?Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260–265.
MünsterbergH. (1916). The photoplay: A psychological study. New York: Appleton.
28.
PardoeI., & SimontonD. K. (2008). Applying discrete choice models to predict Academy Award winners. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171, 375–394.
29.
PluckerJ. A.HoldenJ., & NeustadterD. (2008). The criterion problem and creativity in film: Psychometric characteristics of various measures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 190–196.
30.
PluckerJ. A.KaufmanJ. C.TempleJ. S., & QianM. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way?Psychology and Marketing, 26, 470–478.
31.
PragJ., & CasavantJ. (1994). An empirical study of the determinants of revenues and marketing expenditures in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, 217–235.
32.
RavidS. A., & BasuroyS. (2004). Managerial objectives, the R-rating puzzle, and the production of violent films. Journal of Business, 77, S155–S192.
SedgwickJ., & PokornyM. (1999). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 319–323.
35.
SimontonD. K. (2002). Collaborative aesthetics in the feature film: Cinematic components predicting the differential impact of 2,323 Oscar-nominated movies. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 115–125.
36.
SimontonD. K. (2004a). Film awards as indicators of cinematic creativity and achievement: A quantitative comparison of the Oscars and six alternatives. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 163–172.
37.
SimontonD. K. (2004b). Group artistic creativity: Creative clusters and cinematic success in 1,327 feature films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1494–1520.
38.
SimontonD. K. (2005a). Cinematic creativity and production budgets: Does money make the movie?Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1–15.
39.
SimontonD. K. (2005b). Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 93–117.
40.
SimontonD. K. (2009a). Cinematic success, aesthetics, and economics: An exploratory recursive model. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 128–138.
41.
SimontonD. K. (2009b). Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 400–420.
42.
SimontonD. K. (2009c). The literary genius of William Shakespeare: Empirical lessons drawn from his dramatic and poetic creativity. In KaufmanS. B. & KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The psychology of creative writing (pp. 131–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SimontonD. K. (2011). Great flicks: Scientific studies of cinematic creativity and aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
SochayS. (1994). Predicting the performance of motion pictures. Journal of Media Economics, 7, 1–20.
VitouchO. (2001). When your ear sets the stage: Musical context effects in film perception. Psychology of Music, 29, 70–83.
47.
ZickarM. J., & SlaughterJ. E. (1999). Examining creative performance over time using hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration using film directors. Human Performance, 12, 211–230.
