It was only a short time ago that Marvel Executives said that R-rated films weren't going to be a part of their strategy going forward, and it seems like Warner Brothers and DC comics are following suit. According to a source inside the studio known to our friends at
IESB.net, Warner Brothers has also sworn off doing R-rated tentpole films.
This decision most likely is one of economics.
Iron Man and
The Dark Knight both had incredibly good box-office takes, as have other PG-13 superhero films like
Batman Begins, Fox's
X-Men trilogy, and Sony's
Spider-Man films. Meanwhile, R-rated superhero films like
Punisher: War Zone and
Watchmen have struggled to reach profitable box-office takes.
What does this mean going forward? Well, it means that future superhero projects out of Warner Brothers will probably remain in the PG-13 realm, meaning that families will go see the films together, kids will buy the toys of the superheroes, and the studio will make money. So, expect
Green Lantern,
The Flash and (if it ever materializes)
Wonder Woman all to end up rated PG-13.
Now, this doesn't completely preclude the possibility of R-rated films that are based on comics. The studio says that
Jonah Hex will probably still be rated R. However, the studio doesn't consider that a superhero film - just one that is based on a comic. So, other movies based on the Vertigo comics imprint from DC Comics might still be adapted into R-rated films. But it does mean that we probably shouldn't expect to see an R-rated
The Dark Knight Returns coming anytime soon.
DVD News
2 Comments
77 Comments
Green Lantern, Flash and Wonder Woman are definite PG-13 films. If they were rated R they'd probably suck. I actually though X-Men Origins: Wolverine had potential to be rated R.
Superhero films being rated R creates a lower film fan base. 100 people could read The Punisher but 20% of those readers will see the movie due to the R rating. Same like Watchmen, only difference is it's a "graphic novel".
v
v
v
v
Break the mold a little bit, do something that no studio has done before.
FUCK!!!!
1) Everyone is complaining how the studios only think about money. Well, of course they do... its a freaking business. They don't want to spend $100 million dollars on an rated R movie for a small fan base who want it so just to make $30 million dollars and lose a whopping $70 million. They make movies to MAKE MONEY.... not lose it.
2) Limiting yourself to a PG-13 doesn't limit yourself as an artist. NOt being able to show the audience a slit throat or a leg amputated or an ear bitten off or a face blown to smitherines because the studio says so doesn't make you less of an artist. You can show that in other movies that you direct that are not comic book based. This is just an economic decision by the studio.
Personally, I don't think its going to make that much of a difference except to the hardcore fans that want the gritty, bloody, R rated comic book movies.
I value all your opinions... I really do. Even Moviemaniacks haha... but I really think you're overexaggerating the impact of this news. Oh... by the way... Moviemaniack and Brian are somewhat right about Watchmen. It wasn't bad.... but it wasn't that great either.
Now.... let me brace myself for the bashing haha
Watchmen too me was very faithful but i reckon they could have scrapped the sex scenes, that would have decreased the rating over here in the UK from 18 to 15, meaning it would have made much more cash, but the sex scene automatically warranted it a 18 rating certificate.
Synder would have got away with the violence because some of it wasn't that brutalic to warrant the 18 certificate.
Over here in the UK a R-rated film warrants at a 15 or 18 rating depending on the content it contains decided by the BBFC. The sex scene made it an 18 over here, in which they weren't really nessceray.
Also Kyle Hannah, love your concept on why Alan Moore hates Hollywood, (which is a fact) and also i like the whole limiting creativity upon the artist *philosophy.* which i follow that the same hence why i like the way you put it :)