Thanks, 'Watchmen': Warner Bros. To Steer Clear of R-Rated Superheroes

In reality, this move is not terribly shocking. IESB says that Warner Bros. has decided it is in the company's best interests to only make superhero movies that are rated PG and PG-13. The R-rated experiment with Watchmen, while clearly the way to go with that source material, hasn't and won't return enough on the investment to make it worth limiting its potential audience. As a rule, teenage boys and young men constitute a healthy chunk of the audience for comic book movies, and going with the 17-and-older approach probably won't work for the high stakes bingo of Batman and Superman movies, not that there could ever realistically be an R-rated Superman movie. But that dream of Zack Snyder filming the fourth new Batman movie and tackling Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns graphic novel saga probably will never come to fruition. It isn't just watchmen that makes this move more viable for the studio. The Punisher and The Spirit tanked hard, even though those aren't DC Comics brands. The ratings watch is of particular interest at Warner Bros. these days, since it has strongly hinted to Terminator Salvation director McG that a PG-13 cut is preferred. Again, from the perspective of spending hundreds of millions of dollars and hoping for hundreds of millions more, PG-13 is definitely the way to go. I'd be shocked if the studio let its first movie of the summer come out with the R rating. The simplest explanation will be, "Wait for the DVD." There will be exceptions, of course; IESB reports that the company still wants Jonah Hex to be rated R, but that's not anywhere near the same profile as the major DC characters, which Warner Bros. has recently begun to take more seriously across the board since The Dark Knight made a billion dollars.

Comments

[Marcus]

One more example of how commerce & art don't mix. Execs don't read, they can't be bothered while they are kissing ass to investors. There have been some awful movies made in consequence when they decide to meddle, a la "The Fantastic Four". Comic Books are a vast resource, and they are just figuring it out, but there is a part of the non - comic book (or any other book, for that matter) portion of the populace who still sees them as "funnybooks", and family entertainment. It isn't always true, and maybe, just maybe a film can possibly be made with less than a hundred mil.

[Psyko Tek]

I do not understand how the people involved with i5t didn'rt undrstand it sucked hard

I could tell from the trailers

how do people not know a movie sucks when they read rthe script, or half way through

why do sucky movies get out

[Anybody]

In reality though what mainstream titles require an R? Certainly the less known/non-staple comics or graphic novels will still have a chance at an R rating, something like Preacher or the Road to Perdition sequels but as far as a Green Lantern, Superman, Iron Man etc... none of them should need an R anyway. Pretty minor news except the part about Dark Knight Returns not getting made because it might make quite a spectacular film (but would it really need an R either? I'll have to take another look at my comic to see... I think Dark Knight proved that you can be serious and dark without having an R rating). I hope the next Batman is Dark Victory and then we can get a NIghtwing film.

[histeachn]

I wouldn't put the fault on Watchmen for representing the source material. Warner Bros., while it's great they took a chance with Snyder, knew Watchmen wasn't "a superhero movie" in the terms of all the PG and PG-13 superhero movies, but that's the way they marketed it. Who should be the first one's surprised when the way a movie is marketed is contrary to the actual material? Hollywood does it all the time, and, when the general audience is let down, the marketing team should be the one to shoulder the blame.

WB knew what Watchmen was like when they saw an early, 3 hour rough cut. It's not Snyder or Watchmen's fault. The audience the marketing geared towards wasn't the intended audience. Don't blame Snyder or Watchmen for that choice.

[Marcus]

Wow. I rest my case after that 2nd comment. Wow. Just...wow. Another person to demonstrate that the French may be right about us after all. He may have sorta answered his own question as to why "sucky movies get out".

The point is there are vast amounts of graphic novels, not necessarily to do with mainstream comics like the ones you just mentioned, that may have to deal with the stygma of censorship if they are to get made. Non - superhero types of things like "Sin City", "300", or "Road To Perdition". There are many more like that. I believe they can make some of these without the inflated budgets. Big budgets don't always make great movies. FF I & II and "Spider - Man 3" were pretty damn horrible.

The thing is, it's like it was explained in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated..", that movies are mostly just products now. 6 major companies own the major studios, and they run them accordingly. They inflate the ticket prices so they can get those HUGE opening numbers, so they can justify even more money in their budgets to their investors. Actors can make plenty of money off of the back end instead of high salaries, etc, etc. So, now with the prices so high, people can't just go out to see a film just for the enjoyment of seeing a movie. They have to get more bang for their buck, and it helps the movie studios have more control over what gets made, gives them more power over their directors.

You want to know why Scorsese and others of his ilk will be a dying breed, there is why. Hell, I used to be sooooo against downloading. I would say do it. Rape them back. They created their own monster. It may be the best way to reduce it, just charge less, and more people will go, especially in the current economic climate. They will never do that. It's all about more money for Sony, or the other companies that own the studios.

Sorry, Colin. I really didn't mean to use this as a soapbox. I enjoy your reviews on Mike O'Meara, and I am glad he pointed me toward this site.

[SlashBeast]

Watchmen's performance has been a disappointment. Sure there was a great novel about it, but that would have only appealed to a particular group of people. There is a much larger audience of people who have not read the book, did not see any subsequent comic books, and had no inkling of what the movie is all about. This gaping hole was not filled in by the movie's advertisements, and so there are a lot of people who just did not care to see this movie.

If anything Watchmen is a failure in marketing. The film was destined to be a cult film from the get-go. Audiences aren't familiar with the characters and it's not a serialized story. By focusing on the story instead of the visuals, Warner Bros. could have served the film better by slowly building up word of mouth rather than trying to make it an event film on par with Iron Man and The Dark Knight.

Watchmen does not have the appeal that Spider-Man, Batman, Iron Man, and so forth have. That's why it failed. It looks weird, and the trailers don't tell you what the movie is about. It just shows flashy stuff and then says "WATCHMEN" with cool music.