The Amazing Spider-Man G Rating or R Rating?

[©KAW]

Have you ever wondered why Spider-man's production budget is so high? Look at the character, just think of the cost to produce good looking shots of him web slinging. And then if you add inn the cost of trying to produce his villains, and lets face it Spider-man easily has some of the most SPX heavy rouges in all of comics, of COURSE it's going to cost a crap load of money.

That's just it, I've seen much better movies, with better CGI and action sequences that cost less than Spider-Man films. Both Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man movies both have studios that own their visual effect companies. Do I have to tell you which film was harder to make, was bigger in scope, had more good looking shots, bigger action scenes, had much better and creative CGI? Huh...Do I? Not to mention both films having relatively small directors at the helm, it's just one knew what the hell he was doing.

So yes, 300 cost less to make. Good for it, it also didn't make as much as the BO so it could afford to cost less. Spider-man is always going to cost more then a movie like 300.

Yeah, but even though Spider-Man made more at the box office, it made less money for its studio. Which means "300" is the more successful film. They made more with less.

Secondly, you didn't address the second point of my argument. You believed that an R-rated Spider-man would make more money and that there's "no proof" that Pg-13 movies make more.

No, I said that there is no proof that children won't go see Spider-Man, just because it's an R-rated film. Especially this day and age when children have Cable (HBO/SHO) in their rooms, an R- rated Spidey would be nothing for them.

As I pointed out, there are three, count 'em, three R rated movies in the top fifty grossing movies ever, and one of them happens to feature Jesus.

Yeah, and if they did make an R-rated Spider-Man there would be four in the top fifty grossing movies ever. People are not going to stop going to go see Spider-Man because it has an R-rating, I do however, think it does have the potential to make more from its curiosity factor, if it's a well crafted film. Yes, even kids would show up, as they did for The Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 2 and 300, because there's always someone older to take them to go see it. It would be no different with Spider-Man.

R rated movies don't make as much money as PG-13 movies. This is a fact. Spider-man is going to make more money as a Pg-13 movie. Not only that, there's no reason to make an R-rated Spidey movie. With how far we can push Pg-13 movies today, I can't think of a Spider-man storyline that would need to be R rated if it was adapted page for page.

Yet, at the same time, most PG-13 comic book films has never made as much as "300" worldwide. That's about 85% of all PG-13 comic book films, that didn't make more than 300, including X-Men, X-Men 2, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and so on.

Which is more popular with the general public X-Men or 300, and yet 300 kicked X-Men's PG-13 ass at the box office?

Now, let me go on to say, I don't really need an R-rated Spider-Man film. Although I'd prefer it, because I know that like the original The Matrix, you don't need to drop the F-bombs, or have nudity or a bunch of blood and gore for an R-rated film. My R-rating would be for a more dangerous and deadly portrayals of the villains using their powers (this would get a bit graphic at times, but not as graphic as say CSI, which kids can watch on regular TV). Green Goblin/Norman Osborn would be complex and The Goblin would be like Satan on a Glider (that means BAD or EVIL for you Raimi villains' fans). New York City as a whole won't be cartoony and filled with happy-go-lucky New Yorkers everywhere, ready to say "Go-Spidey-Go" after having a car thrown at them. It would allow for writers to write stories with much more complexity, even if it need be added. This would allow for "The Gwen Stacy Story" to be told in a dramatic way or bring forth a classic story like "Kraven's Last Hunt." And would also allow for Venom to be handled on the level of other great Sci-Fi creatures like the original ALIEN/ALIENS and PREDATOR film.

Yet in all of this, my Spider-Man would still be a humorous, witty bantering, intelligent, confident, sometimes talkative or serious, chemistry knowing, science loving, disliked publicly by some, mechanical web-shooters carrying, sociable and strong willed individual we all know and love.

 

[©KAW]

Eh, all this G & PG talk is making me ill. No main universe Marvel or DC superheroes should ever be less than a PG-13, IMO with the sole exception of the Power Pack. Spidey absolutely does not need an R rating though. Hard PG-13 of the likes of IM, BB, TDK, LOTR or Casino Royale would be just fine. You just cut away when the blood would normally be flowing and leave that to the audience's imagination. Sex is implied but nothing more than kissing is shown. I know PG-13 films are allowed one F-word so long as it's not used to denote a sexual act(however Marvel has stated that they're just never going to use that word even though the MPAA allows them their one time per film) but there are plenty of other 4-letter words that they have always been allowed to use to their heart's content and yet they don't except for once or twice in the entire movie.

All these things can be used to de-kiddify these movies so adults/teens aren't rolling their eyes every 5 minutes at the studio's/filmmaker's lack of cajones.

There isn't a bunch of blood, sex, gore or F-Bombs in the original MATRIX which is R-rated. Personally, the Spider-Man movies are so juvenile, watered-down and goofy as hell. I don't even know why it's PG-13, it should be PG. The villains are cartoony, the action scenes don't feel realistic and the dialogue is about as good as BEN 10...or worst.

 

[HughJackFan420]

the new Spidey flicks are all gonna be PG-13 but i would really love to see a rated R version heck I would love to see a rated R Wolverine flick which would be more entertaining.

 

[kedrell]

There isn't a bunch of blood, sex, gore or F-Bombs in the original MATRIX which is R-rated. Personally, the Spider-Man movies are so juvenile, watered-down and goofy as hell. I don't even know why it's PG-13, it should be PG. The villains are cartoony, the action scenes don't feel realistic and the dialogue is about as good as BEN 10...or worst.

SM1 got the PG-13 basically due to the end fight which only slightly crossed that boundary between PG and PG-13(it's still very far from a hard PG-13 though).

SM2 got it for the Dock Ock hospital scene(best scene in the movie, IMO) otherwise, it'd have been PG as well.

SM3? I have no idea since it had nothing I remember to compare with the rating-changer scenes in the first two films. Maybe, maybe the Sandman subway fight but that's a strech since Sandman can't bleed.

And I wasn't proposing that there should be f-bombs, lots of blood or sex but rather that there are ways to allude to those in the hard PG-13 setting which will neither push it into R-rated territory nor mute the suspense or menace we the audience should be feeling. I think we're more in agreement than you think.

 

[©KAW]

the new Spidey flicks are all gonna be PG-13 but i would really love to see a rated R version heck I would love to see a rated R Wolverine flick which would be more entertaining.

It'll be more entertaining because you don't have to dumb down the script. I don't even think kids like to be told "This Looks Like The End Of Spider-Man" when they can clearly see he's being punched in the belly by a 50 foot giant.

 

[kedrell]

It'll be more entertaining because you don't have to dumb down the script. I don't even think kids like to be told "This Looks Like The End Of Spider-Man" when they can clearly see he's being punched in the belly by a 50 foot giant.

Ugh, f***in' Hal Fischman. Why did you remind me of that?

 

[Infinity9999x]

©KAW,

In terms of what you would like to see in the Spider-man movie, I agree with you. I just don't think it needs to be R. Pg-13 movies today get away with much more then then Pg-13 movies ten years ago. Honestly, I think Matrix, were it released today, would probably get a Pg-13.

Look at the levels of violence in LOTR, or the content of TDK. And then look at the stuff they put in The Grudge, The Ring, or The Unborn. All pg-13 movies, all with images that would keep children up for many a long night, and images disturbing enough that I'm sure 10 to 15 years ago they would have gotten an R rating. Pg-13 can do a lot in today's age, and I don't think you need an R rating to show the horror of Spidey's villains.

Now, yes, 300 was very successful, for an R rated movie with a low budget. And as one of the most successful R rated movies EVER it still barely cracks the top 100, coming in at 87.

And we can debate about the quality of the CGI in the Spidey movies all we want, but the fact is Spider-man will always, ALWAYS cost more then a movie like 300. So yes, 300 made it's studio more money, but that's a moot argument. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost five million to make and made 368million World Wide. Sixty times it's budget. So maybe we should make Spider-man into an extremely low budget romantic comedy if we really want to make the big bucks.

The fact of the matter is, Spider-man is always going to cost more to produce then 300. And even if Spider-man is an extremely successful R-rated movie, the odds are it won't make half of what it would as a Pg-13, since the most successful R-rated movie ever isn't even in the top 10. And it stars Jesus. And I'm sorry, but an R-rated Spider-man movie is not going to outgross Jesus.

An R-rated Spider-man is not going to make as much money, and there's no need for it, since we can do plenty with Pg-13.

 

[©KAW]

SM1 got the PG-13 basically due to the end fight which only slightly crossed that boundary between PG and PG-13(it's still very far from a hard PG-13 though).

SM2 got it for the Dock Ock hospital scene(best scene in the movie, IMO) otherwise, it'd have been PG as well.

Again, I've seen much brutal fight scenes, much, much brutal in the third BOURNE movie, which was PG-13. Spider-Man films simply don't utilize anything. The ratings, the damn comics, nothing.

SM3? I have no idea since it had nothing I remember to compare with the rating-changer scenes in the first two films. Maybe, maybe the Sandman subway fight but that's a strech since Sandman can't bleed.

The DANCE scenes were brutal.

And I wasn't proposing that there should be f-bombs, lots of blood or sex but rather that there are ways to allude to those in the hard PG-13 setting which will neither push it into R-rated territory nor mute the suspense or menace we the audience should be feeling. I think we're more in agreement than you think.

I too would want the very same things in a PG-13 film, but we've gotten a clown show.

 

[kedrell]

Again, I've seen much brutal fight scenes, much, much brutal in the third BOURNE movie, which was PG-13. Spider-Man films simply don't utilize anything. The ratings, the damn comics, nothing.

I agree. They were largely more PG-13 simply because being PG would have alienated a core contingent of the fanbase - teenagers. FF2 went this way and ended up making much less than the PG-13 FF1. PG & G films are actually a detriment in this case since the teenagers read that as "the studio thinks we're stupid and can't handle it".

The DANCE scenes were brutal.

I thought about going there, but decided it was just too easy a target to lampoon. That said, I agree.

I too would want the very same things in PG-13 film, but we've gotten a clown show.

Fixed. We don't know how this new one will turn out yet. It still is Sony(who have a 50/50 record when it comes to Marvel films) so that brings up lots of doubts automatically. But they aren't as bad as FOX, so I'm not instantly dedicated to hating this movie before it even sees the light of day. There is still a flicker of hope. But it needs not be said that if Marvel themselves was making this that I'd have no worries at all.

 

[©KAW]

©KAW,

In terms of what you would like to see in the Spider-man movie, I agree with you. I just don't think it needs to be R. Pg-13 movies today get away with much more then then Pg-13 movies ten years ago. Honestly, I think Matrix, were it released today, would probably get a Pg-13.

Look at the levels of violence in LOTR, or the content of TDK. And then look at the stuff they put in The Grudge, The Ring, or The Unborn. All pg-13 movies, all with images that would keep children up for many a long night, and images disturbing enough that I'm sure 10 to 15 years ago they would have gotten an R rating. Pg-13 can do a lot in today's age, and I don't think you need an R rating to show the horror of Spidey's villains.

Guess what, I don't think you have make it an R-rated either, in order to get most of what I want. Under a PG-13, they would also still treat the audience like they were 8 years old or younger. I think you can make a great mature and complex Spidey film with a PG-13 rating. But first, they have to want to utilize Spider-Man with it's rating like the said movies (above) that you've mentioned. But they don't, an R rating would force them to do that.

Now, yes, 300 was very successful, for an R rated movie with a low budget. And as one of the most successful R rated movies EVER it still barely cracks the top 100, coming in at 87.

X-Men/X-Men 2 didn't crack the top 100 either, and they're PG-13 films, so what's their excuse?

And we can debate about the quality of the CGI in the Spidey movies all we want, but the fact is Spider-man will always, ALWAYS cost more then a movie like 300. So yes, 300 made it's studio more money, but that's a moot argument. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost five million to make and made 368million World Wide. Sixty times it's budget. So maybe we should make Spider-man into an extremely low budget romantic comedy if we really want to make the big bucks.

Now, you're being silly. My Big Fat Greek Wedding isn't in the comic book/action movie genre. That's why I didn't name "The Blair Witch Project." And stating that 300 was hugely successful under an R rating isn't moot. If an unknown comic book to film, with an R rating, can gross such huge numbers--it's not impossible for an icon comic book to do it in even greater numbers.

The fact of the matter is, Spider-man is always going to cost more to produce then 300. And even if Spider-man is an extremely successful R-rated movie, the odds are it won't make half of what it would as a Pg-13, since the most successful R-rated movie ever isn't even in the top 10. And it stars Jesus. And I'm sorry, but an R-rated Spider-man movie is not going to outgross Jesus.

I'll give you that, most likely Spidey is gonna cost more. Hell, Spidey's latest two movies cost more than Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Transformers, Star Trek, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and tons of other big budget films. From this pattern I say, Sony is spending too much money and not getting the same results in quality like these other films.

Hell, I didn't think 300 was going to zoom pass X-Men based on X-Men's huge fanbase, with no one knowing 300 from a hole in the wall, but it did.

An R-rated Spider-man is not going to make as much money, and there's no need for it, since we can do plenty with Pg-13.

Yes, they can do plenty with a PG-13, but what have they actually done with it, they have given us juvenile films thus far?

 

[kedrell]

Guess what, I don't think you have make it an R-rated either, in order to get most of what I want. But since we have movies that are already PG-13 and they still treat the audience like they're 8 years old or younger. I think you can make a great mature and complex Spidey film with a PG-13 rating. But, first they have to want to utilize Spider-Man with it's rating like the said movies (above) that you've mentioned. But they don't, an R rating would force them to do that.

But that's not how films are made. They don't get a rating and then have to make a movie that fits it. It happens the other way around.

 

[©KAW]

The script man, the damn script...it will be within the script. The writers/director will already know they're making an R-rated film.

 

[kedrell]

They'd still just turn it PG-13 or less. There's nothing to force them to go in any other way.

 

[©KAW]

No, you don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that the studio, the writer(s) and the director all WANT to make an R-rated film based on Spider-Man. So, there will be no watering down anything to turn it into a PG-13 film.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Guess what, I don't think you have make it an R-rated either, in order to get most of what I want. Under a PG-13, they would also still treat the audience like they were 8 years old or younger. I think you can make a great mature and complex Spidey film with a PG-13 rating. But first, they have to want to utilize Spider-Man with it's rating like the said movies (above) that you've mentioned. But they don't, an R rating would force them to do that.

X-Men/X-Men 2 didn't crack the top 100 either, and they're PG-13 films, so what's their excuse?

The X-men movies were never part of my argument. My point is that if you look at the top 100 movies of all time, R-rated movies are sorely out-numbered. It's a fact that pg-13 movies make more money. It's not debatable.

There's a lot of reasons why we could examine why X-men didn't make tons of money. It was the first big superhero movie after Batman and Robin, they started the superhero trend and superhero movies weren't as big. Ect. ect. Who knows if it's right or not. X3 made more then 300, but I don't think X3 is a better movie either.

Now, you're being silly. My Big Fat Greek Wedding isn't in the comic book/action movie genre. That's why I didn't name "The Blair Witch Project." And stating that 300 was hugely successful under an R rating isn't moot. If an unknown comic book to film, with an R rating, can gross such huge numbers--it's not impossible for an icon comic book to do it in even greater numbers.

My point is that stating a movie is a success because it had a low budget but managed to make a lot isn't a good argument for this franchise. Spider-man won't have a low budget. And 300 didn't do huge numbers. In terms of movies, it did well. In terms of being an R-rated movie, it did huge numbers, but those kinds of numbers aren't what Sony is looking for with the kind of budget a Spider-man film is going to have.

Now, I'm not knocking 300. It was a fun movie and it was successful, but in terms of big money makers its not that impressive.

I'll give you that, most likely Spidey is gonna cost more. Hell, Spidey's latest two movies cost more than Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Transformers, Star Trek, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and tons of other big budget films. From this pattern I say, Sony is spending too much money and not getting the same results in quality like these other films.

Hell, I didn't think 300 was going to zoom pass X-Men based on X-Men's huge fanbase, with no one knowing 300 from a hole in the wall, but it did.

Yes, they can do plenty with a PG-13, but what have they actually done with it, they have given us juvenile films thus far?

I wouldn't say 300 blew past the x-men fanbase. They have four movies made so far, so their total gross is loads more then 300, and X3, the weakest movie of the lot, outgrossed 300.

However, I agree with you on the tone we've gotten in the past Spider-man movies. But that has nothing to do with the ratings, that's all about the creators in charge. I've seen cruddy R-rated movies as well. Whether it's R or Pg-13, it won't me jack squat if they don't get good writers and a good creative team.

 

[©KAW]

The X-men movies were never part of my argument. My point is that if you look at the top 100 movies of all time, R-rated movies are sorely out-numbered. It's a fact that pg-13 movies make more money. It's not debatable.

Even being sorely out-numbered, I think it can still crack the top 100. That's because I don't believe that people would stop watching a really good or great Spider-Man film just because it's R rated, this includes kids. The R rated Spidey is thinking outside the box, there will be those like you who'll say, "no don't do that, look at this chart, you'll never make this amount" but you'll never discover what is possible if you remain within your comfort zone. Which I think the current movies have done too much of that already. That's why they're rebooting a 2.5 Billion dollar franchsie. Even with all the money it made, creativity can still die and leave you in a hole you can't crawl out of.

There's a lot of reasons why we could examine why X-men didn't make tons of money. It was the first big superhero movie after Batman and Robin, they started the superhero trend and superhero movies weren't as big. Ect. ect. Who knows if it's right or not. X3 made more then 300, but I don't think X3 is a better movie either.

So, what's the excuse for X-Men 2 not making as much as 300?

My point is that stating a movie is a success because it had a low budget but managed to make a lot isn't a good argument for this franchise. Spider-man won't have a low budget. And 300 didn't do huge numbers. In terms of movies, it did well. In terms of being an R-rated movie, it did huge numbers, but those kinds of numbers aren't what Sony is looking for with the kind of budget a Spider-man film is going to have.

Are you hearing something differently about the reboot's budget, all I keep reading is 80M? That's a pretty low budget. Maybe it is true, perhaps it's not, regardless, they are going for a lower budget--to try and make a bigger profit. The bigger their budget the lower their profits. Of course, I know Sony wouldn't go for an R-rating, I'm not trying to convince anyone of that, but I sure as hell would like to see it.

Now, I'm not knocking 300. It was a fun movie and it was successful, but in terms of big money makers its not that impressive.

In terms of an R rated movie, based on a relatively unknown comic book, with a 60M/budget, it was much more than just impressive, by any studio's estimate.

I wouldn't say 300 blew past the x-men fanbase. They have four movies made so far, so their total gross is loads more then 300, and X3, the weakest movie of the lot, outgrossed 300.

The point is the R-rating didn't hold 300 back from making some good money--more than most PG-13 films of its genre.

However, I agree with you on the tone we've gotten in the past Spider-man movies. But that has nothing to do with the ratings, that's all about the creators in charge. I've seen cruddy R-rated movies as well. Whether it's R or Pg-13, it won't me jack squat if they don't get good writers and a good creative team.

I'll agree on that.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Even being sorely out-numbered, I think it can still crack the top 100. That's because I don't believe that people would stop watching a really good or great Spider-Man film just because it's R rated, this includes kids. The R rated Spidey is thinking outside the box, there will be those like you who'll say, "no don't do that, look at this chart, you'll never make this amount" but you'll never discover what is possible if you remain within your comfort zone. Which I think the current movies have done too much of that already. That's why they're rebooting a 2.5 Billion dollar franchsie. Even with all the money it made, creativity can still die and leave you in a hole you can't crawl out of.

So, what's the excuse for X-Men 2 not making as much as 300?

Are you hearing something differently about the reboot's budget, all I keep reading is 80M? That's a pretty low budget. Maybe it is true, perhaps it's not, regardless, they are going for a lower budget--to try and make a bigger profit. The bigger their budget the lower their profits. Of course, I know Sony wouldn't go for an R-rating, I'm not trying to convince anyone of that, but I sure as hell would like to see it.
In terms of an R rated movie, based on a relatively unknown comic book, with a 60M/budget, it was much more than just impressive, by any studio's estimate.

The point is the R-rating didn't hold 300 back from making some good money--more than most PG-13 films of its genre.

I'll agree on that.

It might crack the top 100,The fact is, R-rated movies make less then pg-13 movies. It's an unarguable fact. Less people go because lots of little kids will not see the movie because their parents won't let them. And the ones that do get in usually sneak in, which means the movie won't make as much money. The odds are it still won't make the kind of money the studio wants it to be. Even if it does 300 numbers, which we all agree were very good for an R-rated movie, it won't be the kind of numbers the studio would be happy with. They expect Spider-man movies to be huge.

Now, if they actually do keep it at an 80M budget, I'd be impressed, but I have a hard time believing they will. Who knows though. Honestly, I don't care how much cash they funnel into this thing as long as it looks good.

And really, the biggest thing for me is that I don't see a need for an R-rated Spider-man. You can do much more with Pg-13 movies now then you could ten to fifteen years ago. And I can't really think of a Spider-man arc that would require an R-rating...besides maybe Torment, and that's only because it's a Todd McFarlane Story and he has gratuitous amounts of blood in his Lizard arc. I don't see the need for anything more intense then what's found in a LOTR or TDK movie.

And with the X-men thing, again, like I said, who knows. BO is hard to predict, but I don't really think it's a knock against the film to say it made less then 300. X3 made more then both X2 and 300, but I certainly don't think X3 is a better film then either of them. We'd have to look at X2's competition, and also take into account that X1, while good, wasn't anything amazing. X2 was the movie that really raised the bar, which is why so many people went to X3.

 

[spider-neil]

the fact that this movie has a budget of 80m means they can take more risks. they wont but they COULD go with an R rating.

I was watching the MTV spider-man (yeah yeah I know)
anyway it was the lizard episode

1) there was a scene were harry slices off the lizard's fingers with an axe (the fingers regrew)

2) there was a scene where spidey webs the lizard's arm and it gets chopped off by a giant fan

3) the lizard's change is quite scary

TDK is a fantastic movie because it is a crime suspense movie that 'happens' to have batman, a straight up horror movie that 'happens' to have spider-man and lizard would be a fantastic approach but that wont ever happen unfortunately

 

[Chris Wallace]

It'll be PG-13, I'm sure. No way in hell we'll their ever be a G rated or R rated Spidey flick.

Exactly. No studio is going to push forward a Spider-Man movie that kids can't see or one that adults don't want to see. It's just not smart business.

 

[The Bat-Man]

PG-13 is always the best way to go, in my opinion. An R rating is bad for a couple of reasons. First is, of course, that kids wouldn't be able to see it unless their parents took them, which I doubt most parents would. Second, Spider-Man doesn't need to be rated R. To me, if they ever rate a Spider-Man movie "R", they're saying that it's going to dark, gritty and completely out of line with what Spider-Man should be. Of course, a "G" rating is completely ridiculous and they would lose a ton of business on all of the adult Spider-Man fans. With a lot of superhero films, I think you could reasonably get away with an "R" rating from an artistic standpoint, but Spider-Man should always be PG-13.

 

[Reikowolf]

with an 80m budget, the risk is significantly less and they are guaranteed to make 100m minimum based on franchise strength alone; problem is, they are alienating the demographic that buys the most products

 

[©KAW]

An Rated Spider-Man will NOT stop kids from seeing it (or buying his product tie-ends), where do you people live, inside a cave? It didn't stop them from seeing Terminator 2, The Matrix Reloaded (which made 730 million worldwide) nor 300. Again I say, it will not alienate kids, who do you think buy those MATURE (R-Rated) video games...KIDS. The video game industry as a whole is more profitable than the movie industry.

 

[©KAW]

And really, the biggest thing for me is that I don't see a need for an R-rated Spider-man. You can do much more with Pg-13 movies now then you could ten to fifteen years ago. And I can't really think of a Spider-man arc that would require an R-rating...besides maybe Torment, and that's only because it's a Todd McFarlane Story and he has gratuitous amounts of blood in his Lizard arc. I don't see the need for anything more intense then what's found in a LOTR or TDK movie.

You can make an R-rated film with almost any Spider-Man arc, be it The Lizard, Gwen Stacy arc, Kraven's Last Hunt. The point of the 'R' will be to enhance fighting by not watering down the fight scenes, and allowing villains to use their powers in a realistic and evil way. Unless you think there wouldn't be a single scratch on a person's face if Doc Ock knocked you into a wall, and bashed one with metal objects, with tentacles that can toss a taxi cab a half a freakin' block.

Really, you think Spider-Man movies should be as 'INTENSE' as the Lord of the Rings. Well, in Lord of the Rings people were beheaded, and had their heads catapulted through the air. So, you'd be okay with The Lizard doing the same in a Spider-Man film (I would). LOTR is PG-13, so you shouldn't have a problem with it being in Spider-Man like me, eh?

Thus, is what I mean when I say 'Spider-Man' doesn't utilize his PG-13 rating like "Lord of the Rings." We get cartoonish type fight scenes that are watered down for virgin eyes.

 

[SpeterMan3]

Specifically what age groups are you guys talking about?

 

[Infinity9999x]

You can make an R-rated film with almost any Spider-Man arc, be it The Lizard, Gwen Stacy arc, Kraven's Last Hunt. The point of the 'R' will be to enhance fighting by not watering down the fight scenes, and allowing villains to use their powers in a realistic and evil way. Unless you think there wouldn't be a single scratch on a person's face if Doc Ock knocked you into a wall, and bashed one with metal objects, with tentacles that can toss a taxi cab a half a freakin' block.

Really, you think Spider-Man movies should be as 'INTENSE' as the Lord of the Rings. Well, in Lord of the Rings people were beheaded, and had their heads catapulted through the air. So, you'd be okay with The Lizard doing the same in a Spider-Man film (I would). LOTR is PG-13, so you shouldn't have a problem with it being in Spider-Man like me, eh?

Thus, is what I mean when I say 'Spider-Man' doesn't utilize his PG-13 rating like "Lord of the Rings." We get cartoonish type fight scenes that are watered down for virgin eyes.

The bolded is exactly the point I was making. I know how violent LOTR was. That's why I don't think we would need an R-rated Spider-man. You can get away with so much with Pg-13 that you really don't need an R-rated movie.

The death of Gwen Stacy, adapted page for page, would probably stay at Pg-13. Kraven's Last Hunt doesn't really have anything that would push it into R territory. Like I said, the only Spider-man arc I can think of that would definitely be R would be Torment, and that's only because McFarlane loves to have an abundance of blood and violence in his stories.

When you look at LOTR, TDK, and horror movies like The Ring, The Grudge, The Unborn, you can get away with a lot in Pg-13. So I'm in agreement with you on the type of movie we want, I just don't think it needs to be R. I want it to be a LOTR or TDK type pg-13.

An Rated Spider-Man will NOT stop kids from seeing it (or buying his product tie-ends), where do you people live, inside a cave? It didn't stop them from seeing Terminator 2, The Matrix Reloaded (which made 730 million worldwide) nor 300. Again I say, it will not alienate kids, who do you think buy those MATURE (R-Rated) video games...KIDS. The video game industry as a whole is more profitable than the movie industry.

Oh, kids will see it, they just won't buy the Spider-man ticket. They'll buy some random other movie's tickets and sneak in. Just like they do for every other big R-rated movie.

It's a fact that you're going to lose a huge chunk of the kid market if you make it R. Their parents won't let them go to it. Yeah, the kids will still go, but like I said, they just won't buy the right ticket. There's a reason R rated movies don't make as much as pg-13, and it's because they lose the older child to preteen market.

It's like I said, just look at 300. Yeah, it did big money for an R-rated movie. But the studio won't be happy with 300 numbers. They expect a Spider-man film to make much more.