Because Spider-man was and is one of the most popular superheroes along with Batman and Superman. Spider-man was already a cultural icon, but he had never had a movie made about him. When people heard that a live action Spider-man movie was finally being made, they flocked to the box office because it was the first time this had happened. Everyone had already seen multiple Batman and Superman movies, but never a Spider-man movie. That's why SM1 hit so big. SM2 the novelty wasn't there, but since SM2 was such a well received movie, people turned out in droves for SM3.
Yet, X-Men 2 made more than X-Men following that same logic. What, no novelty wearing off for X-Men, it only works for Spidey, eh? You guys amuse me with your reasoning...or excuses.
Avatar isn't that hard to figure out. It was being advertised up the wazoo. People knew it was Cameron's first big film after the Titanic. Add in the fact that 3D costs an average of 2 to 3 dollars more a ticket, plus the fact that ticket prices have raised over 50% since 1997, it's not that hard to figure out it was going to be big. Now, no, nobody knew it was going to be that big. Just like no one knew TDK was going to be that big. But people knew it was going to be successful.
Yes, you're right, no one knew, which is exactly my point, especially when you're willing to do something differently that no one has the balls do. Avatar was one of those films, and the second time movie studios thought Cameron was absolutely crazy to try and pull it off. I wonder what they're thinking now?
And again, I'm not just spouting off mumbo jumbo. Pg-13 movies make more then R-rated movies. This is a fact. It's not debateable. There's a reason there are only 3 R rated movies in the top fifty grosisng movies of all time. We've also seen what happens when a Superhero movie goes darker and what parent backlash can do to it. If you make Spider-man R, you're going to lose kids. There are going to be a lot of parents who boycott it because they'll be pissed the studio is taking a childrens character and making it R.
It is debatable, because we're debating it. The Batman 2 film was back in the early 90s, it's damn-near 20 years later. Kids watch all kinds of mature movies now a days, they have HBO/SHO in their rooms for gripes sake (with MATURE video games)--that parents pay for. An R rated Spidey will not lose kids, it'll make them want to see it even more. What kid didn't see Terminator 2 when it came out? Adjust the box office for inflation, and T2 is a huge film.
And again, there is no way an R Spider-man would outgross Passion. That movie made as much as it did because it had the religious fervor driving it. Religion, especially religious controversy = big bucks. There's a reason The DaVinci Code made as much as it did despite lukewarm reviews.
An R-rated Spider-man would not have that driving power to help it make the big bucks.
Worldwide, it would leave "The Passion..." (611M) in the dust, sorry Jesus. I'd be a bit more worried about it reaching The Matrix Reloaded (730M) worldwide, but I think it'll crush both of them, if it's a great film.
The drive for an R rated Spider-Man would have a huge buzz surrounding it, people would be curious to see the content that would make it R. You could also create story arcs and not worry about it being watered down to its very last compound--even enhancing it in its structure. For once, you could actually put real villains on screen, not afraid to use their powers in any horrific (this means semi-graphic killings) way they see fit. Making a threatening villains is vital to any comic book film, and not making them come of cheesy and wuss worthy...because you that think this is interesting to kids. And you wouldn't have to strive to tell stories in the most simplistic way humanly possible, once again, so kids can understand it.
"We'll Meet Again, Spider-Man!" really, thanks for telling me, you idiot, because I couldn't see that for myself.
You also wouldn't have to fill the streets with happy-go-lucky New Yorkers who all love Spider-Man, sing about him, take up for him, don't tell his secret identity, throw parades for him and give him the key to the city. No villains apologizing for doing something bad at the end of the film. You see, a PG-13 rating didn't stop all of this crap from happening, so I'm tired of people saying that all you need is a PG-13 rating, when it's not being utilized. And the fluff and kid stuff is deliberate in these Spider-Man films, I hope that you know that--regardless of its rating.
This is true, there are some things no one sees coming. Titanic is an example. Who would have expected a high budget romance to kick such major ass? Star Wars is another. At the time, the idea that a glorified western set in space would do well was laughable. But there are common themes we can look back on and draw from. Pg-13 being more profitable then R-rated movies is one of these themes.
And again, I think we both agree that we can get a more then acceptable tone from a Pg-13 Spider-man. It all depends on the creative team.
Sure, if they actually utilize the PG-13 to the fullest; mature story telling, complexity, evil villains using their powers to kill--but in a non-cartoonish way, using the graphic nature of the film's villain (this means The Lizard killings won't be pretty), smart dialogue that sometimes goes over kids heads, a serious tone when need be, keeping the
cheese in the frig where it belongs, keeping the humor and witty characters interesting--but not over-the-top.
Then sure, PG-13 it is.
