The Amazing Spider-Man G Rating or R Rating?

[©KAW]

seriously, you think if the new spidey made a movie that was a hard R (no swearing but blood and violence) MORE people would watch it rather than less? so the slack left by children (because no way will their parents allow them to watch this) would be picked up by everyone else? hmmm...can't see it

You see, the people who say this never come with any proof, and I always do.

If "300" can make damn-near half a billion worldwide why can't an R-rated Spidey (kids loved 300, there was tons of them in theaters--all ages) make much more. And by the way, 300 (R-rated) is more success at the box office than Spider-Man 2 (PG-13), did you know that? SM2 made almost 4 times its production budget, yet 300 made 7 times its production budget. Actually, it's also more successful than Spider-Man 3, as well.

This comes from people wanting a raw comic book film, that doesn't water-down elements. Thus, is why The Dark Knight did so well, it didn't cater to children in the least. Yet, it's dark and gritty and made more money than all three Spider-Man films. Being a great movie also helped of course. People are starving especially for raw icon comic book films.

But this notion of an R-rated Spider-Man not making ass loads of money is asinine, the BUZZ surrounding an R-rated Spider-Man would send a ripple effect around every entertainment vessel on the planet, even people not interested in Spider-Man will want to see why it's R-rated. The BUZZ would be unlike anything in the comic book genre, even Heath Ledger's death of the The Dark Knight fame.

Not to metion, two movies that fall somewhat near the comic book genre THE MATRIX (which I think is one of the best comic book-like movie ever made) and yet another, TERMINATOR 2. Huge box office numbers. And kids absolutely loved both of them!

Spider-Man films are missing out on greatest by being stuck in Care Bear Land with Hannah Montana and Ben 10.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Because 300 is a gritty war piece? Spider-Man is the most popular superhero with children right now, not named Batman. There's no way in HELL Sony will even think about an R rated Spider-Man in the first place. They want to be able to sell toys of Spider-Man, you know?

And Spider-Man is the LAST superhero who needs to rated R to have a good movie. The only superheroes who could make a good R rated movie in the Marvel Universe are Blade, Punisher, Deadpool, Ghost Rider, and Wolverine.

 

[©KAW]

You have once again, totally missed the point, kids will line up around the damn block to buy THE LIZARD toys in a complex, mature, creative and incredibly scary heartbeat away from death movie. Kids love to be scared, they love to be afraid, they love asking questions to answers that they seek. This is why they showed up in droves to "300," "Aliens," "The Matrix" and "Terminator 2."

Why do you fight me on this, why are you so damn afraid to take Spider-Man to the next level?

What hell is wrong with you people?

 

[Deaths Head II]

There is no reason Spider-Man should be rated R.

 

[©KAW]

It doesn't have to be R-rated, I just prefer it, because I'm tired of everyone who gets their hands on this property thinking it's nothing more that another cute children's property to sell merchandising. I'm dying for someone to threat this characters with some respect. I'd settle for a hard PG-13, as long as it was actually utilized like Lord of the Rings.

 

[spider-neil]

Because 300 is a gritty war piece? Spider-Man is the most popular superhero with children right now, not named Batman. There's no way in HELL Sony will even think about an R rated Spider-Man in the first place. They want to be able to sell toys of Spider-Man, you know?

And Spider-Man is the LAST superhero who needs to rated R to have a good movie. The only superheroes who could make a good R rated movie in the Marvel Universe are Blade, Punisher, Deadpool, Ghost Rider, and Wolverine.

I agree spidey shouldn't be dark and gritty but there are definately spidey stories that have a dark and gritty feel

lizard
kraven's last hunt
gwen stacey's death
morbius

fincher could take kraven's last hunt, shot it in the style of seven and it wouldn't look out of place

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I agree spidey shouldn't be dark and gritty but there are definately spidey stories that have a dark and gritty feel

lizard
kraven's last hunt
gwen stacey's death
morbius

fincher could take kraven's last hunt, shot it in the style of seven and it wouldn't look out of place

Hopefully we won't see Morbius in Spider-Man movies, but I agree with those three stories having to be dark, but they still have to in the end retain what makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man to a degree.

The only superhero film in development now I want to see be rated R is Deadpool.

 

[Spidermanfan]

i think a pg reboot would be nice, then have pg-13 for darker stories.

 

[Infinity9999x]

You see, the people who say this never come with any proof, and I always do.

If "300" can make damn-near half a billion worldwide why can't an R-rated Spidey (kids loved 300, there was tons of them in theaters--all ages) make much more. And by the way, 300 (R-rated) is more success at the box office than Spider-Man 2 (PG-13), did you know that? SM2 made almost 4 times its production budget, yet 300 made 7 times its production budget. Actually, it's also more successful than Spider-Man 3, as well.

No...you're just flat out wrong with this one. 300 only made around 210mil at the BO, Spider-man made double that.

Also, lets take a look at the top BO records of all time...

1.) Titanic
2.) The Dark Knight
3.) Avatar
4.) Star Wars
5.) Shreck 2
6.) ET
7) Star Wars Episode 1
8.) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
9.) Spider-man
10.)Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
11.) Star Wars Episode III
12.)LOTR:ROTK
13.) Spider-man 2
14.) Passion of the Christ
15.)Jurassic Park
16.) LOTR:TT
17.) Finding Nemo
18.) Spider-man 3
19.) Forrest Gump
20.) The Lion King

Notice the trend? In the top 20 movies of ALL TIME, there is only one R-rated movie. In the top 50, there are only 3 R-rated movies TOTAL.

A hard Pg-13 I wouldn't mind, but an R-rated Spider-man is not only unneeded (there are few Spidey stories I can think of that would warrant an R in this day and age, what with how far we can go in Pg-13 movies) it would also be an unwise decision business-wise.

 

[Reikowolf]

Kaw needs to do his homework before making untrue posts.

300

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $210,614,939
International Gross $245,453,242
Worldwide Gross $456,068,181

That's less than a successful PG13 movie makes domestically.

The R rating is too risky, and yes, there have been relatively successful R rated movies in recent years, but one or two examples does not a trend make.

 

[Pythagoras]

Spiderman does not need to be like 300. Who wants to see Peter Parker in a high school environment with the school kids cursing and talking about having sex plus smoking weed. We do not need that at all in the movies. Or villians killing people with blood being everywere and stuff like that.

 

[Grievous]

PG-13 more than likely.

If it's a PG then were in trouble.

If it's a G the franchise is over.

LOL

Spidey: Don't fight I'm sure you and me can find a way to settle this without harming someone.

 

[Cuyan]

Who wants to see Peter Parker in a high school environment with the school kids cursing and talking about having sex plus smoking weed. We do not need that at all in the movies.

God forbid it be like reality.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

God forbid it be like reality.

You can make the kids seem realistic without having to explicitly state the intentions of it.

In my reboot script in my first scene between Gwen and Flash there's a line where she threatens to tell her dad about Flash's favorite after school activity. She never specifically states what it is, but it's left to be infered by adults and left ambiguous enough kids won't even notice.

 

[Cuyan]

Seems a bit patronizing. This isn't the Disney Channel.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Uhh...dude, the Spider-Man films would tank if they contained drug references, heavy sex scenes, and unnecessary elements like that. Parents would boycott them and we'd be lucky to get another Spider-Man film in 10 to 12 years time.

 

[Cuyan]

You just live for extremes, don't you?

 

[Infinity9999x]

I wouldn't mind if there are references to drugs and sex, but I certainly don't want to see Pete partaking in anything like that. That's not part of his character, and I don't want to see it added to make Peter "edgier!!"

 

[©KAW]

No...you're just flat out wrong with this one. 300 only made around 210mil at the BO, Spider-man made double that.

Also, lets take a look at the top BO records of all time...

1.) Titanic
2.) The Dark Knight
3.) Avatar
4.) Star Wars
5.) Shreck 2
6.) ET
7) Star Wars Episode 1
8.) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
9.) Spider-man
10.)Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
11.) Star Wars Episode III
12.)LOTR:ROTK
13.) Spider-man 2
14.) Passion of the Christ
15.)Jurassic Park
16.) LOTR:TT
17.) Finding Nemo
18.) Spider-man 3
19.) Forrest Gump
20.) The Lion King

Notice the trend? In the top 20 movies of ALL TIME, there is only one R-rated movie. In the top 50, there are only 3 R-rated movies TOTAL.

A hard Pg-13 I wouldn't mind, but an R-rated Spider-man is not only unneeded (there are few Spidey stories I can think of that would warrant an R in this day and age, what with how far we can go in Pg-13 movies) it would also be an unwise decision business-wise.

First off, I said SM2 and SM3, not SM1. I said when you compare their production budgets 300 is more successful, and it is. It cost "300" 60M to make and it grossed 456M worldwide--that's 7 times its production budget. Which means the studio made more money than SM2 and SM3 compared to their production budget (see below).

*It cost "SM2" 200M to make, and it made 783M worldwide, that's not even 4 times it's production budget.

*It cost "SM3" 258M to make, and it made 890M worldwide, that's not even 4 times its production budget.

*It cost "300" 60M to make, and it made 456M worldwide, that's more than 7 times its production budget. Which means by all accounts it made more money for its studio than SM2/SM3 made for there's at the box office.

Thus, is probably why Sony wants a much lower production budget for Spider-Man: The Reboot (80M instead of 200M+). So they too can make a bigger profit.

Wait a minute, based on production budgets, if you do the math, "300" is also more successful than the original "Spider-Man," as it cost 139M to make, made 821 worldwide, that's almost 6 times its production budget. But still "300" made 7 times its production budget.

It's all about the return of the dollar--it cost you to make the film. And 300 (the R rated movie) is king over all three Spider-Man films. The little indie movie that could.

 

[Reikowolf]

yea.... indie

you do have a strong argument though. The math is tight when you do the risk/return.

total gross counts for a lot though, it's why we have a top grossing movie chart and not a top risk/return chart

 

[spider-neil]

shoot me down in flames but I can actually see the movie going the OTHER way and becoming a 'U' or a 'PG'

 

[<(o_o)>]

It should be Rated X for X-Citing or X-Hilarating.

 

[Infinity9999x]

First off, I said SM2 and SM3, not SM1. I said when you compare their production budgets 300 is more successful, and it is. It cost "300" 60M to make and it grossed 456M worldwide--that's 7 times its production budget. Which means the studio made more money than SM2 and SM3 compared to their production budget (see below).

*It cost "SM2" 200M to make, and it made 783M worldwide, that's not even 4 times it's production budget.

*It cost "SM3" 258M to make, and it made 890M worldwide, that's not even 4 times its production budget.

*It cost "300" 60M to make, and it made 456M worldwide, that's more than 7 times its production budget. Which means by all accounts it made more money for its studio than SM2/SM3 made for there's at the box office.

Thus, is probably why Sony wants a much lower production budget for Spider-Man: The Reboot (80M instead of 200M+). So they too can make a bigger profit.

Wait a minute, based on production budgets, if you do the math, "300" is also more successful than the original "Spider-Man," as it cost 139M to make, made 821 worldwide, that's almost 6 times its production budget. But still "300" made 7 times its production budget.

It's all about the return of the dollar--it cost you to make the film. And 300 (the R rated movie) is king over all three Spider-Man films. The little indie movie that could.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Cape]

Pg-13.

A movie can be dark & funny at the same time. Look at Iron Man, it's the perfect example for this movie should be. It should have dark elements, but also have some light & humorous elements.

Agree with this. Don't go & make Spidey eco-friendly for the kids. Maybe you should change the forum's title to: Should it stay pg-13?

 

[kedrell]

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.