• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • Super Maintenance

    Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.

    Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.

    We apologize for the inconvenience.

  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

No more R-rated superhero/tentpole films for WB

Darker than Batman Returns? I don't think so, you're overestimating TDK or underestimating Returns. Returns dealt with a villain wose plans involved murdering sleeping children, there was quite a lot of grotesque imagery and ideas behind it. Joker's plans where pretty standard comparitvely. Don't start with the themes either, the political stuff is in every movie these days and the psychological stuff is handely with utmost subtelty and never overbearing the film.

Batman Returns was much campier then TDK. It had homicidal penguins with explosives strapped to their backs! :hehe:
 
Although Batman Returns was dark, it's tone was typical Tim Burton in that it was very much tongue in cheek, it was completely different to TDK tone.
 
^ But the tone is completely different, adding humorous elements as is Burton's trait automatically alters the film, so whilst the themes of both films have dark qualities, the executions are completely different.
 
Yes, but the camp still doesn't make it less dark than TDK.

What makes BR dark are the psychological reasons for Selina and Cobblepot's respective transformations into Catwoman and The Penguin (parental neglect for him, bullying for her)not scenes of a nose being cut open or the Penguin's gruesome demise.

The fantastical elements of the film (the self-aware penguins, a timeless looking Gotham etc) were there to provide a 'safe' distance (even though certain parents complained still) from Burton's anti-Spielberg blockbuster.

The fact that blockbusters as a whole have gradually gotten darker since 9/11(the reinvention of James Bond, the POTC sequels crap as they are) ensured that TDK came out without any obvious backlash, for example here in the UK due to knife crime being an issue I thought the usual moralists would have lost it with the Joker's liberal use and verbal love of the weapon but there weren't any major storms.

CASINO ROYALE (moreso than TDK) proved you can keep an action film PG-13 and not '*****fy' the content (even QUANTUM OF SOLACE, whatever one thinks about it, isn't toned down) so I have no problem with this announcement.
 
I'm all directors taking risks in the search for art.... but this is one of those times I can't help but see the studios point of view and be on their side a bit more. Superheroes, whether you wanna believe it or not, are loved by children, and since The Dark Knight/Iron man were rated PG-13 and did so amazingly well, and Watchmen was R and underperformed, .... I mean, if I was the studio executive in charge I would say "make more pg-13 superhero movies" too.
 
True. But we're talking about ratings, not ****** scripts. A good movie can become a better one if it isn't edited down to appease the censors.

Extra blood and swearing simply doesn't make a great movie.
 
Darker than Batman Returns? I don't think so, you're overestimating TDK or underestimating Returns. Returns dealt with a villain wose plans involved murdering sleeping children, there was quite a lot of grotesque imagery and ideas behind it. Joker's plans where pretty standard comparitvely. Don't start with the themes either, the political stuff is in every movie these days and the psychological stuff is handely with utmost subtelty and never overbearing the film.

I'd also say Hancock is up there next to TDK in terms of darkness. It just happens to have more comedy.

Th comedy in Hancock (and theres plenty of it) keeps it from being as dark as TDK. Your comparison to BR also doesnt really work because...its not about the villians plot...there are G rated movies that have villians with worse plans that The Joker. The movie is such a downer...its so "real", as opposed to clearly a fantastical movie like BR.

Remember, we're dealing with the ratings board, not the brightest knives in the crayon box.

TDK feels like it is pulling you down into it, whereas BR and the other movies you listed are just films you watch and either enjoy or not. Because of that, you couldnt get away with as much in TDK as you could in hancock or whatever.
 
^ But the tone is completely different, adding humorous elements as is Burton's trait automatically alters the film, so whilst the themes of both films have dark qualities, the executions are completely different.
The film has camp and features silly elements, yes. But they far from dictate the tone of the movie. It's just under TDK in terms of "darkness" and "severity".

:huh:
 
Th comedy in Hancock (and theres plenty of it) keeps it from being as dark as TDK. Your comparison to BR also doesnt really work because...its not about the villians plot...there are G rated movies that have villians with worse plans that The Joker. The movie is such a downer...its so "real", as opposed to clearly a fantastical movie like BR.

I don't think you get it. If a subject matter is dark, it's going to be dark, no matter how much comedy you offset it with. In fact playing something as sick as a child killer who feels the need to punish all the parents of Gotham for what his parents did to him off with tongue in cheek humor makes it even worse than some overdone Osama Bin Laden analogy.

TDK feels like it is pulling you down into it, whereas BR and the other movies you listed are just films you watch and either enjoy or not. Because of that, you couldnt get away with as much in TDK as you could in hancock or whatever.

That is just opinionated. Anyone can watch TDK and enjoy it as a thriller just as easily as they can see it as a complex meditation on evils use of fear to bend good people to it's will. Much like BR can be a simple action film or a psychological study into the fractured mind of an insane superhero.

The MPAA care more about gore, sex and language (The three things every BDAF must have) than tonality and allegory.
 
Most of what you just posted is opinion as well.

Plenty of PG movies have been every bit as dark as TDK, except that TDK revels in its darkness, and never gives you a chance to get out of it. Its not unique in that, lost of thrillers do that. By spending half the movie in the realm of comedy or fantastical elements, it lightens the entire picture, and therefore the violence on screen seems more unsettling. When you watch a comedy and some dude gets his arm ripped off and then gets skewed on a gate (or whatever) it just doesnt feel as dark as when The Joker cuts a guy in TDK, even though it is.
 
I don't think you get it. If a subject matter is dark, it's going to be dark, no matter how much comedy you offset it with. In fact playing something as sick as a child killer who feels the need to punish all the parents of Gotham for what his parents did to him off with tongue in cheek humor makes it even worse than some overdone Osama Bin Laden analogy.
BR's tone was dark, it just wasn't as dark as TDK. Tongue in cheek humor does make it a movie less serious then one without it IMO.
 
They let Wolverine join. He's got a huge body count.
Wolverine joining the Avengers is stupid especially when you consider that the New Avengers is a New York street-level superhero team and he goes all the way from San Fransisco to hang with them. Captain America opposed to his joining on his kill count. Also he leads an assassination squad.

True. Though that doesn't mean he can't be a super-hero. It's amazing how much in common he has with Batman. Did you know Batman originally killed criminals?
And Bob Kane and Bill Finger got rid of that angle because they saw it as unheroic. The modern day Batman does not kill and downright abhors it.

But it does have super-heroes in it. The plot has a super-hero flavor to it, as well. There's even a super-villain who the heroes need to stop!
True, but Watchmen still really isn't a typical superhero story. It belongs in a genre of comic of it's own.

You seriously think there are no super-hero franchises which could fit an R rating? :hehe:
You can make an R-rated superhero film, but it most likely isn't going to be a viable franchise which studios aren't interested in making.

I'm sure someone could make R rated films of both. It wouldn't be that difficult IMO.
That still shouldn't happen.

You don't think the Authority are super-heroes?
Not really. Characters like Wolverine, Punisher, and the Authority are anti-heroes. They do help for the greater good, but their methods are to be abhorred.

Standards still should have exceptions, though.
There is no need for a mainstream superhero to have an R rating.
 
Most of what you just posted is opinion as well.

I meant the part where you said "TDK feels like it is pulling you down into it, whereas BR and the other movies you listed are just films you watch and either enjoy or not". It's like saying TDK is deep but everything else is not. Which is a load.

Plenty of PG movies have been every bit as dark as TDK, except that TDK revels in its darkness, and never gives you a chance to get out of it. Its not unique in that, lost of thrillers do that. By spending half the movie in the realm of comedy or fantastical elements, it lightens the entire picture, and therefore the violence on screen seems more unsettling. When you watch a comedy and some dude gets his arm ripped off and then gets skewed on a gate (or whatever) it just doesnt feel as dark as when The Joker cuts a guy in TDK, even though it is.

That's all well and true for Pineapple Express or Tropic Thunder, but Batman Returns isn't a comedy and you seems to be ingnoring the toungue in cheek moments of TDK, like all the Bruce, Lucius moments and alot of Joker's stuff is played for black comedy, like the pencil trick (Which is a lot less disturbing than Penguin waving Fred's severed hand around), he even quoted a cheesy Tom Cruise movie for laughs.

Again at the end of the day it's the phsycal stuff the MPAA cares about not the tonal or metaphorical. Since practically all of TDK's violence is implied and bloodless it can get away with Joker biting sombodies nose off and waving Fred's severed hand around.
 
Wolverine joining the Avengers is stupid especially when you consider that the New Avengers is a New York street-level superhero team and he goes all the way from San Fransisco to hang with them. Captain America opposed to his joining on his kill count. Also he leads an assassination squad.

Agreed.

And Bob Kane and Bill Finger got rid of that angle because they saw it as unheroic. The modern day Batman does not kill and downright abhors it.

That doesn't change the fact that Batman started as a killer. Finger and Kane must have thought Batman killing criminals had some merit otherwise they would have never done it at all.

True, but Watchmen still really isn't a typical superhero story. It belongs in a genre of comic of it's own.

I disagree. It was a super-hero genre story with a mystery thrown in. The only difference between that any any other mystery super-hero story was its quality. LOTR's novels is similar, do you consider that separate from the fantasy genre because it had a war at its center?

You can make an R-rated superhero film, but it most likely isn't going to be a viable franchise which studios aren't interested in making.

It's already successfully happened three times, what changed their minds? There's still plenty of potentially R rated super-hero franchises worthy of getting movie adaptions ready to get made.

That still shouldn't happen.

Why not?

Not really. Characters like Wolverine, Punisher, and the Authority are anti-heroes. They do help for the greater good, but their methods are to be abhorred.
True. Anti-heroes have been tremendously popular in fiction for decades. They've actually gotten stronger with time.

There is no need for a mainstream superhero to have an R rating.

Any low profile super-hero getting adapted in movies becomes mainstream automatically.
 
Last edited:
Watchmen belongs in a category by itself? Really?

Its a superhero story, plain and simple. If you want to put it in a SUB category under that then fine. Metallica is thrash and Motely Crue is hard rock, but both are Metal. You want to say that Watchmen is Superhero/antihero or whatever as opposed to superhero/moral then so be it. But, it is in fact a superhero story.

You stated that Avengers dont kill thousands...and yet Wolverine is an Avenger...you side step that by saying "he shouldnt be". Well, he IS. Once again youre suggesting that what your personal opinion of superheroes is should be law. You've basically stated that no R rated superhero film should ever be made..like unless its PG13 material then somehow it doesnt deserve film treatment (just like the people who hate comics, thinking they are childish). Some of us think that Next Men or Miracle Man or Bratpack or a real Judge Dredd movie might be worthwhile. Oh, in your opinion those books dont count or shouldnt be seen by the mass public, while some of us believe that the best stories should be told, regardless of their content.

Quality is what I want...and I dont care what rating it gets.
 
The film has camp and features silly elements, yes. But they far from dictate the tone of the movie. It's just under TDK in terms of ''darkness'' and ''severity''.

:huh:

I don't know about only just being below, I find there's still a few levels between TDK and Returns.
 
I don't know about only just being below, I find there's still a few levels between TDK and Returns.

OTOH, BR deals with sex in a much more frank and kinky manner. WATCHMEN is the only superhero movie that's even more explicit.

Christian Bale is practically a monk in comparison. Yeah, he has some eye candy floating around on his arms, but it's never treated as anything other than superficial eye candy.
 
you know, when WB says that there be no more Rated R tentpoles/Superhero films, it's so broad and unspecific that I give them a couple of years before they start to ignore their own business practice.

Look how WB said that all of their DC movies from this point on will be 'dark and mature'. I've read Green Lantern and it looks to be WB/DC's answer to Iron Man: fun, light, and relevant.

WB also said that they are not interested in leading female heroes/leads but they're still working on Wonder Woman.
 
you know, when WB says that there be no more Rated R tentpoles/Superhero films, it's so broad and unspecific that I give them a couple of years before they start to ignore their own business practice.

My theory is that they're doing this to weather the bad economy. R rated super-heroes are riskier so they would prefer to go with easier adaptions. I don't blame them for using this tactic if it's correct. They just need to keep it temporary. Hopefully this won't hurt Suicide Squad, that could work with a hard PG-13.

Look how WB said that all of their DC movies from this point on will be 'dark and mature'. I've read Green Lantern and it looks to be WB/DC's answer to Iron Man: fun, light, and relevant.
Agreed.

WB also said that they are not interested in leading female heroes/leads but they're still working on Wonder Woman.

WB aren't making it a high priority, though. That's a big reason why its floundered for years and until that changes it'll stay in development hell. Maybe it has but I'm remaining skeptical until real positive results happen like GL has gotten.
 
Last edited:
Basically, most people on the planet believe comic books, no matter how hardcore their subject matter has gotten in recent years, are still just for kids and dorks. So they will attempt to cater to the biggest demo they can.
 
Basically, most people on the planet believe comic books, no matter how hardcore their subject matter has gotten in recent years, are still just for kids and dorks. So they will attempt to cater to the biggest demo they can.

I think that's balanced by the comic book dork group that thinks every superhero movie should be "hardcore" and "dark". I still can't believe that there were comic book fans complaining that Batman should be R-rated.

Seriously, how many "tentpoles" are there that can be based on DC or other comics characters and that demand to be R-rated?

I'd put the list at something like The Authority, MiracleMan (although the rights are such a mess that it won't happen any time soon), maybe Transmetropolitan, probably Swamp Thing, maybe The Sandman (although Death can easily be PG-13), maybe Grendel, American Flagg!, and ?? Preacher obviously has to be R, but it's certainly no tentpole. Y, the Last Man probably can be done as PG-13. And even some of the movies listed above can probably be made if you're budget conscious.

It's not like there's an overwhelming abundance of comic book material that has the popularity to justify a big budget movie and would need an R-rating. WATCHMEN is a lot more popular than much of what I listed.

And, honestly, WB can change their mind if something comes up that really justifies a big budget and R-rating. I doubt WB would haggle over a sequel to 300 that cost, say, $110 million compared to the $80 million of the first one.
 
I think that's balanced by the comic book dork group that thinks every superhero movie should be "hardcore" and "dark". I still can't believe that there were comic book fans complaining that Batman should be R-rated.

Seriously, how many "tentpoles" are there that can be based on DC or other comics characters and that demand to be R-rated?

I'd put the list at something like The Authority, MiracleMan (although the rights are such a mess that it won't happen any time soon), maybe Transmetropolitan, probably Swamp Thing, maybe The Sandman (although Death can easily be PG-13), maybe Grendel, American Flagg!, and ?? Preacher obviously has to be R, but it's certainly no tentpole. Y, the Last Man probably can be done as PG-13. And even some of the movies listed above can probably be made if you're budget conscious.

It's not like there's an overwhelming abundance of comic book material that has the popularity to justify a big budget movie and would need an R-rating. WATCHMEN is a lot more popular than much of what I listed.

And, honestly, WB can change their mind if something comes up that really justifies a big budget and R-rating. I doubt WB would haggle over a sequel to 300 that cost, say, $110 million compared to the $80 million of the first one.

The call for the possible Suicide Aquad movie to be R-rated is an eye opener largely because no matter how 'gritty' it wanted to be I seem to recall that the issues I read 20 years ago(when I was 10) didn't come with a 'Mature Readers Only' tag. If the source material wasn't even 'R-rated' why would anyone want the adaptation to be?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"