"The Marvels" - Teaser

[Ryujin]

Folks said the same thing about BG3, but the audience that will watch an R rated version is huge, much bigger then the audience they ended up with.

I'd have given the movie the BG3 treatment.

BG3 has a far smaller probable audience than a movie.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

BG3 has a far smaller probable audience than a movie.

You're missing his point, which is that being an R movie or game doesn't necessarily limit your audience significantly if your audience is already not gigantic.

I do disagree with @Henadic Theologian that it would have been a good idea to go R with The Marvels, but I don't disagree that a darker movie would have done at least a bit better. The problem is with the Marvels, you have three main characters, two of whom are pretty much towards the grittier or more violent and threatening end of the scale, Captain Marvel and Photon/Spectrum (aka also Captain Marvel), and you have one character, who generally speaking is whimsical and lovely and deals with less severe and more whimsical threats (the world-ending bit in her show feeling ridiculous and forced, as did the brutality of stabbing baddies to death). Thus I think tonally, they missed by making it all essentially Ms Marvel toned. Going to R would be going to hard the other way, but going for something more like GotG3, which had genuine darkness and alarm to it, and managed its whimsy well (indeed real '80s kids movie vibes) would have made a lot more sense than a lighthearted romp.

Also, videogames do have a smaller audience than most movies, but the point being made is that in both cases it's relative - yes being darker or higher-rated technically, theoretically, limits audience/sales but it doesn't necessarily matter in practice and may even be beneficial.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also, videogames do have a smaller audience than most movies, but the point being made is that in both cases it's relative - yes being darker or higher-rated technically, theoretically, limits audience/sales but it doesn't necessarily matter in practice and may even be beneficial.

I'm going to do a strong disagree on that.

It's fairly well-known that having an "R" rating is a massive disadvantage at the box office. For example, of the top 50 (FIFTY!) top grossing movies, how many do you think are rated R?

If you guessed one, you'd be right. (#31, Joker). Teens and tweens make up a big share of the movie-going audience, and any barrier to entry for them is not a great idea in terms of box office. It's the whole reason that (in terms of the US) the big tentpole movies strive for that "sweet spot" of the PG-13 rating.

Even the most successful R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool and its sequel) didn't do as well as movies like Venom. Now, I will be the first person to say that there are properties that can leverage an R rating (such as the aforementioned Deadpool and Joker) and do great box office. I will also candidly admit that this can be a chicken-and-egg issue; after all, the biggest movies are going to be PG-13* because they need to appeal to the biggest audience, which becomes a partially self-fulfilling prophecy.

But even with all of that said, the changing demographics of theaters (skewing younger) means that studios don't want the self-inflicted wound of making the potential audience smaller.


*Why not just PG? For complicated marketing reasons, "PG" and, of course, "G" movies are often viewed by the desirable teen demographic as "kids' movies," and that's considered a negative for a tentpole movie- outside of animated movies.


ETA- there is the additional issue that Disney wants to present itself as family friendly, so they traditionally try to silo the R movies in a separate area. Which was a concern with on-boarding the Deadpool franchise. This wasn't as much of a concern with WB (Joker, The Suicide Squad) or Fox (Deadpool, Logan).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even the most successful R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool and its sequel) didn't do as well as movies like Venom. Now, I will be the first person to say that there are properties that can leverage an R rating (such as the aforementioned Deadpool and Joker) and do great box office. I will also candidly admit that this can be a chicken-and-egg issue; after all, the biggest movies are going to be PG-13* because they need to appeal to the biggest audience, which becomes a partially self-fulfilling prophecy.

Indeed, you anticipate my response. Given the weakness of the R rating, that's it's just 17 or an adult with you, it's hard to see it as any kind of real barrier. Especially as it's obviously plenty of people do take younger people to R-rated movies. I mean hell, I was in Santa Monica when American Pie came out, and I was old enough, but my little sister wasn't (14) but was desperate to see it, so I took her (after running it by my mum) - and she was by no means the youngest person in theatre (which did shock me a little). In the UK that was a 15, which is a hard rating like NC17 is in the US. Also, my understanding, which may be outdated because I last really looked at this in like 2004 was that in the UK 18-rated movies do better, relatively, than R-rated ones in the US - even though some Rs in the US are 15s here (not 18) and we have hard ratings, not soft.

(I notice you mention Venom - it had the same rating in the UK as Deadpool - 15 - and made about half as much money here as Deadpool did, so that does indicate the impact of the ratings in the US. This supports your argument, but also shows how culturally unique to the US it is.)

It seems like TV ratings are different and possibly entirely optional for streaming-only movies and shows so maybe this will matter less as time goes on, especially if cinemas in the US continue to decline. Alternatively the increasing relative importance of worldwide box office (compared to the "who cares?!" attitudes of a few decades ago) and the fact that censors are harsher in much of the world might maintain the focus on PG13.

It's fairly well-known that having an "R" rating is a massive disadvantage at the box office. For example, of the top 50 (FIFTY!) top grossing movies, how many do you think are rated R?

If we actually look at the top 50, we do see that easily 85-90% of them are from long after PG13 or bust became not just received wisdom, but a law of Hollywood, that if you didn't follow it, you attracted some degree of disapprobation. There's what, 3 movies in there from before 2000? And the vast majority are post-2010.

Joker is interesting because it's the only movie in that top 50 which seems like a serious piece of film-making (despite being staggeringly derivative), with the possible exception of Titanic and Barbie, or if we're feeling incredibly generous, Jurassic Park and the Avatar movies.

*Why not just PG? For complicated marketing reasons, "PG" and, of course, "G" movies are often viewed by the desirable teen demographic as "kids' movies," and that's considered a negative for a tentpole movie- outside of animated movies.

I'm aware. I'm confident Marvel puts easily-cut stuff in to ensure a PG13 rating rather than PG (easily cut so more stringent ratings boards outside the US won't have a problem with them).

To circle back to my point re: R-ratings and audience size, my point is that a lot of movies, even if they were PG13, are just never going to be huge top 50 entry types, hence "leveraging an R-rating" as you put it. More serious movies will not be making MCU/Pixar/Disney money in the shorter term so I don't think they're limiting their success much by going for R unless they have a profoundly family-friendly conceit.

(NB I never suggested The Marvels should be R - that was Henadic!)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure they could tell an outer space superhero adventure with these particular characters and their CGI-based powers for that. Effects that viewers tolerate on Generation V or The Boys wouldn't fly with people sitting in a movie theater, seeing the special effects much more clearly.

Do people actually come to theaters for CG? Reports are that The Marvels already has a shocking amount of plot happen offscreen already ("tell don't show"), and you don't need CGI for character development. Star Wars IV had a production budget of $11 million in 1977 dollars, which is $57 million in 2023 dollars, and that's a special effects-heavy story too.

If you're going to tell a character-driven story about Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, and Photon, does it really need to be a special effects-heavy story in the first place? As opposed to, say, the amount of effects used in a horror movie like It: Chapter Two ($79 million to make, box office revenue $473 million)? If The Marvels matched the box office of It: Chapter Two it would still lose money, because they spent $274 million making it.

What did all that extra money buy to justify itself?

 

[Zardnaar]

Indeed, you anticipate my response. Given the weakness of the R rating, that's it's just 17 or an adult with you, it's hard to see it as any kind of real barrier. Especially as it's obviously plenty of people do take younger people to R-rated movies. I mean hell, I was in Santa Monica when American Pie came out, and I was old enough, but my little sister wasn't (14) but was desperate to see it, so I took her (after running it by my mum) - and she was by no means the youngest person in theatre (which did shock me a little). In the UK that was a 15, which is a hard rating like NC17 is in the US. Also, my understanding, which may be outdated because I last really looked at this in like 2004 was that in the UK 18-rated movies do better, relatively, than R-rated ones in the US - even though some Rs in the US are 15s here (not 18) and we have hard ratings, not soft.

(I notice you mention Venom - it had the same rating in the UK as Deadpool - 15 - and made about half as much money here as Deadpool did, so that does indicate the impact of the ratings in the US. This supports your argument, but also shows how culturally unique to the US it is.)

It seems like TV ratings are different and possibly entirely optional for streaming-only movies and shows so maybe this will matter less as time goes on, especially if cinemas in the US continue to decline. Alternatively the increasing relative importance of worldwide box office (compared to the "who cares?!" attitudes of a few decades ago) and the fact that censors are harsher in much of the world might maintain the focus on PG13.

If we actually look at the top 50, we do see that easily 85-90% of them are from long after PG13 or bust became not just received wisdom, but a law of Hollywood, that if you didn't follow it, you attracted some degree of disapprobation. There's what, 3 movies in there from before 2000? And the vast majority are post-2010.

Joker is interesting because it's the only movie in that top 50 which seems like a serious piece of film-making (despite being staggeringly derivative), with the possible exception of Titanic and Barbie, or if we're feeling incredibly generous, Jurassic Park and the Avatar movies.

I'm aware. I'm confident Marvel puts easily-cut stuff in to ensure a PG13 rating rather than PG (easily cut so more stringent ratings boards outside the US won't have a problem with them).

To circle back to my point re: R-ratings and audience size, my point is that a lot of movies, even if they were PG13, are just never going to be huge top 50 entry types, hence "leveraging an R-rating" as you put it. More serious movies will not be making MCU/Pixar/Disney money in the shorter term so I don't think they're limiting their success much by going for R unless they have a profoundly family-friendly conceit.

(NB I never suggested The Marvels should be R - that was Henadic!)

Old movies will struggle on biggest box office type lists. It's due to inflation billion dollar movies weren't a thing until around 1997/99 iirc.

Adjust for inflation things like Endgame are not the biggest movie of all time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd have made it rated R as well with a Spiderman camoe, make it a much darker movie.

You have clearly wandered into our universe from a different one.

Marvel is not putting Ms. Marvel in an R-rated movie.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Do people actually come to theaters for CG?

James Cameron certainly thinks so.

And the big knock about Quantumania was how terrible the digital effects looked.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What Deadpool had going for it was not its R rating. It was well-written and had a strong point of view, rather than the fairly generic MCU writing or the deeply confused live action Sony writing.

And yes, that suggests that the real answer to the MCU's and Sony's woes is better writing. Good luck doing that consistently at scale, though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

James Cameron certainly thinks so.

And the big knock about Quantumania was how terrible the digital effects looked.

And yet somehow James Cameron also makes terrific movies without much CG, yes?

What I disliked about Quantumania had more to do with the writing than the digital effects. The effects were fine but the story didn't make sense. It wasn't even clear why they were harassing Kang in the first place. (Yes, they mouthed words about reasons but the words didn't add up.) I wasn't even surprised when it turned out to be a case of Nice Job Breaking It Hero because Kang told them up front why he wanted to go home, and they just... didn't want to allow him.

I was initially positive towards the movie (good humor in the first half) but by the end I just wanted it to be finally over. Couldn't care less about the digital effects though, and I don't think that was other people's main complaint either.