Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

How Watchmen Killed 'R'-rated Fantasy Movies 771

An anonymous reader writes "Of all the Hollywood properties consigned to development hell in the reductionist policy of the last 3-4 years of bad economy, the very last to have a prospect of a green light are expensive fantasy and SF projects that fall outside the 'family' remit. Not even the addition of James Cameron to David Fincher's Heavy Metal remake has stopped its begging-bowl passage from studio to studio; Robert Rodriguez's propriety of the Barbarella remake likewise toured the world in vain, apparently unmindful of the very unusual set of cultural and demographic circumstances that caused a major studio to back an 'erotic space opera' in 1968 — and to the fact that these circumstances are not likely to reoccur. David Fincher lamented in 2008 that the creation of dazzling artificial movie worlds is limited to family-friendly output — but in the long wake of the box-office disappointment of the 'R'-rated Watchmen movie, there seems no current prospect that the adults will ever get to play with the kids' toys again." The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Watchmen Killed 'R'-rated Fantasy Movies

Comments Filter:
  • It was OK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:48PM (#35233368) Homepage

    The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.

    I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.

    • Re:It was OK (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:56PM (#35233464)
      That depends on whether you evaluate it as an adaptation of the comic or on its own merits, of course. Having not read the comic (and having no desire to, for that matter), I evaluated the movie simply as a movie, and in that regard I thought it was excellent. One of the best movies I've ever seen.
      • Re:It was OK (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:09PM (#35233666)

        I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.

        I think the movie ending wasn't that bad in that it effectively substituted one common enemy for another. And given Dr. Manhattan's public disillusionment with humanity, it was just as plausible as the original ending. Knowing both endings, I was a lot less upset about that change than I was about the pointless diversions in the Lord of the Rings to Helm's Deep and Osgiliath, for instance. The Watchmen ending actually had the benefit of actually surprising me a little, because I knew how the comic ended and while it was similar, it was not exactly the same.

        My only real problem with the ending is that if Dr. Manhattan actually decided to act out, it seems to me that the devastation would have been total. Any government that had any intelligence on him would have wondered why his action was as (relatively) small scale as it was. At least in the original ending, the enemy is not a known quantity to anyone; it can produce fear from both its sheer power and from being an unknown.

        Of course, familiarity with Dr. Manhattan's progressing condition might well have caused no small manner of fear and dread in an informed observer over time.

      • Re:It was OK (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SuperQ ( 431 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:40PM (#35234170) Homepage

        I read the comic around the same time as the movie coming out. I personally hated the squid ending. It was much more in line with "the smartest man in the world" to simply manipulate Dr Manhattan into being the scapegoat.

      • I've read the book and watched the movie. The comic, of course, has a lot more literary "space", as indeed do most books. When writing a screenplay for a movie that is going to be at best 2.5 hours long, you've got to decide how best to pursue the basic narrative. Stuff got left behind, but all in all the spirit of the original was maintained. Yes, the ending was altered, but the point of the ending was not, so I could live with it. Curse of the Black Freighter was left out, and how could it not be? H

    • The altered ending made a lot more sense. A giant alien squid is cheesy and we've already seen that an attack on New York City doesn't unite the whole world (See: 9/11). I loved the movie. It isn't without it's faults. I thought by changing the scene where Rorschach kills the guy in the house with a machete instead of burning him alive actually took away from the darkness by making it more brutal. In contrast, there were things about the movie that were better than the comic, such as Rorschach's death scene
      • by putch ( 469506 )

        Blaming the attacks on Dr. M really doesn't make any sense though. For decades he'd been an extension of the American military...essentially a walking, talking atom bomb. Would the world have been united had America "accidentally" nuked a bunch of cities? It need to be an exterior threat like aliens. Maybe not an actual Squid and maybe not just attacking NYC, sure. But, framing Dr. M really makes no sense.

    • I'm inclined to agree with you about the ending, although I think it can be argued either way. Removing "Tales of the Black Freighter", on the other hand, was the right decision. There just wasn't *room* for it. Yeah, it was neat, and yeah, it added a whole 'nother layer to the symbolism. But the movie was already two hours, forty-two minutes as shown in the theatres (with longer cuts on the DVD releases--up to three and half hours!). Adding in the Tales would've made the thing unwatchable in one sitti

      • Wasn't Tales of the Black Freighter all of 20-30 minutes? A 3 or 4 hour movie is hardly unwatchable in one sitting.

        But I do agree it wasn't needed in the theatrical release.

  • Good? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by berj ( 754323 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:50PM (#35233390)

    Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.

    It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.

    • Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:54PM (#35233438)
      Subjective art is subjective. For my part, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
    • Yeah I don't really feel I need to watch it again. Maybe in 5 years or so. The first few comments here from people saying it was "good" seem to be the ones that were already fans of the graphic novel. Now, I like things to stay pretty true to the originals too, but what is good in a book isn't necessarily good in a movie.

    • I personally really enjoyed it, atleast it wasn't your bog-standard action movie which only attracts people because of large explosions.

    • Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShavedOrangutan ( 1930630 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:25PM (#35233916)
      "It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good." - (Score:0, Troll)

      "For my part, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen." - (Score:5, Insightful)

      Neither of these comments is a troll or insightful.

      Who watches the watchmen? Clearly nobody mods the moderators.
    • Re:Good? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:37PM (#35234114)

      Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.

      It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.

      This is 100% correct. Mode me troll and flamebait, I don't give a fuck.

      Watchmen was a bad movie and it failed because it was a bad movie.
      Is Slashdot going to post an article next week about Scott Pilgrim and how it was actually a good movie?

      Being different, weird, and so against the grain to the point of being contrarian, doesn't make something unique, deep, or good. It just makes anti-social people feel better for liking it, as well as more inclined to like it in the first place because it's different, weird, and contrarian - just like them.

      The only things the general public saw when they saw Watchmen were an unnecessary blue dick, a bad plot, forced edginess in the form of "we're heroes, but we're so dark and moody we often act like villains and play out our own little soap opera in our secret club", and shitty costumes that screamed "Batman Ripoff".
      And you know what? This was one of the rare occasions when the general public got something right.

      If you liked it, fine. Enjoy your movie.
      But to say that it would have done better if it was PG-13 is a joke.

  • by dintech ( 998802 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:51PM (#35233402)

    the creation of dazzling artificial movie worlds is limited to family-friendly output

    I think if you like this kind of thing, you have to skip films and play games instead. I recommend Dead Space 2 right now.

    • Re:Games Instead (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:05PM (#35233608)

      But there's no reason that they couldn't make them and turn a decent profit. The real problem is that the studios think a 'big name' movie needs to have a $150 million (or more) budget. If you spend that kind of money of course you're going to have problems turning a profit on a movie that half your potential audience can't, or doesn't want to see simply because of the rating. But, if you can cut just a few corners, user lesser known actors (but then you might actually have to put some effort into casting! The horror!), and independent special effects companies you can make a movie for 1/5th the typical Hollywood action movie budget and it becomes much more profitable.

      District 9 is the quintessential modern example. Unknown actors, small special effects company trying to prove itself, a cheap filming location, etc. Revenues of $210 million (barely enough to come out ahead for a typical action sci-fi movie), but because of the much smaller budget ($30 million) it was a roaring financial success. Because when you come down to it, the actors were surprisingly effective, special effects just shouldn't cost tens of millions of dollars anymore, and it is the story first and the action second that people want to see and the film delivers both very well; over hyped special effects and famous actors a distant 3rd and 4th in the action sci-fi genre.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Stregano ( 1285764 )
        I could not agree more. If they stopped pulling in the actors that think they require 20 million per movie, and bring somebody in and pay them 250k for a movie (I would be thrilled as hell personally if I worked for one year and made that), then the budgets would drop way down. Seriously big movie industry, stop throwing money around and, gasp, for once, act like a business. I hate the way big business conducts itself, but if the movie industry did this, their profits would shoot through the roof. Sure,
      • Re:Games Instead (Score:4, Informative)

        by FSWKU ( 551325 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @02:23PM (#35234860)

        small special effects company trying to prove itself

        While Zoic Studios may be small, I'd say they've proven themselves several times over BEFORE District 9. Here's just a quick list of what they've worked on, starting from 2003 and going forward.

        1. Firefly
        2. Battlestar Galactica
        3. Spider-Man 2
        4. The Day After Tomorrow
        5. Van Helsing
        6. Zathura
        7. Jericho
        8. Serenity
        9. Eureka
        10. Chuck
        11. Quarantine
        12. Fringe
        13. Terminator: TSCC
        14. V
        15. True Blood
        16. Zombieland
    • I think if you like this kind of thing, you have to skip films and play games instead.

      Films have Australian R18; games don't. What country is taking Australian expats again?

  • by Super Dave Osbourne ( 688888 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:56PM (#35233484)
    in a long long time. Waited for it, watched the legal BS about it, and enjoyed the flick when it came out. To Hollywood, if you want my money then produce more flicks like the Watchmen. It was that enjoyable. Popcorn aside, you can't figure out a better way to get my money than putting together great 40+ something old's stories for me to enjoy.
    • by RingDev ( 879105 )

      Personally, I would have rather seen the money sunk into more movies from the Dead Gentlemen for continuations of "the Gamers: Dorkness Rising" and "Journey Quest".

      Lets see, GDR budget was ~$1,000, with a whole lot of volunteers.
      Season 2 of JQ has a $100,000 target budget.
      The Watchmen budget was ~$150,000,000.

      I think the geek subculture would gain far more entertainment from 50 more G:DR/JQ type productions than the 3 hours of drivel the Watchmen offered us.


  • Not the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @12:57PM (#35233492)

    The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.

    Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine. I am not a comic guy, saw the ads and didn't find myself particularly wanting to see it. I might Netflix it at some point, but it's not currently in my queue.

    I strongly suspect the real issue is there aren't enough people with taste similar to yours to make the types of movies you want to see financially viable. I know it's frustrating - many of my favorite TV shows over the past 20 years have quickly withered - but that's life. There's no need to look for a broader conspiracy, although people do seem predisposed to finding conspiracies even when none exists.

    • by anethema ( 99553 )
      I don't read comics or graphic novels and have no desire to, but I found Watchmen fantastic. It is a bit of a slow movie in the sense that there is not action every five minutes, but it was a very watchable, very cool movie.

      I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as long as you don't need "Die Hard" or "The Expendables" level shoot em up action to enjoy a movie.
      • by fnj ( 64210 )

        Seconded. Seeing the movie Watchmen as excellent is in no way related to having a comic book reader intellect. It is well acted, explores interesting themes, and is not dumbed down or childishly saccharine.

    • by MogNuts ( 97512 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:37PM (#35234110)

      Go with your instincts on this one. I'll let u on a secret that I had to learn the hard way. Word of mouth is probably the worst way to find out about a product. Because our minds are trained to think it's actually automatically good. I can't tell you how many things I looked into and bought because of Slashdot (game opinions are the worst--almost every game ppl said they liked on /, were AWFUL). Don't listen to the OP.

      Watchmen is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And it was only rented! And I didn't even pay for the rental! I actually was pissed that I spent the 2 some hours on the movie. It was so bad. That's why, not because of some R rating. I mean, where do I start with how bad this thing was:

      1) It had awful pacing. There would be 30 min of dullness followed by 5 min of something interesting. Then another 45 min of dullness.
      2) The story made no sense. Even if /. beloved comic was good, this movie was not. It was told poorly
      3) Insanely lame characters with lame things that they did throughout the movie
      4) Too much talking. Yes talking and back story and dialog are good. Not good is when it goes 30 mins with ramblings on and no discernible direction
      5) That lame constant voiceover by that Rorschach guy.

      There are so many more reasons, but now I'm just getting pissed on how bad that movie is and how everyone here loves it. Just don't do it man, don't even watch it on channel 11 when you're bored on a sunday afternoon. That's when you know it's bad: when it's not even worth that!

      • by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @03:09PM (#35235474) Homepage


        1) "I have no attention span; I need flashes of light and loud noises to enjoy a movie"
        2) "I can't follow a story more complex than 'good guy vs. bad guy' or 'guy wants to fuck/date/marry girl'"
        3) "Nuance is lost on me. Even when I have characters that are textured enough to sleep with someone who attempted to rape them, I still can't see anything interesting in them."
        4) see 1
        5) "In a 2 hour movie, I focused on maybe 5 minutes of narration"

        Please, give us more details on why you don't like this movie.

        Also, what do you recommend? The "Ow My Balls" channel?


    • The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.

      Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine.

      I never read the comic but loved the movie. Went into it cold, not knowing anything other than people said the comic was one of the best ever written, and that it was some kind of alternate history thing. I fell in love with it. From the very beginning to the last frame.

      But then I watched part of it again and, well, the acting wasn't that good after all. In fact, it kind of ruins it. It was a bold move to cast a bunch of no-names. It paid off for a couple of the characters, but not all of them. It'

    • I'm not a fan of the graphic novel. I do enjoy manga and doujins.

      I saw Watchmen in the theater based on the sheer hype. It was entertaining but I haven't though about it since. I liked Kick Ass better, although there were less themes and it was more about putting your brain on hold and seeing action.

      There isn't anything wrong with Watchmen per se, but if the potential audience is smaller, it would be better to just make the movie with a smaller budget. The average person isn't all that deep or thinks ab

  • The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.

    Well, yeah. The way I see it however, if not even Watchmen did well enough to satisfy the studios then R-rated fantasy movies never had a future to begin with.

  • Artistically speaking, freedom of expression is limited in the United States (and other countries, don't get me wrong) because of regulatory bodies that exist for the sole purpose of deciding what is appropriate content and what is not.

    This is a fixed-position point of view in an ever changing sociological landscape and it increasingly does not make sense.

    I often wonder if films like "Taxi Driver" could ever be made today.

    • by uncanny ( 954868 )
      I blame the fact that the 'system' is running out of ideas. Remake after remake is mostly what they are talking about. maybe some places aren't rejecting the movies because of the rating, they reject them because it's crap or they shouldn't mess with the original. Yes Taxi Driver could be made today, but please please please DON'T! remakes are getting as bad as sequels.
      • by Eevee ( 535658 )

        I blame the fact that the 'system' is running out of ideas. Remake after remake is mostly what they are talking about.

        What if Hollywood never did remakes? Then we wouldn't have had Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade; there had already been a movie made of the Maltese Falcon ten years before. How about Ben-Hur? The Charlton Heston one was the third movie made. Sometimes the remakes are worthwhile.

    • Artistically speaking, freedom of expression is limited in the United States (and other countries, don't get me wrong) because of regulatory bodies that exist for the sole purpose of deciding what is appropriate content and what is not.

      Which regulatory bodies are you referring to, specifically? The FCC? They don't regulate movies. The MPAA? They're a private outfit. They don't censor anything; they just attach a letter to most major studio releases so people can decide if they want to watch it or not. (Whether the letters themselves make sense is a separate question.) That movies like Watchmen are having a hard time getting financed these days has nothing to do with regulation--it has to do with Watchmen being an expensive film that

      • Self-censorship is the best form of censorship. It's even better than having censorship imposed externally because no one can see it. The "letters" are an effective form of censorship because it limits the audience of the movie. Get anything over an "R" and a Hollywood movie can not make it's money back. It won't be shown in most (if not all) of the major theater chains. So you have the carrot of producing inoffensive family fare gets you the largest possible audience, and the stick of doing anything t

    • Usually when they release a film in DVD they include material that was not present in the original. "Pretty Baby" is the opposite, the DVD shows less than was in the VHS or theatre versions.

  • The amount of money poured into hyping the film was so ridiculous that it made me assume there was absolutely no way the film would live up to my expectations, and therefore I decided to go see whatever else was out at the theaters at the time. Once I finally watched the film on DVD, however, I will say that it did manage to live up to my expectations, which is very unusual for a comic book adaptation.
  • This is by far the most incoherent OP I have ever read. Can someone translate this guy into English?

  • Adult fantasy can become popular, if you don't bore people out of their chairs. Watchmen was a horribly long, boring mess. Heroes is another example. It was painful to watch the last couple seasons. Folks might consider taking notes from HBO. TrueBlood = wildly popular adult fantasy. We'll see about Game of Thrones... looks cool too.
  • A artist/craftsman, using todays video editing, drawing, and compositing tools could make a fantastic movie based on comic book heroes. The tools are out there. It would take thousands of man-hours, but it could be done. I also think that there are people out there who would consider such work a labor of love. Computing power is getting fabulous. Pretty soon, real-time previewing a near-photographic quality 3D vector-based animation for minutes at a time, is going to be affordable for every cartoon mov

  • But I don't think it can be made into a PG-13 film.


  • by F34nor ( 321515 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:06PM (#35233622)

    The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *fucking awesome*

    When has any movie of a comic had a better sub-ending than the book? Sub-ending you ask? Rorschach's death is the real meat of the finale not the geopolitical change.

  • by F34nor ( 321515 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:08PM (#35233646)

    Tits in space? I'm there. See my previous posts related to the video "All is Full of Love" by Chris Cunningham and Bjork.

    • Tits in space? I'm there.

      To anybody making movies, I second this.

      Or, just keep making Resident Evil movies until Milla Jovovich doesn't have the body for the mandatory nude scene.

  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:08PM (#35233658) Homepage Journal
    First, the two movies mentioned are not like Watchmen. They are remakes, and remakes have their own issues. They are bought and sold on the popularity of the original and how other remakes in their class performed. In the case of Barberella and Heavy Metal, these are movies of their times, with little relevance to the contemporary world.

    Second, IMHO, there are four audiences for films. First is the family, which is big as it can be as many as four tikets sold if one person wants to see a movie. No nudity in family movies. Second is the teenage date movie. These tend to be gross and with some nudity, but they are marketed to boys, and boys want to see teats, not penises, and also often must pass parent approval. Third are movies made for families with older teens, or adults who go and see movies, where there is something substantial in the movie. Nudity is optional, but promotion has to be done in such a way that potential viewer gets what the movie is about. Fourth is art crowd. Cinematography, story, writing is the thing. Nudity and sex is not always expected but no one is going to stay away because it is explicitly there. Budgets tend to be lower, and stories tend to be non-fantastical, at least outside the realm of believing that people with no money can afford expensive Paris flats.

    When I look at watchmen I see a movie that did none of these things. It did not market outside of the group of viewers that understood it. It also feel to the current situation in which a movie that is not good, and does not do enough to promote the oening weekend, will fail because everyone who did not go the opening weekend will know it is not good and not go.

  • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:11PM (#35233696) Homepage Journal

    This is as bad as the remake of Red Dawn, yeah for those who didn't know they are doing a remake of Red Dawn.

    There was zero reason to Watchmen to have released as R rated. If anything I got the distinct impression they were after that so all those geeks who would see the film regardless of rating could somehow feel smug that they were seeing an serious "artsy" film, you know what I mean.

    Who needs nudity to tell most of these stories? This is starting to sound like I am in MMORPG where every other word in chat is a cuss word or bigoted as if that somehow elevates the participants to a higher level of maturity or intelligence.

    Just give me good stories. Nudity is a cop out, the examples all cited by the article are dwell on nudity. Sorry, Alien was rated R for violence and gore and it was a damn site better than Watchmen. It was story and the presentation of the story that mattered, not who was wearing what.

  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:18PM (#35233790)
    This is part of the problem with these R-rated fantasy/comic movies. Watchmen is pretty heavy stuff both from a philosophical and situational perspective. I saw the movie on a plane flying to my vacation and came off of it depressed and with a heavy heart despite the basic outcome. In that respect, the movie did its job. The adult comic genre is really a way for many artists to express themselves on very adult topics without having a huge production budget and just some decent drawing talent.

    Watchmen wasn't too dissimilar to the bittersweet ending of Sin City. You liked the characters, but most of the "good" (read: likable) guys actually die. The key is that both of these comics explore the subtlety that what is good versus bad isn't cut and dried. Most people aren't really willing to spend their two hours of escape dealing with these subjects and want to see the bad guy lose because it represents their boss or ex or some other negative character in their lives.

    Contrast Watchmen and Sin City with LOTR: ROTK where the ending was again turned into a much happier event than what was in the books. Now look at which of these three movies I discussed made the most money. That's what the studio execs are most interested in. I just hope the genre doesn't completely go away because of straight money concerns. Sometimes producing art for its own sake is a worth cause.
  • "The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*"

    Yes, right up until they changed the ending and basically implied that an American man, rather than an alien race, was responsible for the destruction of New York city.

    I always thought that the point of the ending in the comic book was to gather the human race together, to defend themselves against an alien aggressor. In the movie, it felt as though the attack had been perpetrated by a man who was at one time in his life an American cit

  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:20PM (#35233824)
    And yet "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" did quite well, despite being based on a graphic novel. Films that won't earn as much as they cost to make don't get made, it's simple economics. The majority people paying for movie tickets are either dating or already have kids; "adult comics" aren't suitable fare for either group. Simply put, there aren't enough guys living in their mom's basement for a film like this to make money.
  • by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:26PM (#35233932) Homepage

    Or maybe it's because that neither Heavy Metal nor Barbarella should be remade! Barbarella was pretty bad to begin with. Heavy Metal wasn't bad, but it's very much a product of the time it was made. You'd want to remake it with different stories, and then it wouldn't be Heavy Metal any more. And lets face it, it's hard to find anyone who would defend Heavy Metal 2000 as a worth watching.

    I just re-watched Heavy Metal last week, after not having seen it in at least 20 years. I was showing it to my teenage boys (the movie's target demographic, to be sure), and they were ripping it to shreds. Sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll aren't what they used to be, apparently.

    • And lets face it, it's hard to find anyone who would defend Heavy Metal 2000 as a worth watching.

      But it spawned a pretty solid soundtrack.

  • by stiller ( 451878 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:52PM (#35234368) Homepage Journal

    It's not even that one particular movie can ruin the chances of other, completely unrelated movies. It's simply that the whole premise of 'rating' a movie based on specific content without any context is a stupid idea. So there is some nudity in Watchmen. So what? Do you think a pair of breasts is going break the fragile little mind of a 10 year old? Yes, I'm sure some people think that, but why should the nation as a whole suffer from it? Let them start their own, even more conservative rating system, one which the general public can ignore.

    To compare things, I just looked up the rating for Watchmen in the Netherlands. It's 16, which is the highest rating we've got. (it's all, 6, 9, 12, 16) This isn't that unusual. For example, it was the same rating given to the Dark Knight. It's probably due more to violence than nudity.

  • No great loss. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Beelzebud ( 1361137 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @02:31PM (#35234984)
    I love adult sci-fi, however when you look at that list of examples, it's easy to see why they aren't going anywhere. They're all remakes of movies that have been done. Surly there is at least one original script floating around hollywood? Does every movie have to be a remake, or based on a comic book?
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @07:54PM (#35239108) Homepage Journal
    It will be out soon on blue wang. Ray! Blue ray!
  • by gig ( 78408 ) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @08:24PM (#35239342)

    All they have to do is make multiple cuts, one for each rating. Mark one "The Director's Cut" and you are done. Make the money back for investors with the PG version, let the R version live on as the canonical version for true movie fans and for a future, better time. Ideally, this would all be in one digital copy, inside an app that can play whichever version you want, then cinemas could play the PG version by day and have R showings at night. Similarly, home users could buy one iTunes Extra with buttons for each version, and play whichever version they prefer.

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.