Dr. DVD

Okay, it seems that since the new year started, each week is bringing a new rated R movie. I'm not equating the rating with quality, as January is typically a home to crap, but I notice there are some seemingly high profile movies coming out with the rating. Book of Eli and Legion are both R, and I am surprised that Legion wasn't reduced to a PG-13 as it looks like crap and such movies get that treatment to maximize ticket sales.

In the coming weeks we have a Mel Gibson movie, the John Travolta actioner, and of course The Wolf Man, all getting an R. I cannot recall a time with more movies hitting the theater like this since I was teenager.

Rypro 525

Also Cop Out will be R as well (as Kevin Smith, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan had to take pay cuts to gaurentee the rating)

Solid Snake

Wouldn't all this be due to 300's debut? Everything kinda changed from there I think.

Rypro 525

also the matrix sequels (although to be fair, i think the 2nd and 3rd one could get a PG-13 with no cuts at all)

Joe Molotov

R rated and 133 minutes!!!!!. Now thats the kinda shit I'm Talking about. Bring it ON!

DonnachaOne

Not really, although it certainly helped; WB usually puts out the R-Rated comic fare for men who should know better in March, with 2005's Constantine, 2006's V For Vendetta and 2009's Watchmen. March is further along into the year, though.

The benefit is that the kids - young children, teenagers - are in school, so it's not encouraging to release family-friendly tentpoles this time of year. You'll see more of that in March and definitely in April.

Of course it's not just in the rating but also the tone; Cloverfield was PG-13, but wasn't intended for children, and cleaned up in January.

There's also the benefit of the stars. Older stars who used to be a box office draw are having less and less of an impact in family-friendly tentpoles. They do, however, attract older audiences to adult-oriented films. I wouldn't go as far as far as saying that John Travolta has a huge following, but the older moviegoing public trust a film with him in it more than a film with no stars.

This doesn't apply to any of you who say "I don't care who's in it, just give me a good story". You're not the average moviegoer.

RichC2

Now if only they were good.

RocShemp

Whatever became of that guy? He was comedy gold.

dugan

R-rated horror came back with the torture-porn trend.

tylergfoster

I hope so. Can we remake Live Free or Die Hard?

tylergfoster

I enjoyed it for what it was, admittedly. But I would rather have seen an R-rated version of it.

The curious thing is that you can't have it both ways: I didn't want it to be PG-13, but now that it is, I don't want the existing version to NOT be PG-13. The Unrated cut on the DVD sucks.

Solid Snake

what made it suck? I never saw Die Hard 4.

islandclaws

It's an ebb/flow kinda thing. R-rated films do well one year, so we get a few more the next. R-rated films do poorly one year, we get a few less the next. The big thing is getting an R-rated tentpole or big budget flick. I think the failure of Watchmen might have left some execs second-guessing big budget R-rated movies.

Groucho

When Justin Long is the best part of your Die Hard movie, somehow along the way something has gone horribly wrong.

Ash Ketchum

Once upon a time there were distributors who specialized in R-rated films and there was a whole theater circuit dependent on them. That's how Roger Corman got rich on New World Pictures in the 1970s and gave jobs to Jonathan Demme (CAGED HEAT), Jonathan Kaplan (NIGHT CALL NURSES), Joe Dante (PIRANHA), Steve Carver (BIG BAD MAMA), Paul Bartel (DEATH RACE 2000), Barbara Peters (HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP), Jack Hill (THE BIG DOLL HOUSE), etc. And then Cannon Pictures and Golan-Globus came along to help feed the market with tons of Chuck Norris movies (INVASION USA), the AMERICAN NINJA series, the DEATH WISH sequels, etc. And then Charles Band and Empire Pictures with RE-ANIMATOR, et al.

Budgets (and narrative logic) were kept low, action levels were kept high, grindhouse theaters profited, and audiences for this kind of film were moderately happy. But then all the grindhouse and neighborhood theaters closed up and everything shifted to multiplexes and family audiences. And the studios monopolized distribution to the multiplexes. This is how we went from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD to ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS: THE SQUEAKUEL in 40 short years. I may not be a supporter of "torture porn," but the SAW/HOSTEL-type films have made a dent (still a small one, if you ask me) in the studio family film monopoly. Still, they're really aimed only at a niche audience and leaves out guys like me who clamor for R-rated action films and thrillers like PUNISHER: WAR ZONE, not horror or torture films.

harrydoyle

Yeah, that was kind of like my impression too. The super-violent torture films that started gaining popularity (staring with Saw I'd probably say) brought that stuff back.

Matthew Chmiel

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was the first big one, making in over $80 million back around Halloween of 2003.

Saw came out the next Halloween and did $55 million. Then we had Saw II doing $90 million, Saw III doing $80 million, etc. Hostel pulled in a quick $50 million, The Strangers closer to $55 million, etc.

The big thing to consider, most of these films were done on the cheap. No Saw entry has cost more than $10 million to make (the first two cost under $4 million), Hostel cost $5 million, and Strangers cost $12 million.

Dr. DVD

Interesting points. What I find interesting is how many of the movies coming out have major stars (Edge of Darkness) or are/were at one point anyway tentpole flicks (The Wolf Man).