Why do they make pg13 sequels to R rated movies?

L

lucidz

Well-known member
Why do they do this? A lot of people claim that its to make the film for a wider audience, but don't they usually just end up pissing off their fan base that made the first film good, and then producing the picture at a loss?

Get shorty: $115m
Be cool: $95m

Now keep in mind that was because Be cool was bolstered by a 23 million dollar opening weekend, twice that of Get Shorty's 12 million. Not to mention, Get Shorty only played at about 2000 theaters, 1200 less than Be Cool's 3200!!

30% more theaters, 200% larger opening, still closed at 20 million less...

Robocop 1: Made for 13 million, took in $53.5 domestic.
Robocop 2: Still rated R, makes 46.5....
Robocop 3: Now PG13, Made for $22m, made 10!!! Took at 50% LOSS!

Whole 9 Yards: $57m Domestic...
Whole 10 Yards: $16 MILLION!!!!!!!

I could go on and on, Pitch Black vs Chronicles of Riddick..
Pitch Black: $54m domestic, on a shoestring budget...
Chronicles of Riddick: Spent $105m on budget, it made 57 domestically! Only 3 million more despite about 10x the budget, and showing in 800 more theaters!

So please, someone, explain to me, the fiscal advantage in taking a property, butchering it to pg13, quadrupaling the budget, and releaseing it to a "Wider audience". I can't think of a single film that has benefited from this. Yet they keep doing it. Every single example I can think of has ended up at a HUGE loss.

Hell the wachowskis proved that you don't piss off your core audience by totally wrecking the Matrix franchise... And those movies even STAYED R, but the ending was so horrible that it still turned people off....

Its obvious that R rated films can make their money on their own merits, so why why why does hollwood do this?
 
I don't think it's the rating which makes the difference here.

Robocop 3 just sucked.

The Whole 10 Yards just sucked.

Be Cool just sucked.

A little more nudity and profanity would have done nothing.
 
yeah, david got to it before me. I dont think that those movies would have been any better if they were rated R. The stupid move is trying to cash in on an original movies success
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
I don't think it's the rating which makes the difference here.

Robocop 3 just sucked.

The Whole 10 Yards just sucked.

Be Cool just sucked.

A little more nudity and profanity would have done nothing.
Click to expand...

Here here !
 
Its the whole lets milk it for all we can until its a dried up shriveled brownish colored oozing pile of a turd... then we'll make one more direct to DVD sequel to see what happens... just in case.

If only they ever spent that money on script/idea development. heaven forbid. why try something new? or even newish...
 
This thread inspired me to do a bit o' research in order to find a specific stat...


The conclusion?

According to the ol' Callaghan Best Of List, only 20 outta the greatest 100 films of all time were rated R (or the equivalent thereof) upon their respective initial release.

The Godfather: Part II - Braveheart - The Godfather - Saving Private Ryan - Schindler’s List - Goodfellas - Blade Runner - Gladiator - Chinatown - The Shawshank Redemption - Alien - L.A. Confidential - The Shining - Legends of the Fall - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Rated "M") - Pulp Fiction - The Passion of the Christ - The Usual Suspects - The Terminator - Tombstone

That's only one fifth there, fellas!




Edit:
...and on a side note most of the above mentioned were rated as such because of violence
 
Last edited:
The movies that make the most money -- and it's not even close -- are rated G.

And I don't mean any one specific movie . . . I mean as a pack.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
This thread inspired me to do a bit o' research in order to find a specific stat...


The conclusion?

According to the ol' Callaghan Best Of List, only 20 outta the greatest 100 films of all time were rated R (or the equivalent thereof) upon their respective initial release.
That's only one fifth there, fellas!
Click to expand...

lol, Are you suggesting that because 4/5 of the top 100 are not rated R that watered down cash-in's are a good idea?
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
lol, Are you suggesting that because 4/5 of the top 100 are not rated R that watered down cash-in's are a good idea?
Click to expand...
Ah, Nooo.....

That is rubbish because the examples given at the beginning of this thread were totally coincidental...there have been countless sequels that had the same rating as the flick that sired it, yet still sucked.

Besides, David and John had already shown why those films failed.
 
David and John were right, but i do believe that the fact that the movies sucked and were rated for a less restrictive audience are tied together. True, adding sex and violence wouldn't save those movies, but thats not the point, they were CREATED from a place that was purely to make the most money, and with that mind set, why would you make an R rated film?

I suppose it would be telling to instead of finding same rating sequels that suck, see how many lower rating sequels are any good. I can't think of any off the top of my head (although there are a lot of movies lol)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top