Will it be R rated?

i agree with everything you said. the teenage fanbase leads me to believe that if the halo movie ever gets made there'll be an extremely low chance of that one getting an R-rating either except that one doesn't really need an R-rating due to how minor of a reason the game series has for being M-rated. i haven't played halo 5 yet so this may not be true but so far that one is the only halo game as of right now to ever achieve a T-rating excluding halo wars since that one is the polar opposite of canon to the series and ironically i hear that one was actually more violent than any of the other games combined. anyway, i looked at the box office results for MM 4 and yeah if that one received 28-58 dollars less it would've tanked so that one was a very narrow success. 60-80 does actually seem a little too low for this type of movie but yeah 200 million is just overkill. it's very rare for movies that take place around or at least somewhat around that time period to have budgets even REMOTELY close to 200 million. gladiator-103 million, braveheart-72 million, kingdom of heaven-130 million, the last samurai-140 million, troy-175 million, 300-65 million (that one's especially impressive given how literally the entire background of every shot was pure CGI which tends to be incredibly expensive), 300 2-110 million, alexander-155 million, king arthur-120 million, master and commander-150 million, excalibur-11 million (i question how they were even able to make the movie at ALL on a budget that low), conan the barbarian (original)-20 million, conan the barbarian (remake)-70 million, even films that take place around that time period with fantasy elements included in them, which AC doesn't even have a SHRED of, don't have budgets even remotely close to 200 million with the exception of maybe the hobbit trilogy. warcraft was made on 160 million and the lord of the rings trilogy is lower than most of the non-fantasy movies i mentioned, they were all made on 93-94 million so i have no idea WTF they were on when they assumed this type of movie needs a *beep* superhero movie budget

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No matter how great these movies did, when there's 200 millions on the line, it makes no sense to make a rated R movie, specially when your fanbase consists largely of teenagers. Hell, Mad Max costed 150 million, and even that was an insane risk.

If Assassin's Creed did these movie's numbers with the budget it's got, it wouldn't be considered a success, except if it made Deadpool's numbers and maybe American Sniper's.

Now, why the hell did they decide to spend 200 dollars on this movie, specially with videogame movies track record, is beyond me. If they spent like 60-80 million and made it R-rated, that would be a much safer bet. If it tanks, they won't lose that much money.

Very true. This film should have been made 'Kingsman' style: on a budget between 80-90 million. Even with the PG-13 it seems like total lunacy to spend 200 million on a video game adaptation (and there's not even a Tom Cruise or DiCaprio or Pitt or Jolie attached to help attract some more mainstream audiences from outside the gaming community).

Add to that the opening date which is only 1 week after Star Wars 'Rogue One' PLUS it opens alongside the Jennifer Lawrence/Chris Pratt film 'Passengers'. This films seems already doomed even if it's good.

Btw, 'Fury Road' ended up R-rated more by accident than by design. The film always kept the possibilty open to get a PG-13 rating, which is why there is no swearing and no graphic violence in the film. The MPAA, in their infinite wisdom, deemed Miller's preferred cut of the film too intense for the fragile little minds of teenagers anyway. So there was an additional cut which got the more lucrative PG-13 rating, but when both cuts were subsequently screened before test-audiences, the R-rated version got higher ratings.

'Fury Road' was a fantastic film, but it should never have cost so much (to be fair, without all the problems and year-long delays it would probably have remained around 100 million as originally planned). Hollywood seriously needs to scale back a little and instead focus on making better films. Just throwing money at projects while blunting all the edges and leaving the creative decisions up to studio executives won't result in movies audiences will like (although I'm very much hoping 'Assassin's Creed' won't be one of those generic mega budget tentpoles that seem to flood the market lately and which are flopping left and right).

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

reply share

add reply

formatting help