My immediate reaction to the news that the Blu-Ray release (of the as-yet-unreleased movie) will be R-rated was to roll my eyes at the "OMG, look how much money Deadpool is making, let's make money, too!" shenanigans.
But the poster below also has a valid point: this means that, unless more violence is being added in post-production (and quickly!), the movie was written/filmed with R-rated violence in this battle between two heroes who, classically, have for their own reasons vowed never to take a life.
It's not surprising at this point, but it's disturbing and disheartening.
When Batman becomes a violent thug, he simply becomes an unalloyed sociopath, willing to commit any violence or killing necessary for his "mission." He becomes the Punisher, not a hero but a menace.
When Superman becomes a violent thug (and, let's face it, those grimaces that have adorned all the trailer footage have looked pretty thuggish), he stops being Superman and is merely a powerful invading alien. He becomes Mongul, a tyrannical brute who probably should be put down at any cost.
Now, one can potentially write a good story around that (and folk have). But that's not the core of the grand story and tradition for either of these characters. Bottom line, this (and everything else I've seen to date about this film) strikes me as a horrible miscalculation in so radically shifting the mythos for both of these "heroes," releasing the grimdark-violence genie in a way that will be very difficult to ever get back in the bottle. It tells me that Warner Bros. has no idea of what they are doing here, aside from trying to make money in the short term, the long term be damned.
Originally shared by +Nick “A Dimension of Mind” Moore:
Death, Destruction, and Depression
So if true this means that this movie was filmed as an R rated tale and parts toned down to make a PG- 13. I doubt they added some cgi blood splatter because Deadpool has been a hit, and Wade Wilson's antics are an entirely different kind of film.
So that must mean Snyder and WB have got two heroes who have vowed not to kill and protect the innocent embroiled in a series of battles that must be death filled and graphic, and there's a few perhaps gratuitous scenes, maybe flashbacks of Joker killing a Robin for 'dramatic effect'.
More evidence that no one in charge of the legacy and future of these characters has clue one what they're doing.
I'm all for a Batman Arkham Asylum movie with disturbing psychology aspects and violence that challenges the character morally and physically. But this is a tent pole summer popcorn flick they are enticing kids into that have these heroes on their lunch boxes. I'm really questioning taking my 6 year old son to this, was anyway, but this just seems to lean towards an unsuitable, and unenjoyable tone for the whole thing. I don't get their thinking here at all 🙁
The Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition is Rated R
For reasons that currently elude us, the Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition will carry an R-rating, which makes you wonder what’s not in the theatrical cut.
This just further affirms for me that this movie is not something I'll get enjoyment from. MoS is terrible, and started an awful trend of DC movies that miss the point.
I realize we should be judging before we've seen it, but everything I read or hear about BvS just really turns me off.
Pub o
+Ryan S Yes. I keep trying to put in caveats on the off chance that the final product is not nearly as violent and nihilistic and very not-Batman and not-Superman … but I've only seen one very brief moment that didn't strike me that way.
I'm also dubious about the portrayal of
The JokerLex Luthor (asthe Jokera lunatic), but that's a different premature kvetch.And Fox is doing this with Wolverine, too. It's rediculous. R-rating doesn't make money any more than any other rating. You want to make money? Make a good movie! You want to make a good movie? Write a good story with good, compelling characters, and THEN worry about fight choreography, special effects, and age-ratings.
In a related problem, the amoral alien jerk who fought the immoral alien jerks in MoS, without regard to civilian casualties, that certainly wasn't Superman. So you're gonna have a really hard time telling a good Superman story about that guy.
I know that DC feels this is a dark and gritty time in our culture so they should do dark and gritty heroes. That's WRONG. This is the exactly time when we need to see Superman done right: as an inspiration that we can rise above by being willing to do the right thing.
+Gary Roth To be fair, if there's one franchise that won't be hurt by violence, it's Wolverine. He's the best at what he does, and what he does isn't very nice. A very violent Wolverine makes perfect sense, esp. if the story deals with how he overcomes that way of life.
DC's decision-making is burdened by the previous Batman series, which made grimdark what they had to aspire to, and the lackluster response to Superman Returns. I'm sure there's also a desire to not be seen as tonally the same as Marvel's cinematic offerings.
But you are right — it's missing a horrible opportunity. The contraposition of an inspiring, hopeful, non-bombastic Superman with all too many politicians today would be a tremendous thing. Instead … let's make him glower more.
+Dave Hill While Wolverine can certainly be done with grizzly and terrible violence, I worry that they think that additional gore is a substitute for a decent plot.
+Gary Roth Oh, sure — gratuitous violence is, by definition, gratuitous. But there's a lot more legitimate scope for "blood and guts and veins in my teeth" with a Wolverine movie than, say, a Kitty Pryde move … or a Superman movie.
Thing is, it doesn't matter.
The movie's not going to be good enough to want to own a copy, regardless of rating.
Any scene worth rewatching (a few, but nowhere near a plurailty of the whole) will be gif-memed and/or clipped on youtube.
They're just setting themselves up for additional failure (by trying to ape the not-important parts of Deadpool) on top of a movie that's all but guaranteed to disappoint (by aping the unimportant part of Nolan's Batman).
Yeah.
In the right mood, cheap showing, 2… eek, 3, hours.
If it’s worth more than that I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
It would certainly have been a lot more interesting — still open to some criticism, but at least showing some vision and integrity — if the "R-Rated Blu-Ray Edition" had been announced before Deadpool made a few dumpsters full of money.
I'm not sure what all of this is about. We all do remember that the bullshit MPAA will give ratings for curse words. Perhaps there isn't much change to the story at all. See the documentary This Film is not yet Rated for more about the wonderful MPAA.
I for one welcome more R rated movies. I like them better than watered down versions.
+Jon Weber I seriously doubt that the R rating will be from Bats and Supes being potty-mouths. And … I'd be similarly disturbed by that.
To a certainly degree, not knowing what the movie actually looks like, it's all speculation at this point. My suspicion is that the R rating involves more escalated violence. I don't feel that addition will keep the movie from being watered down, based on the previews to date.
Songs of guru dut