PROMETHEUS Thread - PROMETHEUS 2 "Moving Ahead"

[mkaroly]

Good! I hope it stays cryptic...no use leaking eveyrthing out now. Build suspense so that we will be surprised come 6/8/12.

[Paul MacLean]

I see there's a new trailer. No spoilers but it does seem a little more revealing (unlike the previous, more abstract trailers)...

[youtube]1byZkbNB3Jw#ws[/youtube]

I hope this movie is as awesome as it looks.

[Monterey Jack]

I actually haven't watched a trailer for this since the teaser. I'm fairly sure I'll be stuck watching one before at least one movie in the next month and change, but I'm trying to go as "blind" into this as I can.

[AndyDursin]

I think Fox and Scott have done a tremendous job with these trailers. They're tantalizing, but they're selling you on the look, the mood and not necessarily the story beyond the central premise. In short, unlike other ads, I don't think they've given away the farm at all so to speak -- I can't entirely guess where the whole film is going like I can for most movie trailers.

[mkaroly]

OMG I am so excited for this movie...lol...June 8 cannot come quickly enough for me.

[AndyDursin]

The MPAA gave PROMETHEUS an R -- though it certainly doesn't sound like a "hard R" (“sci-fi violence including some intense images, and brief language").

While I know the "fanboys" obsessed with R ratings will be happy (something I've never understood, ever), this is a huge gamble for Fox. What R-rated sci-fi/horror films have EVER been blockbusters? Not even ALIENS qualified as the latter -- it did well, but it actually made less than expected (it's 7th on the list of 1986 releases, behind BACK TO SCHOOL and barely ahead of THE GOLDEN CHILD). I guess you can put TERMINATOR 2 down as being the one R rated genre film that smashed records but that was different -- a sequel with a huge star at the zenith of his popularity.

I just hope all these morons who jump up and down when they see a PG-13 realize it could cost Ridley and the movie company millions, as well as the potential of seeing another sequel if it doesn't do well.

On the other hand, if this is the film Scott wanted to make and he felt he couldn't cut it down without compromising the picture, then I'm fine with that.

[Monterey Jack]

What R-rated sci-fi/horror films have EVER been blockbusters?

The Matrix films? Then again, only the second one did insanely well (riding on the goodwill of the first film and a year's worth of crazy hype)...the first didn't crack $200 million, and the third barely made a third of what the second did.

I agree that this is a HUGE financial risk on Fox's part...while the R rating may pull in a sliver of gleeful fanboys who were on the fence about seeing it, it'll shut out a much larger audience of teenage boys, and for a $200 million sci-fi epic, that's commercial suicide. Most R-rated horror/sci-fi films that earn a profit usually cost less than $50 million, and more often than not less than $30 million (see the endless Saw series, where each film probably cost a buck ninety-eight to produce). While I admire the balls of Fox for giving this a shot, I can't see the film grossing more than it's budget in the U.S., and it will be lucky to double that amount overseas. If they had flat-out hyped up the "Alien Prequel" angle, it might have garnered more up-front interest, but for right now, general audience awareness of the film is pretty muted...when I saw the trailer before The Avengers last week, the only real reaction it garnered from the crowd was fear from the younger kids present. I'm looking forward to the film, but it might turn into a John Carter-level financial meltdown for everyone involved.

[AndyDursin]

Well said MJ, I agree wholeheartedly (good call on MATRIX, forgot that one).

It is a massive financial risk for a film that has no bankable stars and has been divorced from the ALIEN angle to a degree where only the most die-hard of us fans even know the connection. Shutting out a fair amount of young guys who pay to see these types of movies in the process is a difficult way to go.

I mean, what is the ceiling for this film anyway? Even with a PG-13 I think $150-$200 million would've been probably best-case scenario. I can't see it getting there with an R. $100 million is more likely and I'm not sure it's headed there unless it gets phenomenal reviews and word of mouth. They'll have to hope for big international dollars.

Of course, if Ridley feels this is the best way for his film to go, then so be it from an artistic angle...but it could cost the film big-time.

Historically speaking, everything after ALIENS in this series has been a total box-office bust except for AVP 1 and that was...PG-13.

[DavidBanner]

I would go with the thought that this is the appropriate rating for the movie made by Ridley Scott and company. I also agree that this is probably not a "Hard" R like the recent Stallone movies that use that rating to justify literally blowing bodies apart onscreen. It feels right in line with the original ALIEN, with the nature of the material, which can be quite disturbing.

For comparison, here are a few R-rated movies of various genres that have done very well, at least according to Wikipedia:
Gladiator (2000) - #2 Box Office Hit of the year and Oscar Winner
Hannibal (2001) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions (2003) - #3 and #8 Box Office Hits of the year
Bad Boys II (2003) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Passion of the Christ (2004) - #5 Box Office Hit of the year
Troy (2004) - #8 Box Office Hit of the year
300 (2007) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Hangover (2009) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Hangover pt II (2011) - #8 Box Office Hit of the year

Keep in mind that ALIEN was never conceived as PG material. The original surprise birth scene alone would be enough to catapult the first film to an R. So to make something like this more palatable for children and parents, which is the point of the younger-skewing rating, would be to work against the grain of the story. Along the same lines, many people were quite dissatisfied with the theatrical cut of the 4th Die Hard movie, which was cleaned up enough in its language and violence to just get a PG-13. And having watched both cuts of that movie, I can honestly say it works better in its unrated version. John McClane was never a boy scout, pun intended. I also note that the first three Die Hard films, which were rated R, performed better in their respective years, each landing in the top ten with the third film topping the box office for 1995.

There is something to be said about changes in the rating system since the 1970s. I do remember the debate about what rating should have been given to Jaws, which just got away with a PG rating in 1975 when there was enough blood in the movie to justify a harder rating at that time. (David Brown's comments about this in the Jaws documentary are both informative and really funny.) This kind of thing got addressed in the 80s after Gremlins and Temple of Doom got PG ratings that many critics viewed as a bit sketchy - hence the PG-13. And I think in the past 25 years, the level of content in PG-13 movies has gotten much closer to what once was thought to be an R. The language has gotten harsher and the level of violence has gotten bloodier. While the content in hard R movies has gotten almost to the level of what was seen in the old Herschell Gordon Lewis blood celebrations. What was a hard R in 1980 with Friday the 13th doesn't seem nearly as harsh today. Even Scarface doesn't seem that outrageous now, even with its unending stream of F-bombs. (And I can still hear the voice of Brian de Palma complaining that the rating fight for that film actually came down to "the number of bullet hits in the clown" which is still an ironically hilarious comment.)

And yet, the ALIEN movies, particularly the first one, were never the kind of subject matter or treatment that I could even associate today with anything less than an R rating. We're talking about creatures that take over human bodies from within and then destroy them. And we're talking about adult characters who talk in a frank manner. The first movie is showing truck drivers in space. Further, the designs of H.R. Giger are quite adult and disturbing. The new movie appears to be examining the origins of what was found in the 1979 film and that's leading them down the same road for a good reason.

Assuming that Prometheus is a good film, and worth the time we have taken to discuss it, there's certainly an audience out there that wants to see it. This is not just a few fanboys by any means. There should be a strong showing by young adults, both by people over 17, and by teenagers that will get in to see the movie either way. I saw plenty of R rated movies before I turned 17, including ALIENS and Beverly Hills Cop, etc. Trying to water it down or remove some of the concepts to make it friendlier to teenagers would likely alienate (no pun intended) the adult audience that would rather just see the story that Ridley Scott is trying to tell.

Andy is right about the international box office, by the way. It will very likely do much better overseas. I think it will do well in the US as well, but we'll have to see once it comes out. Most of the time these days, the big movies add a tremendous amount to their box office with the international numbers. (And by the way, TV is going that way now as well - the biggest increase in television sales now is actually in terms of US productions that are sold to foreign markets. Wild, but true) It's for this reason that Universal premiered Battleship overseas first. They're trying to make sure that even if that movie bombs in the US, they can still get their money back out of it.

Finally, Andy is absolutely right that the ALIEN movies after the second one didn't do as well. I would argue that this was based on the fact that all of the movies after the 1986 film were pretty bad, and the audience figured that out. The rating was incidental to the lack of quality in the storytelling. (And we should keep in mind that Ridley Scott is completely ignoring the AvP movies, which to my mind is a wise thought.) However, let's just quickly look at the box office, again per Wikipedia:

Alien: Budget - 11 million; Box Office - 104,931,801
Aliens: Budget - 18.5 million; Box Office - 131,060,248
Alien 3: Budget - 50 million; Box Office - 159, 773, 545
Alien Resurrection: Budget - 70 million; Box Office - 161,295,658
Alien vs. Predator: Budget - 60 million; Box Office - 172,544,654
Alien vs. Predator Requiem: Budget - 40 million; Box Office - 129, 884,494

When you adjust these numbers for inflation, the later movies are taking in less, particularly that last awful AvP movie. But they were pulling in enough money for Fox to want to make more.

[AndyDursin]

But the last AVP film, along with the mediocre in-take of Rodriguez's PREDATORS flick, also did poorly enough that they opted to go a different route here with PROMETHEUS and try to divorce themselves from the ALIEN "brand" name, despite having some kind of obvious connection and the Brandywine shingle still attached as producers.

David you raise a good point (one of several) that I've made before -- PG-13 films today are often the R rated films of 20 years ago. HANNA was one of the most explicit PG-13 movies I've ever seen, so I think, today, it IS possible to get away with a pretty "edgy" genre film with a PG-13 that wasn't possible years ago. Some movies need to be an R -- but I also think it's an overblown argument for the most part. All the fanboys who complained about PROMETHEUS' rating ahead of time also complained about AVP REQUIEM, and though they seemed to rejoice when the movie got an R rating, it also produced less than half the gross of its predecessor too (yes it was awful, but to me AVP 1 was plenty violent enough as a PG-13 and did quite well at the box-office with that rating. The fact it wasn't R didn't hurt it at all).

I still think this is a very big gamble on Fox's part. It's not "really" an ALIEN film (kinda, sorta), it has no stars, and it's rated R. What is separating this film from the likes of EVENT HORIZON is the mere mention of Ridley Scott's name -- but is that going to be enough to lure in the general public and not just sci-fi fans? Only time will tell, but I think if the picture gets anything other than stellar reviews, it's going to be an uphill climb for them.

I look at something like STARSHIP TROOPERS, and yes, that was the film Verhoeven made, and also the film was entertaining because it was so over the top...but it also tanked, despite a lot of good reviews. There were an awful lot of younger viewers who wanted to see the film and couldn't, and some people thought they sneaked in by buying tickets to the MR. BEAN movie which was out at that time (and managed to keep making money week after week, somewhat mysteriously).

Scott talked a lot about "responsibility" to the studio while it was being made, so very obviously a PG-13 was considered. If that's not the movie he turned in, I get it, but the budget on this film was $200 million -- it's not a "modest" budget like the AVP films, it's a hugely budgeted risk on the part of the studio. It needs to make BIG dollars to break even and turn a profit.

I just don't know how it's going to turn out for them. Most of the big R rated grossing movies on the list you cited also had huge stars in them -- this doesn't. (and by stars, I mean actors who sell tickets to their films on the basis of their name alone).

[Monterey Jack]

For comparison, here are a few R-rated movies of various genres that have done very well, at least according to Wikipedia:
Gladiator (2000) - #2 Box Office Hit of the year and Oscar Winner
Hannibal (2001) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions (2003) - #3 and #8 Box Office Hits of the year
Bad Boys II (2003) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Passion of the Christ (2004) - #5 Box Office Hit of the year
Troy (2004) - #8 Box Office Hit of the year
300 (2007) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Hangover (2009) - #10 Box Office Hit of the year
The Hangover pt II (2011) - #8 Box Office Hit of the year

But not one of those films had a budget even approaching $200 million. The Matrix sequels were shot simultaneously and thus shared a production/marketing budget. I think Gladiator cost around $100 million, which wasn't that outrageous for 12 years ago. Passion Of The Christ cost a bargain-basement $30 million (mostly out of Mel Gibson's pocket). The Hangover movies were simple comedies that didn't require expensive special effects (in fact, comedies are one of the last areas in which an R rating can thrive...ever since the ribald Judd Apatow era began with The 40 Year Old Virgin, you can make a hard-R rated comedy for less than $40 million and almost always turn a profit). I doubt Bad Boys II, Troy and 300 cost more than $150 million apiece or less. Even back in the 80's, when R-rated movies thrived, few of them topped the box office of their particular years (maybe Beverly Hills Cop, and that was basically a comedy with some action elements).

Andy is also right that the PG-13 of 2012 would be the R of 1992. Look at The Hunger Games...children killing each other left and right. Or the ridiculously violent Hanna. And yet, The King's Speech got slapped with a R-rating because of a handful of F-Bombs (and used in a purely comedic context, no less!), despite the tone of the film overall barely deserving of anything harsher than a PG, let alone a PG-13. I find it kind of outrageous that language is more likely to get a movie slapped with an R than extreme violence. I'd rather let a thoughtful, intelligent kid hear "f*ck" a handful of times than let them see characters getting cut in half by machine gun fire.

[AndyDursin]

Totally agree MJ. The big deal over the rating here is that the film has a huge budget. It has to be one of the largest -- if not THE -- biggest-budgeted R-rated sci-fi/horror film in history, no?

I also look at PROMETHEUS as being a "guy movie," because, well, it is. My wife is pretty good about going to comic book flicks and most of the films I want to see, but she's already told me she's "out" on PROMETHEUS. Its core demographic is males and, yeah, I'd say even teenagers because they always groove on sci-fi.

Unless the film is something phenomenal, I don't see it getting a lot of crossover appeal outside the traditional audience that goes to see these films -- and the track record shows there just aren't that many R-rated sci-fi/horror films that make that much money.

It's why Fox was hesitant to fund the movie in the first place, why Universal didn't want to give Del Toro the cash to fund his pet project, etc.

This is a huge gamble on the studio's side...but of course, maybe they think the film they have is going to be big enough as it is.

[DavidBanner]

Let's address a few of these items carefully.

Andy, you're absolutely right that there aren't that many R-rated Sci-fi big hits to look at for an example. And you're right that this is an expensive movie. But I don't think this was a $200 million dollar movie. I would think it's somewhere north of $100 million - although that's still a number that's way too high for my thinking for any movie. And if you adjust for inflation and appetites, you'll find that Terminator 2's budget would come out in the same neighborhood. And keep in mind that David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was just short of $100 million and did quite well - enough to ensure that the other two books will be made in English by the same team.

There aren't that many R-rated films like this that make that much money, until there is one that does. Fox clearly believes they have the potential in this case. There is a lot of awareness of this movie, even more so than for the upcoming Batman movie when you'd think that movie would be the one to beat. Fox wasn't hesitant to fund the movie - they were hesitant to give Ridley Scott $250 million dollars (the equivalent of what they helped spot James Cameron for Avatar) to make it. They were quite happy to make the movie at the lower budget Scott agreed to follow. Given the awareness and the buzz about the movie that's already been building, this isn't as big a gamble as you might think. The movie will certainly open well, first in the UK and then here, and if it has the quality Scott promises (and which Fox already should know, since they've seen it), it will do healthy business throughout June and into July. And it will do healthy business on Blu-ray in the 4th quarter of this year which will complete the idea. They certainly aren't gambling on an unknown here. They have an existing franchise and a fanbase that just bought the Blu-ray sets of the ALIEN movies. Their own market research should be telling them that they'll break even at the very least and most likely show a decent profit.

Jack, I hear you. But this movie didn't cost as nearly as much as you're thinking - probably about half that. And The Matrix sequels actually cost what looks like close to 300 million when combined. The final Matrix movie showed a slightly lower budget due to the combined shoot and not having the freeway sequence in its purview. The Hangover cost only 35 million but the sequel actually cost around 85 million - it made more money than the first one, which is unbelievable considering the low quality of the movie. Bad Boys II actually cost 130 million, although you could cost a bunch of that to the salaries of Smith, Lawrence and Bay. Judd Apatow's latest movies have actually cost more - the unfortunate Funny People cost about 75 million and I couldn't begin to tell you where it went.

If we look back to the 1980s for R-rated movies doing very well or at the top of the box office for the year, we can see:

1982 - An Officer & A Gentleman at #3, Porky's at #5, 48 Hrs at #7
1983 - Flashdance at #3, Sudden Impact at #7, Risky Business at #10
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop at #1, Police Academy at #6
1985 - Rambo First Blood Part Two at #2
1986 - Platoon at #4, Aliens at #7, Ruthless People at #9
1987 - Fatal Attraction at #1, Beverly Hills Cop at #4, Good Morning Vietnam at #5, Lethal Weapon at #6, The Untouchables at #8
1988 - Rain Man at #1, Coming to America at #3, Die Hard at #7

And these are only the ones in the top 10. If we expand to the top 20, the numbers go up. You're correct to say that in the 1980s there were only 3 R-rated movies to come out at the very top (Beverly Hills Cop, Fatal Attraction and Rain Man), but there were plenty that did very, very good business. An R rating is not necessarily the stigma that people think. And it doesn't mean that teenagers won't find their way into the movie.

We all agree that the PG-13 of today is closer to the R of not 1992 but probably 1972. I haven't seen The Hunger Games and don't feel a need to do so - I have read the book and don't see much to play out in a cinematic way. As for Hanna, I found it to be a lyrical film, along the lines of a Grimm's Fairy Tale. There is some violence, probably just at the level of a 1970s R but within the current bounds of a current PG-13. It's no more violent than Jaws was back in 1975 and I honestly don't think it to be ridiculously violent. I don't know what to tell you about The King's Speech - the rating was assigned due to a hard and fast rule about how many F bombs can be dropped before the movie crosses the line. I agree that the distinction feels silly.

As for the title of Prometheus, I honestly don't know who picked it - whether it was Ridley Scott or someone in marketing at Fox. I've read an interview with Scott where he says it was someone else, but I don't remember. I don't know that the new title was specifically due to the box office performance of the AvP movies or the last Predators movie. It certainly could have something to do with the lower quality of those movies, which left a bad taste in people's mouths. Of course, the Brandywine shingle must be kept on Prometheus since a key part of the plot stems from the original ALIEN script.

I don't know about fanboys complaining about ratings, other than that they had a point about Live Free or Die Hard, which honestly felt neutered in its PG-13 form and more natural in the unrated cut on the DVD. And anyone talking about the higher quality of AvP Requiem simply due to a rating should be forced to watch Skyline fifteen times in a row. Both the AvP movies were poor exercises that made around 100 million - enough to justify Fox doing them but not enough to continue the pain for anyone else.

I don't know how Prometheus will do at the box office or in home video. I suspect it will at least open well, and that the home video sales will more than pay for everything. I would also dispute the idea that there are no stars in this movie. It has Noomi Rapace, known and loved internationally for her performance as Lisbeth in the Swedish movies of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Friends of mine here in Los Angeles refer to her from those movies, so she isn't unknown and people here are curious. Overseas, she's much better known, and I expect international ticket sales will reflect that. On the other hand, Charlize Theron is known everywhere, which is why her character was spotlit in the trailer attached to the new Avengers movie. Now, this isn't the same thing as having a Will Smith or a Tom Cruise or a Julia Roberts cerca 1992 to open your movie, but it isn't a cast of unknowns. I do think there's a big difference between this film and Event Horizon, provided that Ridley Scott has delivered the movie I hope he has. If we have another Black Rain on our hands, I will be greatly saddened. This is an opportunity he has promised for many years - to finally understand what the heck that derilect ship really was and where it came from.

[Paul MacLean]

While I know the "fanboys" obsessed with R ratings will be happy (something I've never understood, ever)...

I remember when I was a kid, one of my schoolmates declared "Poltergeist can't be scary. It's only rated PG!"

[AndyDursin]

I don't have the Fox check book in front of me, but there is no way PROMETHEUS only cost $100 million. Every article, every blurb on the film has stated the film was a $200 million picture and Fox gave Scott the green light because he was going to be "flexible" on the rating. All the interviews with Scott also indicated this -- he implied early on the film would be PG-13, and most articles seemed to reiterate that as well. He didn't agree to make the film on a lower budget for an R rating. That's not what happened, though I believe the offer was there on the table at one point. Instead, in the last interviews Scott gave, he said he had a "responsibility" to the studio but would sit down with the Fox president after it was finished and look at it. Clearly this is a battle he won -- but it also has made the film the singular highest budgeted R rated genre film in history.

(BTW this is basically stated in this L.A. Times article today --
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... scott.html )

When looking at all those other R rated films that did well, there's a common theme running through all of them: they're NOT genre films. And almost all of them have big stars -- Eddie Murphy, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. This movie doesn't.

As far as Girl with the Dragon Tattoo goes, that was also widely acknowledged as being an underwhelming film at the box-office also, grossing under $250 million worldwide (not nearly what they anticipated) and causing MGM to report a loss on the project. I know they've said they're doing sequels, but I'll believe it when they actually make them. They had a bestselling international book, a high profile director, etc., and to barely squeak out $100 million domestically in today's movie-going climate, to me, isn't impressive at all.

I would also dispute the idea that there are no stars in this movie. It has Noomi Rapace, known and loved internationally for her performance as Lisbeth in the Swedish movies of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Friends of mine here in Los Angeles refer to her from those movies, so she isn't unknown and people here are curious. Overseas, she's much better known, and I expect international ticket sales will reflect that. On the other hand, Charlize Theron is known everywhere, which is why her character was spotlit in the trailer attached to the new Avengers movie. Now, this isn't the same thing as having a Will Smith or a Tom Cruise or a Julia Roberts cerca 1992 to open your movie, but it isn't a cast of unknowns.

But being "known" and being a "star" who sells tickets are two distinctly different things. Charlize Theron has been in so many awful films including YOUNG ADULT which despite generating lots of (to me baffling) reviews was one of the lowest grossing major studio releases of 2011. Does anyone actually go to see one of her films because she's in them? That's my point. When you look over all those big R rated movies, they had STARS in them, at the height of their popularity, who brought audiences in. This movie doesn't have that.

I never said the cast were a group of unknowns -- but they're also not stars IMO. I also wouldn't put Rapace in as an "international star" yet either, myself. The jury is out there, she's basically new and starring in her first group of big studio films. Whether her name is enough to generate ticket sales is anybody's guess overseas, but I'm guessing it probably isn't.

They certainly aren't gambling on an unknown here. They have an existing franchise and a fanbase that just bought the Blu-ray sets of the ALIEN movies. Their own market research should be telling them that they'll break even at the very least and most likely show a decent profit.

But the fact they're burying the connection to ALIEN is because they want the film taken on its own merits -- and separated from the AVP films and the prior ALIEN sequels because they all did so badly. They're not selling it as an ALIEN film and Scott has said time and time again it's not a sequel/prequel but "has DNA" in it from the ALIEN series, which I think we know about.

Besides, unless you are a sci-fi fan who reads message boards and what not, that connection to ALIEN is probably lost. It looks like an ALIEN film -- if you're an ALIEN fan. Otherwise, while the trailers are exciting, I highly doubt the general public probably has the same level of excitement as most of us fans do about the project, not to mention knows/cares that it's a film set in the "ALIEN universe."

If there's that much of a fan base for this material, why did ALIEN 3, ALIEN RESURRECTION, PREDATORS (I use that too as a measuring stick as it's another Fox genre flick with crossover appeal to the Alien crowd) and the second AVP film all do so poorly then? Yes, I realize the budget on PREDATORS and the AVP films were modest so they "kept the series going," but then again, so was the in-take of all of them. None had the budget of PROMETHEUS. You can cite that they were just "bad movies," which is basically true, but the fact that the audience interest wasn't that strong is a red flag. This isn't a series that's had a whole lot of big success at the box-office. And again, the only film that really did well after ALIENS -- the first AVP -- was PG-13. Coincidence?

I mean, where in the entire ALIEN franchise is the movie that leads you to believe this film has the potential to make $200 million? I just don't see it. Neither the original ALIEN nor ALIENS made that amount of money, even in adjusted-for-inflation dollars.

And yes, kids might "find a way in" -- but they won't be buying tickets for the picture unless their parents take them. They'll sneak in by buying tickets to OTHER movies, or they'll watch it on video. Either way a fair amount of the demographic who goes to sci-fi movies will be shut out here.

IMO it's a massive commercial gamble. There just aren't many R-rated sci-fi films in the history of cinema that ever were produced on a budget of this scale. If the budget is what every one has said -- $200-$250 million -- then if the film underperforms (does under $100 million) in the US because of the rating, that's an awful lot of money to generate internationally to turn a profit, especially once you factor in the advertising/promotion and such. Studios also don't typically rake in all the foreign money either -- they often have to split the shares (or give a percentage) to whatever foreign distributor of certain countries is handling it.