Man of Steel gets its PG-13. Is the high-profile live-action PG-rated film an endangered species?

As of this morning, Zack Snyder's Man of Steel has been awarded a PG-13 for "intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language."  That's not a surprise, as pretty much every major comic book film since Bryan Singer's X-Men has received said rating.  Even if the content seemed more appropriate for the more kid-friendly PG rating, such as I'd argue was the case with Fantastic Four and Thor, studios don't want the potential kiddie-flick stigma that's still somewhat attached to live-action PG-rated films.  Unless you're dealing with fantasy that's somewhat aimed at families, such as The Chronicles of Narnia or four of the eight Harry Potter films, or high-brow family adventures like Hugo or The Life of Pi), it's PG-13 or bust. Part of that is the way in which Shrek turned the PG rating into an acceptable 'for all rages' status for animated films back in 2001.  Part of that is merely the fact that getting a PG-13 doesn't seem to be making parents think twice about bringing their very young children to the likes of Transformers: Dark of the Moon or Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.  

Why an R-rating for A Good Day To Die Hard matters...

Bruce Willis let it be known to Harry Knowles late Friday night (and Fox confirmed sometime later) that A Good Day To Die Hard will be opening on February 14th, 2013 with an R-rating.  That's somewhat of a surprise, since Live Free Or Die Hard infamously went out as a PG-13 and still ended up as the biggest domestic grosser of the series.  On the other hand, it still earned less worldwide than Die Hard: With a Vengeance way back in 1995 and is actually the lowest-grossing entry in the series when adjusted for inflation, so it stands to reason that the PG-13 didn't make a difference either way.  Of course, cutting down a movie for a PG-13 to get the kids and then opening it on the same weekend as a Pixar movie is somewhat stupid, but I digress.  Of course, the fact that the film is going to be R-rated doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be good.  Heck, it may not mean anything other than John McClane saying "fuck" more than once amid otherwise bloodless (or hastily CGI-inserted bloody) violence.  From the sound of Willis's statement, it seems that Fox wasn't aiming for an R-rated movie, but that they are merely willing to accept the MPAA's position.  This is itself is encouraging and possibly a sign of a 'new day' for mainstream studio films.  

Good movie news in 2012: the return of R-rated movies.

Normally, I wouldn't be one to consider Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (which to be fair I have not yet seen) as a shining example of a positive trend in movie-going.  But the historical fiction action-thriller may be many things, but one thing it is not is PG-13.  Oh no, it is a mid-summer major studio spectacle that is going out into 3,000+ theaters with an honest-to-goodness R.  Said rating is officially for "violence throughout and brief sexuality".  Whether or not the film could have been edited down to a PG-13 is arguably a moot point.  20th Century Fox spent $70 million (a refreshingly reasonable sum) on a major summer production that was conceived and produced with the intent that it would indeed be R-rated.  And most shockingly, it was not even the only R-rated wide release last weekend, as Focus Features unspooled Seeking Friends at the End of the World in 1,400 theaters.  I've written/ranted for years about how the R-rating became an endangered species for major-studio releases due to the 2001 FEC regulations regarding the marketing of R-rated films, but the tide does seem to be changing over the last couple years.  And it's reached a glorious peak at this very moment, with an avalanche of R-rated wide releases filling up the multiplexes.

Harvey Weinstein is a hypocritical bully and a f***ing a**hole. Now that publicity has subsided, Weinstein to cut Bully down to a PG-13 after all.

When the manufactured outrage over the MPAA handing Bully an R-rating for its six F-bombs, I politely suggested that Weinstein should just do what Morgan Spurlock did with Super Size Me and cut and alternate, 'educational version' of the documentary so that it could be viewed in schools and other public places.  But over the last two months, Harvey Weinstein and his band of Karl Rove/Lee Atwater-ish bullies have ginned up the media, getting publicity-friendly movie stars and righteously indignant pundits to hem and howl at the MPAA because they had the gall not to give Weinstein's film preferential treatment.  After all, an R-rating was going to keep kids from seeing Bully in a theater!  LIE (any kid of any age can see an R-rated film with a parent/guardian over 18).  And NATO's statement to the Weinstein Company that releasing the film unrated would possibly cause theaters to treat it like an NC-17 film was EXACTLY like threatening to give the film an NC-17 as retaliation for raising a ruckus!  LIE.  If the MPAA didn't give in and give the film a PG-13, the film wouldn't reach the kids that it needed to reach!  LIE (DVDs, Blu-Ray, Video On Demand, Netflix... pick one!).  The film was so singularly awesome and important that it had the unimpeachable power to save kids' lives and that denying this film its rightful PG-13 was tantamount to murdering at-risk bullied youth.  Well, I haven't seen the film, but I'm guessing that's a LIE too.

Weekend Box Office (04/01/12): The Hunger Games powers on, Wrath of the Titans falls into the "Tomb Raider trap", Mirror Mirror underwhelms.

As expected, The Hunger Games (review/trailer) again topped the box office this weekend, but its relatively strong hold suggests that it may be a bit mightier than a conventional Twilight/Harry Potter sequel.  With $58 million in weekend two (the ninth-biggest non-opening weekend ever, ahead of all the respective Harry Potter and Twilight Saga films), the film dropped 61% and ended day ten with a whopping $248 million.  That's the biggest ten-day total for a non-sequel ever, and the fifth-biggest ever.  It came in above the $240 million ten-day total of Spider-Man 3, and it is that film which its performance most resembles.  Spider-Man 3 opened with $151 million in May of 2007 before dropping 61% for a $58 million weekend.  Spidey took a drop on weekend two despite having no new releases to compete against because it wasn't exclaimed critically-acclaimed among the fanbase.  The Hunger Games had two big releases this weekend, plus the loss of its IMAX screens which represented about 7% of its theaters and 10% of its gross last weekend.  No other mega-opener on this level that benefited from IMAX has had to deal with the immediate loss of those premium screens, so it bares mention when comparing it to the respective second weekends of The Dark Knight ($75 million off a $158 million debut) or Alice In Wonderland ($62 million off a $116 million debut).  Spider-Man 3 ended its domestic run with $336 million, and its ten day total represented 71% of the gross.  Giving The Hunger Games a similar pattern would give this franchise-starter a final domestic cume of $349 million.  We'll see how it weathers the 3D reissue of Titanic next weekend.  Oh, and it's up to $362 million worldwide, all on a mere $90 million budget.

I hope Bully gets a XXX! NATO's John Fithian treats Harvey Weinstein like an adult, Weinstein responds like a bullying (and lying) child.

As part of the ongoing 'fall-out' of the documentary Bully getting slapped with an R for its profanity, Harvey Weinstein has threatened to leave the MPAA and/or release the film in theaters as 'unrated'.  In response, John Fithian wrote the following letter:

LETTER FROM NATO PRESIDENT & CEO JOHN FITHIAN

Dear Harvey,

The National Association of Theatre Owners partners with the MPAA in the rules and operations of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Exhibition representatives participated yesterday in the appeal of “Bully.” As you know, the appeals board voted to uphold the ratings board’s decision that the prevalence of harsh language in “Bully” warranted an “R” rating. In response, you released a statement criticizing the decision, and threatening to remove your company’s movies from the ratings process.

As the father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. The filmmaker and especially the brave young people who participated in this project deserve our attention and respect. Nonetheless, I believe that your public response to the decision of the appeals board is unwise.

Surveys of America’s parents reflect their very strong concern with the use of harsh language in movies. The vast majority of parents surveyed have indicated that the type of language used in “Bully” should receive an automatic “R” rating. You ask us to ignore the preferences of America’s parents and our own ratings rules because of the merit of this movie. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores.

You recently released the award-winning movie “King’s Speech” and must know the language rules very well. You should not have been surprised at the rating for “Bully.”

I have nothing but tremendous respect for you and the work of TWC. Our industry is so much the better for your involvement. But if you decide to withdraw your support and participation in the rating system, and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.

In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 – where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. And the best of luck to you on Sunday.

Sincerely yours,

John Fithian
President & CEO
NATO

Just bleep the f*^#ing profanity! Why getting a PG-13 for Bully is more important than fighting the MPAA on its lone ironclad rule.

You can't have more than one 'f-word' in your movie and still get a PG-13.  There have been a few exceptions over the years, but generally it's one 'f-word' in a non-sexual context.  Anymore than that, and its an automatic R-rating.  We can debate the morality/practicality of that specific rule.  Hell, I'd probably agree with you that it's a silly arbitrary requirement, especially considering the sort of violent content that, thanks to the FEC's war on R-rated movies in 2001 (HERE), ends up in PG-13 movies.  But at the end of the day, it's one of the MPAA's few ironclad rules.  Thus I have little sympathy when Weinstein's films keep trying to skirt that 'one rule' and still attempt to get that PG-13.  Their new documentary Bully may indeed be must-see viewing for teenagers.  It may shed light on a major problem, affect the national conversation, and save lives.  But if Harvey Weinstein and director Lee Hirsch want that PG-13, they should just bleep out the offending f-words. Period. We may not like the rules, but those are the rules as they stand at the moment.

So, why isn't The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a hit yet? Oh right...

This was posted as a comment elsewhere, but it touches on something I wanted to talk about, so I'm sharing it here too...
So as of last week, David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo crossed $100 million in the US and $100 million overseas, giving the film a current worldwide cume of $211 million.  Yet, what should be a terrific result for what is currently an endangered species, an R-rated, hyper-violent/sexual adult thriller, is in fact something of a disappointment.  Why is that?  Simple, it cost too much.  It shouldn't have cost $90 million, end of story. I don't care how good or bad it is, I don't care how polished it looks or how splashy the 007 title sequence is, it was a film with a limited theatrical audience and should have been budgeted as such. The lesson over the last few years is that adult genre fare, even R-rated fare, can thrive as long as they don't cost anymore than $45 million. Contraband cost $25 million. The Town cost $40 million. The Lincoln Lawyer cost $40 million. Limitless cost $27 million. The Grey cost $25 million. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, a 2.5hr R-rated thriller that basically advertised that it wasn't appropriate for general moviegoers and had a limited international audience due to the fact they'd have to read subtitles just like the original, cost $90 million. Despite all of its negatives, it still grossed $100 million domestic off a $12 million Fri-Sun opening, showing genuine legs in a front-loaded marketplace even as a hyper-competitive January caused unexpected screen-bleeding.. But, because it cost $90 million, it will struggle to break even.  Sometimes, expectations be-damned, it's just about the math.

Scott Mendelson

Chuck Norris is not the cause, merely an alibi. The irony of a PG-13 Expendables II.

This story broke yesterday (I first read it yesterday morning at Collider), but since it was based on a translation of an interview that actor Chuck Norris gave to a Polish magazine, I thought I'd wait to make sure it wasn't a mistranslation.  But Sylvester Stallone has confirmed to Ain't It Cool News that The Expendables II will indeed be PG-13, although his explanation doesn't specifically blame Mr. Norris.  To wit, here, translated into English, is the 'offending' portion of Chuck Norris's interview:

"In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this,” Norris explained. “Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13."

And here is Sly Stallone's confirmation:

"Harry (Knowles), the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance... Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement, trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry..."

What is strange about this is not that Stallone and his band of 80s and 2000s action stars are catering to the whims of one very over-the-hill action icon, or that Norris thinks that hearing profanity is more harmful to youngsters than watching over-the-top violence (in a pre-Sopranos/24 era, Walker: Texas Ranger was once considered the most violent show on television).  No what's strange is that the first Expendables, judging on the theatrical cut, was clearly intended to be a PG-13 in the first place.  Watching the film back in August 2010, I distinctly remember thinking that this was an awfully soft R, and that up until a certain third-act action sequence involving Stallone with a knife, it appeared that there wasn't going to be all that much R-rated violence at all.  Stallone and company waffled back and forth prior to the film's release about its rating, and I am still convinced to this day that it was always intended to be a PG-13 movie.

Cameron Crowe's We Bought a Zoo gets a cute and clever poster and a PG rating.

Please don't stink.  Please be better than Elizabethtown.  I don't expect anything approaching Almost Famous, but please be at least as good as Vanilla Sky. By the way, somewhat unexpectedly, this one just got a PG for 'language and some thematic elements'.  As I wrote three years ago, it's pretty rare for a live-action film to get a PG in this day-and-age, and it's clear that Fox is going after the 'bring the whole family' crowd that made Marley and Me such a smash in Christmas 2008.

Scott Mendelson

That's a first! MPAA awards a PG-13 to The Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue.

Yes, indeed, it appears that not only will you be seeing that 6-8 minute IMAX preview of The Dark Knight Rises attached to IMAX prints of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (which has just been rated PG-13 for 'sequences of intense action and violence') but that extended scene has actually gotten its very own MPAA rating.  So the IMAX preview for The Dark Knight Rises has been rated PG-13 for 'some violence'.  To my knowledge, this is the first time a preview of a movie, even an extended scene, has received its own MPAA rating classification.  But yeah, that prologue will be appropriate for audiences thirteen years old and up.  I don't have anything to share, I just thought it was funny and The Dark Knight Rises generally works well as page-view bait anyway.  This post has been rated AS - Arbitrary and Shameless.

Scott Mendelson

07/16/99 - When the studios blew the best chance to legitimize the NC-17.

As seems to happen every year, bloggers, critics, and pundits are up-in-arms over an Oscar-bait film being awarded or threatened with an NC-17.  As usual, the film in question is a critically-acclaimed adult film with strong sexual content.  And once again, the many people arguing about this are missing the real problem.  Yes, it's annoying that ultra-violent horror films like Saw VII get R ratings while adult films with somewhat explicit sexual content get NC-17 ratings.  And yes it's annoying when somewhat more sensationalistic sexual content like that found in Black Swan gets an R while the apparently mature and allegedly thoughtful sexual content in Steve McQueen's Shame gets tagged with an NC-17.  But the problem is not with the rating, but with the enforcement of said rating.  Put simply, if major theater chains were willing to carry NC-17 pictures and mainstream media outlets would carry advertising for NC-17 pictures, then the debate over what film got what rating would be moot.  As it is, the problem with the NC-17 is not its seemingly arbitrary application (IE - far more likely for sex than for violence), but how it is viewed by the industry and the general moviegoers.

UPDATED - Just for fun: How does The Hangover franchise compare with other R-rated sagas?

UPDATED with end-of summer numbers.  I mentioned last week that The Hangover series, with just two movies under its belt, is just under $100 million away from becoming the biggest R-rated franchise of all time in domestic grosses.  In case anyone wants a comparison, here is a list, best I could accumulate... An asterix (*) means that one of the titles in the series in question squeaked by with a PG-13.  Obviously, to be counted, the series has to be predominantly R-rated, so Police Academy does not count despite its initial installment indeed being rated R.  And you have to have at least one sequel, so The Passion of the Christ ($371 million all by itself) does not count either, but I will include remakes and reboots into the respective horror franchises where applicable.  And yes, for those who care, I have also included the list of said franchises with 'adjusted-for-inflation' grosses.  Enjoy...

Scott Mendelson

How 2001 was a film game-changer IV: Joe Lieberman and the FTC use Columbine to kill the R-rating and (by proxy) mainstream films for adults.

This is one of a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

I don't have all that much to say about Colombiana, which I saw this weekend.  It's well-acted (save for one overwrought emotional exposition moment in the third act), and the action sequences are suitably tight and intense.  But the most noteworthy thing about this film is that its PG-13.  Not only do we have yet another adult-themed and relatively violent action picture that has been awarded a PG-13 rating, but you can clearly see and hear the alterations that went into the original product to make it so.  You can see the haphazard editing around the onscreen violence.  You can hear the muffling of gun shots and other sounds of violence (screams, punching, kicking, etc).  Colombiana is an adult film with adult sensibilities.  Yet in this current market, it was considered unwise to release this violent action picture with an R-rating.  It's been over ten years since the Joseph Lieberman-speared committee into the marketing of R-rated pictures effectively put a clamp on the 'for audiences 17 and over or with a parental guardian' rating when it came to mainstream entertainment.  And it's been ten years since we saw the effective end of adult-oriented R-rated fare in mainstream cinemas.

EXCLUSIVE! The jaw-dropping first shot from The Dark Knight Rises teaser!

Sorry, I couldn't help it...

Scott Mendelson

The Hangover part II crosses the $200 million mark, setting another R-rated record. Soon, it will be the top-grossing R-rated franchise ever.

Despite or because of the fact that it's merely a retread of the first film, The Hangover part II has crossed the $200 million mark on its 16th day of domestic release.  It's already past $350 million worldwide and looks like a sure bet for a $450 million worldwide gross, which would put it near the top ten of the R-rated record books.  If it makes it to $500 million worldwide, it will be just the fourth R-rated film in history to accomplish that feat.  Heck, there are only sixteen films R-rated films that have ever grossed $400 million worldwide, which explains why studios are so hesitant to greenlight uber-expensive R-rated films.  Anyway, with $200 million as of yesterday, The Hangover part II becomes just the third R-rated sequel in history to top $200 million, and part of the only R-rated franchise in history to have two films joining the $200 million club.  With The Hangover at $276 million and The Hangover part II at $204 million today and just days away from besting Saving Private Ryan ($216 million) to become the seventh-biggest R-rated film ever, the Wolfpack adventures officially becomes the most successful R-rated franchise in cinema history on a film-by-film basis. Heck, it's near the top for total dollars for pure R-rated franchises already.  By weekend's end, the two Hangover films will have surpassed the $487 million gross of all four Lethal Weapon pictures, with the $592 million total gross of The Matrix trilogy next up.  Heck, barring a complete collapse over the next month (always possible with screen bleed and competition from Bad Teacher), there is little chance that The Hangover 2 will fail to best Beverly Hills Cop's $234 million take, which would allow the Hangover franchise to occupy the #3 and #4 slots on the all-time list for R-rated films.  So yeah, there will definitely be a The Hangover part III in the next few years.

Scott Mendelson

The Hangover II scores $31.7 million on opening day. It looks like a $102-127 million five-day weekend.

The Hangover part II (review) grossed $31.7 million yesterday, scoring the third-biggest Thursday numbers in history.  The only bigger Thursday grosses were The Matrix Reloaded ($42 million, including $5 million in Wednesday evening sneaks) and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith ($50 million).  It's also the third-biggest R-rated single day, behind that $42 million opening day for The Matrix Reloaded and the $34 million Saturday for The Matrix Reloaded.  The picture did 32% of its total first day business at midnight.  The closest comparison of late indeed Paranormal Activity 2, which did 31% of its first day total ($20.1 million) in midnight screenings.  As far as the rest of the five-day weekend, it will arguably fall somewhere between the 3.2x multiplier of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (which would give The Hangover 2 $102 million over five-days) and the 6x weekend multiplier of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which would give the sequel an unlikely $186 million five-day total).  Relative disaster would be a multiplier equal to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2.72x = $86 million). The more likely result will be something similar to The Matrix Revolutions's 3.44x weekend multiplier (which would give The Hangover II $109 million) and the 4.02x multiplier for Superman Returns (which would equal $127 million over the holiday weekend).  This is all just fun with math for the moment, and we'll have a pretty good idea of the end result by this evening or tomorrow.

Scott Mendelson  

Hollywood Reporter thinks no R-rated film has opened to $100 million, can't quite recall, can't be bothered to check.

Yes, The Hangover 2 is tracking to perhaps be the first R-rated film to open at or above $100 million in a Fri-Sun 3-day weekend.  Of course, the film is opening on a Thursday and has a Memorial Day Monday, so we'll see how that impacts the numbers soon enough.  But The Hollywood Reporter can't be bothered to check if any R-rated film has ever opened to $100 million before (nor can they be bothered to state whether the proposed $110 million number is from the Fri-Sun portion, or the whole five-day opening).  Quote: "No R-rated film has ever opened to $100 million or greater at least none that anyone can remember."  Yes, the great and illustrious Hollywood Reporter couldn't spend 30 seconds on Box Office Mojo to look into the accuracy of that statement.  For the record, it is true.  The biggest 3-day R-rated opening was The Matrix Reloaded with $91.7 million.  That film also opened on a Thursday, which gave the film a $134 million four-day opening weekend.  The only other R-rated opening weekend to approach $100 million was the five-day opening weekend of The Passion of the Christ.  It opened on a Wednesday and grossed $125 million by Sunday, with $83 million of that coming from the traditional Fri-Sun weekend. I knew those box office numbers off the top of my head.  Call it a gift or a curse, but I have an uncanny knack for remembering box office numbers. But you know what, Hollywood Reporter, I LOOKED IT UP.  Ya know, just to be safe.  You damn-well should have too.  Oh, and the fact that we haven't had a $100 million opener since November doesn't mean we're in a slump!  It just means that $100 million openers are still rare enough for them to be newsworthy.

Scott Mendelson

MPAA thinks a young women being raped is more appropriate than a young woman initiating and enjoy sex?

There's a choice quote in this Emily Browning interview over at Nylon Magazine, which was reported by Cinemablend that merits a mention. Its implications are kinda shocking,. The crux is the discussion of changes that Zach Snyder had to make in order to ensure Sucker Punch (review) would win a PG-13 from the MPAA, which apparently took seven tries. I'll let Browning lay it out:

"I had a very tame and mild love scene with Jon Hamm. It was like heavy breathing and making out. It was hardly a sex scene... I think that it's great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn't like that. They don't think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they're from the Stone Age. I don't know what the f**k is going on and I will openly criticize it, happily. So essentially, they got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she's into it. And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That's the only way he could get a PG-13 (rating) and he said, 'I don't want to send that message.' So they cut the scene!"

I've often defended the MPAA when films are given harsher ratings for breaking clearly-outlined rules (if you have more than one 'f-word', you get an R, period). I've long argued that the real enemy is the major theater chains that won't screen NC-17 or unrated movies, as well as the major networks and newspapers that won't carry advertising for them. But this is a clear cut case of the MPAA showing serious puritanical colors. So, just to clarify, it appears that the MPAA had serious issues with the idea that Emily Browning having consensual sexual relations with Jon Hamm, but they had less of an issue with the idea that Jon Hamm was taking advantage of, perhaps even raping Emily Browning. Let me repeat that one more time: the MPAA was more comfortable with the idea of a young woman raped by an older man than with the idea of a young woman making her own choices in regards to her own sexuality. I don't even need to further editorialize here.

Scott Mendelson

Never bet on breaking records: Why I wouldn't have greenlit Guillermo Del Toro's R-rated, $150m version of HP Lovecraft's At the Mountain of Madness.

Let's be honest for a second. Under normal circumstances, Inception likely would not have been greenlit in its current form at Warner Bros. While Warner Bros. until recently had a reputation for giving lots of money to notable filmmakers and more-or-less staying out of their way, even they had their limits. Had Christopher Nolan not just delivered a $1 billion-grossing and critically-acclaimed superhero sequel, and had not Warner Bros. desperately wanted to guarantee that Nolan would return for what would become The Dark Knight Rises, Inception would have been a very different movie, if it even would have existed at all. On paper, would you green-light a $200 million science-fiction film based on an original screenplay that was full of complex ideas, difficult-to-explain story elements and a distinct lack of bright colors and conventional sex appeal? There are but a handful of filmmakers who could have made Inception as it was. Chris Nolan, coming off The Dark Knight, was one of them. Other than perhaps James Cameron and Steven Spielberg (George Lucas would have just funded the thing out of his own back-pocket), I cannot think of anyone else who could have gotten the greenlight without severely slashing the budget. Guillermo del Toro isn't one of those directors either.