R-Rated Disney

>>93385546
They're already successful as they are. Why would they need to make an R-rated movie?

File: Touchstone_Pictures_logo.png (166KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x800px

>>93385546
>Should Disney make a movie for mature audiences only? Would it be successful?
they answered these questions in the 1980s.

The answers are sure and yes.

File: whoFramedRogerRabbit_eddieValiant.jpg (45KB, 700x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x402px

>>93385546
It wasn't R-Rated, but Who Framed Roger Rabbit was pretty mature. I loved it as a kid, but I didn't really understand it until I was an adult.

>>93385546
Considering half people nowadays watch disney movies because waifu princesses, then yes. R-rated princess movies would be a win.

>>93385565
To push the boundaries of what can be done with animation?

Walt originally wanted to make cartoons for all audiences, not just kids.

>>93385546
It would be awesome but I bet it wouldn't be a commercial success. Look at media in general now, everything that comes out is infantile, and rated pg13 to reach as many consumers as possible. Making something for a "target audience" is like wanting to make less money.

File: 95693.jpg (80KB, 440x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 440x600px

>>93385634
Well, Disney is largely responsible in the west for animation being seen as something for children. If they made an adult movie and it was a hit, it could forever change that perception.

>>93385546
Deadpool
Logan

>>93385726
It wouldn't be a hit, because of that perception.

>>93385588
/thread

>>93385726
this >>93385791
people would got to see the movie expecting something childlish with a maigic of disney.

Then they would get disappointed and movie would make no money. Later not only disney but other companies would learn by example and drop an idea like that for years to come.

>>93385620
All audiences doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>93385588
Too bad they don't do movies under the Touchstone name now that they own Marvel and Star Wars.

>>93385791
The Disney/Pixar name alone could make it a hit, plus the controversy it would generate: OMG Disney making an R-Rated film??!! = Free publicity

File: images.jpg (24KB, 278x529px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 278x529px

>>93385838
If this movie could make $$$ with an R-rating, imagine one from the House of Mouse itself.

>>93386194
If more cartoon movies with an R-Rating will make lots of money, I bet Disney's just going to buy up the studios that make R-rated blockbuster cartoon movies and then let them do their thing.

>>93385849
Please elaborate.

>>93386690
Not that anon but Walt wanted to create cartoons that can be enjoyed by both young and old generations, as in they can both watch the cartoon and enjoy it. Not just have the cartoon be targeted to a specific age group.

Is it too much to ask for a Disney animated movie to drop a few "fucks" and "shits" here and there, a graphic and bloody death, and some bare T&A once in a while?

>>93387625
Yes. They're a multi-billion dollar company. One "fuck" or "shit" here could cost them millions, because someone will pretend to get triggered by it in an attempt to get the billions of dollars that the Disney company has, and even if it Disney would always win those cases thanks to their legions of lawyers, it would be a constant battle against myriads of greedy dumbasses.
And of course, those legions of lawyers also cost lots of money, so ultimately, Disney can only lose, never win.
Best to never lose by never daring it in the first place, until other smaller companies make it mainstream-acceptable first.

File: tmp_30068-14363163325741648043709.png (327KB, 427x400px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 427x400px

>>93385620
R-rated movies are not "pushing the boundries" you fucking idiot. You act as if it hasn't been done before when there are many already.

>Walt originally wanted to make cartoons for all audiences, not just kids

And an R-rated movie would go against that, because you're still alienating a huge part of an audience for a misguided attempt at "maturity".

>>93386194
The only reason it was even remotely profitable was because it was made with such a shoestring budget it was borderline illegal. If it had the budget of an average Disney movie it would've just barely broke even.

>>93386194
That movie barely made 140 million globally, it didn't even top 100 million domestic.

The only way they ever got the budget so low that could even remotely be considered a success was literally illegal tactics.