As of yesterday afternoon, what had merely been "threatened" by Sylvester Stallone has been confirmed. The third entry in the Expendables franchise, the series that brings together various 1980's and 1990's action icons to blow stuff up together, will go out with a PG-13. The film has been given said rating for "violence including intense sustained gun battles and fight scenes, and for language," which sounds about right. The last two films have flirted with the less severe rating, with obvious signs of post-production tinkering (dubbed dialogue, a lack of hard profanity, CGI blood) and talk that Expendables 2 cameo player Chuck Norris wanted the foul language removed. The first two Expendables films eventually went out as R, but this time Stallone meant business. But does he expect today's kids to show up for The Expendables 3?
This is not an argument about whether an R-rated Expendables 3 will be a better movie than the PG-13 version. The PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard was many times better (and ironically more violent) than the R-rated A Good Day to Die Hard. The question is whether or not Millennium Films (the producer) and/or Lionsgate (the distributor) are sacrificing a rather vital attribute of their franchise (R-rated violence) for an audience demographic that is quite possibly uninterested in the film. Hollywood infamously targets young men between the ages of 11-25, yet week after week we get major new releases that play in to over-25 year olds in greater numbers than said younger demographic. Transformers: Age of Extinction, the fourth film in a series based on a 1980's toy line/animated series about cars that turn into robots, played just 27% to the under-18 audience demographic.
We all know about would-be R-rated films being cut or explicitly fashioned to be tailored to younger kids, which results in "R-13" films like White House Down, Taken, and Angels & Demons. Yet these films still play mostly to older demographics. Even a seemingly youth-skewing film like Captain America: The Winter Soldier played 21% under-18 years old, with nearly 50% of the audience comprised of audiences aged 18-34. Godzilla played 60% over-25, which is actually the same figure as The Expendables. The Expendables 2 played 65% over-25 years old. In 2013, the audience too young to gain entry into an R-rated movie (ages 2 through 17) without a parent or guardian made up just 22% of the movie audience.
Actually, a 17-year old can get into an R-rated movie alone, so that number is even smaller. Whether it's a case of young kids not going to the movies as much or (comparatively) older audiences are flocking to the theaters in greater numbers, the result is the same. Theoretically R-rated entertainments like Robocop or Total Recall are being constructed as PG-13 ventures for an audience that comprises only a small portion of the theater-going demographic. Now there is of course value in being able to release a film that allows you to accept each and every paying customer without any conditions. And after the box office failures of The Last Stand, Parker, Bullet to the Head, Escape Plan, and Sabotage, Stallone and company may be wondering if their core audience has deserted them and hopes to rope in younger recruits.
I'd argue that's a risky gambit, as it would be akin to kids who grew up with Pierce Brosnan 007 films being thrilled at the prospect of Roger Moore making a return engagement in the early 2000's. But even if kids do turn up in slightly larger numbers, how much of the older audience will Expendables 3 potentially lose due to older action junkies who don't want to see a theoretically watered-down Expendables film? How much luck with the film have enticing kids too young to care much about watching their parents' (or grandparents') action heroes? Will the kids be too busy seeing Walt Disney's Guardians of the Galaxy and/or Paramount's (a division of Viacom, Inc.) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Is a PG-13 Expendables film, which may end up being a strong action picture that merely lacks blood and F-words, at a disadvantage by virtue of its "lesser" rating? Will this attempt to snare potentially uninterested younger audiences in turn scare away the very audience who otherwise would be most excited to see the film? On a broader scale, Hollywood should be giving serious thought to their all-consuming desire to target the young male demographic above all else. Most movies skew older and the ones that tend to score big with the kids are the female-centric titles. The Fault in Our Stars played 79% under-25 and 82% female on opening weekend.
When Hollywood obsesses over the young-boy demographic, they are really targeting their films to the alleged desires of a demographic (young boys 12-17) that makes up around 7%-8% of moviegoers (the gender split is 50/50 and 12-17 makes up 15% total). In an era when even Transformers 4 plays to older moviegoers, a PG-13 Expendables 3 may be giving up more than it's gaining. We'll know soon enough, but this feels like a case of stopping a field goal by allowing a touchdown. At the very least, Lionsgate can potentially make more money by offering an "Unrated Cut" on DVD and Blu Ray six months down the line.
Come what may, The Expendables 3, starring (deep breath) Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Arnold Schwarzenegger Terry Crews Randy Couture, Kellen Lutz, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas, and legendary 80's action hero Kelsey Grammer, opens on August 15th As always, we'll see.
