Hacker Cinema
Logan
2017 · Film · 137 min
Part of The Wolverine Collection
Directed by James Mangold
In the near future, a weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X in a hideout on the Mexican border. But Logan's attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant arrives, pursued by dark forces.
20 positive2 negative14 neutralfrom 36 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
44 comments on Hacker News
I'm reminded of this prescient scene from the movie Logan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAwc1XIOFME
My SO's inner child loves dinos, so of course we just had to see the new Jurassic movie. Script was so obviously checkbox driven we laughed at that many times.
Afterwards I commented that it would have been interesting to see someone do something entirely fresh with the dino genre. Like how Logan did a new spin on the X-men franchise.
I think the sequels are easy to ignore and tolerable bycatch if it means you get strong films amongst them - Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Logan, Infinity War (even just for a great villain), and (last but definitely not least) Into the Spider-Verse, etc. That last one is a relevant example given how many Spider-Man films there are and how few of them I've bothered watching.
>The MCU was the height of films because it managed to wrangle more than half-a-century of comic book lore (much of it previously deemed unfilmable) into a coherent and compelling multi-film epic that was both entertaining and (lightly) philosphical and political.
That's more of a parlor trick than art. "See how much simplistic comic book storytelling randomness I can fit in 30+ movies, and even live room for 70% of it be explosions and fight scenes".
>it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe
"Talented" is begging the question.
IMNSHO, not only is the writing, acting, and directing mediocre by-the-numbers blockbuster crap, but even what they supposedly do best (the special effects and fights and such) are shodilly made.
There are movies made from comics that are worth a damn cinematically (Logan, Sin City, Watchmen, Constantine) but 99% of MCU is not in that set.
Mando and Andor finally got it. Or, more accurately, they knew what the rest of us did, that the purpose of the medium - any medium - is to tell a story. The finbros and Disney people, not being normal humans, are (hopefully, were) trying to deliver a Star Wars experience. Yeah, whatever the hell that means (anytime my job description has the word "Experience" in it, that's almost always a red flag).
Did MCU not teach you anything, Disney? "Hey, I got a great idea for a Western . ." bam! Logan. "Do you know, what if we had like a cold war paranoia spy movie and . ." bam! Winter Solider. "Dang, so if you have a heist movie, but the twist is we have a shrink ray and . . "bam! Ant-Man. Tie all of 'em up with a McGuffin, a Big Bad, and, ding, instant cinematic universe. See what we did there? We made stories first. It's also, incidentally, what the great Star Wars video games did as well. Even the not-so-great; the elite storm trooper who loses her faith is frickin' amazing (damn, Finn got robbed, screenplay-wise . . also, again, his character does not need to exist . . goddammit, stop wasting my time, Finbro Disney People!).
Probably "Don't Waste Anyone's Time" is a good one sentence screenwriting lesson.
Anyhoosit. Enough grousing from this old fart.
I'm not sure I would agree with TLOU, but I completely agree with Portal and Bioshock.
Portal is a puzzle game with a bit of a silly story to move the puzzles along. I didn't care about the protagonist, in the same way that I don't care about the art work in a chess game. It's lovely but I'm not emotionally invested in it in the same way I'm not emotionally invested in Fast and Furious.
Bioshock 1/2/Infinite was similar. The world had been lovingly crafted, the antagonists and enemies had backstories but the main character was not anyone I cared about. Having a backstory is completely different to having a relatable protagonist that I want to see succeed.
For every Logan there are 6(?) X-Men films that are just explosions.
The studios milked the trend for what it was worth, all the way to audience exhaustion.
All the while putting out each movie crappier than the previous, towards the stupid buildup to Infinity War (the epitome of tedious formulaic crap), with very few exceptions (for example Logan which at least was a little more gritty or Thor Ragnarok which had camp humor).
They also never took any chances, or tried to put a real director in charge as opposed to some studio committee (again, with very few exceptions).
Same goes for the Star Wars franchise, once the stuff of nerd dreams, and now more like "what, another SW universe movie out, jesus...".
Logan was produced by 20th Century Fox.
To the best of my knowledge the X-Men films made before Disney acquired the X-Men rights in 2019 (along with the rest of Fox) were made in partnership with Marvel Entertainment (the publishing and licensing company) and not Marvel Studios (the Disney "cinematic universe" subsidiary).
Was Logan Marvel Studios, though, or Fox? (I know I could easily look this up, I'm just making conversation).
In the 00s I really liked the Marvel movies. Then came Marvel Studios to ruin everything. But even in the beginning, the first couple of films were really good: Iron Man, Captain America and Thor. But once they started to expand the "MCU" I quickly lost interest in the films. I like character driven stories that focus on the person behind the power. Batman is interesting because of Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is interesting because of Peter Parker etc. When you start doing these big mash-ups and team stories, like Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers, you lose focus on the individuals and it becomes lots of long, drawn-out & boring action sequences.
But if I remember correctly, Fox held the film rights to the X-Men property. So when Marvel Studios got off the ground, they did everything but X-Men. I don't know if that ever changed.
In any case, I agree. Logan was really good. And it was really good, in my opinion, because it was character-driven and not just 13 hours of drawn out, boring as hell, CGI "porn" action sequences. And I figure it was like that because it wasn't made by Marvel Studio.
The first few are quite enjoyable flicks. I watched few randomly but it quickly became boring. They quickly became copy and paste with bit of a different paint movies.
I would suggest to watch Logan, its excellent.
Yep, that's true, good call, Logan's got some heft. I wasn't even thinking about the X-Men movies (which are, to be fair, and as you note, only MCU-adjacent)
While not technically in the MCU, a Marvel movie that did go a bit deeper, and off-formula, was Logan.
Yes,there were some familiar beats,but I think also did a good job of exploring what it means to grow old, to look back on a life of battles won, but war lost, to envisage a different future for the next generation over a simple repeat of the mistakes of this one,in spite of the futility of that desire.
It was a very different look at familiar characters,and a very sober alternative to the "hero always wins in the end" narrative.
Don't look back - you made the right call. I enjoyed Westworld S1, and just finished S4. So full of self-important idiocy. Every line half-whispered as though it's the ultimate drama, but not a single character anyone might care about or identify with.
One of their problems was dragging various actors/characters through season after season - I got absolutely sick of every single one of them. I don't know how they managed their lines with a straight face.
Another was setting everyone up for this ongoing global-stakes quest. Andor just showed that you can make an exceptional story out of small slices of a bigger setting. It often feels to me that when a show/movie sees its character attain super powers, they struggle with storytelling afterwards, being forced to invent higher and higher stakes. Marvel movies (outside of something like Logan), The Matrix (IMO), etc.
I think it's more about the stakes, obstacles, "psychic wounds" etc, than the actual superpowers. Being born with superpowers isn't that big a deal, if you're in a film where every other significant character also has superpowers.
Spider-man lets his uncle die because he's busy showing off. Batman in The Dark Knight "has no cartilage in his knees, scar tissue on his kidneys, concussive damage to his brain, and a host of other issues". Bruce Banner is subject to fits of uncontrollable rage. Logan is dying and in constant pain. Doctor Strange's hands are mutilated due to a car crash caused by his own arrogance.
IIRC Wonder Woman has a naivity due to growing up on a remote island populated by women, but she's basically confident and hypercompetent throughout. Captain Marvel's big issue is she's forgotten she has galactically important superpowers. Black Widow's character has a bit more going on, and I liked the film better than the other two. But, I think there is a difference between the amount of freedom big budget movie screenwriters have with male and female characters.
At lower budgetary levels, you're more likely to see women with less straightforwardly heroic characters, facing more interesting or engaging stakes.
Before Captain Marvel Brie Larson was doing great indie flicks like Room and Free Fire. She's said she was quite conflicted about taking the role, and I can't blame her for taking the money but I think I understand her hesitation.
Surely the whole point of Watchmen was that superheros aren't better than other people. For the last couple of decades cinema's been reinventing (male) superheroes as "complex characters" with flaws, moral weaknesses and questionable motivations.
Like you say, maybe I'm remembering selectively but I think that's less the case for Black Widow, Captain Marvel or Wonder Woman than it is for Iron Man, Superman or Batman.
Can you imagine Marvel greenlighting a female-led equivalent of Logan?
For what it's worth, I now regret saying anything, and will try to restrain myself from saying anything else.
Every era is an era of horrible films. That’s Sturgeon’s law for you.
Looking at the 2010s as a whole, we got to watch some amazing films.
We got great hard sci-fi like Gravity, Arrival, Ex Machina. The coming of age genre saw entries like Ladybird, Eighth Grade and Booksmart. Animation reached new heights with films like Inside Out, Spider-Man into the Spiderverse, and Kubo and the Two Strings.
We got comedies like The Artist, Grand Budapest Hotel, Death of Stalin, and Jojo Rabbit. Dramas like Moonlight, Fences, Spotlight, Parasite, Blue Jasmine.
Even in the ever-popular comic book genre, we got Logan and Joker playing at a very different level.
But also, it was the decade of the MCU. Let’s not underestimate what Disney has achieved with that — one big overarching story spanning over twenty films, bringing much deeper character development and more serious themes than what we’d gotten used to from blockbusters.
I dunno, Batman spans the gamut from "campy bang pows" to "lite morality plays" -- not quite to the extent of, say, Joker, but some of the Nolan Batmans were way more existential and dialogue/monologue-driven than the older Batmans.
Maybe a more similar distinction would be the X-Men/Wolverine movies vs Logan, where the latter is a more introspective take on the character, and so the story is relatively more important than the action sequences.
I would comment as follows.
Iron Man - sort novel for setting marvel tone but mostly banal action movie
Iron Man 2 - banal action movie
Thor - banal action movie
Captain America: The First Avenger - particularly banal action movie
Marvel's The Avengers - banal action movie
Iron Man 3 - banal action movie, sort of interesting to see protagonist suffering PTSD anxiety from being a superhero
Thor: The Dark World - banal action movie
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - first interesting take. Patriotism is not the same as government obedience. Real fight choreography approaching a soft john wick.
Guardians of the Galaxy - Early rock and roll aesthetic pretty interesting
Avengers: Age of Ultron - banal action movie, perhaps mcu lowpoint
Ant-Man - superhero heist movie, literally deconstructs larger than life superhero tropes. I think thumbs up
Captain America: Civil War - by this point doing the mcu's own thing, which is novel, but probably not interesting outside
Doctor Strange - banal action movie
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - aesthetic still feels mostly fresh.
Spider-Man: Homecoming - super down to earth high school drama, frustrated working class villains suffering the fallout of superheroes, seems interesting to me
Thor: Ragnarok - great film, very genre savvy. Rare achievement to make godly strength brutes feel really engaging to watch. Taika Waititi is a genius.
Black Panther - pretty good. interesting aesthetic. directly addressing racial tensions.
Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame - Mostly fan service and not too surprising but honestly still novel.
Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ehhh I really don't remember
Captain Marvel - Beginning had some great hard sci fi imo. Thought the ending message of newly apotheosizied female not needing to prove herself to her evil male mentor was a solid take, whereas a classic "mano a mano" kind of showdown would be so typical of the genre
Spider-Man: Far From Home - Villain emphasizing themes of the power of deceptive media? heck yeah.
Wandavision - Really bizarre and interesting start. Unfortunately non-self-aware conclusion
Falcon and Winter Soldier - Active discussions of race and the problematic nature of superheroes being supremacists? Very good.
Loki - kind of a super cliche topic (time cops) that is also somehow really rare? eh.
honorable mentions for Logan and Deadpool for being just great; and the Amazing Spiderman for its excellent aesthetics despite terrible writing.
The original Pirates of the Caribbean was a superb work of its genre with classic acting, humor, and subtle characterization that you do not give it credit for.
https://youtu.be/zhdBNVY55oM
As far as claiming “every superhero film” - that’s a tall order. While one can say most MCU (and perhaps DCEU films) share a certain level of formulaic quality that make them easy to reduce and denounce, there are always outliers. Consider the neo-Western greatness of Logan. The contemplative complexity of Unbreakable. I didn’t even mention the late Heath Ledger’s performance in The Dark Knight.
Do we benefit from drawing lines between "cinema" and... whatever you might call a Marvel film? What do we call a Marvel film, if not "cinema"?
Further, why isn't anything at risk? Infinity War got about as close to real risk as any MCU film has so far, and I think if Mr. Scorsese watched that film he'd realize it's actually possible to create emotional drama within the context of a "Marvel Movie".
Also, are we really drawing the line arbitrarily at Marvel specifically? Where does "Joker" fit? Watchmen, The Dark Knight, Wonderwoman, 300, Scott Pilgrim, V for Vendetta? What about undeniably "Marvel" films like Logan, and Into the Spiderverse? Do we dismiss all media sourced from the pages of comics, or just the MCU specifically?
I ask both to make a rhetorical point, and because I genuinely don't understand. Mr. Scorsese writes this opinion piece like there's a shared understanding of what a "Marvel movie" is, but I don't know that there is such an understanding.
> Every commercial product is designed for maximum ROI.
Not true with art.
> You really think movie theaters would rather show movies that don’t fill it?
Disney takes a larger cut per screen, so the theater actually makes less money on Disney films. If they don't show Disney films on their best screens, they'll lose the right to show any Disney films. It's extortion. [1] [2]
> Ever heard of Blumhouse? Their entire business model is to make low budget movies that cost under $10 million and they usually have a higher ROI than Disney movies.
These are horror films. That genre has always been cheap to film. Blumhouse is a great businessman. I don't think this model fits for every genre, eg. period pieces and art house cinema.
> Why not force other people to innovate instead of building on top of Star Wars?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't. Disney should start innovating instead of stretching its licenses over and over. Pixar has become garbage since Disney took over. They're not going to make risky films like Logan with their IP, either.
I'm doing everything I can to get into this market, and I'm terrified of having to compete with this juggernaut. If they're going to play hard ball with their IP, I'm going to lobby for looser IP protections. It's good for consumers and creatives anyway.
[1] https://mashable.com/2017/11/01/star-wars-last-jedi-theaters-disney/
[2] https://qz.com/1479408/small-theater-chains-worry-a-mid-century-rule-is-all-that-stands-between-them-and-extinction/
Logan not even Marvel Studios it's 20th Century Fox so that makes it 0 in 10 :P For me, it went from I want to see every Marvel movie in the cinema to stream it from Netflix to I won't pay any extra if it's not on Netflix.
I really like the Star Wars universe, but the only good new movie was Rogue One. It worked because it was a completely separate story only loosely tied to the original films.
There's just so many Star Wars movies, and so many Marvel movies, and while I've seen most in theaters, they are basically juvenile blockbuster cookie cutter crap.
The first 3 star wars films where important for their era, but most of the later ones are just forgettable sci-fi (for non-discerning fans). Not to mention letting down parts of the canon (e.g. the Solo movie, or "Kylo Ren", a hipster/teenage goth abomination that took Darth Vader's iconic status and pissed all over it).
Marvel too has movie diarrhea, with 1 in 10 movies being anything to write home about (eg. Logan).
I'd vote for less superhero movies and less Star Wars reboots and sequels/prequels, and more original stories. Plus, where's that Foundation series?
> The top audiences for Logan were actually a combination of superhero (which we already knew) and “rugged male action lead” (which we didn’t know with certainty). This can be better seen by noting that key “rugged male action lead” predictions like The Magnificent Seven (in blue above), John Wick (in green above) and Terminator Genisys (in blue above) were also present in the top 20 list of actual audiences. This result is a win-win because the new audience “adds” to the core superhero audience, and can potentially be used to extend the reach of the movie beyond that core audience.
I wish they'd include saturation and release dates as factors as I'm sure releasing a new rugged make lead superhero movie every week would have diminishing returns at some point.
Could mean local community farming hands will suffer from possible job loss and in turn cant make money the way they used to. If people lose those jobs where do they turn, people living in the rural communities do so out of cost or personal preference, so where do the former go if their income disappears?
I guess if you picture it more like in the movie Logan where its just a giant corporate run automated farm that displaces regular farmers who cant afford the setup that seems pretty dark and dystopic.
See the movie Logan, of all things, for a pretty well-conceived (though quietly ominous) take on this.
I’m surprised he’s 78 but not too worried that that’ll weaken his performance. According to IMDB, Stewart lost 21 pounds for the movie “Logan” [0] in order to portray a sickly Prof. Xavier. Dropping weight as a wrestler was incredibly painful even as a HS wrestler, so I think he must be very healthy for a man in his late seventies to even consider such a regimen.
If anything, Stewart’s old age will be an asset. The final TNG movies had him acting as an action hero; now the new show will be inclined to have more cerebral conflicts.
[0] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3315342/trivia?ref_=m_tt_trv_trv
> Black Mirror has gone downhill in an effort to create a mass audience. (Mostly the fourth season)
I just wanted to say that I strongly disagree. "USS Callister" and "Hang the DJ" in particular were great episodes in my opinion and very well received overall. "Black Museum" was also quite good. And "Metalhead", together with the black and white versions of Fury Road and Logan, presented a very interesting view of a mostly hopeless future.
Most comments here just seem to generally crap on all video game movies to date (correct) and surmise that it's a losing concept (wrong).
Movies afraid to deviate away from source material I don't think applies to the problem. I've probably seen most video game movies (even the cringe-worthy Uwe Boll ones) and I'd say the overwhelming problem is no one on set even bothering to look at the source material, or understanding what they're trying to do.
Someone mentioned Edge of Tomorrow, which never was a game. It was based on a very light-sci-fi japanese novel, in turn inspired by a player's forum account of restarting a game over and over in order to incrementally learn enough to finish it.
But it doesn't really matter whether Edge of Tomorrow was or was not based on a video game. The fact that it works as a movie and you can think about it in terms of a video game proves that there's no issue with making a video game movie.
The problem with Hollywood sometimes or often putting out crap is a Hollywood problem, not a medium or genre problem.
Think of a movie you thought had all potential to be good, but turned out bad, and then google the backstory on its production. I'll put $10 on saying that it most likely suffered from "too many chefs"/creation by committee, and focus-grouping it to death, instead of trusting the vision of the creator(s), whether that be screenwriter, director or other.
This is obviously subjective, but why is the best Marvel movies Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Deadpool and Logan?
For example, James Mangold did both The Wolverine and Logan, what changed between them?
The argument that seems to be espoused in this comment, and varous others[0], is that Disney only wants to make "dumbed down" traditional US-style children's / "family" movies and therefore will turn any company they buy to that purpose. Several of the hosts on pop culture/entertainment industry podcasts I listen to have said the same thing.
However, it seems to me (and at least Peter Sciretta at SlashFilm Daily has expressed a similar sentiment) that this would not necessarily be Disney's strategy for Fox. As was recently pointed out on the SlashFilm podcast, Disney already has so many subsidiaries making family-friendly movies (Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.) that they can hardly find enough sufficiently spaced-out weekends on the calendar to release them all. Movies like Logan, and shows like those on FX and FXX, have been critically acclaimed and financially successful. Would it make more sense for Disney to turn Fox into yet another family-friendly content company to compete with all their other family-friendly content companies that are already potentially cannibalizing each other, or use it to expand into a new adult-oriented niche with existing critically acclaimed and financially successful content?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922925
Logan, guardians of the galaxy and Deadpool fairly soundly proved that unsafe movies can be popular. But at Disney it's about maximizing profits. If you can get all of the family to go see a movie rather than just anyone over 16, you're making more money.
Everyone's definition of "good movies" differs, and that's excellent. I, for one, consider the average MCU movie to be a step above even very good movies like Logan and some of the recent X-Men titles.
From a geek standpoint, I can't wait for these universes to be merged.
Yes, nobody wants good movies like Logan!
Know what we need more? Mediocre movies like the ones Marvel have been making. Know what's better than a good movie? A shallow movie full of forced jokes.
Now we can see the Fantastic Four facing space pirates that sleep with pacifiers in their mouths, maybe hugging teddy bears to. That would be a good movie!
Now they're gonna get worse.
Before that, we could at least hope to see a good movie like Logan. Now if Marvel does them, we know they're going to be mediocre like all other Marvel movies, with bad jokes every 87 seconds.
It isn't about length of screen time. The different mediums have different opportunities and obligations. What is important is the emotional weight of the screen time given. Plenty of movies, even super hero movies like Logan, are able to give that weight in short bursts.
That's a fair analysis. They are blockbusters first, and superhero movies second. I do hope that the genre will evolve towards more interesting topics beyond Good vs. Evil. The Dark Knight showed a nuanced view of how one cannot exist without the other, even within one hero's mythos itself. Unfortunately movies like The Dark Knight and Logan that are willing and capable of tackling nuance and complexity in a feature film aren't common for the genre.
I'd argue that the vast majority of superhero movies are engineered through focus-group testing to be as palatable to as many people as possible that they become bland.
Logan was the only genre movie in recent memory that eschewed this formula and confronted the messy topic of the senescence of the age of the superhero.
It's like someone said "lets make all those comics teenage nerds used to love into movies for adults -- while not only keeping everything as simplistic but making it even more simplistic and shallow".
I was reading all the Marvel stuff when I was a kid/young teenager (5-6 comic magazines every week) but I never understood the point behind modern superhero movies. Those comics were shallow and childlish as well, but, depending on the writer, sometimes touched things beyond that, and at the very least, they explorer some subjects that mattered to their audience: young teenagers.
Today's superheroes movies are watched by 20 to 40 year olds as well, and they don't put any effort to matter at all.
Even Nolan's Batman is at a young teenage level understanding of the world, it just has better cinematography and more than the average comic-movie gore (because it's allowed to show that to kids nowadays) but no real life grit (because that's considered too confusing and adult) and no sexuality either (ditto). The plots and the "moral dilemmas" in the movies are laughable ( https://xkcd.com/1004/ ).
Maybe Logan points to a future where such movies can be actually good, but it's not exactly there yet either.
I have seen baby driver, it was ok except large plot holes (especially around his girlfriend and boss behavior which made little sense to me by the end of movie). Dunkirk does not seem my thing, but I will check Logan, thanks.
While that came about as a form of corporate abuse, the scene in the movie was less about corporations abusing public roads to improve bottom line, and more about a specific corporation trying to kill a specific farmer to take his land!
Source: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=logan
CTRL+F for "So they were on highways today on those trucks"
The whole scene is about Big Corn trying to take a specific plot of land whose owner would not sell.
In that situation, it's less about the dangers of autonomous vehicles, and more about corporations are willing to murder others. The next scene involves guns and fighting.
> but that once it's accepted, corporations will abuse the roads to help their bottom line
Those evil corporations, being all corporate-y!
I haven't seen the movie Logan but the gist is that you think BigCorp will modify their cars so they drive dangerously fast, threatening the other non-AI cars on the road? And they will risk killing people or damaging vehicles in order to improve shipping time? And you think this will be prevalent? There won't be economic, legal, hiring, or social consequences from police, shareholders, politicians, employees, and the AI companies? Because they're big corporations run by greedy CEOs who get away with anything?
After seeing the movie Logan, I was curious if the movie was taking a jab at the autonomous vehicle trend by portraying them as a danger to ma & pa drivers on the highway. It showed a crowded highway full of shipping containers pushing a truck hauling horses off the road. It seems the message was not that the technology can't be courteous, but that once it's accepted, corporations will abuse the roads to help their bottom line. It makes me wonder if that is a valid concern.
I don't understand why people keep expecting them to look like modern trucks. I think in terms of visuals, the movie Logan did a really good job of imagining what a driverless truck could/would/should look like: basically a sled with a container on top.
The movie used them as part of a dystopian future, with an accident caused by one of the trucks' negligence, so let's try not to do that. And I hope we'd be better at clustering them into container "trains" for efficiency instead of seeing them all separated. But in terms of design I see no reason why you'd have a faux cab on the front.
This also answers the battery issue. Why swap batteries when you could just swap sleds. Each sled could carry a container ~100 miles from one charge station to the next. When it gets to a station just park behind the next sled and slide the load from one to the other. New sled can keep going, old sled can recharge while it waits for the next load.
Not sure that really changes the point: Disney has a bunch of things aimed at different age ranges, just not using the Disney brand.
The latest X men film, 'Logan' is R 18, as was the previous one. And Buena Vista have a bunch of dramas aimed at adults.