Shortly after Watchmen's second weekend in theaters, word began to spread that because the film was a financial failure, Warner Brothers would stop making R-rated superhero movies (even though Watchmen wasn't really a "superhero movie") and start concentrating more on PG-13 superhero movies, like The Dark Knight (which should've been R-rated). Confused yet? But that's not stopping Warners from taking wild chances on other R-rated material, like Zack Snyder's $100 million all-female "Alice in Wonderland with machine guns," Sucker Punch -- due to begin production this fall (with an October 2010 release date), starring Evan Rachel Wood, Vanessa Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, and Emma Stone

So they can't make an R-rated Batman movie, but line up an all-female cast on an original script set in the 1950s with no established audience and, heck, Warners will throw a good $100 million at it. Why not? The NY Observer says they'd be "shocked" if the studio actually moves ahead on this project, now that lead Amanda Seyfried has dropped out -- coupled with the fact that the last time they gave Snyder over a hundred million, he gave them a film that won't even come close to making that money back. Is Sucker Punch really that much of a gamble, or will the idea of hot young starlets kicking ass bring the horny teenage fanboys (and girls) to theaters in droves?

Personally, I like that Warner Bros. is taking these risks. And maybe they can afford to with The Dark Knight cleaning house and three more Harry Potter films on the way, but if we're not going to get our hardcore R-rated superhero movies, then there needs to be a happy medium. They need to satisfy that audience with something cool and flashy, like Sucker Punch.

What do you think? Is Sucker Punch a risky investment considering what happened to Watchmen? Or do you think the all-female action film will be too hot to resist?