Just what the world needs another watered down kid friendly movie with a theater full of kids saying exactly the words he wouldn't. They should just stop production.
First Lucas retires, now Expendables 2 PG-13!
- Thread starter SVTStingRay
- Start date
Just what the world needs another watered down kid friendly movie with a theater full of kids saying exactly the words he wouldn't. They should just stop production.
Godsmulligan
Active Member
I would like to see a movie where Chuck Norris beats Kevin Costner to death and then dies of cancer.
0neiros
Master Member
Oh Please...a few F-bombs are lost, big whoop. Aren't most of Chuck's movies actually PG-13? How dare a guy stand up for his principals, I guess if he were a cash ***** like the rest of hollywood, he'd be OK in your books. ****ing tell me, is my typing the F-word really ****ing adding any ****ing thing to this ****ing post? Or could you ****ing live without the word **** being used like a ****ing comma? This is a ****ing action movie, where ****ing cussing doesn't really ****ing add anything. Worried about your ****ing violence? Watch the first ****ing few minutes of ****ing Bones, or a CSI show, and that's on ****ing prime ****ing time on ****ing TV. Now read my post and ignore all the instances of **** or ****ing...is it still coherent? So...what did you exactly miss out on? To use a Pre-Hack RPF Standard, "Lighten up Francis".
Monster Dave
Sr Member
I read that too....I never thought it would have been Chuck whining about language in a movie that brings down the house of cards.
:facepalm
:facepalm
Sandman0077
Sr Member
The first movie wasn't even that good so I don't care either way. If they were going for a good story to fill with awesome actors then they wouldn't need to change anything to have Chuck Norris. Just replace him. But instead they are trying to get as many well known names in one room and create a story around them which was bluntly apparent in the first film.
I don't see how not cursing will make it even worse. Cursing doesn't make action, actors make action. If Hollywood is that worried their film will suck bc Chuck Norris won't be in it, there is obviously some underlining issues with it.
I don't see how not cursing will make it even worse. Cursing doesn't make action, actors make action. If Hollywood is that worried their film will suck bc Chuck Norris won't be in it, there is obviously some underlining issues with it.
Solo4114
Master Member
Here's the issue. The problem lies not with the loss of coarse language, but with the overall neutering of the content of the film to secure a PG-13 rating. If you watched the first film, it's graphic in both violence and language. THAT'S THE POINT. That's what the film is FOR. You'd be equally justified in saying "What gives?!" if the studio also announced that for the next Veggie Tales film, they're going to feature a lot of heavy drug use and explicit sex. If you go to a film to have a particular experience, when the studio juggles that experience around JUST so that they can market that they have a particular actor in it, you're entirely justified in being irked at the change.
And if the harsh language is gone but the violence remains, well, then it just calls into question one of my fundamental disconnects with people who have zero objection to violent content, but balk at the notion of WORDS.
It makes no sense that someone would have no problem with watching a film where you see a character unloading a shotgun into a crowd of hired goons, then bashing another over the head with said shotgun thereby causing permanent brain damage, followed by roundhouse-kicking a guy in the chest to where his ribcage cracks and punctures a lung, while simultaneously elbowing another dude in the jaw to shatter it so that he has to take nutrition through a tube for 8 months, followed by a punch to the throat of another guy that collapses his trachea....
...but it's a really bad thing if AFTER the character has done all that he says something like, "YEAH, motherf**kers! That'll teach you s**t-sucking b***ches to **** with me! A**holes!!"
Someone, please, explain the logic underlying that. Go ahead. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
And if the harsh language is gone but the violence remains, well, then it just calls into question one of my fundamental disconnects with people who have zero objection to violent content, but balk at the notion of WORDS.
It makes no sense that someone would have no problem with watching a film where you see a character unloading a shotgun into a crowd of hired goons, then bashing another over the head with said shotgun thereby causing permanent brain damage, followed by roundhouse-kicking a guy in the chest to where his ribcage cracks and punctures a lung, while simultaneously elbowing another dude in the jaw to shatter it so that he has to take nutrition through a tube for 8 months, followed by a punch to the throat of another guy that collapses his trachea....
...but it's a really bad thing if AFTER the character has done all that he says something like, "YEAH, motherf**kers! That'll teach you s**t-sucking b***ches to **** with me! A**holes!!"
Someone, please, explain the logic underlying that. Go ahead. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
I never use vulgarity myself in front of other people and even when I'm alone watching movies and playing games. I certainly don't try to type it in fully when I type here (though it still counts I guess). One of the coolest things I loved about The Dark Knight that nobody really caught was how very little profanity there was in the film. I think the only obvious line was when Jim Gordon says to the Joker "We got you, you son of a bi***". Even a lot of fan films that are set in The Dark Knight universe screw that up.
BUT! That doesn't the violence still can't give the film an R-rating. All I'm seeing here is language, not violence. And maybe Stallone will convince the director to still shoot the material so there will be an alternate cut.
Besides, I wasn't all impressed with the fake CGI blood in the first film.
BUT! That doesn't the violence still can't give the film an R-rating. All I'm seeing here is language, not violence. And maybe Stallone will convince the director to still shoot the material so there will be an alternate cut.
Besides, I wasn't all impressed with the fake CGI blood in the first film.
The R rating is slowly but surely becoming the new X/NC-17 rating. Nobody wants it, and everybody keeps trying to convince us that "It's still tough and nothing will be missing!" Take this Sly response.
Harry, 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...Sly
It's like the R rating never did anyone any good.
Harry, 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...Sly
It's like the R rating never did anyone any good.
I’m not entirely sure what’s up with all the self glorified “I don’t ever use profanity and I do just fine” posts. It’s wonderful that you choose not to use profanity, but that’s not really the discussion here. I seriously doubt that anyone concerned about the PG-13 rating is worried about a lack of profanity, it’s a lack of violence that they’re concerned about. It might sound juvenile to some, but that’s what people want in the Expendables. Nobody who went to see the first one in theaters was expecting any Oscar-worthy performances, or a perplexing story, or a deep underlying message, etc, etc… People just wanted a fun, gory, no-holds-barred action movie starring a bunch of old 80’s/90’s action stars, reminiscent of movies such as Commando, Predator, Rambo, and whatever else.
Chuck had the opportunity to read the script before he agreed to join the project. Yeah, it’s real great that he’s “standing up for what he believes in”, but no one twisted his arm and told him he had to be part of the cast. If he didn’t like what he saw in the script, he should have just declined the offer. Instead it sounds like he came in, and started demanding changes based upon his own moral standings. People who enjoyed the first film were expecting a sequel that was even more over the top, now it sounds like we’ll more likely be getting a neutered version because of one man’s personal beliefs. Seems like a pretty crappy thing to do.
Chuck had the opportunity to read the script before he agreed to join the project. Yeah, it’s real great that he’s “standing up for what he believes in”, but no one twisted his arm and told him he had to be part of the cast. If he didn’t like what he saw in the script, he should have just declined the offer. Instead it sounds like he came in, and started demanding changes based upon his own moral standings. People who enjoyed the first film were expecting a sequel that was even more over the top, now it sounds like we’ll more likely be getting a neutered version because of one man’s personal beliefs. Seems like a pretty crappy thing to do.
Solo4114
Master Member
Minor fix, but this.
And I say that Chuck's beliefs are illogical and nonsensical because he apparently has no problem with violence, but has a problem with expletives. Assuming his concerns have been accurately characterized.
To me, it sounds like the studio and Stallone were more concerned with who they could brag was on the roster, so that they could say "AND Chuck Norris!! That's right guys, the beard is BACK!" They could just as easily have said "Chuck. I understand that you have a brand to protect, but so do we. Did you see the last movie? Did you read the script? They axe-kicked Gary Daniels in the head to break his neck. That, by the way, was AFTER Randy Couture used a fully automatic shotgun to shred a crowd of thugs. And you're worried about a few F-bombs? Great. Then don't be in the film."
But no, instead, they wanted Chuck on the poster, so they'll soften the film AND hit the PG-13 demographic! This is about marketing and nothing else.
Who would have thought that The Expendables II would become the prime example of what's wrong with the ever-increasingly marketing-driven nature of Hollywood? Especially when The Expendables I illustrated the power of savvy marketing to still produce a film that does exactly what it says on the tin.
Wasn't that Terry Crews?
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE 110%! I don't swear, drink or smoke (and I think I eat right), but I love this stuff! I had a fun time with the first Expandables, but no where before or after the film's release would you find me making even a mention over the profanity or the violence. It never crossed my mind.
But Chuck Norris? This isn't the kind of thing actors should be doing. For one thing, it's just acting. The thing that I admire most in a lot of actors is their ability to "act" in ways that you normally wouldn't expect. Gregory Peck went from playing the #1 hero in To Kill a Mocking Bird to a mad Nazi scientist who clones baby hitlers! Christian Bale had a good stream of films before he did American Phsycho which, according to IMDB, his agent said it was career suicide.
This reeks of disappointment regardless of how awesome it will be.
Sandman0077
Sr Member
I curse like crazy now that I'm in the Army, but the point I was making was that they are clearly just trying to get that wow factor from actors names versus script like someone said about me. If Chuck doesn't curse then replace him. But they are more worried about his name on a poster than anything.
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
you mean i will never be able to experience the utter joy of someone in this sequel uttering "remember this **** at christmas! that makes me so sad.
I loved the Rambo films. I don't remember much vulgarity. I enjoyed the first Expendables but don't remember any vulgarity. Does that mean it didn't have any? Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this conversation. So that means it didn't make the movie memorable enough that it can't be cut. I'd much rather watch a PG-13 movie that contains almost cartoon like violence with my son than a movie filled with f-bombs.
John
John
Similar threads
