Once Upon a Time in the West is (or was) rated PG-13 :o
But for the most part, mainstream PG-13 movies suck.
[quote=“Jjp”]
people take movies way to serious i mean y cant you use the word. racist or not but u can say racial slurs to any other ethnic backround and still be accepted this is bullshit.
[/quote]
Yeah nothing pisses me off more than that. I also hate when those reporters blame movies when some guy goes on a rampage. I mean come on i’ve seen hundreds of movies where people get blown away and you dont go around with automatic weapons killing people. They always need a scapegoat for that kind of shit they will blame any thing.
[quote=“me”]
Yeah nothing pisses me off more than that. I also hate when those reporters blame movies when some guy goes on a rampage. I mean come on i’ve seen hundreds of movies where people get blown away and you dont go around with automatic weapons killing people. They always need a scapegoat for that kind of shit they will blame any thing.
[/quote]
Yea like when the Vtech occured they were goin around saying because he watched oldboy alot and when collumbine happened they where sayin thoses kids use to watch NBK alot and played army men when they were younger WTF. But thats like sayin ok a guy eats a hamburger and takes a heart attack now that doesent mean that every person that eats a hamburger is gona take a heart attack.
[quote=“Jack Rabbit Slim”]
Once Upon a Time in the West is (or was) rated PG-13 :o
But for the most part, mainstream PG-13 movies suck.
[/quote]
Yea im not sayin they all suck but the majority of them do and mostly all the new ones do and especially when you have a Rated R series then try to make a PG-13 sequel it just doesent work at all and it is just a scam to make money.
[quote=“Jjp”]
Yea like when the Vtech occured they were goin around saying because he watched oldboy alot and when collumbine happened they where sayin thoses kids use to watch NBK alot and played army men when they were younger WTF. But thats like sayin ok a guy eats a hamburger and takes a heart attack now that doesent mean that every person that eats a hamburger is gona take a heart attack.
[/quote]
There was another article in the Washington Post that blamed it on John Woo and the Killer. The drive by media is retarded and they need scapegoats, so I’d just ignore them.
I also heard some reporter blamed Death Proof…how fucking stupid!
[quote=“me”]
I also heard some reporter blamed Death Proof…how fucking stupid!
[/quote]
Really? haha…
[quote=“me”]
I also heard some reporter blamed Death Proof…how fucking stupid!
[/quote]
How stupid.
Now, compare Live Free or Die Hard to the new John Rambo trailer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6i090FGzQ
looks way better then Live Free Or Die Hard!
John McClane might not be cussin’ or anything like that, but rambo isn’t taking shit from anyone!
yippy ky ay mother and then it just ends.
Rambo kicks ass!
[quote=“me”]
Rambo kicks ass!
[/quote]
yea the first is the best though.
Ratings can destroy a picture. In my opinion. Dialogue helps to establish a character. And if you restrict it and the actions or performance of the actor by not allowing certain scenes into a movie…man. You can hack a film into submission and failure.
It’s like Disneyfying something. Sanitized for your protection. Maybe i do want the dirty glass with my shot of scotch. It’s my choice.
Does PG-13 really give us a larger profit/audience? Would R give us a better film? Who knows, we’ll have to wait and see.
I saw the trailer for Die Hard last night and it said this film is not yet rated.
The studio will submit the film to the MPAA but they have noted that if they have to they will edit so it can be reated PG 13
Fuck Rambo in his arse.
Die Hard 4 should have an R-rating. If the first one didn’t have one, then it probably wouldn’t have been such a big deal, but changing a character and feel of a series just to get more money, is just too weird. It’s like making a musical without any music. It’s just wrong.
And how does PG-13 result in a wider audience? Yes, the number of people who are ‘allowed’ to watch is bigger, but at the same time you’re alienating the older audience, who might not be interested in watching a PG-13 movie.
And how is less blood = money? It’s an action film. Who’s gonna watch it? Teenager boys. And what do teenager boys want? Violence!
Btw, the US needs something between 13 and 17 indeed. Totally agreed on this one.
[quote=“Dantes Inferno”]
Die Hard 4 should have an R-rating. If the first one didn’t have one, then it probably wouldn’t have been such a big deal, but changing a character and feel of a series just to get more money, is just too weird. It’s like making a musical without any music. It’s just wrong.
And how does PG-13 result in a wider audience? Yes, the number of people who are ‘allowed’ to watch is bigger, but at the same time you’re alienating the older audience, who might not be interested in watching a PG-13 movie.
And how is less blood = money? It’s an action film. Who’s gonna watch it? Teenager boys. And what do teenager boys want? Violence!
Btw, the US needs something between 13 and 17 indeed. Totally agreed on this one.
[/quote]
beacause 6 million teenagers going out to see a film isent going to equal to the small percentage of people who dont want to see because its pg-13.
america should adopt our (australia’s) MA15+ rating which doesnt allow people under 15 to watch them most violent films here get slapped with this or if its slightly tamer then an M15+ which is just recommended for people over 15 (under 15’s can still see it) the first 3 die hards all were M15+ rated