Rene Rosa (aka “Evil Adam”) over at UGO Movie Blog recently spent some time on the set of Sylvester Stallone’s tough-guy action flick throwback, The Expendables. During his time on the set, Rene managed to unearth a startling bit of news: According to producer Avi Lerner, The Expendables is going to be edited in two versions: A PG-13 cut and an R-rated cut, which will then be test-screened to determined which version makes it into theaters!!!
I haven’t cared this much about the opinions of focus groups since the last election.
|
|
Here’s how this startling news came to light: Rene Rosa was apparently probing Avi Lerner about the next Rambo film (apparently Rambo 5 is definitely going to happen and will be less brutal than the last installment), which led to a discussion about The Expendables and the level of violence we can expect from that film. That’s when Lerner dropped the bomb about the possible PG-13 cut.
PAUSE: We are talking about The Expendables here – a film that unites Sly Stallone, Jet Li, Jason Statham Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Danny Trejo, Eric Roberts and Arnold Schwarzenegger (in a cameo appearance). These are men who have, each on their own, caused enough onscreen mayhem to fill a L.A. swimming pool full of corn-syrup blood. How do you cram all those guys into one (awesome) film and then neuter it down to PG-13???
Eric Roberts and Steve Austin feeling the burn
More to the point: I know the studio wants this film to be a smash franchise (the budget has reportedly swelled to $80 million, what with all the big names and big explosions involved), but who is going to REALLY be the core audience for this type of movie? Young teens who don’t even remember the heyday of the tough-guy action flick? Or adult males like yours truly, who will flock to the theater to see his favorite tough-guys scrap? I’m not a damn little boy – give me my R-rated Expendables!!!
Seriously though, if The Expendables ends up with a PG-13 Rating, I (and I suspect many other guys) am going to be forced to wait for the unrated DVD/Blu-ray to drop. That will leave just some half-interested teens and impatient older-types to fatten the box office. Good luck with that.
Test-screeners, if you’re out there and listening: DON’T BE FOOLISH, THE EXPENDABLES NEEDS AN R-RATING. We know you’ll do the right thing (you better).
Do you think this news is as ridiculous as I do?
The Expendables is set to hit theaters on April 23, 2010.
Source: UGO Movie Blog
Loading ...
57 Comments
No, no, no, no, NO!!!
Vic
It better be R rated. You got some of the coolest guys in hollywood in this movie and they might make in a pg13 rating tsk. This movie isnt for little boys its for grown men and women.
Oh no here comes the “PG13 vs. R” issue
I saw The American President a few days ago, which is rated PG. In that movie, the F-bomb was spoken 3 times; how did they get away from the R-rating, even the PG-13 rating?
Oh, sorry, it was PG-13, but still, they used it 3 times.
does it really matter. If they think that the PG-13 cut is better i hope it gets the theater release. If its better wouldnt you want it to, of course you would. I dont want to see a rated R version were they say the F word 50 times. I want some good dialoge. It doesnt matter to me which ever one is better neads the theater release.
I want to see Hulk Hogan show up as Thunderlips and beat the sh8t out of Austin.
I will be seeing this in the theaters!!!
I really do hope that if we get R its more fighting not more cursing. I would love to see Sly rip out someones throut agian
Nothing to worry, PG-13 for the theatrical release, R rating for the dvd. Look at Taken. That was action packed and PG-13, with the R rated dvd, just added the blood.
This is marketed to the older crowd, so I do not get it.
I don’t want an R for language – if you’re going to have a mercenary/war movie with all the stops pulled out, I absolutely despise seeing extreme violence that’s “clean.” No blood, no gore, etc. It’s a cheat and to me that actually downplays the consequences of it.
Drives me nuts. Look at Wolverine: Freaking razor sharp CLAWS for weapons and then at the end a guy with swords coming out of his arms fighting each other and barely a drop of blood to be seen.
Vic
PG-13 is BS and I’m sick of it.
Just because “The Dark Knight” made some money everyone wants their movie to be PG-13, and I’m gonna be honest, ignoring the story-line “Dark Knight” sucked simply because it was PG-13.
And the same will happen here, yes I understand that the R rating is a bit of an age restriction and on that note I would settle for an MA, any thing lower then that and you’d just be killing the seriousness of the film, not do much less fighting but less contact in the fighting and no blood, yes judging by the hype this movie would have to have no blood just to get their PG-13 rating they want.
I don’t believe they would make a PG-13 cut. It was the same news last year that Punisher would be cut to make a PG-13 rating.
this oughtta be RRRRRRRRRRrated
You know, when it comes to quality films, I tend to not care about the rating, but for something like this, I was hoping for lots of stupid immature things that would have given it an R rating…
Agreed, Vic, clean violence often looks laughable. Can’t imagine Stallone going that way though.
I’m hoping this will be alongside Rambo for carnage, and then some.
If it does go PG, just more DVDs that will be sold. I’ll be getting one.
As for Taken, the American version isn’t worth watching, they took out some of the best scenes like him stabbing the “good luck” guy (Marco) in the legs with nails to electrocute him.
*STAB* “Are you focused yet?”
And they shortened a lot of the fight scenes, like the one in the construction yard brothel, he put the beat down on this one guy in the European version, or the “unrated” version on DVD/BD, but in the American theatrical one he just hits him a few times and he’s down and there was nothing more to it.
It really depends on the type of movie and what makes it enjoyable whether or not the rating actually matters. Like for most movies that I’ll watch for the story and characters, I’m perfectly fine with PG-13. I don’t need foul language, nudity, or gore for me to enjoy a movie, guess I’m not 15 years old anymore and that stuff has no “cool factor” for me anymore. But for a movie like Taken, which is a movie where seeing him deal PAIN to his daughter’s captors is part of the enjoyment of the film, so you want to see him stab the guy in the legs with big huge screws or nails, we want to see someone get more beat down that is probably required, that’s all part of the enjoyment.
Same with this movie, this looks like it’s supposed to be kind of a throwback to the old 80’s action movies, which were typically pretty shallow in terms of plot but had plenty of heads blowing up, explosions, bloody messes, and all of that good stuff.
Basically anyone who is happy with a PG-13 Expendables has no clue about action movies whatsoever. There is no debate here. If your movie has Sly Stallone, Jet Li, Jason Statham Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Gary Daniels, Arnold Schwarzenegger and possibly Bruce Willis (as Church), you do NOT go with a girlie man rating. Anyone who goes on about story and character, go watch something else. This movie isn’t about that, this is about getting the world’s most badass actors and throwing them in a war zone!
This movie NEEDS an R-Rating!!! We need explosions, blood and BOOBS in this flick!! I want to see Jet Li really mess someone up and see the guy’s teeth flying out of his head in a bloody spittle!! If they want dumbed down violence for kids, make a freakin’ Power Rangers movie!!!
Yeah this is a film that kids need to see.
Disgusting.
I’ll catch this on dvd years from now.
Where exactly do the PG-13 – R boundaries emerge. I’ve seen PG-13’s with quite a bit of blood, not to much but notable amounts and the Dark Knight seemed really on the verge of an R?
I’m guessing they’ll aim for a 15 rating in England.
Action-thrillers don’t have to be R to be awesome and even intense. I’m specifically referring to the Bourne movie which are some of my favorite (even though ultimatum was over the top yet very cool). Taken was also a cool movie but mirrored Ultimatum in the over the topness. What made those first two bourne movies so sweet is that they were heavily rooted in realism and the way they were shot captured that intense gritty feel. Obviously this movie isn’t like the bourne movies and I agree it should probably go for the R rating but who knows maybe we might be pleasantly surprised with this one.
This is Hollywood these days. It will have to take a completely out of nowhere Rated R action film to make some fabulous moolah to get the execs to go with R rated films again. Like when 300 made money and it was Rated R, then the Bourne films, Bond, that batman movie came out. Even the director for Max Payne was arguing to have a PG-13 cut and look what that did.
Sad. I remember back in the days, Lethal Weapon, Rambo, Commando, Red Heat, Predator, Terminator, Conan, Mad Max, Beverly Hills Cop, Robocop, all the great movies all Rated R and made money!!!
Id this is ridiculous. All those big name action stars packed into this one movie and people want to make it PG-13?
Id give two reasons why the movie shouldnt be PG-13.
1. Live Free Or Die Hard. 2. Terminator Salvation. Both those films were PG-13 and were from R-rated frnachises. Anyone knows its all about money when it came to makin those cause Bruce and Arnold aged and they wanted to make sure they could milk a cash cow outta those popular franchises. Sadly, i was pretty disappointed with Live Free Or Die Hard cause it didnt have that feeling to me. As for Terminator Salvation, i came closer to liking that one cause it stayed true to the first two films and even though it wasnt really Arnold in the film id say that Sam Worthington did a great job setting that aside. I even almost felt like he stole the film from Bale like Heath Ledger did in The Dark Knight. When you take a R-rated franchise and make a PG-13 sequel down the road, people think of that as watering it down. Whether its a whole franchise or just one film that could start off as a franchise. Bottom Line is people might be skeptical about the film, studio wants more money, or its both. Another example is this, i never got the chance to see both The Terminator and Terminator 2 when they came out in theaters cause i wasnt old enough. but as soon as i could i got to see them when they came out on Vhs. Studios should just make the film the way the fans expect them to be made and remember those little kids will see them soon enough when they come out on dvd and blue-ray. Sorry i wrote so much.
@Fenix
Of course an action movie doesn’t HAVE to be R to be great, but sometimes it’s appropriate. Considering the subject matter and violence in “Taken” to me it was for all intents and purposes and R-rated movie allowed to get a PG-13 for minor edits.
But as has been stated, taking established R-rated franchises/genres and whitewashing them down to PG-13 is weak. Live Free or Die Hard didn’t have nearly they visceral impact of the previous Die Hard films IMHO.
Vic
I was never a huge die hard fan (maybe its willis), but I agree the new one was over the top and lame at the same time (if thats possible). However I haven’t seen the uncut version of Taken but did you notice how many people he murked in that movie? I’ve seen it once but I wanna say he kills like 25+ people in that movie. I’m sure if they make it Pg13 than they could go the same route as taken and just maybe edit out blood or whatever which def takes away from the experience but not necessarily ruining it.
Unless your really trying to see heads explode like in Rambo which was forsure entertaining but wayyyy over the top (using that term a lot).
if you make a r-rated franchise film pg-13, than the kids that watch the pg-13-rated film will want to watch the other movies in the franscise, and they are not going to wait until they are the apropriate age. It is wrong to downrate an existing franchise like that.
I dont se the problem with releasing two verions of films do, new original or remakes. pg-13 or R than
There is nothing more sad than when grownups have to watch swordfighting where lots of people get killed, people beeing blow up with granades and hard ass fighting without any sign blood anywhere. Just so the studios can make more money of the tweens…
Wasn’t this film always set to be PG-13? Sly said that when they were first making this I thought… I remember there being a little controversy over it months ago
Fenix didn’t like Die Hard, he has officially lost all credibility…
just kidding dude.
I LOVE Die Hard, and Bruce Willis is the man so watch what you say, lol.
Die hard movies are great for what their worth but I’ve never bought in to willis, its just an opinion thing but my favorite was Die Hard 2 now that was badass. Wish I could say the same about the new one. I’m a big arnold fan from back in the day. Yes his movies are cheesy but they are heavy on action and he is like the ultimate badass. Predator is still one of my all time favorites.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!