Uh Oh – Hancock is ‘Surprisingly Sexual And Violent?’

Published 6 years ago by
will smith hancock Uh Oh   Hancock is Surprisingly Sexual And Violent?

Today is an interesting news day for Sony Pictures’ upcoming entry into the summer blockbuster arena: Hancock. I was first tipped off to the actual tone of the film by my pal over at Movies Online, and then received further clarification after reading a post over at /Film.

So what’s so interesting?

This movie is not what you think it is, folks. Think it’s another light-hearted, funny Will Smith romp?

Think again.


According to an article over at the New York Times, far from being a conventional combination of comedy and superhero flick, Hancock pushes the PG-13 envelope hard. As a matter of fact, up until three weeks ago there was a statutory rape scene in the film.

The film has been to the MPAA twice in the last month to receive a rating and both times it was given an “R.”

The goal of course, is to keep cutting away slivers of scenes until they can get it just under the bar and achieve a PG-13.

Director Peter Berg openly admits that a goal of the film is to make the film edgy and not “boring.” According to the NY Times:

“The film, he [Berg] said, remained surprisingly sexual, violent and true in spirit to an original script that was viewed as brilliant but unmakable when its creator, Vincent Ngo, first circulated it more than a decade ago under the title ‘Tonight, He Comes.’”

One of the things they had to “tone down” from the original script was a scene where Hancock gets drunk with a 12 year old. That was changed to a 17 year old and seems to be the source of the statutory rape scene mentioned above.

Sony executive Amy Pascal comments:

“It’s scary in that it goes farther than we’ve gone before”

Now before you start getting all ornery on me, I have NO problem with an edgy superhero comedy starring Will Smith. What I do have an issue with (and the studio will too, mark my words) is marketing a film as described above as a PG-13, family friendly summer comedy. It’s deceptive and it’s going to bite them in the ass, guaranteed.

“Oh, but what about ‘The Dark Knight?” THAT’s a dark movie!”

Yeah, but we know that’s going to be a dark movie based on the trailers, images and interviews. My soon-to-be 12 year old daughter has already decided she doesn’t want to see it. But Hancock? We’ve all watched the trailers together, thought it looked funny and had been planning on seeing it as a family.

But not any more.

Hancock opens on July 2, 2008.

Source: NY Times

TAGS: hancock

53 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. Oh yeah, the internet is a real pain.
    Connection problems, full of useless information.
    Never thought it took things personally though!

  2. Lol steven the git.

    Yeah I have propblems with the internet all the time.
    Slow speeds , timeout issues.
    The list goes on and on. ;-)

  3. “I think that I speak for the vast majority of the internet when I say that 790 is an idiot. And none of you can spell”

    HAHAHA. I can’t believe someone actually took the time to type that!

    790 – yuo musy bee hartbroekn
    HAHAHA

  4. “…under the armchair moralization that most parents are absolutely horrible”

    armchair moralization? too deep for Panda. That’s an R rating right there, ‘cuz that ain’t kid-speak

    “If the kid doesn’t know a concept, it might slide right by him or her”
    Yeah – and if the kid doesn’t duck at the sound of the gunshot, the bullet MIGHT fly right past him or her

  5. “Yeah – and if the kid doesn’t duck at the sound of the gunshot, the bullet MIGHT fly right past him or her”

    The Internet here again. Guy Fawkes masks and everything. Since when have concepts been anything like bullets? Bullets kill. Ideas simply enlighten. Ideas can be explained to people who do not understand them or get the wrong ones. I’d like to see you explain away a bullet. As far as the movie being darker than the advertisement makes it seem, I have no comment as of yet, as I haven’t heard of or seen any mention of such a movie existing… and I’m the internet, for f***’s sake.

  6. Lol Panda.
    Yeah the intenet is just a tool.
    Oops spell check.

    I feel like I’ve upset the Borg Collective.

  7. I have found kids-in-mind.com to be really useful. It has it’s own ratings based on sexuality/nudity, violence/gore, and profanity – each with a scale of 1-10 (10 being the worst). Also, it details everything; It tells how many sex scenes, what is seen; How many punches/gunshots; Also, it details exactly what profanity is used and how many times. It is really good for parents to see exactly what they will be exposing their kids to if they see a film.

  8. “Ideas simply enlighten.”

    Broad generalization. Nazism started as an “idea” and it certainly didn’t “enlighten” anyone. Planning the murder of a spouse can be an “idea” as well. And how about the “idea” the perv has for having sex with the little kid next door?

    Movies & TV shows aren’t ideas: they’re audiovisual representations of either fact or fiction, and if you don’t think they influence culture and kids (yes, blah blah, media reflects culture, you’ll say) then you obviously don’t have any kids and haven’t been around long enough to take a broader look at the way the world works.

    Best regards,

    Vic

  9. Think more people have been killed because of ideas than by bullets.

  10. Sauron and Saruman and those nasty Orcs weren’t helping matters either.

  11. Me me me. I have a question for the internet.

    Ques:
    How do you see DWDM technology effecting the way streaming will be done in the future.
    Also.
    I sometimes have problems sending pictures with my Blackberry. W t Da f man…?

    Aslo can yoy speed things up a bit. I have to sometimes wait 8 minutes to upload?? Wtf’s up with that????

  12. Greed and “Control of the truth” are the ultimate killers.

    And also Skynet. Lol.

    And the Death Star was pretty bad tooo.

  13. “Broad generalization. Nazism started as an “idea” and it certainly didn’t “enlighten” anyone. Planning the murder of a spouse can be an “idea” as well.”

    Ideas do not kill. Actions do. Ideas do not commit genocide. People do. Plenty of people might wish somebody was dead, or have an idea pop into their head once or twice. Those ideas can be right or wrong, but the people themselves have to act. The ideas will not do any harm as long as the parent explains why the actions themselves are wrong. No idea has ever harmed a person on its own.

    “How do you see DWDM technology effecting the way streaming will be done in the future.”

    I’ll pretend for the moment that there was a question mark at the end of that statement and answer it if it were a question. While DWDM and other fiber optics technologies, such as automatic transimpedance control amplifiers, which allow the fiber optic signals to be amplified and clarified at the receiver boxes (search http://google.com/patents for Timothy M. Laverick for more information on those), may very well revolutionize streaming… but only the speed of streaming, not necessarily the method.

    “I sometimes have problems sending pictures with my Blackberry. W t Da f man…?”

    I thought it was fairly obvious how temperamental I am.

    “Aslo can yoy speed things up a bit. I have to sometimes wait 8 minutes to upload?? Wtf’s up with that????”

    You obviously haven’t payed the right ISP enough money for the speed you want.

    The Internet

  14. Everything starts with an idea. Thought motivates action?

  15. Gotta agree with 790. There is usually no action without an idea first. Sure, lots of ideas are GOOD, but the concept of ideas being good in and of themselves is wrong.

    Ideas can be good OR bad, and movies, books, TV, etc. put ideas in peoples’ heads that can also be good or bad, which they may or may not act one. Heck YouTube is full of idiots who’ve seen stunts on the TV show Jackass…

    Vic

  16. “Ideas can be good OR bad.”

    Absolutely. In fact, I’ve stated so above:

    “Those ideas can be right or wrong, but the people themselves have to act. The ideas will not do any harm as long as the parent explains why the actions themselves are wrong. No idea has ever harmed a person on its own.”

    There are plenty of idiots in the world (trust me, I’m chock full of idiots), though. No argument there.

    The Internet

  17. “I’ll pretend for the moment that there was a question mark at the end of that statement and answer it if it were a question. While DWDM and other fiber optics technologies, such as automatic transimpedance control amplifiers, which allow the fiber optic signals to be amplified and clarified at the receiver boxes (search http://google.com/patents for Timothy M. Laverick for more information on those), may very well revolutionize streaming… but only the speed of streaming, not necessarily the method.”

    Wow did you just like Google that and then copy and paste all that mumbo jumbo from Wikipedia, or what?(Oh and here’s an extra question mark for you, ?)

  18. DWDM I googled. The transimpedance control amplifiers I’ve taken an active interest in previously. And yes, 790, I’m (see that apostrophe there?) allowed to use any resources that I contain in my favor.

    The Internet

  19. Yeah “I Hate The Internet” it was pretty obvious.
    I was going to ask “the interent” what DWDM stood for (since I didn’t see that in his pasted info) but I figured he would just look that up as well.

    That’s cool, I guess “its” playing with itself, against us???????????????????????????!

  20. WTF happened to this thread?

    New screenplay I’m pitching… “790 vs. The Internet”. Catchy, idnit?

  21. Hey internet. Easy question you shouldnt need to google if your into Transimpediance Control amps.

    How are fiber optic signals boosted along the optical pathway?

    Fairly simple question and it will be educational to the Screen Rant readers.

    I’m not looking specs just the 3 word explanation.

  22. Yeah your right Panda.
    The internet has clearly exposed himself to be a “human lifeform”.
    And this was supposed to be about Hancock. So I’m sorry.

    The 3 word answer I was looking for was (an inert gas)

    That’s all no more off-topic BS…

  23. Yes, thanks. I think we can disagree and still play nice. :-)

    And I *still* wish they had just done what they wanted with this movie, rated it R and cut it loose to stand (or fall) on its merits.

    Vic

  24. THAT’S SO NOT TRUE! I SAW HANCOCK AND IT WASN’T SEXUAL OR THAT VIOLENT! IT WAS AWESOME!

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!