Boards > Pirate's Cove

Rated PG-13

(1/3) > >>

BucfanNC12:
I saw Taken 2 and thought it was a pretty good film. A lot of people got shot in the movie and they didn't show an once of blood. After I thought about it, it seems like 2 of every 3 horror movies are now PG-13. And there are countless movies that have violence and rated PG-13 because they skip showing blood in death scenes. Is not showing blood makes a movie less violent?

Thoughts?

JavaRay:
That movie sucked (first Taken movie was AWESOME).   I think it's stretching it to rate it PG-13 though.   

dalbuc:


The term used to be called graphic violence.  The term was always a bit nebulous. Shooting someone was ok but if you showed the bullet slamming into them with a spray of blood and arterial squirt you were in trouble.  The distinction seems a bit goofy to me but I anecdotally know a lot of people who can watch Die Hard flicks with a massive body count but who can't stomach Resevoir Dogs which has an own screen body count I can add up on one hand.  That said there is clearly a different feel to die hard as opposed to dogs for example.

TheAman:
It doesn't make it less violent, but it makes it less graphic.  That's why epic movies like the Lord of the Rings can have thousands of deaths with the PG-13 rating, because it's violent, but not graphic.

Chief Joseph:

The BluRay for Taken2 has the "unrated cut," but it's probably just as lame. It fell flat because it failed to recapture what made the first one so successful - a vehicle for the viewer to vicariously live out their homicidal fantasies freed from the constraints of moral prohibition.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page