Rated PG-13

[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.

[JavaRay]

a vehicle for the viewer to vicariously live out their homicidal fantasies freed from the constraints of moral prohibition.

I thought this might develop into another Death Wish type of series like Bronson had going.   But Taken 2 was too lame.   It's 2 and done.

[TheAman]

a vehicle for the viewer to vicariously live out their homicidal fantasies freed from the constraints of moral prohibition.

I thought this might develop into another Death Wish type of series like Bronson had going.   But Taken 2 was too lame.   It's 2 and done.

Of course there's going to be a Taken 3.  Taken 2 made 140 million at the box office in the US alone.

[Chief Joseph]

Mostly on the reputation of the original. Taken3 won't have that luxury.

[TheAman]

Even if you say Taken 3 would only make half of Taken 2, it would still be a profit for the studio.  It's going to be made.

[Chief Joseph]

Oh, I'm sure it will, provided Neeson wants to suffer that indignity. If he doesn't, they'll find someone else.

[Dolorous Jason]

I didn't even like Taken 1.

[JavaRay]

I didn't even like Taken 1.

I'd put Taken 1 into my top 100 of all time.

[dalbuc]

I didn't even like Taken 1.

I'd put Taken 1 into my top 100 of all time.

So i'm guessing you have seen somewhere between 101 and 115 movies in your life because there is no way Taken (which wasn't gawd awful, just regular old awful) should sniff your top 100 films.

[JavaRay]

#1 of all time is Gladiator if that tells you anything.