Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Rated PG-13 « previous next »
Page: 1

BucfanNC12

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2007
Offline
: February 05, 2013, 03:39:02 PM

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

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#1 : February 05, 2013, 03:57:08 PM

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


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#2 : February 05, 2013, 04:37:01 PM



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.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

TheAman

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2492
Offline
#3 : February 05, 2013, 04:37:27 PM

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

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#4 : February 05, 2013, 04:59:36 PM


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.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#5 : February 05, 2013, 06:00:53 PM

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

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2492
Offline
#6 : February 05, 2013, 06:02:59 PM

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

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#7 : February 05, 2013, 06:23:58 PM


Mostly on the reputation of the original. Taken3 won't have that luxury.
: February 05, 2013, 06:34:27 PM Illuminator

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

TheAman

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2492
Offline
#8 : February 05, 2013, 06:31:07 PM

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

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#9 : February 05, 2013, 06:37:20 PM


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

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17117
Online
#10 : February 05, 2013, 07:41:26 PM

I didn't even like Taken 1.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#11 : February 05, 2013, 07:56:59 PM

I didn't even like Taken 1.

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


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#12 : February 05, 2013, 09:23:05 PM

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.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#13 : February 06, 2013, 02:16:21 AM

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

Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Rated PG-13 « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools