Chuck Norris "Ruins" Expendables 2?

white avenger

white avenger

white avenger
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
16,036
Age
78
Location
rome, georgia
I found this article referring to Chuck apparently insisting that the "Expendables 2," unlike its predecessor, eliminate the excessive profanity and graphic violence, resulting in a PG-13 rating, on the grounds that he didn't want to star in a movie that the whole family wouldn't be able to see and enjoy. I just have to say that I am truly impressed by the way that he is able to overrule the wishes of all of the "supposedly" larger named super stars, albeit OLD superstars who are also starring in the movie. But here's my question, and the subject of this thread:

Does an action movie HAVE to have so much profanity and graphic violence to really be entertaining? Does the word "action" HAVE to be synonymous with excessive blood and liberal use of the "F" word?

(And, incidentally, I just read that Jean-Claude Vandamme is going to be one of the major bad guys, and the possibility of seeing Chuck square off against him will be reason enough to pull me in, regardless of the movie's rating)
 
white avenger said:
Does an action movie HAVE to have so much profanity and graphic violence to really be entertaining? Does the word "action" HAVE to be synonymous with excessive blood and liberal use of the "F" word?
Click to expand...

I'd say the answer is "NO" to both those questions.

However, the problem with The Expendables is that the movie is supposed to be a throw-back to all the classic, excessively violent action movies of the 80's.

It should a celebration of that style of brutal bone crushing, homo-erotic, testosterone-gushing insanity where these (admittedly over-the-hill) action heros all made their name.

The idea of it being neutered kinda makes it all feel a little pointless and a real missed opportunity to me. 🙁
 
JCoatsworth
JCoatsworth
[No message]
I didn't see the first movie, but if this one is toned down than yes, I think Norris ruined it. Action movies should have blood, bullets ripping through bodies. Like Rambo 4 (love that movie!) That's if what is said is true. Norris was never a big star, with his biggest role being the dude Bruce Lee killed and then staring in some A-Teamish rated G TV show about 30 years ago. So Sly doing what Norris says sounds hard to believe.

I think they should have chosen The Rock instead. He's younger, stronger, has a ton of fans for both his wrestling and movies. Plus Fast Five made over 600 million so we know he can draw. He's on fire right now and Sly would be wise to choose him.

Plus wasn't Stone Cold in the first movie? He was Rock's biggest rival in the 90's
 
S
Sweet J
Rambo 4 is retarded, I walked out of that the minute the Claymore produced an effect comparable to a tactical nuke...utter retardation of the highest order.
I don't think that an action movie has to be extremely bloody and gory with stong language etc.
But I'm with [MENTION=9613]LyteHouse[/MENTION]. The Expendables is supposed to be such a movie and it would really ruin it.
I think it would be sheer waste making a movie with the biggest action cast into a family movie.
To be honest, I'd rather make the movie without Chuck Norris than making it PG-13.
 
LyteHouse said:
I'd say the answer is "NO" to both those questions.

However, the problem with The Expendables is that the movie is supposed to be a throw-back to all the classic, excessively violent action movies of the 80's.

It should a celebration of that style of brutal bone crushing, homo-erotic, testosterone-gushing insanity where these (admittedly over-the-hill) action heros all made their name.

The idea of it being neutered kinda makes it all feel a little pointless and a real missed opportunity to me. 🙁
Click to expand...

I an understand your logic here to a certain extent, but I would also like to point out that not all action movies in the 80's fit into that category. Chuck Norris' own movies, particularly the "Missing In Action" series, the two "Delta Force" movies, and all of his stand alone movies, had plenty of action, but very little in the way of blood and guts, and almost no profanity. Steven Segal's movies had plenty of action, some great martial arts fights, and, once more, he managed to get the job done without buckets of stage blood (a few very graphically dislocated joints and broken bones, certainly, but no blood splatters, and the profanity was kept to a minimum). Jeff Speakman, Jackie Chan, even the granddaddy of them all, Bruce Lee, was very outspoken in condemning that sort of thing, and was insistent that it was never included in his movies (the two nude scenes in "Enter The Dragon" were actually added after his death)

Releasing "The Expendables 2" with a PG_13 rating will, I firmly believe, attract more viewers than it will repel, and it will have the added advantage of having a "Theatrical Release" DVD and, later, an "Unrated, Director's Cut" with fifteen or more minutes of added screen time, reinstating all of the "bad stuff" that Chuck and I, at least, don't see as being really necessary to get the story told.
 
I love excessive gore and violence. Which was a big reason why I enjoyed the first Expendables, so I am a little disappointed this one will be toned down
 
I haven't seen the first one, but regardless of the rating, if the story is good and the pace is kept strong, than why wouldn't the movie be good?

Star Wars IV to VI were all PG rated, and they were great action movies.
 
"Disney's The Expendables 2" starring Dwanye Johnson, Zac Efferon, Cole and Dylan Sprouse with Goofy and Justin Beiber as Sargent Gruff "The Tough" Tayback. Rated G for General. 2012
 
white avenger said:
Releasing "The Expendables 2" with a PG_13 rating will, I firmly believe, attract more viewers than it will repel, and it will have the added advantage of having a "Theatrical Release" DVD and, later, an "Unrated, Director's Cut" with fifteen or more minutes of added screen time, reinstating all of the "bad stuff" that Chuck and I, at least, don't see as being really necessary to get the story told.
Click to expand...


I understand your point completely and as I said before I don't necessarily think that action movies need to have excessive violence and profanity.

But my issue with The Expendables 2 is one of artistic integrity.

The movie was conceived of being a HARD R and it was filmed that way. To suddenly turn around at the 11th hour decide that the final cut will be PG13 is a disappointment. The tone, style and visceral impact of the film will be affected. And for 'art', this is a bad thing.

Have you ever seen the kid-friendly tv edit of RoboCop? Its an absolute travesty.

I guess thats one of the major problems with Hollywood these days - fewer and fewer people are actually going to the cinema, we've got way too much entertainment media lobbying for our attention. Movie budgets and promotion are routinely above $100 million so studio's are desperate for their products to make money. Its easy to see why they would want a lower rating so they can get a wider demograph of people to see it.

But I think this film would have commanded a lot more respect from action fans if the studio had stood fast and delivered the kind of movie they originally envisioned.

I just can't imagine there's legions of 14 year olds who are excited about seeing Jean-Claude VanDamme on the big screen again.
 
LyteHouse said:
The movie was conceived of being a HARD R and it was filmed that way. To suddenly turn around at the 11th hour decide that the final cut will be PG13 is a disappointment. The tone, style and visceral impact of the film will be affected. And for 'art', this is a bad thing.

But I think this film would have commanded a lot more respect from action fans if the studio had stood fast and delivered the kind of movie they originally envisioned.

I just can't imagine there's legions of 14 year olds who are excited about seeing Jean-Claude VanDamme on the big screen again.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that Norris was insistent on the PG-13 rating from the beginning, not at the "11th hour," but I've been wrong before. And as for the 14 year old VanDamme fans, I don't think that I've ever met a single one. On the other hand, just about every one of our younger martial arts students IS a fan of "Walker, Texas Ranger," and I have no reason to believe that they are atypical of their age group, especially in the martial arts community, and very few of their parents would feel comfortable taking them to anything like the original movie was.

And comparing an edited version of an already complete movie, whether it be "Robocop," or "Mary Poppins" to one that was initially assembled in such a way that the questionable scenes and dialogue are not integral to the original story line isn't really fair. The former id removing part of the basic story. The latter is making the story that way in the first place so that those elements were never there to begin with (That sounded a lot clearer when I was thinking it than it does now that I'm reading it. But, hopefully, I've gotten the idea across)
 
Well I don't like Norris and he may be the only one I don't care about. I don't think his opinion should matter and his opinion about his kids not being able to watch or whatever should not dictate something. If a movie writer wants to write all the cursing and such let them it is their movie. Now the first one isn't as bad as some action movies as the years go on movies get worse and what I mean by that is the rating systems change. Look at the Hangover we did not see a lot of male frontal nudity back in the day but now you can. It is just something that is but this really irritates me if they let him dictate.

Also no one says his family has to see this. I don't want to sound mean but this is the movie industry and you know what you are getting into before you get into it. Meaning you may have to do anything from profanity to nudity and all of the above. That is just the industry.
 
He can't dictate anything. He can ask them to make changes. Either they accept or he have the choice to not be in the movie. I can understand him not wanting the movie to be a certain way due to his family but then it's his choice to do the movie or not.

As for the question about if a action movie need to be graphic violence and profanity I say a big no. It doesn't need to but it should be allowed if that's what the movie makers want. Also accepting the rating it get because of it.
 
Firefly said:
Everyone chill out, Sly's got this
http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-expendables-2-will-now-be-rated-r-confirms-sylvester-stallone
Click to expand...

HELL and YEAH!

After taking in all the odd rumors and hearsay, Expendables 2 is an R. - Sylvester Stallone
Click to expand...


Best news I've heard today. I wonder what tipped the balance? Maybe it was this poster...


EX2PG13small.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom