Discussions on the certificate of Spider-Man 3

[Visionary]

You've spoken of this many times before, but...why? Where could you think it would help the story? Where in the movie would it be essential to the plot? I mean, do you honestly want to see Peter pull out a samurai sword, chop Eddie in half and then spout off an 'ice-skating' remark? Or a full blown erotic scene with MJ? How would something like that help enwrap the audience Spider-Man is aimed towards in the film?

What is it about people who think that an R-rated movie means nudity and gore like a slasher film. Have you not seen The Matrix or T2, was there any erotic scenes or slicing apart bodies?

I just don't like watered down scenes in any given situation, that we know should be a bit more graphic, depending on what it entails. PG-13 always takes away the true intensity of a particular action scene, sometimes even in dialogue. All PG-13 films based on comic books seem to suffer from this. I would also like to see less happy-go-lucky New Yorkers. There's nothing wrong with an occasional curse or two, unless you think New Yorkers don't curse. So for me, yeah, it can actually enhance a story. I also feel it gives the writer(s) leeway, and they're not so boxed in, with the presence of Studio-Head saying..."no, you can't put that in there, see those plush toys, we have to sell that stuff." This has a profound effect on the overall movie in which you're watching.

I believe that all ages would love to finally see a raw icon comic book movie, that doesn't cut corners to sell Twinkies. It's not like you can name a kid who hasn't seen Terminator, T2, Alien, Aliens, Matrix, Passion of the Christ, Predator, Die-Hard, Speed, etc. They flock to see these films or/and love them on Cable, TV and DVDs. Do you honestly think that the adult video games like "GRAND THEFT AUTO" is big because of adults?

Even though most icon comic books are indeed PG-13. I always thought that the movies should take what they don't show in comics (even though the violence is present) and take it to the next level. While most comic book fanboys are crying like babies, that comic book movies are not close enough to the comics, I'm crying that they're too damn close to the comics, in this regard.

I've often ask the question, when they put THE LIZARD in SM4. Knowing that his weapons are his sharp CLAWS and sharp TEETH. Just what the hell are they going to be showing The Lizard doing, to cause damage to Spider-Man or the humans around him? Let me guess, growling at people. Scary.

only a loser wants an R rated spidey movie! Go back to your one room apartement and burger flipping job!

Look at the newb playing tough guy. Know your place boy, or at least say something original.

 

[Visionary]

im sure he was joking....

Nope, I'm dead serious.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

but I'm sure little kids can go see it to but I just hope they won't be scares of venom.

Nah, I want the little kiddies peeing their pants and then having nightmares for the next 5 years with the possibility of needing counseling further down their lives.

 

[Won '08]

only a loser wants an R rated spidey movie! Go back to your one room apartement and burger flipping job!

The only loser present is....wait why do I have to explain something so obvious to you?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I can't think of one scene from either Spider-Man movie that seemed like Raimi was "boxed in" to make a PG-13.

When the action hit hard, it hit hard. The final fight between Spidey and Goblin was nice and brutal. One got half his face almost blown off, the other ended up impaled.

Anything more would be pushing it. Not because it would be "inappropriate." But because it would be silly. We're dealing with comic book characters, but they're still flesh and blood humans. They get hit too hard and they die. I want the fight to last a little longer than that.

As far as cursing goes, if it's natural, it'll happen (don't expect many F-bombs to be dropped, though). In movies like this, cursing usually feels shoehorned-in, more awkward than being left out.

 

[Visionary]

I can't think of one scene from either Spider-Man movie that seemed like Raimi was "boxed in" to make a PG-13.

Of course Raimi's boxed in, in Darkman/Evil Dead/The Gift he was free as a bird. In Spider-Man he's not.

Look at the scene where Spider-Man dodges the glider and Norman says..."OH" before he's hit by the glider. In that scene he was suppose to say..."OH SH:T." But Sony edited it out, it even looks edited. There was also suppose to be blood coming from Spidey's mouth at one point, but instead they edited it and made it clear, as if it was spit. Even the Doc Ock operation scene, no human being can get thrown around like that face first and not bleed. Lost of intensity and dramatic flair. If this was any other of Raimi's R-rated movies there would be blood. Not for gore sake, but because humans bleed.

This is what I mean, the intensity through action and dialogue gets watered down.

 

[blackvenom]

Nah, I want the little kiddies peeing their pants and then having nightmares for the next 5 years with the possibility of needing counseling further down their lives.

i can easily see that happening, lol D

 

[blackvenom]

You've spoken of this many times before, but...why? Where could you think it would help the story? Where in the movie would it be essential to the plot? I mean, do you honestly want to see Peter pull out a samurai sword, chop Eddie in half and then spout off an 'ice-skating' remark? Or a full blown erotic scene with MJ? How would something like that help enwrap the audience Spider-Man is aimed towards in the film?

sounds good lol

 

[Spider-Girl™]

Of course Raimi's boxed in, in Darkman/Evil Dead/The Gift he was free as a bird. In Spider-Man he's not.

Look at the scene where Spider-Man dodges the glider and Norman says..."OH" before he's hit by the glider. In that scene he was suppose to say..."OH SH:T." But Sony edited it out, it even looks edited. There was also suppose to be blood coming from Spidey's mouth at one point, but instead they edited it and made it clear, as if it was spit. Even the Doc Ock operation scene, no human being can get thrown around like that face first and not bleed. Lost of intensity and dramatic flair. If this was any other of Raimi's R-rated movies there would be blood. Not for gore sake, but because humans bleed.

This is what I mean, the intensity through action and dialogue gets watered down.

And NOW I see your point lol, boy am I slow.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

The only way i would ever want to see Spider-Man getting an R rating, would be if they included Carnage. To do Carnage justice the movie,imo, would have to be rated R. Alas, we will never see an R rated Spider-Man, ever, unless the MPAA just becomes uber tight-ass.

 

[spider-neil]

the way I see it:

the lower the rater> the more people who see it> the bigger the hit> the more the studio spend on the sequel

T2 was hit (but nothing like spidey numbers) and rated R but the subject matter lends itself to a higher rated far more than a spidey would.
I saw spidey 1 and there were kids in the cinema who were 6 (at MOST) no WAY could this happen with an R rated movie.

spidey gets an R makes 200 mil insted of the expect 350+ the studio spend less on the next spidey movie and the 4th movie turns out to be a stinking pile of turd. hmm...no thanks.
what are we missing, some blood and some swear words...big whoop

 

[Visionary]

This is also why Ghost Rider, Batman Begins, Spawn, Daredevil, all dark and gritty characters are handled with kid gloves. All 4 films should have been R-rated. I personally see none of these films as DARK, yeah, including BB.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Sheesh, you are simple minded.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Ahm.......I'm gonna go off a limb and say the same as the rest.

 

[Visionary]

Sheesh, you are simple minded.

No, posts like this are simple minded.

PG13 seems fine by me.

Anyone who says it should be more is an asstard. I can't even be bothered to explain why.

 

[Hafssól]

Le pwn.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Of course Raimi's boxed in, in Darkman/Evil Dead/The Gift he was free as a bird. In Spider-Man he's not.

Look at the scene where Spider-Man dodges the glider and Norman says..."OH" before he's hit by the glider. In that scene he was suppose to say..."OH SH:T." But Sony edited it out, it even looks edited. There was also suppose to be blood coming from Spidey's mouth at one point, but instead they edited it and made it clear, as if it was spit. Even the Doc Ock operation scene, no human being can get thrown around like that face first and not bleed. Lost of intensity and dramatic flair. If this was any other of Raimi's R-rated movies there would be blood. Not for gore sake, but because humans bleed.

This is what I mean, the intensity through action and dialogue gets watered down.

But see, there's my point. I didn't see any of that as seemingly "edited for content." You've clearly done research; finding out what things were "supposed to be" before they were edited.

I watch it, without any preconceived notions of what things are "supposed to" look or sound like, and I take it at face value - and to me it seems not only appropriate, but really neat.

Personally, I was impressed with just how banged up Pete was by the end of that fight. I wasn't expecting that much! Knowing now that more was cut from it doesn't lessen the value of what's already there, for me.

Especially the example about Norman's "Oh (****)" line. I had NO IDEA the original intention was a full-on "oh ****". It doesn't come across to me as one of those cutesy, family friendly (doesn't hurt that he's about to get impaled) "What in the hell...ooo!?" almost-a-curse deals. His pathetic little "oh," cut as short as it is, just seemed to me like a classic Raimi twistedly funny moment. And in hindsight, now that I know the true story, it's still much funnier than a cliche` "Oh ****!"

 

[Spade]

What is it about people who think that an R-rated movie means nudity and gore like a slasher film. Have you not seen The Matrix or T2, was there any erotic scenes or slicing apart bodies?

I just don't like watered down scenes in any given situation, that we know should be a bit more graphic, depending on what it entails. PG-13 always takes away the true intensity of a particular action scene, sometimes even in dialogue. All PG-13 films based on comic books seem to suffer from this. I would also like to see less happy-go-lucky New Yorkers. There's nothing wrong with an occasional curse or two, unless you think New Yorkers don't curse. So for me, yeah, it can actually enhance a story. I also feel it gives the writer(s) leeway, and they're not so boxed in, with the presence of Studio-Head saying..."no, you can't put that in there, see those plush toys, we have to sell that stuff." This has a profound effect on the overall movie in which you're watching.

Umm...I don't think it has a thing to do with a 'studio head' getting involved. It has to do with the material not fitting into a film about Spider-Man. The story is moral-oriented. You can believe a man can stick to walls, goes around revolving his life around a single ideal his uncle told him before dying and somehow goes around protecting his secret identity from the entirety of New York, but a New Yorker not cursing...unbelieveable? I lived in New York for a long time. We're not as vulgar as people stereotype us to be, nor does everyone have a Bronx accent and a Mets/ Yankees cap on all the time.

I believe that all ages would love to finally see a raw icon comic book movie, that doesn't cut corners to sell Twinkies. It's not like you can name a kid who hasn't seen Terminator, T2, Alien, Aliens, Matrix, Passion of the Christ, Predator, Die-Hard, Speed, etc. They flock to see these films or/and love them on Cable, TV and DVDs. Do you honestly think that the adult video games like "GRAND THEFT AUTO" is big because of adults?

What kids watch outside this honestly isn't relevant to me. What's relevant is that this story in particular has always been marketed towards kids. McFarlane tried introducing lots of violence in his run on the books. JMS thought it would be awesome if Peter got his eye eaten. Neither was needed and both go to show that there's a point where you go "what the hell was that about?" All it would achieve is a boost in the rating, with people wondering what the hell could possibly be in the movie to suddenly get an R rating. Look at characters like Carnage for points where you just wonder why the writers thought it was an awesome idea to make the character.

I've often ask the question, when they put THE LIZARD in SM4. Knowing that his weapons are his sharp CLAWS and sharp TEETH. Just what the hell are they going to be showing The Lizard doing, to cause damage to Spider-Man or the humans around him? Let me guess, growling at people. Scary.

He survived for years not being the sort of character who ate people whole. He hates human beings. Why he would kill them one at a time when he could come up with a larger plan to kill them all befuddles me, outside of being really pushed too far in a fight with Spider-Man in a public place. And anyways, we all know Spider-Man would be there to stop a kill if he did- logic tells us he usually isn't discreet about it given his feral nature. Doc Ock was responsible for loads of damage to buildings, trains and property in general. They won't be ruining the core material by making the character something only scant depictions have pushed him towards.

 

[Reptile]

I wanna smack the parents who bring there kids to R movies
There was this one guy who brought his 4 year old son into Pan's Labyrinth and sat right next to me, with the kid crying and everything

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I wanna smack the parents who bring there kids to R movies
There was this one guy who brought his 4 year old son into Pan's Labyrinth and sat right next to me, with the kid crying and everything

Did you know that in such a situation you are legally allowed to punch the parent and the kid?

It's true; I liked it up.

 

[Reptile]

what made you look that up?

 

[Visionary]

But see, there's my point. I didn't see any of that as seemingly "edited for content." You've clearly done research; finding out what things were "supposed to be" before they were edited.

I watch it, without any preconceived notions of what things are "supposed to" look or sound like, and I take it at face value - and to me it seems not only appropriate, but really neat.

Personally, I was impressed with just how banged up Pete was by the end of that fight. I wasn't expecting that much! Knowing now that more was cut from it doesn't lessen the value of what's already there, for me.

Especially the example about Norman's "Oh (****)" line. I had NO IDEA the original intention was a full-on "oh ****". It doesn't come across to me as one of those cutesy, family friendly (doesn't hurt that he's about to get impaled) "What in the hell...ooo!?" almost-a-curse deals. His pathetic little "oh," cut as short as it is, just seemed to me like a classic Raimi twistedly funny moment. And in hindsight, now that I know the true story, it's still much funnier than a cliche` "Oh ****!"

It's edited alright, and it would have sounded better and flowed better unedited. Cliche, you're kidding right? There's a tape of the World Trade Center getting hit by the first plane. You wanna know what one person said while watching it..."OH SH:T!"

You can never truly get classic Sam Raimi without an R-rating, he's not really use to being in a box like he is with Spider-Man. I'm hoping one day he's allowed to crawl the hell out of that box.

 

[Visionary]

Umm...I don't think it has a thing to do with a 'studio head' getting involved. It has to do with the material not fitting into a film about Spider-Man. The story is moral-oriented. You can believe a man can stick to walls, goes around revolving his life around a single ideal his uncle told him before dying and somehow goes around protecting his secret identity from the entirety of New York, but a New Yorker not cursing...unbelieveable? I lived in New York for a long time. We're not as vulgar as people stereotype us to be, nor does everyone have a Bronx accent and a Mets/ Yankees cap on all the time.

It has everything to do with studio heads, meaning both Marvel/Sony execs. You've totally missed my point. I'm not saying people should curse every 6 seconds, but it is apart of everyday life. You can still maintain morals and fictional aspects of the film, and not treat the audience like they're 2 year olds. Even kids know that people curse when they're upset or for other various situations.

What kids watch outside this honestly isn't relevant to me. What's relevant is that this story in particular has always been marketed towards kids. McFarlane tried introducing lots of violence in his run on the books. JMS thought it would be awesome if Peter got his eye eaten. Neither was needed and both go to show that there's a point where you go "what the hell was that about?" All it would achieve is a boost in the rating, with people wondering what the hell could possibly be in the movie to suddenly get an R rating. Look at characters like Carnage for points where you just wonder why the writers thought it was an awesome idea to make the character.

You're confused, never did I say by making a movie R-rated, automatically makes it better. I want good/great writing and characters, as well. I don't think the movie GLADIATOR had a single curse word in the entire film, I thought that movie was great. But the R-rating made it cleared a way for intense situations or scenes to present itself.

Everything these days seems to be marketed towards kids, as I mentioned, even adult video games like GRAND THEFT AUTO and SOUTH PARK. There would be nothing in an R-rated Spider-Man film, that kids can't see on regular TV.

He survived for years not being the sort of character who ate people whole. He hates human beings. Why he would kill them one at a time when he could come up with a larger plan to kill them all befuddles me, outside of being really pushed too far in a fight with Spider-Man in a public place. And anyways, we all know Spider-Man would be there to stop a kill if he did- logic tells us he usually isn't discreet about it given his feral nature.

Now, if we know The Lizard hates humans, has sharp claws & teeth, and we know that he's a vicious animal, and could kill a human in the blink of an eye. What would happen if he ran into a few humans, and there is no Spider-Man to save them at that point?

This is something that we always see happen in a movie like ALIEN. If you were in a room with one of those ALIEN creatures, what do you think it would do to you? I feel the same way about THE LIZARD, maybe you'd never see anything like this in the comics, but in the movie, I think it should let Lizzy cut loose, literally. Why, because you know that The Lizard is capable of such acts? And it would ready the audience for what could happen to Spidey's flesh.

Doc Ock was responsible for loads of damage to buildings, trains and property in general. They won't be ruining the core material by making the character something only scant depictions have pushed him towards.

That's just it, I don't think an R-rated Spidey would ruin anything (Spidey, morals or villains), just intensify it.

 

[spider-neil]

That's just it, I don't think an R-rated Spidey would ruin anything (Spidey, morals or villains), just intensify it.

I think the point people are making is making it R is going to hurt the ratings (lets be honest here of course it is) and is not going to add 'that' much to the film.

 

[Visionary]

Hurt the ratings?

No, it'll change the content of the film to be more teen/adult-oriented, that even kids will still run to see in huge numbers. I've named plenty of movies with R-ratings that did great at the box office, yet they didn't even have the name Spider-Man attached to it.