Punisher Rising
Mechanical Psychopath
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,731
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
Saw the new trailer attached to Lockout, looks amazing.
Just give Aliens a chance and skip the rest. Ripley is even stronger, and a lot more aliens!
not sure if this has been posted but its an intereting theory
http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/562/the-isperm
I'll take A3 over A:R any day of the week.
i am awoiding spoilers from this movie. and i dont want to watch any new footage. june is way to close. i am more hyped for Prometheus then i am for TDKR. but PG13 was happening. i told you all.I really, really, really hate the MPAA.
you mean from the mutated crew member?I am very curious to see how this works, from what I've seen, there's going to be quite a bit of body horror in this film...and when I think of body horror, I thank of an automatic R rating. Yet it's PG13. Bizarre.
you mean from the mutated crew member?
the mutated guy will be able to have more blood then a normal human. because MPAA thinks that if youare a normal human then blood is bad. but if you tranformed into an alien ugly monster then blood on you is not going to have a negative effect on children.
Also, I wish there was more Noomi in those interviews because INoomi Rapace.
Are you being sarcastic?Anyway, just to homour ourselves, I would suggest that the thought of a human transforming into an alien is R in itself. How do you get a PG13 from that?
Other examples would be
Shaw possibly giving birth to that squid monster seen in the trailer.
I don't like their antiquated system.i am awoiding spoilers from this movie. and i dont want to watch any new footage. june is way to close. i am more hyped for Prometheus then i am for TDKR. but PG13 was happening. i told you all.
but i need to ask you now. are you angry at the MPAA because of Prometheus or do you hate MPAA because of their rating system? there are 2 threads about the MPAA. i talked a lot about th rating system. i hate it and i dont agree with this. the rating's dont make sense in a world where you can find everything on the internet . plus in the middle of the day they show on news channels how babies are born (close ups) and they show how people get killed with real footage .
i think there are only two options what is happening here
-Scott is talking about the MPAA to get som support from the fans because he knew that they would be angry
-he was naive enough to think that he would not have problems with the MPAA
Scott is a director for over 30 years. he know how the MPAA and hollywood changed in the last 10 years. he knows it becuse he made films in that time. so i say BS. Scott and FOX knew 100% what would get them a R rating and what a PG13 rating when they were in preproduction. MPAA has rules for blockbusters . it was Scott's job to make the best movie with the amount of money and with the PG13 ratings. if he failed he failed. its not MPAA?s fault.
I don't like their antiquated system.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that sixteen-year-olds can hold a job and drive a car, but they can't see an R-rated movie. What kind of ass-backwards logic is this?
Apparently, the version of the film that Ridley Scott handed in to Fox is the director's cut:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/16/prometheus-will-be-ridley-scotts-cut/
Also, here's a 30-minute interview with Scott, Rapace, Fassbender, and Theron. Scott confirms that he turned in his cut of the film.
http://collider.com/prometheus-ridley-scott-directors-cut/159471/
I'm sorry, but I don't liken films to things like alcohol, gambling, guns, and serving in the military - as these are potentially life-threatening/life-ruining if not treated with a certain level of maturity.They also can't buy alcohol, gamble or die for their country before 18. Is that also ass-backwards?
I'm 23, so I don't need to worry about thatAnd you can see R-rated movies. I did when I was 10. You just need your mommy or daddy or another adult to take you.
Are you comparing dying for your country to watching a movie that features gore, cursing, and/or nudity?
I'm sorry, but I don't liken films to alcohol, gambling, or guns - as these things are potentially life-threatening/life-ruining if not treated with maturity.
I'm 23, so I don't need to worry about that.
]
Firstly, I removed the first sentence from my post because it wasn't at all what you were saying. So I apologize for making that leaping assumption.You are making a moral choice based on what you consider life altering. Should kids not be allowed to eat fast food and candy either? It is after all life-altering. Should 10 year olds be allowed to watch porn?
My niece wouldn't go to the movie theater and had nightly nightmares for a couple years after my dumbass uncle took her to see a horror film. I'd say that is pretty life altering for a kid.
I just have an inherent issue with the MPAA's standards.Then what is your problem?
The only reason anyone cares about this is because of B.O. Do you want kids seeing this film?
Firstly, I removed the first sentence from my post because it wasn't at all what you were saying. So I apologize for making that leaping assumption.
Secondly, I'm making the case for sixteen-year-olds, not ten-year-olds. There is a blatant difference in maturity level between those two age groups, and they are not comparable. But no, I don't believe R-rated content should be accessible to ten-year-olds.
Do I really think that sixteen-year-olds mature so much in the span of one year that they're suddenly okay to watch R films? Not really.
I just have an inherent issue with the MPAA's standards.