The Expendables 2

[Marvolo]

**** you Norris! Oh I'm sorry does my vulgarity bother you, Mr. Norris? **** you very much.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Am I missing something? The first film was terrible. Does it really matter how violent it is? Shouldn't the big worry be that they make an actual good film?

 

[PWN3R]

I've never understood this online Chuck Norris appeal. It's sad what this movie has become because of him. It's not like he can even kick anyone anymore, so what's he going to do in this film, kill enemies with God's love?

This film shouldn't be made for the "broadest audience possible."

 

[Marvolo]

Am I missing something? The first film was terrible. Does it really matter how violent it is? Shouldn't the big worry be that they make an actual good film?

The first film was a throwback to 80s action movies which were R rated and violent and slim on plot. If its PG-13 it will be like every other generic watered down action movie with a ****** plot that floods the market nowadays. The action and violence is what these films are about.

 

[Punisher Rising]

I like some of Norris' movies but this is ridiculous. If he really feels that strongly about his views he shouldn't have bothered to sign onto this movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The first film was a throwback to 80s action movies which were R rated and violent and slim on plot. If its PG-13 it will be like every other generic watered down action movie with a ****** plot that floods the market nowadays. The action and violence is what these films are about.

But it was already a generic watered down 80s action flick, which for the most part weren't good. As a fan of the Rambo flicks I was blown away by how boring the first film was.

Does it really make a difference if it is a bad version of bad action flicks now then bad action flicks from the 80s?

I like some of Norris' movies but this is ridiculous. If he really feels that strongly about his views he shouldn't have bothered to sign onto this movie.

Or Sly didn't have to have him in the film. Why exactly is this Chuck's fault?

 

[Marvolo]

But it was already a generic watered down 80s action flick, which for the most part weren't good. As a fan of the Rambo flicks I was blown away by how boring the first film was.

Does it really make a difference if it is a bad version of bad action flicks now then bad action flicks from the 80s?



Or Sly didn't have to have him in the film. Why exactly is this Chuck's fault?

To me it matters because the first one was just fun action violence and I love 80s action movies. It was a film me and my dad could just watch and have guy time with a 12 pack. This film won't even deserve a daiquiri.

Well its one less film I need to keep up with. I'll catch it on bluray maybe.

 

[Punisher Rising]

Or Sly didn't have to have him in the film. Why exactly is this Chuck's fault?

Because if could've simply declined doing it if it really conflicted so much with his political or moral views?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To me it matters because the first one was just fun action violence and I love 80s action movies. It was a film me and my dad could just watch and have guy time with a 12 pack. This film won't even deserve a daiquiri.

Well its one less film I need to keep up with. I'll catch it on bluray maybe.

I took my father and brother to see Rocky Balboa and Rambo. We had a great time. The first Expendables bored the hell out of us.

 

[Marvolo]

And when someone asks you to be in their film you don't come in and piss on it and try to run the thing. It's ****ing rude. Norris is a joke today. I don't care about him and I would much rather have an R film than a washed up actor who's become a parody.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And when someone asks you to be in their film you don't come in and piss on it and try to run the thing. It's ****ing rude. Norris is a joke today. I don't care about him and I would much rather have an R film than a washed up actor who's become a parody.

And when it is your movie you don't give in. That is the thing. I highly doubt Chuck Norris came in and started demanding ****. He just told them what it took for him to be in the first. It was for them to take it or leave it.

 

[Marvolo]

I took my father and brother to see Rocky Balboa and Rambo. We had a great time. The first Expendables bored the hell out of us.

Everyone has different tastes. I like R rated action flicks of the 80s. The first one was that for me. I don't care about the story at all. I watch it for the testosterone fueled hyper action. So obviously I liked it. I have no interest in a PG-13 sequel. If you do cool but I don't.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Everyone has different tastes. I like R rated action flicks of the 80s. The first one was that for me. I don't care about the story at all. I watch it for the testosterone fueled hyper action. So obviously I liked it. I have no interest in a PG-13 sequel. If you do cool but I don't.

I don't honestly care about the rating. What I wanted was a good movie. I think there is a clear difference between having a thin story and just having a bad film. Making a 80s action flick with guys who are no longer 80s action flick ready is a bad idea imo. The action itself was slow and poor.

Die Hard 4 had its problems do the rating and script, but none of them were Bruce Willis who still looked great in the role.

 

[Marvolo]

And when it is your movie you don't give in. That is the thing. I highly doubt Chuck Norris came in and started demanding ****. He just told them what it took for him to be in the first. It was for them to take it or leave it.

Its clear this film would not have been PG-13 if not for Norris. Stallone didn't give in to anything. He wanted Norris in it and made sure it happened. What I'm saying and others are saying is it wasn't worth it. Who cares about Norris. Fans of the first one would much rather have an R than his holier than thou ass.

You seem to be missing what sold the first one. Go back and watch the marketing campaign. It was sold as a hyper violent testosterone action throwback to the 80s. That's what the majority liked about it. We didn't go for a story. Now you are going to get a crappy story and none of what made the first one fun. I get it. The action didn't do it for you but it did for us. You take that out your left with nothing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Its clear this film would not have been PG-13 if not for Norris. Stallone didn't give in to anything. He wanted Norris in it and made sure it happened. What I'm saying and others are saying is it wasn't worth it. Who cares about Norris. Fans of the first one would much rather have an R than his holier than thou ass.

Apparently the guy making the movie cares about him and isn't that what matters?

 

[Marvolo]

Apparently the guy making the movie cares about him and isn't that what matters?

It only matters so much as the movie succeeds. Most of the people that were fans of the first and fans of the actors in it grew up on those hyper violent 80s films. I just don't see this one doing well because its a neutered film and the fans of the first do not want that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It only matters so much as the movie succeeds. Most of the people that were fans of the first and fans of the actors in it grew up on those hyper violent 80s films. I just don't see this one doing well because its a neutered film and the fans of the first do not want that.

I think we are talking about two different ideas. What the audience expects and what the fillmmaker's vision is. I have had to listen to many audience members complain about Drive because it wasn't the movie they were expecting. That didn't change it from being the best movie I saw all last year.

Also, there is this automatic belief that the film will be neutered which I don't agree with. The "violence" in Casino Royale was far more intense then anything in the first Expendables. It was PG-13. Or do you simply want to watch limps fly about?

 

[Hotwire]

I love how after the trailer, people were amped! Now, we find out the rating and suddenly people jump in their time machines, leap into the future, watch the film, and then come back to tell us how much it sucked. Why must everyone pass judgement on a film they have yet to see, and have only one trailer to go on. I swear, jumping to conclusions should be named the official sport of the HYPE!

 

[Dr. Evil]

I love how after the trailer, people were amped! Now, we find out the rating and suddenly people jump in their time machines, leap into the future, watch the film, and then come back to tell us how much it sucked. Why must everyone pass judgement on a film they have yet to see, and have only one trailer to go on. I swear, jumping to conclusions should be named the official sport of the HYPE!

Would need a playing surface:

 

[Punisher Rising]

Seeing as it's January at this time, maybe if the fan outcry is large enough it might convince the studio to keep the movie R-rated all along? The movie's not out until August, so maybe in the months leading up the studio might decide to listen to the fans and not go for a PG-13.

 

[Marvolo]

I think we are talking about two different ideas. What the audience expects and what the fillmmaker's vision is. I have had to listen to many audience members complain about Drive because it wasn't the movie they were expecting. That didn't change it from being the best movie I saw all last year.

Also, there is this automatic belief that the film will be neutered which I don't agree with. The "violence" in Casino Royale was far more intense then anything in the first Expendables. It was PG-13. Or do you simply want to watch limps fly about?

I don't remember seeing heads and limbs flying in casino royale. And yes thats what I want. That's what the first expendables offered. Why would I be interested in going backwards to a more kid friendly movie. The first movie did what I want films like that to do. Itd over the top violence and action made my balls tingle and put a stupid grin on my face. I enjoyed it. This sequel certainly sounds like something you might like more but I doubt it cause I don't think this one will offer much more in terms of a quality plot. And do not mistake this for me jumping to conclusions. The violence and action was the only thing I liked about the first one. R rated action that is. Limbs heads blood bullets and testosterone everywhere is what I want. Without that do I honestly have any reason to see this?

I mean look at the Filmography of most of these actors. Its action movies with ridiculous over the top action. Its what they do. Yes Stallone did Rocky but look at his last two films he's directed: Rambo and the expendables. Two very violent films with gut spilling limb flying gore. Its what he does. And now he goes safe with this because of Norris so kids can watch. This is only happening because of Norris. Its plain as day. Norris said he didn't want the vulgarity and didn't want an R and Stallone abliged. Stallone chose to do it yes but I don't know how anyone can say this film was always going to be PG-13 and isnt because of Norris. Norris should have turned down the offer rather than asking Stallone to change the film at all. It doesn't matter if Stallone abliged. He did because he is a nice guy. Norris has nothing else going for him however and he made a selfish decision.

I don't buy at all that this film was not written and planned with hard R violence in mind. Not with Stallones recent directing endeavors.

To me this would be no different than the up coming prequel to 300 being PG-13. I wouldn't be happy with that either because I only like these films for the crazy violence. Some people like the occasional torture porn such as Saw and I like the occasional hyper violence such as the expendables. This is a step back and in the wrong direction. Sly is cutting out the biggest selling point of the first one.I went to see that film cause of looked badass. I never fooled myself into thinking there was a good story. I wanted another badass movie with crazy action. Not a kid friendly PG-13 action film. Its just not what I want. Respect my tastes. I'm trying to respect everyone else's.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I don't see it as some huge problem. They cut some foul language, I'm sure it will still have a bigh body count.

I understand Chuck's decision though I don't support it. I've had the oppertunity to be taught by Chuck at seminars and various tournaments. He is just an all around great dude. He was kind and supportive to me when I was a kid and lost a fight so now I can't talk crap.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Seeing as it's January at this time, maybe if the fan outcry is large enough it might convince the studio to keep the movie R-rated all along? The movie's not out until August, so maybe in the months leading up the studio might decide to listen to the fans and not go for a PG-13.

They going to cut Chuck Norris out?

 

[Marvolo]

They going to cut Chuck Norris out?

I can hope.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Not that I'm jumping to conclusions or saying "OMG THIS IS GONNA SUCK NOW!!!" but this absolutely bizarre turn of events has definitely taken my excitement down a notch. Isn't it the "rule" that for PG-13 ratings you can only drop the F-bomb once? That's a big departure from the hardcore, balls-to-the-wall nature of the first movie.

Also, why the hell are they going for a PG-13 rating anyway? Does anyone below 18 even know who the hell half the people in this movie are?? It's clearly aimed at fans of 80's action, so what gives?

Hopefully they don't wuss out with other stuff. I don't want a watered down Expendables. If I had to choose between that and a Chuck Norris cameo, I would've said to hell with Chuck Norris. Bleh.