Yavin

So ... basically the problem with the film is not the rating, it's the film itself. It's an average action film that fails to capture the "essence" of the franchise and is certainly *not* worthy of the Die Hard moniker.

Matto1020

I think thats a great way to put it. And what makes a great Die Hard movie...its the language and violence. Its one thing to watch James Bond or Ethan Hunt run there way through situations...but watching Bruce Willis just yell some of the craziest shit during intense situations is just hilarious...only because thats probably what we would do.

"NO FUCKING SHIT LADY DOES IT SOUND LIKE I'M ORDERING A PIZZA?"

This one just won't be as balls to the wall and in your face as the others.

Yavin

Might be for the best. I don't like balls in my face anyway.

Zen Peckinpah

If I have an established career as a filmmaker, one of my top priorities will be to make a hard-R, balls to the wall, violent-as-hell action movie. Not like Kill Bill or Shoot 'Em Up or a John Woo movie (even though those are real good), but more like all of the old-school Joel Silver-produced fare, like Die Hard 1/2, Lethal Weapon 1/2/3, The Last Boy Scout, 48 Hrs., and so on, perhaps a revisionist take on that whole genre.

As far as this new "Die Hard" movie is, it ain't a Die Hard movie. Why? Because it's called Live Free or Die Hard, and therefore the radical changes to the franchise also reside in mutilating the title as well as the content. A Die Hard movie starts with "Die Hard" IMO. Chop "Hard" off the title, and then we might have a more plausible situation here. This is, of course, permitting it was actually shot as an R.

Yavin

I guess that means they should retitle the film before it's officialy released to be Live Free or Die Semi-Erect ...

Matto1020

I dont know about anyone else but I really wish we would of gotten the "Die Hard 4.0" title. It fits with the theme of the movie and sounds much better than Live Free or Die Hard.

Artman

I was personally pulling for 'Die Hardest'.

MartinBlank

Thanks for the spoiler!!!!

Seantn

I know, i'm shocked to hear that McClane fires a gun in the movie as well!

tylergfoster

Except, you are. Female nudity was permitted in Titanic because it was tasteful and again it is one of less than five examples EVER of any female nudity in a PG-13 and probably the only example in the past decade. There is no reason for the nudity to be in Die Hard, so it would have to be cut. The violence is not based on a true event, and therefore it would have to be cut. The language would be on top of violence, and therefore it would have to be trimmed. Given the amount of violence, language, and to a far lesser extent, nudity in Die Hard, at least 10 minutes of cuts would be required to get the film a PG-13 by today's standards. Therefore, you are in fact incorrect. As someone else said, tone is a big deal, and this is just an action film, there is no artistic or real-life reason for any of the MPAA's problem areas to be viewed in a more lenient or less strict fashion and so all the rules would come into play. I know you're not going to change your mind, but you are indeed plain wrong, and I DO know. It's not just reading the MPAA website, I really have facts to back me up.

d2cheer

No I am no more wrong that you are; you have no facts to back any of that up what you have is YOUR opinion base on how previous movies were rated. You are not a member of the ratings board so it is all just your opinion. We can play this all day if you like because if you want to keep telling me I am wrong I will continue to correct you. All movies are treated differently I have stated that before. Example in Indiania Jone in The Temple of Doom, the human sacrifise scene, is more graphic and disturbing than anything in a Die Hard movie, but that was PG-13, today it if it was re-rated it might get an R. Again with minor trims Die Hard could get a PG-13. I said COULD, you or anyone else can't dispute that with out it being put before the ratings board. A few seconds of blood spatter and gore trimmed, take out the F-words and it would not be 10 minutes of trims either...

Corvin

I don't really care to get mixed up in this whole debate, but I'm pretty sure Temple of Doom is actually PG. In fact, wasn't this the film that had the MPAA create PG13?

pinata242

It was one of the major factors. But if PG-13 was created as a result of this movie, it stands to reason that it should be PG-13 and only got PG because it was grandfathered in.

Yavin

Actually, I hear that they did shoot a bunch of alternate takes with an unrated DVD in mind. They even replaced Justin Long's character with a character played by "Fiddy" cent. The unrated DVD will be released with a new title as well: "Live Free or Die Tryin'".

Michael Corvin

Here is an interview with Bruce by Kevin Smith: Apple Link

No true spoilers, but it isn't a strict interview, they intersperse the q&a with footage from the film. So you see quite a bit of the action.

d2cheer

Doc MacGyver

That was kinda the deal Steven S. made with the MPAA. Let this one go with a "PG" and I'll back you in creating a new rating.


-Doc

tylergfoster

Well I tried to suggest it without saying it but I know someone in the film industry who would be aware of the information and he backs me up, he says having seen the film it would require trims and cuts of everything I stated, which is why I stated them. Like I tried to say, it's not opinion, it's fact. Straight from someone who would know.

Rogue588

My recollection is that there was an outcry about the violence after Temple was released, not before, that forced the MPAA to come up with the new rating.

tylergfoster

Yeah, I believe there is also like, a note on the VHS at least that says the film may be too intense for younger viewers. Something like that may or may not have also been on the Jaws VHS tape/original DVD.

mdc3000

It was the intense one-two punch of Temple of Doom (may 23, 1984) and GREMLINS (june 8, 1984) that got them to bring the PG-13 into existance.

d2cheer

OH you KNOW somone in the FILM INDUSTRY WOW!!!! Should I bow???



Nope still just opinion, after all this I am "supposed" to believe that you "know" someone in the "film" industry...how "convenient" for your argument. Umm OH wait I know someone too and they told me that with minor trims it could get a PG-13 rating umm that is why I said that... That is the problem with you saying that you know someone, it takes away from all your credibility because everyone in the film business will tell you the ratings board is a crap shoot and you never know how they will rate something. Even if you do unless that person is ON the ratings board what he says is useless because the rating board NEVER flat out tells you what you need to cut!! Then if he is on the board he is not supposed to tell you anything, but then there could be others with a different opinion as well.

So unless it is submitted with MINOR trims you can't lay claim to anything... Done... over and out... say what you must.

chanster

Man I remember being shocked - SHOCKED! by the nudity in Titanic. It was a nice surprise.

I think Titanic got the rating because Fox probably lobbied the shit out of the MPAA to get the rating. As you may remember, Titanic's budget was out of this world for that time period, Fox had pretty much gone "all in" with the budget. They couldn't put lmuch pressure on the director - since it was James Cameron, who was already successful and had put his own money into the thing as well. So Cameron was probably as immune to studio pressure as it most directors could be.

I'm sure, if the studios really flex their muscles, they can get the MPAA to cave - since it is basically their buddies doing the ratings anyway.

Most of the time the studios don't flex their muscles - but with A-list directors and big-time movies, they will. I don't think Die Hard 4 neccessarily fits that category, so they didn't lobby that hard.

Still doesn't make much sense.

tylergfoster

If you can't trust the opinion of someone who has actually had dealings with the ratings board then you are clearly just delusional.

Plus while the MPAA doesn't tell you what to cut they can suggest that, say, the overall violence level in the film is too high and it is generally pretty easy for an intelligent person to understand what things they are targeting.

But whatever, don't believe me. The entire Matrix trilogy has less violence and language than the first Die Hard alone not one but all three films got tagged as R. I also think it is extremely important in the argument to look not at what one can get away with in a PG-13 but what constitues an R. Transformers was also rated R on the first pass and got a PG-13 on appeal so I really don't think it takes much to acquire an R these days -- the famous line itself is enough seeing as LFoDH doesn't contain it in its entirety -- and that's just the beginning when it comes to the original.

Matthew Chmiel

Bay shot Transformers in mind with the PG-13. What happened is that the MPAA slapped it with an R stating it would be "too intense" for younger viewers (due to the film's non-stop action in the second half). Of course, DreamWorks and Paramount weren't too happy with this. So Spielberg came in and pretty much told the MPAA to give him the PG-13 and viola!