Lol.

CHuck Norris is a piece of shit.
http://www.slashfilm.com/rumor-the-e...s/#more-119465
Rumor: ‘The Expendables 2′ Rated PG-13 Because of Chuck Norris?
...


"With The Expendables 2, you have a lot of hard language in there that means that means that young people won’t be able to see it. I said, I don’t do movies like that. I didn’t do them in the past, I didn’t do them on my TV series. I said, you have to cut out all the language, hardcore language or I can’t do it. So they did, and Expendables is now a PG-13 film so kids can see it.

The ExpendablesPremiere.com translation differs somewhat, but the overall message is similar:

In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. Fot this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this. Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not ereased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13.

Considering the first film’s emphasis on violent action sequences, it strikes me as absurd to pinpoint bad words as the reason the sequel could’ve been inappropriate for children and teens. And if Expendables 2 really is aiming for a PG-13 — and it’s possible it isn’t, since it’s ultimately not up to Norris — I’m guessing language won’t be the only compromise, either.

I understand where Norris is coming from, to a point, since he’s known for having strong moral convictions. It’s also easy to see why the studio might be eager to downgrade from an R to a PG-13, since the latter draws in bigger audiences. For grown-up fans hoping for unrestrained action, though, a PG-13 rating isn’t an auspicious sign.""




I wont be seeing this just because of t his bullshit and Norris. Fucking ignorant Republican. Mowing down hundreds of people is cool but dont say "fuck"
Yep. makes sense to me! There are gonna be a lot of people who really do care about the rating of something like this and will not see it if this is the case.

I swear I've known you for a long time.

Well the first movie was intended to be PG-13 and then altered (partly in post and partly mid-production) to gain an R-rating since the fans demanded it. However, I don't buy that story one bit. Norris is awesome but hardly has any clout to dictate such terms. Also, I could have sworn he'd done at least a couple of R-rated movies before his TV days.

Case in point, 1991's R-rated The Hitman.

Most of Norris' 80s filmography carries an R rating.

However, Lionsgate is financially in the shitter due to last year's slate of turds and their recent $500 million purchase of Summit, so who knows...

Thanks. That's why the article was bothering me since it made it seem he was claiming he never did R-rated movies.

I could see Lionsgate opting for a PG-13 in the hopes of increasing ticket sales but not because Norris told them to. And certainly not for the reasons that he supposedly doesn't do R-rated movies.

I am not sure but I think he meant movies with harsh laguage not R rated per se.

I could buy each scenario (Lionsgate and Norris wanting a PG13 for different reasons) but a watered down rating won't be because of Norris. When you think about it, none of these guys are in any position to dictate what the final film is or isn't, they're just happy to be in a potential 300+million grossing film that will give them more exposure than they've had in years (or decades for some).

Before Chuck Norris, there were no swear words.

i will honestly not see this until the UR or DC Blu.

Yeah I don't really buy it either. As a supporting actor in this movie, he has no say on how the studio, Sly or Simon West wants it to be.

As someone who owns practically all of Norris's B movies from the 80's and early 90's, I've noticed that he's never cursed in any of his movies and that they only received R ratings because of the violent action sequences.

Yeah, after taking Hollywood as his professional career, it slowly started to lose a lot in volume over the years but what do you expect? Especially since the last decade weren't so great for him, being in a desk all those years don't give him time to keep to what his body needed. Sly can keep his body up to par because he has a program that was for his roles not as a weight lifter as his profession.

I'm not one to judge movies based off of ratings but how could this be a viable balls-to-the-wall, blood and guts action flick if it's toned down to PG-13? How much violence could squeak in?

well...heavy lack of blood and graphic violence. So...I imagine to the extent that A Team had?

Van Damme's famous spin kicks are retired so he won't be kicking hard in this movie. Otherwise he will end up handicapped.

Talking about JCVD...when the fuck are we going to get a trailer for the new UniSol?! Fucking want to see that really bad.

Well, looks like it's true:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52774

I thought the first film sucked, so at this rate, the sequel has nowhere to go but down.

Next thing we'll find out is this thing is less that 120 minutes. Crap.

lol.... uh oh.

Oh...what the fuck, Sly?! Fuck, man. What? Fuck. Fuck. Shit.

This is now a Netflix rental at most for me. This was posted on another site but I couldn't agree more: The first Expendables was lackluster enough, and now this? What this whole fucking franchise was about was to get a bunch of action-stars and create good ol' fashioned 80's mayhem. These were your words, Sly, and we believed you. We never asked for deep emotions, complex characters or a profound message. None of that. What we asked for, craved for, was the action we grew up with. You failed us.

"Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing" ...so this is a gay porno now?

Meh. The rating doesn't bother me one bit. As long as the action is entertaining, I won't mind the lack of squibs or blood buckets.

I just hope they don't repeat the mistake of the first movie by shooting for a PG-13 and adding CGI gore in post to get an R-rating at the last minute.

I think it is weak that 1 guy (who really isn't even a star anymore) can dictate what the rating is.