...franchise? We've had one movie. Now we're having another. One was R. The next is PG-13. We've only seen an R film out of The Expendables once. We still don't know wtf a PG-13 looks like. While I'm not exactly happy w/ the rating change...I'll be damned if we haven't had badass action PG-13 films. I'd prefer some blood flying around but...blood doesn't make the action. The action makes the action film. Not the blood...for the most part.

also...you are chris_sc77...you've got to be.

If he's not there has to be something up with people named Chris in the world.

Don't pressure him. I want a slow reveal...

*eye twitch*

"Disrespectful"? It's The Expendables, act accordingly. Besides, it's Sylvester Stallone again* - who's he being disrespectful to? Himself? Grow up.

I'm willing to bet it's going to be PG-13 simply because the last movie was going to be PG-13 too. They shot it as such and tested R-rated (with CGI blood added) and PG-13 versions, and one can assume that the R-rated version testing better, along with the internet reaction to the dual testing, spurred them to go with the R option. Looking at the success of other PG-13 action films and how much money they left on the table by going R, and realizing that the internet is far from reality, they're not making the same mistake twice.

*I know West is directing, but look up Stallone's history of picking directors to guess how much creative input West actually has

Nope, I enjoy that version of the film as well (saw it twice in theaters) and it's the only version I watch, since the unrated version is a bad joke since the film was obviously made as a PG-13.

I wasn't a fan of the first Expendables film and I haven't seen the supposedly improved extended version. So I can't say whether the sequel will be good or not. But it is pretty cool having all these action stars in one film, so I would hope the film is fun and entertaining at least.

Yeah....either way it's got some fucked editing on the dialogue. Bothered me. I like DH4...but as an action movie...not as a DH movie.

Yeah, you know it's going to be a weird DH movie when the words "Based on the article" are in the credits. Still better than part 2 though.

I think it's crap that this will be watered down, but it couldnt be worse (in terms of quality) than the first...could it?

This is the Internet, why are you bringing logic and maturity here?

Yeah, but I think the train scene and the safe set piece were by far the most fun, the other stuff was just OK. I think that franchise works best with car stunts, and since they're changing it direction, I hope there'll still be some car fun in VI. Though they are probably running out of ideas for car sequences . But this is for another thread.

I thought they were even older than that. I find them funny, maybe because I don't hear them very often, my buddy is sick to death of them.

Look, here are a couple of things more to the point, IMO. First, art? This is the sequel to The Expendables produced by a guy who biggest credits are Rambo movies and direct-to-video action sequels. There's not a single thing wrong with that at all, I've watched many of them, I'll watch more, I'm in no way a snob, but it's a Stallone movie by the director of Con Air. It's not Bergman, for goodness sake. Two, if you're really against censorship, boycott the movie. Look, I'm not please about the PG-13 rating. I'm going to bitch about it online. But I go see this movie? Of course I will. Will I buy it on DVD? Of course I will. If I and many other people aren't willing to put our money where our mouth are, why should Hollywood care? Yeah, I whine about the fact that Hollywood makes endless franchises and sequels, but they all make millions of dollars, hundreds of which are mine, so really, I'm in no position to complain.

It is worth noting I'm not a complete hypocrite. I have generally avoided seeing any Asian cinema released by the Weinsteins, I don't buy their DVDs if they're terrible censored version, and I've mass boycott all things Lucas until the original version of the original Star Wars trilogy comes out (which they never will). So I think it's just a case of picking your battles. I'm still debating whether or not to see Sony's release of The Raid, even with the change of the score sanctioned by the director. So maybe I'm not entirely spineless. Just mostly :P.

I like the unrated cut, but in spite of Wiseman and Willis' claims to the contrary, it looks to me like they just dubbed in some swearing and put in a bit of digital blood, it hardly looks like "it's the film that was originally shot." And I loved the "out of bullets" line, no idea why they changed it for the unrated cut.

I fucking love the first movie. I have no moral or aesthetic defense for it. It's full of ham-handed dialogue, it butchers the fight choreography of those among the few mortals still living who can still create exciting action sequences, its other set pieces of full of difficult-to-comprehend editing and shaky-cam, it underutilizes a once-in-a-lifetime cast, and it has so many problems. But as a trip back to Reagan-era action flicks, I enjoyed the living hell out of it. Maybe I just never grew up, that is possible.

Look, bro. Nobody here loves the 1st one more than I. Cuz it's essentially my childhood dream come true in a way. But...it's a horrible trip back to Reagan era action. Mostly due to the filmmaking involved....which in no way harkens back to that great era's type of direction for action.

I'm just talking about the style. It's a trip back to the days when everyone bled gallons and gallons of blood, every fifth word was profane, and all of the bad guys were mustache-twirlers with bad accents. I'm not arguing Stallone has he flair that many of them did (like I said, clumsy set pieces), but I think Stallone is obviously of a very retro sensibility. It's a trip back to the days when movies were sold on the stars instead of the concepts.

I just bought the extended cut on blu-ray and definitely prefer that version....It actually improves it a little.

Yes, the first stumbles all over itself but I just think it works that way but with that said....I hope things are done differently the second time out.

my friend (president of The Arnold Fans website) reported on facebook that this movie now has a R-rating!

hell yea!

Movieweb.com is also reporting the R rating. They said that Sly is confirming it.

But did they use squibs and karo or is it CGI blood tacked on at the last minute, as was done with the first film?

^this.

obviously CGI.

"It's PG-13!"
The Internet goes crazy.
"No, it's R!"
The Internet goes crazy.
I can't help but think this sounds a bit like a publicity stunt...

so I have read all the posts about Chuck Norris trying to convice Simon West to make get this a PG-13 instead of an R. There just seems like he could have no clout to try and do this, when he made countless R rated movies in the 80s, and the only thing he is know for the last 15-20 years is Walker Texas Ranger.

Which is basically like PG-13 with how fake it looks. So in the end it really won't matter what the rating is. Oh except you might get a couple of f-words.

I would love to see a red-band trailer where Stallone (or Bruce or Arnold) comes out and says "F@#K Chuck Norris...it's an R!"

Unless you are willing to use the R rating you can only say the 'f' word once. You know what I say? Fuck that.

...I'm not sure how secure of a word something can be taken from Couture but...he said, "Probably going to start shooting 'Expendables 3' in the fall after 'The Expendables 2' comes out in August." While deep down...my kneejerk reaction is YES...but....let's see what West brings before the idea of My Childhood Movie Dream Part 3 happens. Just saying..also...they..they already have a script for 3? Granted...it's not a David Mamet script or something but...still...

Ironically, your post would be rated PG-13.