Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AVP rated PG-13

This is topic AVP rated PG-13 in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003408

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-27-2004, 10:24 PM:

Now I just saw a commercial on TV that gave the PG-13 rating to Alien Vs. Predator. Tell me they are not trying to get the teen crowd. Could this be good or a big mistake.

Does anyone know if this was given a R rating but cut to a PG-13.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-28-2004, 01:42 AM:

Well the IMDB message boards are being flooded with a lot of angry people over the rating.

Here we have two classic movie characters that people have been waiting for a long time to see battle it out on the big screen and now we are treated to a watered down version of what could have been a pretty good flick.

I know a rating doesn't make a movie, but c'mon? Alien vs Predator? This movie isn't going to be worth the film it's printed on.

Shame on you Fox.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-28-2004, 01:46 AM:

Wow, this sucks. Greedy studioheads are thinking short term. Why not just go with the best product and let dvd sales to afficianados make up for a slightly less box office take from the casual teen fan?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2004, 02:02 AM:

PG-13 rating. R-rating. NC-17... Who cares? This one is likely to suck much ass regardless of what it is rated. The Alien franchise only seems able to sink to new lows with every installment. The first two were the only ones worth a damn. I try to pretend the other installments don't exist.

Hell, it would probably be more novel an idea to have a G-rated "AVP" where the two creatures have a sing-along with lots of little kids, serve milk and cookies and talk about how violence is not always the best way to solve problems....

...well, that would suck too. But it would probably be better than this likely PG-13 rated turd.

Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 07-28-2004, 02:03 AM:

I kind of thought about the rating too, when I saw the trailer. Theres this one line "You're one ugly son of ah....". But we all know thats not how the line goes. Best said by Governor Arnold "You aw one ugly Mutha fucka".

I don't see how a PG-13 rated movie could ever attract a teen crowd. From Elementary through High School, my friends were into the blood and guts and T&A. Mostly anything PG-13 was dismissed.

I remember when Paul Anderson (the director of AVP) made Mortal Kombat in 1995. It was treated as a joke from everyone I knew from its opening day until its 99cent used video bargin bin days. I remember saying that I was going to go see it to a few classmates, and one of thier exact reply was "But thats only PG-13, its going to be stupid, they're not going to show anything!". Just like Alien and Predator, it was the extreme violence of the Mortal Kombat games, that made it so memorable and popular in the first place. How he thought he could get away with making this movie PG-13 without any decapitations or even blood is beyond me.

One of the trademark Predator moves is to rip a human's head off right from there shoulders with the spinal cord still attached. Then clean and polish the head until its a bright shiny skull to place in his trophy case. Can they do that in a PG-13 movie?

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-28-2004, 07:06 AM:

If you have noticed:

The majority of films coming out nowadays are rated PG-13. And, yes, in most cases there is a compromise involved with the overall storyline and quality of these films. "King Arthur" is a good example. I read an article in Entertainment Weekly in which the director of the film was furious over the cuts that were made to the film to bring it from an R to a PG-13. He says that these cuts caused the film to be as bad as it is now. The only hope that we have now are DVDs. When the 'director's cut' or the Unrated (or R) versions come out.

From the studios point of view - it is all about the almighty $ dollar $. With a PG-13 rating the kiddies don't have to be turned away and therefore they make more money.

From a theatre manager point of view - it's less of a headache for us: we don't have to be chasing kids and teens around all weekend that are trying to sneak in "R" films.

[Razz]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-28-2004, 11:45 AM:

Strategy:
Release the PG-13 version to theaters so *everyone* can see the 2-hour commercial for the R-rated, Uncut, With Stuff You Couldn't See In Theaters DVD version.

=TMP=

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-28-2004, 01:35 PM:

I thought that it was pretty much decided in preproduction what rating they are shooting for. So in that event, when a director is suppose to make a PG-13 movie and insteads delivers an R to the studio, than he/she should have not the right to complain about any cuts made to secure that PG-13 rating (they should have known better). The opposit should also hold true however, meaning that if the studio had told the director to make the movie any way that they want and then the studio butchers it to a PG-13 than the director has a ligimate gripe.

I don't claim to know much about the movie process but from listening to some of the DVD commentaries, it seems pretty apparent that a majority of the directors (excluding of course directors like Lucus and Spielberg) have studio executives looking over their shoulders through most of the process anyway. So there really isn't much excuse for them not to deliver a movie at the agree upon rating.

This being said, I don't think that a PG-13 rating necessarly means that this movie is going to suck. If the director is really cleaver and KNEW that the movie was going to be PG-13 than the movie does not have to suffer. A PG-13 movie can be scary (Sixth Sense) and you can get away with a ton of violence (LOTR). I am sure that you can Kill, Destroy, Rip to Shreds, the Alien puppets and spill as much of their blood as you want and still get the 13 rating. You just have to be a little more careful with the Predators since they are humanoid (but not much more than LOTR's Orks). So you really only have to be careful how much human gore you show. I am a big fan of the Alien VS Predator concept, so I am really hoping that this movie do not suck.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-28-2004, 01:40 PM:

Maybe Fox wanted to air this after Malcom in the Middle when it comes to TV? [Razz]