Cool News
Omega Prime autobops in with a behind the scenes bit with MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2
Alright goddamn it, enough of this crap. Ms Lansing... Would you please step away from the editting bay? If the movie is as awesome as John Woo can put out... then LEAVE IT BE! If Tom Cruise is also Happy with it... LEAVE IT BE! God forbid you release a film that was MADE FOR ADULTS with the proper Rating. Oh... by allllll means cut out the meat... the more serious ramifications of the cartoon violence... Don't show any true suffering. Just make it more 'FAMILY ACCESSIBLE'. After all... any friggin film with a MILLION DAMN GUN BLASTS... and heavy duty fight stuff.... It's a family film. Films like TERMINATOR 2 ($204,446,562.52 domestic) seem to have done fine in the R market. If Woo has his film taken from him by Paramount, I personally hope every action and adventure fan in the WORLD stays away from the film like the fucking plague. Enough of this crap. Let the man make the movie, you promote and see the movie he makes! That's the way this business was MEANT TO BE!
Harry,
It was a pleasant surprise to see my comments about "M2M" on the site. I
have never written in before (despite being present at many advance
screenings) becasue I lacked the motivation. After seeing "M2M", however, I
felt it was my duty to try and promote it ( I never expected you to actually
put up my short little paragraph. ). Here's some new info about an issue that I am very concerned
about:
It seems that Director John Woo and Paramount Pictures are in a heated
dispute over the final cut of "Mission Impossible 2". John Woo's "cut" runs 2
hours and 12 minutes and will almost certainly receive an R-rating. Paramount
has insisted the he re-edit the film to receive a more "friendly" PG-13
rating. In an effort to appease their demands and prove to them that the film
will not work that way he has cut an alternate 96 minute PG-13 version that
is very lackluster. Currently, Cruise supports Woo's first cut (he longs to
be considered more than a pretty boy; an action star) but the "producer"
within him worries about the future of his potential franchise and how an
R-rating may affect the box office of the film. Paramount is on the verge of
taking the film out of Woo's hands and cutting their own 1 hour 55 minute
PG-13 rated version.
Omega Prime
-
+ Expand All
-
Woo knows what he's doing, The last thing we need is a bunch of suits second guessing him.
-
I feel annoyed that the director's vision maybe compromised due to market forces. I understand the pressures to make a profitable film, and that a higher classification may limit the audience of MI2, but it did Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Hard Target no harm. Release Woo's vision and see the money pour in! Seeing the UK trailer for MI2 has my pulse racing already!
-
John woo loves his flapping slo mo doves right? Well take that baby into an Avid and past flapping slow mo doves over all the really gory parts. That way everyone's happy the suits get their pared down PG:13 version that they can make more cash of and Woo can indulge in his bird fetish (pun intended.
Hmmmmmm actually come to think of it if they did that the movie would be more of a nature documentry there would be birds everywhere!! -
I do enjoy reading comments of the illiterate. I can't stand people who class films as 'fucking awful' not realising that all films, regardless how bad, have a place in society. Yes, there are some bad films out there, we've all seen them, but to swear at a film is the lowest form of criticism. Be constructive with your critcism, and don't slag off stars, they must be doing something right if they're earning that much money!
-
I seriously hope the powers at be at Paramount don't shoot themselves in the foot and tamper with Woo's cut. I imagine it would be a colossal mistake.
-
How dare anyone criticise this film. How DARE anyone criticise John Woo! Hack director??
Lets face facts now. MI shouldn't have been directed by Woo. But that isn't his fault. It is that short, plastic enhanced, pretty boy. So it should have been a tense, atmospheric thriller. With more plot twists than The Usual Suspects. But to be honest, I and the other few million people who go and see it will not care. Why?
Because it is a woo-film(TM). Woo is an artist. Some say he is a predictable director. So What? The bloke Rokkz!
Have you seen the trailer? Maybe I am the only weirdo, but I haven't felt that good watching a trailer since the Matrix. (Anyone notice the trenchcoat and shadez?) Call me shallow. I don't care. I can appreciate Costume Dramas and intelligent looks at the 'Human Condition' and But I felt waves of pleasure watching Cruise Kick/Shoot/Blow up seven shades of shit out of numerous faceless bad guyz.
Enjoy. Cave in to your shallowness. Lets face it. In America, 'Good' films never do well at the box office, as a rule. -
Yes Face Off was a smash but Hard Target's 32 Mil gross was about average for Van Damme at that time. The R rating did probably limit Broken Arrow's potential up-
side as a PG-13 would not inconcievable with a few trims here and there. BTW as a recent(last weekend) discoverer of AICN, was Mr Knowles inspiration for the site's name come from Travolta's retort to Christian 'Copbiter' Slater's comments in Brkn Arr(Slater: 'You're crazy, you know that' Travolta:' Yeah. AIN'T IT COOL') -
Jan 22, 2000 11:13:53 AM CST
people, stop making kids and this crap won't happen anymore!
by homeslice
kids ruin everything. did i ask to see T&A when i saw the IRON GIANT? no. did i get the foul language and bloodshed i normally require? no. do NOT edit john woo!!!
-
Jesus Christ! An "R" is becoming almost as taboo as NC-17!
-
you should take your edit of MI:2 turn that sunofabitch sideways and shove it straight up your roody poo candy a**es. When oh please when will studios grow a spine?
-
Hollywood is all about money man. They don't care about us they just want some asses packing those seats up. It's sad people, I mean to them talent and art is nothing. I really hope no cool scenes are cut because I really enjoy John Woo's work.
-
Since when was it up to you presumptious asses to decided what MI is and is not about? The first film already established that it would totally screw with the TV show's conventions (Mr. Phelps a bad guy?!). Now comes the second film. Do you really want to see the same type of film over again? Then you'd be whining that the movie was too similar and unoriginal! It's even more ridiculous when a guy who admits he hated the first film is complaining the second isn't going to be more like it! Morons. Cruise is smart. He's keeping things fresh, taking it in a new direction. A different interpretation of the secret agent genre. This is perfect. I hope he gets a director with strong vision to work on every MI film, it would keep the series from going stale. And last I checked, the only other spy series out there, Bond, has been going beserk with action to great success. Hell, it hasn't really been about tense spying situations for decades. MI does what people have been wishing the Bond producers would do for years: Hire directors with a real vision and style (not to mention writers - Robert freaking Towne people). We should be comending not condemning. If you want the to see stories done just like the TV show, then go watch the damn TV show! (Oh, one last thing: How the F*CK do you people know there WON'T be spying elements in here? Isn't Thandie Newton supposed to be going undercover seducing then doublecrossing baddies and Cruise?)
-
Tom Cruise, a pretty boy with no acting talent. You obviously are very insecure and need to put him down to feel like a man. The dude can act and I knew that before Magnolia. Also, why the hell are you people so surprised and upset? The first one was PG-13, why the hell would they rate this R? I would love to see a hardcore M.I. 2 as much as you, but its a franchise and kids will want to see it. The first one would have bombed if it was R.
-
One thing that we have all been being denied by Hollywood is the carnage and bloodshed a truly brilliant action movie can contain. My rule for a great action movie was that it had to at least contain 1) a bullet or projectile of some sort to the head, and 2) some form of dismemberment. Now think about it. Robocop, Die Hard, Predator, Total Recal, Terminator, Hard Boiled, these are great action movies. They were are rated R. They were all hugely successful. And they all featured some of the most outlandish and fantastic squib hits since Peckinpa. I'm dying for this kind of movie to resurface, and Woo is one of the only guys left that can give it to me. Verhoven is capable, but no one wants to give him money. Now I agree that Woo probably wasn't the best choice, but at least he's making it his own, unlike what DePalma did. And I understand what Paramount is thinking too. But how many of these movies do we have to watch get chopped to bits in theaters just so they can go and put the stuff back in on video? THAT'S the true crime. Why not put out a PG-13 print and an R print and see what gets more business. I already know the answer to that. Bond is feeling the restraints of this rating, True Lies proved that a spy movie can also be filled with a TON of action, and as for MI:2, this isn't your father's mission! Let the thing go forth with all its gusto or we're gonna here complaints about action holes, and it being soft. Paramount should've known, you hire Woo, you get an R. Kinda like how ABC should've known that if you gave David Lynch another chance at TV, it was gonna be just as weird as the first two times. Course I have a solution for this whole ratings thing: get Valenti off that board, change the system to something where the R equivelant is no one under 15 allowed PERIOD (cause we all know they're sneaking in anyways) and lets start seeing movies that keep their teeth.
-
The first movie ruined the integrity of the show, they weren't even concerned with the characters before, killing off the entire team in the first five minutes and making Phelps the villain? Oh, what an original plot idea! "Let's take this character, whom an actor had spent years developing into the model leader, and make him into a bad guy!! Won't that show how clever we are!!!!!!!!!!"
-
Slo-mo, two guns, birds flying in background...thats John Woo right there. No more than that. Now that ive gotten that out of my system, lets rant on the rating system. If I had a child, I would rather him/her watch the un-censored NC-17 rated version of EYES WIDE SHUT than the PG-13 version of MI:2. Am I the only one who thinks that violence is far far worse than sex. In fact, is sex bad at all? The way Hollywood cuts little corners here and there to make sure that every young impressionable mind in the nation can see massive loads of carnage makes me sick. The next Columbine isnt far away. When it does strike, I hope its in the schools of the children of Jack Valenti and other Hollywood big-wigs. FUCK THE MPAA!
-
I'm become really frustrated with the mpaa and the studios lately. With the mpaa slapping films for their sometimes arbitrary, "yeah we pulled this one out of our ass" ratings and exerting their power to kill a film at the box office by giving it a NC-17 rating. (Which they seem to be doing a lot of lately) And I'm frustrated with the studios for butchering films against the wishes of the directors and actors. Especially with this whole Eyes wide shut cencorship issue. My real point though is this: let's take our opinions to the people who can change this. Let's let the studios know that there are a lot of us who strongly feel that film is an artform and that putting digitally created robes in any frames of eyes wide shut because it's risque is like putting a pair of shorts on Michealangelo's David.
P.S. If Cruise is happy, I say no one should touch the damn thing. His name alone will bring in enough money as it is. -
Jan 22, 2000 3:46:51 PM CST
Is it me, or do the MI2 trailers look like sunglasses commercial
by stephen dedalus
Did you see that idiotic trailer with Tom Cruise, where he's climbing up the rock, flinging that pair of high-tech looking sunglasses at the screen? How much do you think they'll sell for when the movie comes out? You just know some department store is going to have a special: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 SUNGLASSES!!! THE KIND TOM CRUISE WORE!!! FOR ONLY $199.99!!!
-
On the one hand, it's wrong for such an established director to have to put up with this sort of thing. But that's Hollywood for you. On the other hand, Face/Off could (and, I feel, should) have been about 30 minutes shorter. If the cuts Paramount wants are ratings based, I hope they back off. But if it's to (Heaven Forbid!) make a leaner tighter action movie then I don't have as much of a problem with that.
-
John Woo is my hero. I have fallowed his work for quiet a long time now. His movies are very visualy pleasing, true they might be a bit gory at times it's more poetic violence thehan stupid hollywood gore. I think that cuting the movie down to a PG-13 audience will severly take away from the adult audience! I know plenty of people that won't take a movie rated anything but R seriously. I agree with Harry when he says it's an adult film, I can't tell you one kid that understood the first one. There are actualy a few ADULTS I know that didn't get it. This film deserves to be seen the way John Woo cut it. Anything less, would be just that. (that could be the tag line!)
-
If Woo changed all his slow motion shots to normal speed, the movie would probably reach Paramount's 93 minutes =D
-
of course, it should read "noticeably" my last post.
-
Jan 22, 2000 5:00:13 PM CST
Could anybody delete my last post? it's in the wrong board.
by human tornado
-
and who cares if it is rated R? Leave the movie alone. Also, Tom Cruise is not good looking enough to be a "pretty boy"
-
Jan 22, 2000 7:12:10 PM CST
Perhaps It's time for someone to form a new studio that would ma
by herman snerd
-
Jan 22, 2000 7:19:05 PM CST
Uh-huh, yet another instance of some dildo-sucking moron in a su
by jopapa
I'm sick of this shit. BOYCOTT!! BOYCOTT!! BOYCOTT!! I say we all storm the major studios and put out all the good films that the studios ruined (Eyes Wide Shut, for example) the way they were SUPPOSED to bee seen! FUCK THE MPAA AND THE STUDIOS THAT SUPPORT IT!! If my kid wants to see an R film, by God I'll let him see an R film! It's not some suit's decision what he can or can't see. It's mine.
-
First of all, anyone who thinks John Woo is a hack for a director needs to go back to the optometrist and get their vision re-checked. Either that, or they haven't seen any of his brilliant foreign films, most prominently The Killer and Hard-Boiled, but also including Bullet in the Head and A Better Tomorrow. And Tom Cruise just a pretty boy? I don't think so. Look at his recent choices of films/directors compared to his earlier efforts: Mission:Impossible/Brian DePalma, Jerry Maguire/Cameron Crowe, Eyes Wide Shut/Stanley Kubrick, Magnolia/P.T. Anderson, and M:I2 with Woo. Clearly this is an actor who has learned to take creative risks with his roles and is aware of where the potential talent in Hollywood lies.
-
This move by Paramount has proved what I always thought. Hollywood studio's are cowards. Worried about a rating!!!!!!!
Pathetic. -
Jan 22, 2000 8:27:23 PM CST
Leave Mission: Impossible 2 alone, Paramount! This film will ma
by wesreviews
Predator, Robocop, Face/Off, Con-Air, Die Hard...these films are among the greatest action films of all time and they were all RATED R. There is an audience for these movies. There is a BIG audience for these movies. Remember a little R RATED action film called BEVERLY HILLS COP? In fact, I think PARAMOUNT released it! It was Rated R and made a complete killing at the box office. Don't piss fans off, Paramount. We hold grudges for very long times. Multiply what you'll lose if we all save our money by not seeing a PG-13 John Woo M:I film and multiply that by about 20 years down the road of Paramount movies to be released.
-
See what you'd do if you cheated the audiences out of what they wanted to see? If you want to make a flop though, go right ahead. Huh, I must be stupid trying to talk some sense into a studio who can't make a decent DVD special edition.
-
No not you, the other bastards. The ones that used to beat the crap out of me. But seriously, fuck the TV show. The first movie looked kinda cool by the trailer so I started watching the old episodes on FX and was just bored. The movie itself was kinda lame but I'd still take it over most of the latest James Bonds (although the latest one was pretty cool). MI:2 looks bad ass. The trailer just blew me away. John Woo the wrong man for the job? Did anyone ever see Once a Thief? John Woo loves his crazy stunts and sneaking around, infiltrating security type shit alomst as much as outrageous amounts of blood letting. I'm sure there will be plenty of spy games to go along with two fisted gunplay and funky kicks and flips. Personally, I don't care if there isn't. If anyone's a hack it's Brian DePalma. If anyone had the misfortune to see Body Double you know what I mean. It's what you get when you manage to rape both Vertigo and Rear Window with and even Scooby Doo for Christ's sake (I do like the Untouchables, Carlito's Way, and Scarface though, I'm just in a hostile mood). I can't believe they want to cut down his version. No blood? No nudity? Two fisted gun firing followed by guys just falling over just isn't going to cut it. Anton Fuqua is rolling over in his grave. Oh well, I'm done rambling. John Woo's cool. The movie looks good. If you're the type that likes to sit around bitching and moaning about how bad everything and everybody sucks and is going to suck or whatever, have fun living with yourself.
-
Ok. First, I'd like to compliment Neo on what a fine talkback he's written. Everything he says, I agree with. Second, here's the problem with studio executives: THEY'RE NOT FILMMAKERS, and they'll never BE filmmakers. As a matter of fact, they don't give a crap about movies at all, they only care about the money. Screw them. And there are exceptions out there, however. Though I would like to address all those people out there who think Woo is a "hack." Here's a general rule of thumb: Don't call a director a "hack" unless you've seen everyone of his movies. I don't know how many John Woo movies you guys out there have seen, but it sure isn't enough. His movies aren't just about flying doves and double guns. They're call "trademarks." Just like how Hitchcock makes a cameo in almost everyone of his movies. So if you want to call Hitchcock a hack, be my guest. Everyone out there reading this post, think about this. Woo is the GREATEST ACTION DIRECTOR OF ALL TIME. Better than McTiernan, better then Verhoven, better than De Bont, better than anybody and everybody. He's even better than the Wachowski Brothers. And if you don't think so, that's too bad. Where do you think those brothers got all those great ideas in the Matrix. Oh, oh, I don't know, maybe from John Woo, Tsui Hark, and Ringo Lam, maybe? Yeah, I think so. And another thing. As long as he's in the US making movies, he'll never live up to his personal potential. Those executive bastards will never trust a capable director if their lives depended on it. Woo belongs in Hong Kong, in his natural element, and there he made some of the best action, action-comedy, and epics history has ever known. Yes, Mission Impossible 2 is gonna suck. I can tell you that right now. But it ain't gonna be cuz' of Woo.
-
I didnt read the other posts before i sent this in so apologies if someone mentioned this before...but....if they cut this film down to 96 minutes Im not going ANYWHERE near it and hope that the real movie will appear on dvd. And waht a shame that would be..evers ince i heard that John Woo was directing i have been very excited about this film...what a shame :o(
-
Let Pussymount release their shitty little John Woo movie in theater's, then let them release their bad ass John Woo movie on DVD and tape. They'll make money on both.
-
I gotta dumb question, but would love an answer. Is the preview with the rock climbing taken from the movie, or is it just for the trailer?
-
I had not even thought about getting a Talk Back account until I read this ludicrous report from Omega Prime. Now I know John Woo is a great director; one of the finest modern filmmakers the world currently knows. His penchant for filming spectacular, but somewhat bloody action films always quenchs my thirst for exciting breath-taking fun. Paramount, while not my favorite film studio, took the Mission Impossible license and made a realitivly good film with it. But when Paramount decided to do a sequel, they highered the wrong guy. I'm certainly not saying John Woo is a bad or incompetant director. On the contrary, he is one of my favorites. However, Mission Impossible was a TV show, full of crazy hijinks, entertaining espionage, and shallow charcter development. Paramouunt would have made of wiser decision by highering someone like John McTierenen, who is perfectly capable of keeping edge-of-your-seat thrills intact with miniumum violence (see The Thomas Crown Affair). But John Woo is known for his spectacular gun fights and impeccably staged action sequences. I think that they should make a compromise. John Woo should still make an amazing action film staring Tom Cruise; however, he should make it his own, without the Mission Impossible charcters. All he would need to do is refilm the actual plot of the movie and keep the original expolsions, bloody corpses, etc. Paramount on the other hand, should start from scratch, and hire a more family-friendly director. Since MI2 has only been unveiled to a small portion of the public, they could use the same story, but have another director film the action sequences. This way, we will get two films; the John Woo one more than likely better than the other one. Who knows? Maybe we would even be surprised and both would be great. If any one agrees with me, be sure to send me some email and tell me what you thought. Gotta go; my soup's getting cold.
-Totoro -
Jan 22, 2000 11:56:59 PM CST
Lost World was edited in order to maintain a PG-13 rating, and l
by el duderino
Remember how there was a period when all Lost World television commercials ended with "This film is not yet rated." and ultimately Spielberg chose to make it Pg-13? I'm still waiting for a directors cut to come out.
-
Man that's the same thing I had in my mind. They should simply changet the slow motion scenes into normal.
-
Jan 23, 2000 12:23:48 AM CST
These scissor happy execs ought to be placed in a burlap sack an
by coopcooper
Hey, there's still a chance the studio won't gang rape Mission Impossible 2...Isn't there? It's not official yet, is it? Maybe they'll see that the 96 minute version blows and they're better off taking their chances with the better R rated version. You'd think after the Matrix made shitloads that they may as go with the R rating. And who the fuck were they kidding anyhow? Did they really think John Woo would give them anything less than ultraviolent coolness? I did read somewhere that they would have let Woo have his cut stand if he got the movie in ontime. We all know he didn't so that's why there busting his balls. Still, though, why fuck up the movie? The number of 12 year olds who know or care who John Woo is probably isn't very significant. The number of 17+ folks who wouldn't give a shit about seeing a John Woo film that was cut to ribbons excising all of the things that make a John Woo movie what it is is probably very great. Haven't they ever heard of "let the movie grow with the audience"? All the bastards who were 12 & 13 in 95 are 17 & 18 now anyway. Motherfucker. This kind of thing pisses me off. Especially when they don't even release a goddamn director's cut after we all have to hear about how butchered it got. 8mm and Snake Eyes come to mind. Building up to there releases we had to hear about how 8mm needed to be trimmed for an R rating and how the studio demanded a new ending for Snake Eyes. I know there are probably more and better examples but that really sucks. As far as movies go anyway. Son of a bitch. I've become what I hate most - an angry fanboy. Fuck.
-
From when did John Woo became a great director. Making stupid but stylish(I have to agree with that) doesn't make him great director. Face-Off is one of the most idiotic movie I have ever seen. I wish it was Brian De Plama making M:I-2. And btw, who was that moron who was saying John Woo's name beside Stanley Kubrick.
-
Hey L'autear (however the fuck you spell it), if you think that the shooting in Columbine happened because of what those bastards saw in movies, you're a fuckin' idiot. Do you think Mark O. Barton killed his family and co-workers because of what he saw in the movies? Do you think kids that hate life bad enough to kill themselves got the idea from that poor bastard in An Officer and a Gentleman? Really, if the answer was that fucking simple we could just take away movies and the world would suddenly unite in the harmony of Utopian love. Fat fucking chance. Sex is great, violence sucks. In the movies they're both fake (unless we're talking porno or snuff films, which we aren't). The actors involved aren't really fucking and when people get "killed" they get right back up when the director yells cut. I shouldn't have to explain these concepts. I've grown up with violent movies and I'm doing okay. But the 6 o'clock news makes me cringe more than anything else. My point is, I don't know what my point is. The MPAA is total shit. Saving Private Ryan gets free reign and an R rating just because it's Spielberg. He will never have to deal with an NC-17, I know it. The MPAA plays favorites. They were probably all set to give South Park the dreaded NC-17 before they even saw it. Fuck this, I'm tired of ranting (although it's oh so fun). See you in hell.
-
Jan 23, 2000 12:53:49 AM CST
the asshole who was just saying that Brian DePalma shoulda direc
by coopcooper
Fuck, you bastards just can't let me go. You say Face/Off was idiotic but you wish Brian DePalma directed MI:2? First of all, you didn't even see the fucking thing, how do you know if it sucks or not. All I'm saying is I think it looks cool. I can't officially declare it cool until I see the goddamn movie. Like, ummm, how about Brian DePalma's last movie? I thought Snake Eyes was going to be cool. As much as I wanted to like that movie, as much as I tried not to be, I was dissapointed as all hell. That movie sucked. I like how, with the change of the ending, Nic Cage says, "I had this dream. I was back in that tunnel and only this time I drowned" or some shit like that. A blatant referance to the original movie carelessly left in the final print and making no sense at all. Plus, the ending was very anticlimatic and it was just overall dissapointing. I personally loved Face/Off. Fuck you. To say you didn't think it was good is one thing, but to declare it idiotic, that's just lame. Because then you go off offending people. Such well mannered individuals as myself (that was a joke before anyone goes off calling me an asshole). Oh well. There better not be another post that pisses me off. I'm sick of this shit. I'm one of you now. Ugh. Oh yeah, he already had his chance, MI was just as potentially good and ultimately dissapointing as Snake Eyes was.
-
Wesley Snipes kicks ass (the poster way up towards the top, that is). I agree with his post. He makes good points. Oh yeah, uh, fuck those studio bastards, burn in hell, down with sexism, blah, blah, blah...
(Note that this Coop character started off opinionated and volatile with a brash sense of overconfidence. It is sad to see that he has since resorted to directing readers to other posts and a pathetic self parody. Lets hope he can win us all back by someday returning to true form. Until then, feel free to occupy your time with the noble, neverending search for free porn. Thank you for your time.) -
People have to understand something. The #1 demographic of filmgoers in the U.S. is teenage girls. #2 is teenage boys. That's why that distened piece of rectal filth Fredie Prinze Jr. is in every other film that comes out, and why Jar Jar Binks exists, and why Paramount wants this film to be PG-13. We're at the mercy of Brittany Spears boys and girls.
-
If you guys neuter this possible John Woo classic, then F_CK YOU Paramount! This is f_cking ridiculous, man.... worried about some sh_tty demographics... F_CK!!!!!!!! I'm sick of watching money grubbin' idiots who don't know a good thing when it hits them upside the head destroying possible classics before it's even hit the screen! //d12-beowulf
-
I think that in a situation like this one we need to consider the possibility that Woo's contract may have had a few stipulations (run time, rating) that he was obligated to stay within. Paramount certainly must have wanted a PG13 rating and I'd imagine that whoever greenlighted the script must've honestly believed that on paper it was a PG13 film. That being said, I'd rather watch a balls-to-the-wall GOOD movie than an edited for ten year olds who won't follow the plot anyway unless a goddamned Pokemon shows up and explains it to them NOT SO GOOD movie. My point? Hell if I know.
-
coopcooper, ahhh, another narrow-minded soul who thinks that all humans think alike. "I don't get violent from the movies, therefore, nobody gets violent from the movies." That logic is fine and good when all you have to do is read about it in the news. You spin your petty theories...whatever it takes to justify your love of vicarious violence, whether it be Quake, Star Wars, or Arnold. I should know, I do it too. I love violent entertainment. Everyone does. How many movies DONT have either a gun or a murder? Very few. And I, like you coopcooper, am uneffected by it all (so i think, anyway). I am an extremely non-violent person. But not everyone is like us. Accept it. Some people see NATURAL BORN KILLERS and say, "I'm Mickey!!!" It happened, near where I live. Two teenage lovers went on a killing spree after watching that movie several times...the male shaved his head...and the two, when caught, openly admitted that the movie was their inspiration. Look, it only happens it one out of every million people. But when that one happens to enter YOUR life, will your theories hold up? Its easy to say "not my problem" when you endorse or produce violent entertainment, because of the first ammendment and other shields of intellectual protection. But we all know that these shields have cracks. Bad stuff gets through to bad people every now and then. When that bad person knocks on your door, or shows up in the cafeteria of your child, how will you feel then? truemask, if you ever mention Jan De Bont, The Worst Director Ever, in a paragraph about the best action directors ever, I will kill you. I got two words for you: Steven Spielberg. The angles, the editing, the John Williams scores...nobody does it better. For proof, I present RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, the single greatest action film ever.
-
When Paramount's Tom Clancy movies began coming out a decade ago, the first was HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, rated *PG*, the biggest blockbuster John McTiernan had ever had. 2 years later, with Harrison Ford replacing Alec Baldwin, Philip Noyce's mediocre sequel PATRIOT GAMES arrived with an *R* rating. Patriot Games made barely HALF what Red October did, box-office wise. Paramount learned that hard lesson, and determined to make more money next time. So 2 years later the next sequel, CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER, had the middle rating *PG-13*, and made even more money than Red October. So perhaps this is Paramount's reason for the PG-13 Mission Impossible franchise rating rigidity. For the record, I prefer the idea of John Woo's 2hour+ uncut *R* version... why? A) MI2 is BOUND to be a much cooler movie that way b/c Woo is the coolest guy ever to do an action movie, and B) Many people already bring their kids to R-rated movies anyway. How many of you haven't noticed parents bringing kids to R-rated movies?!? I realize they're irresponsible in doing so, and that kids may wind up traumatized by imagery they don't need to be exposed to, but since MI2 is going to be far more FUN and spectacle-oriented than Patriot Games, at least kids will be able to appreciate it more than Tom Clancy... Paramount would do wise to let the squeaky-clean families with tots decide for themselves, while the rest of us pay our cash to experience Woo's cinematic orgasms in the best possible way... after all this is Cruise's debut as a "real" action star, so don't make him look like a wimp. How much fun would MATRIX, TRUE LIES, or any other blockbuster R-rated actioner be if all of the action was deleted?
The whole reason why we go to these movies IS the action.... -
The movie was plainly dumb. Especially for the story-line. But I can't blame John Woo for that. The sript writers were to blame. And Broken Arrow.... Don't even want to comment about that. And btw I never said that the movie is going to be dumb.I personally think this is going to be the best John Woo film. But whos knows. Didn't the guys who wrote Insurrection wrote this movie. I might be wrong......
And don't get me wrong. I don't hate John Woo. In fact adore him.
But don't try underestimate M:I 1 and Brian Deplama. The action sequences were far far better than any John Woo action sequences. And another thing, I am sick of John Woo's slow motion thingee............... -
Don't blame the rating for The Patriot Games. It was just the worst Jack Ryan movie.
-
Of course it has to be edited. John Woo directing it, go figure. Its gonna be a fucking blood bath! Frankly, I think kids see waaaay too much of that shit. BTW Coopcooper, if ads can give someone the idea to dance the new dance, or wear the new clothes...than movies can get people to act more violent than normal. If it didn
-
Hey buddy, that sucks that those people went on killing spree by you. They were inspired by NBK. I heard about that too. I don't doubt it either. But are you willing to say that those were two well balanced youngsters who were corrupted and twisted into mass murderers by a movie? If you answered yes to that question, I seriously worry about you. My arguement is that those who go to such extremes are seriously fucked in the head in ways that run much deeper than something they saw in a movie. Disagree? I doubt it. I don't think its fair for the media to point fingers at film while, at the same time, they gain ratings for peddling real murder and terror on their broadcasts. I was going to say that you handled your rebuttle in a well thought civilized manner until I remembered the lovely email I got (that was you, wasn't it?) that led me back here in the first place. Please, don't take it as though I was offended. It made me laugh. I knew I got to somebody. I just hate when, after Mark O. Barton hammers his children to death and shoots his co workers, everyone says how mentally disturbed he was. But a few months earlier, when those two kids shot up there high school, they said that movies and music must have been the cause. Those two kids must have hated life so bad that they were going to kill themselves, but decided instead to take the people they felt responsible for their pain with them. I'm not trying to justify what they did. They're psycho motherfuckers and I'm glad they put bullets in their collective heads. I just think that movies are an easy thing to blame. I'm 18 and still high school. If I were to go to school one day and be shot in the face or if people I cared about were injured or killed, that wouldn't suddenly make me against violence in film. That would make me angry at the people that caused the death and suffering. The blame's gotta fall on them and whatever it was that fucked them up so bad. Whether it be an abusive or neglectful parent or a school system that accepts the tormenting of students by other students in addition to the individuals who actually created the horrifying scenario. I don't feel like talking about the subject much more. By the way, what action scenes in Mission Impossible? There aren't any that stand out in my mind. There were some cool stunts and nifty FX, but as far as action goes, nothing comes to mind. I don't know. I think I've said enough...for now.
-
Have you seen any of his Hong Kong films? You cite only his American features so far. Broken Arrow blew, so did Hard Target. But I liked Face/Off. I suppose you're one of the people that just couldn't get past the whole switching faces thing and it just ruined it for you. So you just spent the whole movie picking things apart. That's okay. I know a lot of people that couldn't get past that. My stance is that its a movie and its fake and the whole suspension of disbelief thing. I will admit that I thought the boat chase ending was a little weak. Some of the dialogue is cringe-inducing but not so much as in a lot of action movies. I think the good outweighed the bad (some kick ass action, cool scenes in general, emotional moments etc.) and Nic Cage kicked ass the whole time. Especially in the first twenty minutes as Castor Troy. Ok, that's all I wanted to add.
Oh, yeah...Fuck you, too:) -
L'Auteur, I agree with you on the fact that there ARE people out there who are influenced by violent movies, BUT the fact is, if someone was influenced to do henious acts that easy without thought to consequence, remorse or the general feeling of "don't do it" that most people feel, it is most likely they would have done the deed eventually without said influence. Basically, they were fucked up to begin with, and there was little stopping them short of a frontal labotomy. On the subject of which is worse, sex or violence: I learn toward violence being worse, but I think it has a lot to do with context and the viewer. While I hope to encourage healthy attitudes about sex to my future children, I wouldn't allow them to see movies that handle sex in an unhealthy context (hard to explain what I mean here). Same goes for violence. STILL, I want to be the one to make the decision on what my future children see, not the MPAA or the V-chip or whatever. I also think they do not need to make the decision of what I see for me as I'm a fairly level-headed and totally free-thinking adult.
-
Hey right on man! That's what I was just saying.
Oh, and so as not to offend the sensibilities of my fellow talkbackers the fuck you from my previous post was directed at that guy I've been arguing with.
He started it!
(Note It's a sad day. Just when revered orator Coopcooper was almost again in true form, he dashed our hopes by actually going out of his way not to offend people. How can he make up for this heart shattering action? Only time will tell...) -
Just kidding. Had you wondering for a moment though.
-
To say movies don
-
Oh yeah..when top gun came out Enlisting for the air force went up through the roof. Next to NO ONE signs up punch a clock in a submarine..but when The Hunt for Red October came out, the military never saw so many people trying get in..that
-
Forget some of the crap he's made in America (except Face/Off) and look at the stuff he made in Hong Kong. If this man's R-Rated cut is better, release it as is with NO changes. If the R-Rated cut truly sucks (doubtful, but you retard executives might think so) then release a cut version. But do NOT base this decision on money alone. How you market the film will be what ultimately puts people in the seats. A good case in point: Columbia/Tristar would've had an incredible hit on their hands if they'd not made Starship Troopers look terrible in the previews. I almost didn't go see that movie (Rated R) but I'm really glad I did because its one of the best action/sci-fi spectacles I've seen since Robocop. Was it the R-Rating's fault that Starship Troopers failed at the box office? No. It was goofy executives like you who didn't know how to market the incredible treasure they had their hands on. The Iron Giant would've broken box office records and put Disney out of business if Warner Bros. had gotten out of the "let's make it look like Disney" thinking they were under when they designed the previews and marketing strategy. Release Mission: Impossible 2 as is and market it as an epic action thriller that people can't miss. Would you rather have a PG-13 film that makes a decent amount on opening weekend and then nose-dives when people see how lame the studio-version is. Or would you rather have an R-Rated classic that does decent its opening weekend and then stays the same or rises when word get out that "Man, Mission: Impossible 2 rocks! Ya gotta see it!" I see a whole lot more dollar signs in the R-Rated idea, but you know guys its your choice.
-
Jan 23, 2000 5:38:01 AM CST
To Doctor X, You worked for Marvel... Nice plug, that does exe
by coopcooper
Okay you stupid bastard. I wasn't talking to you and didn't think you emailed me. Okay, with your critique of the modern world. Just bullets... last time I checked the movie opens in May. I don't actually see your point. What the hell are you talking about? How many young girls do you see in Gweneth's pink dress? How many teenagers wear tuxeedos? No one in the real world copies hollywood you stupid motherfucker. If a movie makes 100 million dollars @ $8.00 a person, that is about 12 million people seeing it. What does that mean, nothing. Who cares. It's art you fucking prick. I'll give you the lamest movie ever made and still call it art... Batman and Robin. Yeah it blows goats. But guess what, the all so gay Schumacher wanted to make a movie for children. He had some lame assed artistic vision for that film. Kubrick made a sex film. Speilbergo made a violent as hell war film. Art wins over censorship. That is it. "Don't show violence, it currupts our society," or whatever you were saying. Who cares. He who has not sinned may cast the first stone. Violence in movies is nothing. Movies are nothing. No one but fanboys pay attention to this crap. Time magazine write's this shit to sell magazines and scare parents into voting for the politicians the magazine supports. Your life, in every aspect is controlled by someone else. You have been brainwashed. How do people get the guns to kill and copycat? How does anyone under 17 see a rated R movie. There are your problems imbiciles. Blame, blame, blame. How come noone ever blames books for copycat or inspiration for murder and mayhem. Because no one cares about books, and they don't sell magazines or get TV ratings. You live in a media controlled enviroment. "Your life is ending one minute at a time"... get it.
(Oh, this is not coopcooper, I'm just here with him using his password, I'm his older brother and you all seem to suck so I had to join in your witty retoric) -
You pointed out exactly what needed to be said. I don't many people here have the patience to sit through some of Woo's earlier stuff, let alone hunt them down. And yes, you do get more out of the films by reading the subtitles and not just watching the action scenes. Once a Thief had some nice references to Raiders of the Lost Ark, To Catch a Thief, and let me just say I think Chow Yun Fat jumping out of the wheelchair is one of the 5 coolest moments in film history. A Better Tomorrow was a very tragic coming of age story, and Bullet in the Head is one of the greatest war films I've ever seen. It tells a side of the war you don't usually see, and the ending of the film is a tearjerker that earns it. Martin Scorsese's done many films about crime and mob violence. Hitchcock made mostly suspense thrillers. Does that mean they have no range? Step back and think about what you're saying. Once Woo has the clout to do his own scripts in the English language, you will eat your words. And Face/Off may have been a little over the top and goofy, but I don't think most filmmakers would have explored the psychological ramifications of taking someone else's identity inside of an action film like Woo did. Gotta give him credit there.
-
Right on, Neo and Lazurus Long. You guys rule, and we need more people like you who are actually EDUCATED and know what they're talking about.
-
Just thought you should know two things: 1. I'm female. 2. I was writing that about the same time you were posting your opinions. I just have a really slow connection, which sucks. Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about violence, but also, the post was not meant to insult L'Auteur in any way. I respect his opinions and built my own from there. Just clearing things up.
-
Hey, baby, I'm sorry I referred to you as a man. Distancing yourself from my charismatic, brash posts, huh? That's okay, darling. Leaving the disrespecting to loveable jerks like me. Hmm, voicing thoughts and opinions in a civilized, respectful manner...It's a noble concept...Ah fuck it. It's just not for me!
-
Paramount, you bunch of idiots...kids couldn't get into the first Mission: Impossible anyway because of its slightly confusing nature and they won't go see the second one anyway! Don't touch this film! Kids won't go see it so what's the point in cutting it????
-
Dude, i didnt email you. BTW, my new email is lauteur@hotmail.com. I think youre wrong to belittle the power of movies. Movies practically define our generation. And while you are right to say that those NBK killers were fucked up to begin with, dont you think the movie might have set them off? The reason I ask that is that I, a non-violent soul, feel that violent media has tainted me a bit as well. I dont know how...i just feel it. I stopped watching TV and listening to the radio because the ads were driving me insane. I believe corporate advertising is the worst mind pollutant in existence. Mindless entertainment cant be a very distant #2. I mean, even if most movies/TV shows arent selling a specific product, theyre still selling an ideal...a way to live, a way to look, a way to act. If you dont believe it, then why do all movie and TV stars look/act the same? Its celebrity worship, and to say that that doesnt exist is INSANE. Since most of the characters played by male celebrities are violent ones, dont you think it would be safe to say that we're a violence-worshipping society? I dont think that the effects from this can be seen in black and white...as in, "if youre violent its bad, but if youre non-violent its OK". My friend Bowl (nickname) lives for violent entertainment. He's as gentle as a teddy bear. But he does nothing with his time if it doesnt involve Bond, Doom, or Arnold. As a result, he has zero attention span and a extreme lack of social conscienceness (sp?). What I mean by that is, for example, at Y2K, he insisted that we watch the news coverage of Time Square because he was hoping to see a terrorist act. Now, Im all for terrorism when youre blowing up vacant credit card buildings (a la FIGHT CLUB), but Time Sqaure was packed. To him, watching it on TV would have just been another movie/video game. He'll never commit actual violence himself...but I still say violent media has afftected him. Its affected us all. When Im bored at work, I dream of a group of ski-mask wearing thugs to come in a hold the place up, so I can kick ass and blow them all away. Is this a good thing? Im too addicted to my nintendo64 and Star Wars movies to change my ways now, but, speaking as an idealist, maybe we'd be better without these things in our society. All Thumbs, admitting your femininity in this locker room (uhhh, i mean website) is dangerous. Props to you.
-
Heres you, man...
-
Coopcooper, here. I'm going to respond to this one. I have a question for you. Did you see A Clockwork Orange? Did you understand it? That movie entertains the idea that man, at his most base, is evil, or more accurately capable of evil. And society does its best to subdue it with things such as morals and laws. It's an interesting spin on things. The popular notion is that society warps our fragile minds. But when we're young we're taught that, if someone at school is playing with a toy we like, we shouldn't beat them to the ground for it, which, unless instructed otherwise, seems like a solution. My idea is that people are, at heart, a violent sort. Where do these violent movies come from? Not a team of media spin doctors trying to warp our minds but every day Joes like you and me. People have been expressing violent fantasies through art since the beginning. Beowulf, The Illiad and the Odyssy, Shakespear, an endless amount of examples. You would put movies inspiring people to get a haircut and movies inspiring people to kill in the same vein? I think that's extreme. I also think that the media and movies are two seperate things. You used Jennifer Aniston's haircut as an example. I don't think that the actress said to her stylist, "Give me a hair cut that'll take America by storm!" She got her now famous haircut and the magazines said this is cool, this is beautiful. The media does dictate the standards for beauty and they're bringing them down. People that would once have been considered average looking are now "hot". My idea is that there's a distinction between movies and the media. They're not one and the same. By the way, take your condescending manner and shove it up your fucking ass. What makes you the authority on art, cocksucker? Self important motherfuckers like you make me sick. Hey, next fall I'm going to film school. I, just by following what I've always wanted to do, am an "artist". Sure that sounds corny, but I am a goddamn "artist" by definition. So who are you to tell anybody to stay out of anything because YOU don't like what they have to say. Go fuck yourself.
-
Hey man, I have to admit, I respect your opinions because of the way you present yourself. Sorry, I couldn't keep track of my enemies. I forget the culprit who sent the email in question. He knows who he is. And he can go fuck himself:) Back to our "debate". Uhh, well, I guess a lot of my points are in my other post to that Doctor X bastard. So check that out, except for where I get out of hand with verbal abuse, that is. No offense, but it sounds like your friend was never taught the differance between violence in movies and violence on the 6 o'clock news. Personally, I admit to being desensitized to most movie violence (there are always exceptions, SPR, American History X, etc.) but not to real life violence. Because I was taught that real violence is terrible because of the way it effects people and the loss of human life while in the movies its just pretend. It sounds like your friend wasn't properly taught the distinction. I admit to having violent fantasies (which, over the last few years I've redirected into writing) but these I would attribute to human nature but I'm sure they're somewhat influenced by movies I've seen in a sense that when I use my imagination, I envision things like a movie. This is part of the reason I'm going to film school next year. I don't know. I suppose we may have to agree to disagree. Although hopefully we can take away something from the other's perspective. Dammit, I'm way to polite. Oh well, my previous post was pretty good.
-
Yeah I missed your point. Your ingenious, masterminded train of thought. Undoubtedly, you must be a scholar. To speak so highly of Robocop and Jennifer Aniston's hair. Wow, man, like hey, man. You're like livin in the 90's man. Friends has been on for years now fucko, er man. The Jennifer Aniston hair deal was all in magazines anyhow, you retard. I was in high school when that shit went down, man, and I'll tell you, not everyone had the hair. As for Titanic, you are so retarded. I wasn't walking around seeing people in those necklaces. I saw the same promo on ET. You must be like 50 man. You're an old man, man, dude, right on, bro. You're just out of touch, man. C'mon, dude, as for art... Some advice, no one cares about the opinion of a fucking loser internet queer. "Someone made shit art"... Oooh, you cited me throughout your response... How thoughtful, how intelligent, how meaningful, genious, brilliant, oh wait, I forgot asinine, man. Keep reading so intently moron. And fuck you for thinking your better than a fucking crack whore.
-
Dear Paramount
If MI2 is PG13
I won't see it.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts