Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Sly responds to the PG13 rumor on EXPENDABLES 2...

Hey folks, Harry here... I asked Stallone to respond to the rumors regarding EXPENDABLES 2 being PG13.   And this is what Stallone had to say...


   Harry, the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance... Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement,  trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and  delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry...Sly


You know - if the film is PG13 - and a better film that the last one, I'm alright with it.   It isn't like the last film was pushing the R-rating.   Arnold had a blast shooting his 4 days on this.   But hopefully Stallone will get bloody as hell in BULLET TO THE HEAD.   So we'll get a dosage of that this year as well.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris =

    by Andrew Coleman

    Pussy. Bruce Lee needs to come back and kick his ass again.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST


    by Herewereyouwish

    Shitty news...

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Let the teeth-gnashing begin!

    by theBigE

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST


    by Rev. Artemis Prime

    that is all

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Damage Control is easy

    by zillabeast

    Reading Klingon, that's hard!

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    fuck the rating

    by slappy jones

    just make it good.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    i dont care what the rating is

    by j2talk

    i just want a story that delivers.....

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    I am forever pwned by Stallone

    by Doctor_Strangepork

    Thanks for weighing in, sir. Your voice is always welcome here.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Even less convinced now

    by twogunjames

    Sly, come on. You KNOW the reason the fans of the first film have a problem with a PG-13 follow up. It's not the same. It's not the same. It's not the same. I get it, you're going to do your best to get asses in seats, but nobody is buying it. PG-13 means less blood, less brutality, LESS VIOLENCE. And I'm not going to see EXp2 if it's PG-13, I will wait, and hope for an unrated or R version to hit Blu-Ray.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    I don't mind it that much...

    by RpgSama

    I Don't Mind it that much, if the movie is good and the story is better i can live with the Pg-13 rating, i don't mind not seeing that much blood, they are still going to punch the hell out of eachother, make it a good movie and i will see it no matter what is the rating, the first movie was a missed opportunity to make something special and it wasn't because it was R or Pg-13...

  • And then Arnie rocks up, and then it's all duet and shit.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST

    The first film was R and did great business

    by BitterMan23

    Did it ever cross their minds that part of that success was due to the fact that people are sick of PG-13 action movies? Also that NO ONE KNOWS THE FUCK THESE PEOPLE ARE unless they're old enough to see an R film in the first place. Like some 14 year old is super excited to see Van Damme and Chuck Norris on the big screen again? Van Damme's last wide release was in 1998 for Christ's sake. And Norris' quote: " I don’t do movies like that. I didn’t do them in the past" is total bullshit. Almost all of his hit movies were R. PG Norris = Top Dog and Sidekicks. Yeah, that's the Norris we want to remember.

  • I don't want my emotions touched, and I don't want you to try to touch my kid's emotions either. I want a vulgar, violent, maybe gory, film for grown ups to enjoy. Do emotions in another film, this one is about guns.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Fool me once

    by Phategod2

    I remember when Bruce came on this very sight and said almost the exact same thing about that last Diehard and we saw how that turned out. Look the expendables was a throw- away piece of crap example of movie making, but at least it was for adults. Who is this crap for?

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by gk1

    i just wanted to say something inflammatory. i could not care any less for this sequel.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Even if they cut all the profanity...

    by thedarklinglord

    Wouldn't the violence alone push it into R territory? And, if not, then what's the fucking point? Norris wants kids to be able to see the movie... Um, what? You want kids to watch a movie with brawls and bullets and explosions? What's more, you want them to see brawls and bullets and explosions but NOT the consequences of those actions, i.e. blood and death? That's like when they take video games and replace the blood with blue goo, as if to suggest, "It's okay if you beat/shoot/denote people, because it doesn't hurt/kill them. It's like, uh, paintball! Yeah. Because everyone knows WWII was fought with paintball guns, nobody really died, and all those Jews were just sleeping after a hard but fair day's work, a hot shower, and a nice cup of tea." Look, I know the movie isn't striving for realism, or attempt to depict a moment of history, that it's meant to be just a loud, stupid, fun action movie: entertainment in purest, simplest form. But it strikes me as incongruous to say you don't want to bombard children with profanity but you're perfectly comfortable pouring violence into their developing brains. And if you're stripping down the violence, so it's not too bloody or gory, if it's on par with Walker Texas Ranger violence, then what's the point? Why gather this group of legendary action film badasses - most, if not all of whom made their careers starring in R-rated action flicks with brutal, bone-crunching violence, blood and bullets spraying everywhere, shit blowin' up and bodies flyin' around, and usually even a gratuitous boob shot or two - if you're going to castrate them with PG-13 material? At this point, I've kinda lost interest.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:27 p.m. CST


    by milesdyson

    I just assumed this would be R. The first one was a hit, and it was R. You're going to alienate a ton of fans who supported the first movie. Added to that, there's really no point in making a movie like this if it's PG-13. What stupid move.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Another words it's been scaled back from a hard R to appease the studio

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    PG-13 is a gamble and Sly knows this. You alienate a base of action fanatics who want to see a hard R because of excessive gore (like in the last Rambo film) and a no nonsense bullshit use of words that we've become accustomed to in those hard R movies, mainly the word "fuck" or pick your non PG13 expletive or phrase of choice. While there are plenty of decent PG13 movies that offer up action, we know that with that cast and the expectations of the audience originally targeted that IMO it's just a sell out for more coin to appease the studio. That sucks. Sure we will get the "directors unrated cut", but it's not going to cut close to the knife the same way it should have. Sorry Sly, I am not buying and I love your movies bro. Just be honest about it without the sales pitch that you're trying to appease everyone. It's a studio money grab. I am not going to fault you for the appeasement but I still don't have to like it.

  • Only reason I saw (the new) Rambo in theaters and twice again on DVD was because of the absolute brutality. Die Hard 4 was an absolute joke, and PG-13 action movies in general just feel...soft. Some movies like Dark Knight are different, but those are the exception. Someone else hit the nail on the head also, who the hell under 17 is even excited for this movie??? These are action icons from the 1980's! I want to see heads exploding, 50 caliber guns tearing people apart, throats torn out with bare hands! I'm sorry, but when I hear 'Expendables' I don't think story, I don't want story. Will not be seeing this.

  • Robocop is just one example, Rambo another, and it could probably be argued that they would be just as cool, but they sure as hell were great with the insane amount of gore that they did have. Real people swear in real life. Censoring it is not fun. Unless it's bleeped, like in South Park. Then it's funny. But at least keep it in there. This is not a well-formed or written argument, because the movie *might* still be enjoyable. But it would probably still be much better as a hard R flick.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Why would they lower the rating for Chuck Norris?

    by SilentP

    Who honestly cares if Chuck Norris is in this? HONESTLY.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    fin al battle?!

    by HadWoodenTeethChasedMobyDick

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:45 p.m. CST

    lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    cmon sly.......... seriously fucking c'mon dude. I'm one of your biggest fans and even i have to say this is a dumb move. If chuck norris is really the reason behind this I would have told him to fuck off (respectively) While watching the first expendables I didn't once think to myself - you know what this movie needs? Chuck Norris! Seriously I didn't even think of the dude. And I like Chuck too, nothing against the guy. But for him to pull this is beyond ridiculous. Did he NOT see the 1st movie? Expendables 2 should be a hard R.....actions, blood, guts, ultra violence, T&A. Expendables 2 should be pushing the envelope NOT pussing out. This is a movie for your fans...and guess what your fans are 30,40,50 and maybe even older. We really would rather NOT sit in the theater with idiot fucking teens. Don't force us to sit with them and potentially hit them with our canes. Seriously though.......expendables 2 = R

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:45 p.m. CST

    So it only took a couple of movies

    by DougMcKenzie

    For Sly to go from his "raw", for the fans, pull no punches comeback to being back on the Studio Treadmill. I'm sure it pays a lot better. Balboa, Rambo IV made shit B.O., but at least Sly was real in them. Expendables one was a mild disappoint but had his highest B.O. yet. Now he's folded his cards and playing the studio's hand. I guess all the money he had was not enough and his giving back days are over. It's me time for Stallone again.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    R rated version on Blu rav/DVD?

    by HadWoodenTeethChasedMobyDick

    Sounded like they filmed it and he wangt s to edit the lines out.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    i trust Sly, but Chuck is still a fuck

    by antonphd

    for saying that the movie was pussied down for kids just so Sly could lure him into the movie

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    r rated blu.........?

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    That's bullshit if that's the case. A movie like this is ideal for a night out, popcorn in one hand and your other hand fingering your woman and having a blast. Good luck doing that in a theater filled with little pg 13 twats.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Van Damme turning in an inspired performance

    by pomofo

    Hell yeah! I knew he would do great after "JCVD". Actually, "Maximum Risk" was great, too.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:51 p.m. CST

    How the hell do you do Terry Crew's Shotgun in PG-13

    by bullet3

    Man, this news really blows. I hope we'll at least get a decent unrated cut on DVD, but the lack of violence really hurts an action movie like this. It doesn't have to be excessive Rambo levels of violence either, but PG-13 action scenes have no punch. It means you basically aren't allowed to have blood squibs, which completely nerfs the impact of the scenes. It also means they'll probably be using lots of shaky-cam and blurring to try to obscure the violence and keep the rating, which would also ruin this movie. Arghhhh, I absolutely hate this mentality in modern hollywood. Honestly, the PG-13 rating is the worst thing to ever happen to action cinema (blame it on Temple of Doom I guess). They seriously need to either get rid of it, or add a PG-15 rating, or something. Or why not have a PG-13 and an R cut, and show them at different times? Like have the R version playing after 9PM? Think outside the box a little. Goddamn this makes me sad.

  • who else do they want to watch this tween girls and grandmas?

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Bruce Willis is rueing Die Hard IV PG-13 now.

    by DougMcKenzie

    It was his last real chance to turn his boat around and make himself relevant again. it failed as both a critical venture and in turning his career around. Instead TWO movies he was in last year were straight to DVD. And don't let Mr. Beaks fool you, Looper, will not be a big picture. He's done as a top billed star. Unlike Sly he doesn't have any other iconic roles to ressurect. Sly didn't fuck up Rocky and Rambo, but Bruce sure fucked up John McLane. Isn't Die Hard V supposed to be up pushing John McLane Jr. as potentially the new star of the franchise? Truely the end for B.W., and all because he didn't have the balls to insist on hard-R.

  • Heres an idea why dont you guys just demand a better film. The first film was rated R and still managed to be dull and uninspired. Ya this is a real tragedy.

  • nothing more than a crappy movie with really big balls. Anyone can give us snazzy bloodless action scenes these days. If Expendables 2 gets neutered, what are we left with? Nothing that I want to see. The only point of putting Norris in the film was to see him mix it up with the rest of the boys. If his presence in the movie means the greatest action stars of our days - past and present - are going to be baking cookies for 105 minutes, then I'd rather them keep Norris far away.

  • It's very obvious that they added a few F-bombs and added some CGI red stuff and caved to fan pressure to deliver a R rated film instead. While I enjoyed the 1st one a lot (particularly the extended director's cut) I was hoping that Sly would just go a true hard R with the sequel like he went with Rambo. It could still be really good though so I'll try to withhold judgement.

  • It's very obvious that they added a few F-bombs and added some CGI red stuff and caved to fan pressure to deliver a R rated film instead. While I enjoyed the 1st one a lot (particularly the extended director's cut) I was hoping that Sly would just go a true hard R with the sequel like he went with Rambo. It could still be really good though so I'll try to withhold judgement.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:02 p.m. CST

    you know what would have been more interesting?

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    since chuck norris is apparently the uptight dickwit who didn't want cursing and whatever else in the movie they should have JUST made his character like that. Now that would have been interesting and a cool contrast....while everyone else is bashing skulls and cursing up a storm chuck could have been the level headed straight man frowning upon others excessive behavior. Art mimicking life. This worked great in rocky balboa. The character of Rocky's uphill struggle for one final bout while everyone doubted and mocked him perfectly paralleled stallone's real life difficulty just getting the movie made and having people laugh at the thought of an older man going into the ring again onscreen.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:05 p.m. CST

    So much for the seashells.

    by highfunctioningsociopath

    See you in a few minutes.

  • Sorry Sly, but fuck that. The only reason the first film worked as well as it did was the fact that it didn't try to hold back and didn't try to appeal to the largest possible audience. Fuck. Fuck fuck. Fuck fuckity fucking fuck. That was my own personal response to the PG-13 news, and that is enough to get an R rating. Bullshit. I'm supposed to believe that hardass mercenaries of the highest order (fucking decades old veterans) don't say "fuck"? Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Good Job, Hair! For getting to the root...

    by BlackBriar

    of the problem. As long the story and action is great the rating shouldn't be a big deal. I was hoping for a R rating..You can really see, that this was a studio decision..Bigger budget, they want a bigger return..

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST


    by Cartagia

    That was my thought as well! Why not just have Chuck say something along the lines of "Do you guys really have to curse this much?" HUGE laughs. Keeps his beliefs in order and delivers the ball-punching badassery we want to see. People want to see it because it is badass and fucking explosion filled.

  • clearly not when chuck norris is around. so basically he's like grandma, nobody wants to curse in front of dear old grandma.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST

    R is what I would ride my bike to the theater to see.

    by UltraTron

    They let kids in: Alien Conan The Barbarian Scanners An American Werewolf in London The Shining First Blood The Thing Rambo Aliens Robocop Terminator Predator Fuck you.

  • I freely rented every R rated movie on the shelf. In Beta.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    cartagia thanks

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    yea, no doubt i could easily something like that, even if it's kinda cheesy coming off well in a movie like expendables. Perfect idea to have fun with. FUCK.....what a missed opportunity. Instead the whole team and any other characters will be inexplicably neutered & the rest of the film will be toned down.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    You goddamn kids! I blame you for this!

    by UltraTron

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:20 p.m. CST

    by BlackBriar

    Good read from Collider, They say it perfectly R rated films just don't bring in the lettuce. ......which sucks!

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:21 p.m. CST

    damn kids!!!!!!!!!

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    ........with your wackadoo ipaddles and your constant tweebling! and pogo balls

  • It wasn't that it was too hardcore... it wasn't hardcore enough. Where were the tits? If anything people wanted Expendables to be MORE violent and MORE vulgar. Look at that first poster, with the skull and machine gun wings. That screams FUCK YOU WE DO WHAT WE WANT. EXPLOSIONS AND TITS... AND EXPLOSIONS. And kudos to whoever remembered the Bruce Willis presence on the site and how he tried to convince use PG-13 Die Hard would work. He tricked most of us into buying into that PoS. The character's catch phrase fucking said fuck. For fucks fucking sake.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:23 p.m. CST

    PG-13 rating on Expendables 2

    by Joseph D. Herman

    I think Chuck Norris (Faggot)should stick to TV if he's so concerned about foul language.What a jagoff,no wonder he hasn't has anything going on since Walker:Texas Asshole.I seriously hope that Expendables 2 is changed back to an R rating,maybe they should just tell Chunky boy to kick rocks,because that's what he has in his brain.Expendables 2 is a guy movie,not some sissified PG-13 crap movie.We want to see all the blood,guts and want to hear explicit language.This will be one movie I'll wait to buy on BluRay if it's PG-13 and wait till the R version comes out.Mr.Norris,I sure hope you read this,you're an ASSHOLE!!!.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    I now regret any credibility i ever lent to him being a god-like bad-ass. That awesome status should have been reserved for someone who didnt puss out and turn a R franchise into a PG13 watered down franchise. like cartagia said.........expendables 1 if anything should have went even further. it was even more necessary for expendables 2 to make up for that and really push things......not fucking hold back.

  • This same issue arose during production of the first Expendables, when Stallone hinted that the film would cater to a broader audience than Rambo did. The movie felt like it was upgraded to R at the last minute because that's basically what happened. The studio is paying Stallone $15 million for this, and you can bet they're wanting the biggest return possible on their investment. It won't happen by relying solely on the audience that went to see Rambo. My guess is that the rating was probably decided long before Chuck was even approached. Nu Image was the only studio in the R rated action business during 2011, and they lost money on all three of those films. Sure, The Expendables made money, but it's not like it was a huge blockbuster by modern standards. Its worldwide gross of $300 was roughly what a successful summer hit does in the US alone. If there's an audience that will skip seeing Arnold, Bruce, and Sly team up on the big screen because of a few extra F-bombs, the studio is no doubt betting it's not a very sizeable one.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    These are the same promises that Bruce Willis gave us for Die Hard 4.

    by sweeneydave

    I assume we can expect the same let down.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:33 p.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    maybe its not all chuck's fault...........but his quote about specifically requesting all the bad words be removed doesn't help matters. that's a bitch move on his part. You don't sign onto a project of this nature and then immediately ask that it be changed, toned down and altered to cater to your ideology.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:33 p.m. CST

    As much as I would have loved an R rating

    by MJDeViant

    For the life of me, besides the auto-shotgunning, I can't recall the first one being so overtly rated R. I'm actually fine with a PG-13 IF they just made the movie they wanted and it happens to be PG-13. IF they changed it to be PG-13, like removed a lot of things, then maybe they should have left it R. If they just took out some beheadings or gore then who cares, as most rated R movies throw those in to begin with simply because they are rated R. Trust me I never thought I would be okay with a PG-13 for some things, but watching a lot of rated R movies lately and you realize the R rating usually isn't used to achieve realism, it's just used to have random violence/gore that honestly makes random violence/gore boring/expected. And I like some violence and gore, we all do, whether as fun or as gruesome realism. BUT, again, I'd rather just them make the damn thing how they wanted and maybe if it is tame than it was just tame to begin with. They are getting older. On ANOTHER note, hear me out, I actually think "toning down" movies so younger people can see them is actually worse than just showing gore and things and making them rated R so they can't see them. PG-13 means you packed as much violence or gore into the film (whether planned for PG-13 or not) that kids can still see gunfights, death, destruction, limited gore, etc. You just passed by some arbitrary guideline. Doesn't mean it won't affect kids much differently (if you believe that anyways...I don't). You have basically undone what the R rating would have achieved, which is keeping kids from seeing violence and things in the first place. You just kind of masked it. Monetarily I think this choice is a tightrope walk. Yeah, you might make more money BUT it might be kind of evening itself out if people think "Well, the first one was R, now they probably softened it up and took it down a notch". I think you might have been better off making the first one PG-13 (again, unless these films were written and created without ratings in mind, in that case let them be) and then stepping the hopefully bigger sequel up to an R rating which would lead most to believe that not only have you garnered a greater cast but totally took the training wheels off. I'm really hoping the PG-13 doesn't matter, I am, but please don't give us something that was written/meant to be R and then change it for monetary sake. Also, to add to my "why the fuck am I up?" rant, It would be awesome if a movie was supposed to be R or NC-17 that it would be shown after 10pm in theaters and the PG-13 version could be played earlier. Not very feasible, I know, but I wouldn't mind if it meant both parties would be happy. Even then though, sometimes you would wonder if the PG-13 version was the real one and they amped up the violence to make it R for no real reason or if they made an R film and watered it down a little for the masses. Also, I know R can also mean sex, language, blah blah blah. Just keeping it simply to what this movie would probably have more of.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:34 p.m. CST

    What are they gonna do with Terry Crews

    by sweeneydave

    and his giant gun that turns people into little meat chunks? I'm sorry, but that was the only point to Terry Crews. AND IT WAS AWESOME!!! Are they gonna write out Terry Crews character? They might as well

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Thanks alot, Chuck Norris,

    by sweeneydave

    for bringing this movie down with your old person sensibilities. All of your awesome must have been emptied with your last colostomy bag.

  • ---It would be awesome if a movie was supposed to be R or NC-17 that it would be shown after 10pm in theaters and the PG-13 version could be played earlier. Not very feasible, I know, but I wouldn't mind if it meant both parties would be happy.---- not a bad idea least both versions would get a theatrical run. And the R rated showings would have less dickwit kids. There would also be less pussies taking up seats and making the cinema smell like Donna Karan Vanilla & Cedarwood Deodorant.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Sly sold out

    by GravyAkira

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST


    by bre32

    How is it a bitch move on Chuck's part? The guy pretty much left this stuff behind more than 20 years ago and has never really looked back. (Hell, he already turned down the first Expendables movie for essentially the same reason.) So while I might not agree with his beliefs, I can at least respect him for sticking to them. If anyone is guilty of a bitch move, it's Stallone for agreeing to the demands. Chuck only has a minor cameo in this, and it's not like he was in any position to impose any kind of demands on the studio. The fact that it's going to be PG-13 suggests the producers and Stallone were both onboard with a milder rating all along. Otherwise, Chuck would've never been included.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris

    by Bass Ackwards

    I'm sure Norris did say he wouldn't sign on to the flick if it wasn't PG-13. But get real guys, they didn't change the movie to rope in the box office power of Chuck Norris. It was going to be PG-13 all along, Norris is just using that to brag to his conservative fan base.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:46 p.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    fucking hilarious post......I'm pissing myself here. ----for bringing this movie down with your old person sensibilities. All of your awesome must have been emptied with your last colostomy bag. --- ^^ I'm stealing all of that.

  • Jan. 18, 2012, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Enjoy it kids! I'm not going.

    by darthpigman

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Fuck you, Chuck Norris!

    by Mr. Pricklepants

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:05 a.m. CST

    bass ackwards

    by bre32

    Exactly. The idea that Chuck Norris demanded a PG-13 rating is absurd. If Stallone had insisted on an R rating, Chuck would've just turned it down and no one involved would've lost any sleep over the matter.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:10 a.m. CST



    Stallone: Darn it you melonfarmer, you killed one of our own, prepare to suffer toned-down PG-13 violence without any sight of blood. Bad guy: Flip off toilet breath, I'm going to kick your behind so hard It'll hurt you to sit down for at least a few weeks afterwards. Arnie: Forget you bottom aperture.. Bruce: Yippie Ki Yay. In the background Chuck has a shit-eating grin on his beardy face whilst giving a thumbs-up to camera. Strike Two Sly. But nevermind, I've always got Rambo to remind how awesome you can be when not bending over and taking it up the shitter from Chuck.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST


    by Eric Strauss

    Agreed that it's effing ridiculous that a C lister like Norris should have that much say. Frankly, nobody is coming to see this film specifically because Norris is in it. It's an ensemble piece, and he's a tremendously small part of it. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there's a lot of truly GREAT action films out there with a PG-13 rating. The Bourne Trilogy, Nolan's Batman films, the Daniele Craig Bond films, among others. Expendables 1 was a lot of fun, I'm a child of the 80's and I grew up on all those guys, but it was ultimately a pretty weak movie. More cussing and blood wouldn't have changed that. A better script would have. Here's hoping Sly and the team knock this one out of the park, regardless of rating.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Chuck Norris is & always has been a cunt

    by Horace Cox

    Fuck that bearded ginger faggot.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST

    =Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing=

    by lv_426

    This sounds like the greatest 80's throwback action film ever made... ... or just an epic showdown in Kitchen Stadium where Bobby Flay tries to kill the challenger, and Mark Dascosotos or whatever that dude's name is has to intervene with some kung fu.

  • Come on, you all know that could be fun as hell.

  • Need I say more? Oh and this time, the Expendables need to overthrow a ruthless dictator in VAL VERDE! PG-13?....Suck my fucking taint with this.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:22 a.m. CST


    by lv_426

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:22 a.m. CST

    They didn't make it PG-13 for Norris, they did it for the money...

    by JuanSanchez

    that they think they're going to make. When they met Norris he must have said - "I only want to do it if it's PG-13" and they said, "Hey, it's gonna be PG-13!" and Norris figured it was for him.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:25 a.m. CST

    It's a throwback to the old 80's testosterone-laden action films

    by Jaster Mareel

    You know, the PG-13 ones. *eyeroll*

  • But don't think for a second it was b/c of Norris. Sly doesn't want to take responsibility for the real reasons why.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Fuck that.

    by Psyclops

    There's no way you can convince me that this bullshit rating isn't going to hinder the film in some way, especially when one of the contributing factors to the first movie's success was it's gleeful embrace of hard 'R' carnage. It would be different if the first movie was rated the same, but trying to change things up so that you can tiptoe around the adult content is just going to slow down the momentum. Every film series that has tried to soften it's rating after already establishing itself as an 'R' rated franchise has never managed to measure up, and that includes the last sequels in the DIE HARD, TERMINATOR and ROBOCOP series. It's a mistake. I'm sorry, Sly. This PG-13 shit is hurting the films as much as the fans.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:35 a.m. CST

    You broke my heart, Rocky. You broke my heart.

    by Al

    Nevermind. A PG-13 rating for a deliberate 80s action movie R-rated throwback is a contradiction that cannot exist. The centre cannot hold! Entropy! Dogs and cats, living together!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST


    by NeoDevilbaneX

    The last bastion of heroes in hardcore actioners is officially dead to me. I thought Stallone stood for the hardcore 80s-style actioners?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:44 a.m. CST

    I'm kind've tired of the R rated argument...

    by Acquanetta

    ...because it only seems to get invoked these days when a movie isn't good enough to stand on its own. If someone starts trying to re-assure you that a movie is going to be R rated, it's usually just the first red flag. I've seen The Expendables about 3 or 4 times and I honestly can't remember a single expletive being uttered. Up until today, I actually thought it HAD been rated PG-13. This is partly because a lower rating was rumored during production and partly because none of the profanity was memorable enough to stand out. (I remember Dolph calling someone an "insect" but that's about it.) Incidentally, I also thought Dodgeball- which featured a brief cameo from Chuck- had been rated R.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    So wait... who is this movie for?

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    I thought for aficionados of the old 80s hardcore actioners? You know, to wash the taste out of the mouth of we who have been subjected to the neutered, lame actioners in the 2000s and up with no real suitable action heroes -- that was the mission statement Stallone presented, wasn't it? PG-13, PG-13, PG-13. Why -- I ask you, I beg you -- must a movie about a group of global mercenaries, assassins even... why must this have to be appropriate for 13 year-olds? It shouldn't be!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:01 a.m. CST

    Thanks for the heads up Sly....

    by otm shank

    In this current economy my friends and I are always looking to save money whenever we can. Looks like you just saved us 10 dollars each. Appreciate it. Now...Sir Ridley Scott.....are you going to save us another 10?

  • ... but you'll come to love it later.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:07 a.m. CST

    MY MIND!!!!

    by jsfithaca

    usually i don't mind pg-13 too much, and its possible to make a good action film, but when it comes to movies like the expendables, ur already going all the way with getting all these action stars. and now ur gonna pussy out and go pg-13? this isn't natural for a movie with all these people. its like doing an r-rated pixar movie. this is absolutely ridiculous

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Err...say WHAT?!?

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    We have the biggest action cast in the history of movies...true legends gathering together...and it'll be a PG-13 movie?!? What. The. Hell?

  • WTF Sly? The first movie was a hit despite being R-Rated but now you are toning down the sequel to earn more money? that's called greed,a greed which is accompanied by the betrayal of the fans,the same fans who made the first movie a hit.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing with a Whiffle Bat

    by JAGUART

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:30 a.m. CST

    I never saw the first because it didn't look particularly good...


    ...but I just watched a few clips of the "action sequences" on YouTube and none of them seemed particularly R-rated to me. They could easily be trimmed without losing much of anything. Also, are you guys not aware of what films can get away with a PG-13 these days? If I were you, I would be hoping for a better film. The rating? Who cares?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Crazy violence and grit?

    by Bass Ackwards

    The movie had zero grit. As far as crazy violence, I only remember Terry Crew's shotgun. Honestly I thought the action in the first flick sucked, nothing memorable, nothing fun, just fast cuts and loud guns.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:42 a.m. CST

    I bet they'll have some crazy one-liners

    by RexNebular

    Yippie-kay-yay Mr. Falcon!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:42 a.m. CST

    This film just dropped a hundred notches on my anticipation meter.

    by baronweazle

    I mean fuck, the highlight of the first one was the Terry Crews automatic shotgun scene. A scene like that is fucking impossible with a pg 13 rating. I think I'm beginning to see why stallone is just starring in this one. Seems like too much studio hassle. Oh well, we still have prometheus, Hobbit, Dark Knight Rises and countless other films to look forward too.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Stallone,you wanker.

    by chuffsterUK

    Norris,you cunt.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:56 a.m. CST


    by CT1

    Nobody cares!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:56 a.m. CST


    by centilope

    And the studios wonder why less and less people want to pay for their shitty movies.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:59 a.m. CST


    by centilope

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2 a.m. CST


    by centilope

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:03 a.m. CST

    This sounds stupid whether its R or PG 13 or XXX

    by smokie

    Would never spend money to see it either way. Did not watch the first one either. That being said the only reason to see this is for blood, gore violence, cursing, ignorant war mongering etc.. Without that it's like surfing the web for porn and finding nothing but clips Cinemax movies. Don't get me wrong, I loved this shit in the 80's when I was a kid, but old farts shooting shit up for two hours? I don't think the kids these days give a flying fuck. And CHUCK NORRIS? No one likes Chuck Norris. The whole Chuck Norris internet thing is a tongue-in-cheek joke. Like getting Rick Rolled. I think Sly needs to get better consultants on 'what the kids are into these days'.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Is Norris some sort of psycho?

    by Decado2

    Why does he want kids to watch a violent film where dozens of people will be killed on screen? :\ Even if it is less graphic than an R-rated action film, that's still pretty twisted.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Damage Limitation in record time. The panic must be setting in already.

    by higgledyhiggles

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Harry, ask Sly why Cobra put his paper on the grill

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    and cut his pizza with scissors?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:15 a.m. CST

    you know what else is Large in every way?

    by Wheel99

    Oprah Winfreys ass. I dont want to see that either.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:18 a.m. CST

    R.I.P. rated R action movies


    I'm pouring some of my 40 out for you, homie.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:19 a.m. CST

    I like Mel Gibson

    by JuanSanchez

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:22 a.m. CST

    Ass Bashing?

    by Number_Six

    Not sure that's conjuring up the right connotations either? Doesn't strike me as Chuck's thing either, I bet his ass has teeth!

  • Come to think of it, after that maniacle can of shit the first one was, the studio pushed him off the directors chair and slapped some newcomer on it instead. Be happy that he's still acting in it though, he probably brought Rocky into the fight as well.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:34 a.m. CST

    And yes, sarcasm was used, ur welcome.

    by Superslum

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Sly's reputaton down the drain

    by centilope

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:46 a.m. CST

    How the once mighty have fallen

    by centilope

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:47 a.m. CST

    oh, he's not the director?


    I'm more looking forward to this now. Sly is an adequate director but he could use help with the action choreography/direction.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:47 a.m. CST

    I liked the first one btw


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:52 a.m. CST

    will we ever see a return of R-rated action films?

    by Rindain

    r-rated comedies have been huge business for quite a few years now, but comedies don't cost as much. 300 was the last huge r-rated action movie, and that was 2007...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:58 a.m. CST

    come on Sly, don't give in! Screw Norris.

    by DrPain

    The first film was awesome, better than expected. I grew up watching kick ass r rated action movies. Before all this twighlight and potter bullshit. Pg 13 killed die hard. And now it just killed my high enthusiasm I had for this sequel. it just sucks and is a big letdown. And in the long run ain't gonna help it.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Sly, why!?!?!? We put you back on the map and now this?

    by Onin Solstice

    It's the R-Rated movies that brought your fans back to you, and now your're shoving it back at us? Why Sly? WHHHYYYYY? ... ok I'm done.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:11 a.m. CST



  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:17 a.m. CST

    R does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    PG-13, what a bummer. Hopes for this film have just lowered. Harry says that if the film is PG 13 and better than the last movie, then he's alright with that. I agree, but would far prefer if it was R rated and better than the last one!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Stallone should film some pick ups...

    by chuffsterUK

    ...and attach them to the final prints. A scene where the Expendables have a 15 minute shoot out with a murderous group of Tourettes sufferers, all with a hatred of Chuck(they call him`Fuck) Norris!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Chuck Norris is so tough...

    by paint163

    ..he even makes 'The Expendables' shit.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:29 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Deal Breaker. I am no longer looking forward to Expendables 2. :(

    by DutchRudder

    That really bums me out. Thats all I can think of to say, because I actually am pretty disappointed right now. Boo-erns!

  • his motherfucking shotgun,instead of having a scene where we see them turning into ketchup,we get a quick cut to another scene where Sly is running from some guys and then we return back to the first scene where Crews has finished shooting and he stands in front of a red painted wall.Yay for pg13...JESUS.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:39 a.m. CST

    PG-13 did just "great" for the last Terminator Film.

    by Stalkeye

    Fuck you Sly and fuck Chuck. That is all.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Get your Expendables 2 toy included in Micky D's Happy Meal

    by Stalkeye

    Fucking sellouts.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:41 a.m. CST

    delivers on every level. Except blowin people up w/ a badass shotgun

    by DutchRudder

    I really can't see it delivering on "every level" if it doesn't include blowing more mother fuckers up with that bad ass gun.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    We live in a neutered society

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Even the old action gods have fallen.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:58 a.m. CST

    We can complain all we want. They set out for PG-13 from the start

    by DutchRudder

    Even the goddamn DVD is going to be watered down. Son of a bitch.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:10 a.m. CST

    Although some films are great with a PG-13 rating

    by DutchRudder

    There isn't even one single sequel that had a R rating, and then went to PG-13.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:11 a.m. CST

    * That was any good

    by DutchRudder

    * see last post. :P (whoopsie daisies)

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:18 a.m. CST

    The first Expendables was probably only R because...

    by bubcus

    ... of the guy blowing up near the start of the film. The rest seemed like just a fun action film. So Expendables 2 being PG-13 isn't really that big of a deal. If the story is good, I'm cool with it. Keep em coming.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:19 a.m. CST

    So EX1 had Rourke's performance and now EX2 has Van Damme's?

    by KilliK

    hm i am curious to see what Jean Claude did with his character.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Shit Sly, you might as well nuke a fridge while you're at it.

    by DutchRudder

    It might do Indy 4 money! Yeah baby! Sweet, sweet, Indy 4 money. TOTALLY worth the fan backlash, and in this case, not nearly as bad. Boo-erns.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:38 a.m. CST

    You people disgust me...

    by Miika

    Movies aren't about human beings getting exploded to pieces, they are entertainment. And human beings getting exploded to pieces is NOT entertainment, it is SICK. Just think how many good movies there are that have PG-13 rating. I think this will only do good for the movie, because now they really have pay attention to the script and acting.

  • Revenge of the Nerds, because it had BUSH. I remember renting Robocop 2 as soon as it was out, and I was about 12.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Prometheus will be PG-13. All major movies will be.

    by Ricardo

    Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, ALL of them.


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:51 a.m. CST


    by JamesT

    Show a PG-13 movie during the daytime and at night show the R version.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:57 a.m. CST

    Chuck obviously didnt do this.

    by Keith Maniac

    I dont doubt he raised an issue with the producers that he objected to the language, but there no way in hell thats solely what swung it to a pg-13. Its not surprising this happened, the first one made more money than i think even they anticipated, any cash cow is going to get milked, frankly as long as there plenty of action in it, i'm just not that bothered.

  • Not that we got to see it in the last one. Guess we're stuck with her Playboy spread.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:27 a.m. CST

    Fuck it, I'm out.

    by Stegman84

    I'll still check it out when it hits rental, but as far as the cinema release goes, no way. I really don't need another Live Free or Die Hard level disappointment in my life.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    I feel you stegman84

    by baronweazle

    This was one of my most anticipated films of 2012. But fuck it, I'm not paying for this bullshit. I'll watch it on blu ray or dvd someday. Also like many people have pointed out, there are a lot of great pg 13 films. But it's all about subject matter. If Prometheus turns out to be PG 13, I don't care. I'll still watch it opening day. Because a film like that can be fine with a pg 13 rating. If I want to see a whole bunch of badass motherfuckers take down a shitload of other badassmofo's, I need me some swearing and some blood and guts flying around.

  • Die Hard with a Vengeance? Beverly Hills Cop 3? Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Alien vs Predator? Conan the Destroyer? Chronicles of Riddick? Robocop 3? Speed 2? Terminator Salvation? Learn from history already, cutting the balls off of your r-rated film franchise is not only pretty much guaranteed to give us a shitty, or at the very least far inferior, sequel, but 9 times out of 10 it produces a complete box office dud as well. Oh Sly, I thought you'd know better than this by now...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:51 a.m. CST

    baronweazle, that's exactly it, it's all about context

    by Stegman84

    It isn't that we want or demand that all films be r-rated and extreme, but nor do we want the balls cut off of the films that should, naturally, be r-rated given their subject matter and the types of characters, story and situations being shown. It's not gore and vulgarity for gore and vulgarity's sake that most of us want, it's content that is true and appropriate to the film, franchise, and characters in question being made that we are asking for. I have no issue with the latest Bond or Mission Impossible films being pg-13, as those franchises always have been, and are more about action thrills than brutal violence. But taking an r-rated concept and franchise and gutting it so that it can be squeezed out as a pg-13 film, that's just a bad idea, and one that almost always results in poor films and box office duds, at least if history is any judge.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:07 a.m. CST


    by MariusXe

    No, really. I know the first one wasn't all that to a lot of people, but i really enjoyed it for what it was: ultra violent 80s fun action throwback! It just won't be the same without flying bodyparts and fountains of blood. I know how stupid that sounds but that was a lot what made the first one charming and different from todays actionmovies! I don't care about the cursing that much, but without the violence the movie would loose a lot of bang! I love you, Sly, I really do, but don't let us down on this one, all right? If you do, you owe me at least one more ultra violent Rambo sequel!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Why go half ass?

    by shane

    If you think about it, a G rated Expendables would be better (funnier) than PG-13. At least then they arent trying to fool anyone.


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:18 a.m. CST

    =Guess we're stuck with her Playboy spread. =

    by KilliK


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:29 a.m. CST

    R does not necessarily mean Awesome

    by Crash11578

    First, let me say that I may be the lone fan of Live Free or Die Hard in this discussion (it's my second favorite in the series after the first one). I found it plenty brutal in the fight scenes and better directed in the geography of it's action than any of Bay's Transformer movies (although that might not be high praise). I don't have to see fountains of blood and dismemberments to enjoy an action film. There have been a lot of great PG-13 action films and a lot of terrible R rated ones. I did not think the first Expendables lived up to it's potential and I found the CGI distracting. As for the language, I don't need to hear "Fuck" repeatedly to have a good time at an action film. Most of these ass-kickers are men of few words anyway, so is this really a big deal? If this rating decision means more money in the studio pocket, then that means more support from them during filming and budget planning. Do you remember most of the low budget pieces of crap that Van Damme, Norris and others made back in the 80's? They were not art by any means. Let's see some more money on the screen to give these guys room to kick ass.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:43 a.m. CST

    i agree it should be R

    by GenerationMTV

    but...i'll still see it in PG13. i just love action and to hear him say Van Damme turns in a insipired performance is music to my ears. van damme is the main reason im into this. the first film let me down and this one is already lookin way better. what i dont get is why you all seem to noy care about story and just want as much violence as possible. you all are the same ppl who hate on my boy Michael bay. he is the king of action and vulgarity and no story. why hate on him yet u look forward to this. HYPOCRITES all of u!!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:02 a.m. CST

    A good script\story should be first, BUT...

    by Tristan

    Let's remind ourselves of a couple of things: How many R-rated franchises had PG-13 installments and then failed at the box office\or got terrible reviews from critics and audiences? 1. AvP: Alien vs Predator 2. Terminator Salvation 3. The Chronicles of Riddick 4. Live Free, or Die Hard Now, we know that AvP: Requiem was made with an R-rating and it still disappointed, because of script\story and the filmmakers, but at least it had the violence and gore we wanted. Look what's happenning now with the new Riddick movie...they're going back to an R-rating! Again, the story and script is most important, but creativity shouldn't be censored! Stop thinking "about the children". If you're making a movie, called "Expendables 2", a sequel to an R-rated film about a bunch of 80's R-rated action stars, then turning it into PG-13 seems like a JOKE! It totally defeats the purpose of the first film (I think) was trying to do. It's like saying these guys have gotten old and are unable to do the hardcore action\violence they used to show. Simon West has made both, PG-13 and R-rated action films (The Mechanic and Con Air are my fav of his), but for this kind of film, making it PG-13 just means a lot of gun fire and explosions, but barely any blood and lots of cut-aways. Ill be honest, while the first Expendables had its moments, I didn't think it was a very good film. Mainly, because of the script, but the violence was good. How are you going show the brutality of the shotgun that Crews uses, in the sequel? I understand PG-13 is meant to bring in more money, but if you start a franchise off with an R-rating, what was the motivation then for that R-rating?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Send Lionsgate a message... tell them we want R or nothing!

    by Wes_Reviews_!/lionsgatemovies

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:08 a.m. CST!/lionsgatemovies

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Let them know!

  • I am TIRED of that bullshit! It seriously has got to stop.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:19 a.m. CST

    Add another one to the Chuck Norris Facts

    by thalvar

    Sly, Arnold, Van Damme, Willis, Statham, Li, Couture, Lundgren, Crews, and Lionsgate bow down and are pussywhipped by Chuck Norris' simple cameo demands

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:22 a.m. CST

    The best PG-13 action mover ever was the first - Red Dawn

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    Yeah, before people start talking about Flamingo Kid being the first remember it was in the can first, but Dawn was released first. Anyway, Red Dawn was, and is badass. However it didn't start as R, and then launch sequels. Name one series of movies where this has worked. Can you guys imagine what a PG-13 Lethal Weapon 2 would have been like? I will see this, good luck Sly, but you've got fans teetering now despite your promises.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST

    I wonder if they'll have Celine Dion do the theme song now...

    by Brian Mullett

    May as well.

  • What's the point of having a bunch of over the hill action stars in the same movie and making it PG13.....oh wait....humour.....GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    seriously, how can this film not really be 'R'?

    by captain_kirk

    After all, Norris' rug is vulgar.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Wow, lost all interest

    by VXXXJesterXXXV

    Good job Lionsgate and Sly. Turning an r-rated action franchise to a PG13 franchise is just fucking stupid..... This was one of my most anticipated flicks of the year, now I'll have to debate even bootlegging it.....

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:31 a.m. CST

    supermansredshorts, ouch. That was good.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST

    ANd furthermore

    by VXXXJesterXXXV

    Lionsgate is the stdio responsible for the Saw franchise....HUGE R-rated franchise. Why fuck with this one.....

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST

    by Lee

    Instead of making a movie that pays homage to the likes of Commando, they're making one that pays homage to Suburban Commando. Damn

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:42 a.m. CST


    by Brian Mullett

    Thanks. Too bad we had to go there though.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Instead of guns they should throw water baloons at each other


  • Hypocrite

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Fuck Norris

    by Edman

    Cock eating ass muncher. For Jesus.

  • Not sure if those two addresses still work or not, but it's worth a try. Be polite and let them know how we feel. None of those guys' best movies were PG-13. Urge them to reconsider!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Blood does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    We were hoping for THE WILD BUNCH but what were getting is the A TEAM!! I think we all wanted this to be like the first 40 mins of PREDATOR, with a highly trained squad of action heroes taking out hordes of bad guys with a stoopid high body count. Now, it's just going to be A TEAM style with bad guys flailing their arms in the air and falling to the ground with no blood squib or sign of bullet impact. Neutered. Someone send Sly a copy of LETHAL WEAPON 2, DIE HARD and CLIFFHANGER (actually he ought to have that last one already) - the *bring back the blood squib* campaign starts here!

  • Mr Stallone, as a lifelong fan I have to ask the question that many of us are wondering...Why even assemble such a great cast of action legends if the bean counters are going to tie your hands and not let you go all out and make the action classic you guys could deliver? I fully understand that this is a business and all parties involved want to make as much money as possible, but when suits get involved and demand that films like the last Die Hard movie go for a bigger audience with a PG13 rating the result is usually a watered down shadow of the original film that played to the MTV crowd...You guys are better than that. I am still looking forwad to the film, but my expectations have been lowered...Here's hoping that I'm wrong. Best Regards,

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:07 a.m. CST

    This will not help the box office, so why do it!

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    Everyone knows that Norris is not such a draw that he could make any demands about the script, maybe 50 people would give a shit if he were not in the movie. This is purely about making more money and a desire to be a true blockbuster hit, it aint gonna happen. I know they spent more money on this one but they have totally misunderstood the audience that saw the first one and who will see this one. It will do the around the same BO as the first, maybe a bit more. They should have stuck to the R rating. Very Disappointed.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:10 a.m. CST

    PG-13 action doesn't work...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Watch any number of Hulk Hogan's made-for-TV/direct-to-video action flicks to see. Shadow Warriors... featuring Hogan, Carl Weathers, Shannon Tweed, and even Martin Kove... just weaaaaaaaak. Terrible. C'mon Sly, don't let them do this to Expendables 2. It's still filming. There's still time! We believe in you!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:14 a.m. CST

    wait a minute. The first one wasn't PG13!?

    by Talkbacker with no name

    Seems like it could have been. This second one being pg13 is no big deal.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST

    judge dredds fresh undies, say what you want, but it will help BO

    by Talkbacker with no name

    what a dumb thing for you to say

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST

    The A-Team was PG-13... it flopped...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    As much as I love that movie, it failed hard. That should tell Lionsgate something. PG-13 goes against everything the first movie stood for. Modern action movies are weak and safe and PG-13. Sly, Arnold, Bruce, Chuck, Jean-Claude, These guys stood for REAL action. Tough, gritty, violent, no holds barred action. I thought that was the whole point of The Expendables? Suppose I was wrong?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Remember when Bruce Willis defended PG-13?

    by Matt

    We shot a hard-ass movie, not a rating. And I had not seen the movie when I did the VF interview. Writers often need to present a "thesis" to their articles, and Peter Biskin chose the rating as his. And while you can't imagine how a PG-13 movie can be a rough as an R, you will just have to wait and see this movie.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    This will be a def boost to profit margin

    by lprothro

    ..anyone saying otherwise is delusional. Gen x'ers who grew up watching these guys will still see it (muscleheads at my gym are already talking about it) and younger kids who know these guys from watching their films reran on cable will now also be able to go as well. True, kids do find a way to sneak into R-rated films, but its usually by way of buying tickets to something else, which (guess what??) is no help to a film's box office receipt numbers. I'm just hoping it isn't a steaming pile with near mentally challenged dialog like the last one. The average moviegoer prefers pg-13 levels of violence anyway. No one wants to see constant disembowelments except for the maladjusted weirdoes on the internet.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:24 a.m. CST

    so we get the real movie on DVD right? just like DIE HARD 4

    by Spandau Belly

    I doubt they'll shoot a PG13 movie, they'll shoot an R rated movie and trim it to being PG13 and then put the R rated version out on video.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:33 a.m. CST

    What was R about the first Expendables

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I mean I found the movie preaty forgetable (other than the stuff with Mickey Rourke which seemed like the only moments the film came alive), so maybe my memory is foggy, but what exactly happened in it to push it into R territory. Now the last Rambo, that was R (people blowing up, limbs flying, etc).

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing

    by Ditch Brodie


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST


    by UGG

    Yea I'm out. Die Hard couldn't pull it off I doubt these will. It's not about blood and foul language it's about the "adult content" war is not PGfucking13 so I will not watch it depicted as so. Going into a PG13 action movie about a gang of war battered mercenaries is not going to hold any surprises. It's like watching soft core porn...... WHY!?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Don't bother bringing OLEG back for PG-13

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

  • Blah... The state of film is sad. Can't even make an R action movie anymore... if it's a raunchy slapstick comedy, then it's OK. Douche Bags in Hollywood... But the Blu-Ray will be unrated.... WHHOOOO CAAARRESS!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:47 a.m. CST

    One less movie to go and pay for...

    by Ryan

    Seriously as soon as I hear an action film is PG-13 it makes me almost instinctively want to NOT see it. I KNOW it's a way for the studio to try and make more why should I help them with that when they are making an inferior product? Of ALL action movies, shouldn't the Expendables be R-rated? Honestly if you were tell the ten year old version of me that Bruce, Sly, Arnold, and Van Damme were going to get together to make an action flick I'd probably die from shock... All you'd have to do is whisper in my ear that it was going to be PG-13, I'd wake up and vomit. Because it would be at that moment that little kid BatSTUD would've figured out that eventually his heroes would SELL OUT. Yeah, no thanks. Fuck you Sly for not fighting this. But especially FUCK YOU for trying to SELL us on this. Oh, and fuck you too Harry for trying to sell us on it as well.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:52 a.m. CST

    I LOL at creepythinmanlives

    by Brian Mullett


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:52 a.m. CST

    I don't buy it...

    by ClancyWiggum all sounds fishy to me. There are a couple of possibilities: A) Harry is fucking with us because he wants to se if he still has it in him to stir up a good Internet shitstorm. B) Stallone is fucking with us (and Harry) to make us voice how much we crave that hard R bloodletting and tough guy talk, hoping it will raise awareness for the film. C) They are both fucking with us, for all the reasons mentioned above. Either way, there is fucking going on, in one form or another.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST


    by CreepyThinMan

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:06 a.m. CST

    I've had some time to reflect on the pg13 story...

    by fat_rancor_keeper's still bullshit.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Die Hard With a Vengeance was R... Live Free or Die Hard was PG-13.

    by Wes_Reviews_


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:17 a.m. CST

    This is crap

    by Jabber_Jaw

    I won't be paying tons of cash at the theater to see an Inspired performance by Van Damme. I want to see over the top violence. Give me an R and let all the kids just wait to see it when its released on friggin Blu Ray in 3 months

  • If the movie is targeted for 12 year olds, what's the pleasure in a 12 year old watching it? It's all about forbidden fruit, friends.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    I got one fucking word for everyone: Robocop.

    by UltraTron

    Imagine hammering that masterpiece into pg-13. Pg-13 = making a piece of confined entertainment. It's making art with severe boundaries imposed upon you while you make it. It's really sad actually. We love pure ideas onscreen but all we can have is the corporate product produced by whatever dollars they can wrangle from us.

  • The levels of allowable violence in PG-13 movies is inversely proportional to the allowable levels of profanity and nudity. Boobies used to be plentiful in PG rated movies in the 80's but I can't think of a PG-13 movie since Titanic that got away with nudity. Conversely, there are a lot of PG-13 movies that get away with a lot more violence than they used to. In summary, who gives a shit, the movie's going to be lame either way. The Planet Hollywood United thing would have been kick ass 15 years ago. Now, not so much.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Aint it the dumbest news I've ever heard.

    by Steve


  • And that's just scratching the surface of action movies not to mention that the Horror genre had it's best decade ever. Rivers of sex, violence, gore and nudity. I fucking miss those days. Political Correctness has killed almost everything I love and people seem to forget that, in the wake of the damage that George W. Bush has done, it was the fucking Democrats that shoveled that shit onto our society, spearheaded by that CUNT Topper Gore, rat faced cocksucker Joe Lieberman and Uber-bitch Hillary Clinton. These assholes were the ones that blamed all of society's problems on violence in movies, TV, videogames and music. I fucking loathe the Republican party but the Dems are just the lesser of two evils!!!FACT!!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST


    by Rufus

    And it should have the cast of the Muppets in it!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:33 a.m. CST

    You people worry about ratings too much.

    by bah

    I'd only be guessing if you asked me what the ratings were on any movie I've seen in the last ten years.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST

    EX1 PG13 - why?

    by Eric Strauss

    You guys are getting so bent out of shape over nothing. What exactly made EX1 a hard R? A couple of grisly shots, that's it. Frankly, Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum had much more intense action sequences than EX1, and those films were PG13. Only a child thinks being able to say "fuck" or show more bloody body parts is going to make this a better film. I'm no fan of Norris' but allow that an R rating does not - in any way - make a good action movie. A top notch story and direction do.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives, what no love for Rambo III?

    by P

    Come on. Rambo teaming up with the Taliban! Classic! HAHA.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Art vs. Money

    by w_woody

    Remember when people actually made the movies that people wanted to see? The fact is the idea of these films where to bring together the biggest bad ass action stars of the last three decades into one big explosive film. They wrote a script and sent it to the studio. Great! They love the idea...but... Then some fucking executive says, hey we can make more money off this movie if we tone down the violence and the profanity so children can enjoy it. Because we all know that if we don't that parents won't let their kids see it and that will be money lost. We can maximize our ROI by simply cutting a few things out. Who cares if we are completely changing the entire scope of what the film was all about...we will make money either way but we won't make as much money if we don't cut the "fucks". It's fucking greed. We are sheep...the rich are the shepherds and they don't give a shit whether they give us clean water, healthy food, or a nice warm bed to sleep in. As long as at the end of the day we give them the most Wool possible. We just need to take back our country and stop giving them any of our fucking wool until they provide us with what we want and we quit letting "society" (the other cowardly sheep) tell us what we want.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST

    If an action film could make $350,000,000 with an R rating

    by conspiracy

    it would be done... But the core audience for these things is 13-21...and giving it an R rating eliminates a huge part of your audience from freely seeing it. Why take that risk? Films cost huge amounts of money to produce these days...I don't blame anyone for going the PG-13 route and trying to broaden the audience and make a buck or two. This is business people...not a fucking hobby or art. Besides..Blood does not=Quality. Sure it'd be more fanboy satisfying if released in over the top full hard R Glory; but if the story is good, and the action is fun to watch, you don't NEED to see actual brain matter splatter to enjoy a film.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Let Lionsgate know how you feel!

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Send them a polite Tweet here...!/lionsgatemovies Or send them a polite e-mail here... or here... Let them know that we want an R Rating for Expendables 2 and will not see it otherwise.

  • Millennials and younger probably don't have an affection for r-rated movies because they didn't grow up watching them. Period. Aside from the occassional gross-out comedy or latest torture-porn shitfest, Hollywood rarely makes r-rated entertainment because they are more interested in reaching the broadest possible demographic (as Sly himself admitted above). Not bashing you kids at all, but your parents have had GPS devices strapped to your asses since you were in diapers. They monitered your web browsing activity, tracked your text messages, etc. To no fault of your own, you simply have less of a sense of rebellion than generations that came before. My 6 and 9 year old niece and nephew, whom I love dearly, are like little gestapo soldiers, pointing out smokers like they are evil and tattling on their uncle when he lets a swear word slip out ;) Many of us who grew up in the 80s and early 90s are the latch key generation. We didn't have parents hovering over us. Most of the time we were left to our own devices and we used that freedom to seek out r-rated shit. And we developed a taste for it. Not saying it was right, but it was what it was.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Was Con-Air PG-13?

    by Bop N Rumble

    If so then there will be no problem. But if it wasn't, I hope Sly still delivers.

  • I just wanna see 'splosions!!!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:01 a.m. CST

    It Was Part Of Chuck Norris' Right-Wing Contract Rider...

    by Read and Shut Up

    ...that the violence doesn't get past PG-13 levels. Oh - and that the line "Sure, I'm tough, but Jesus can kick ALL our asses" is included somewhere in the movie.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:04 a.m. CST

    R Rated Simon West = Con-Air... PG-13 Simon West = Tomb Raider

    by Wes_Reviews_

  • Hate all these action stars, saved for Bruce Willis. Where is the new McQueen, Eastwood, Coburn? Those were action stars who could act.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:07 a.m. CST

    zombie_fatigue, I bet I'm 10 years older than you

    by bah

    The difference is not an affection for the R rating. It's what I said above about Die Hard 3 -- the R rating doesn't mean what it used to. It's pretty clear that all anyone really cares about it the violence level, and except for an occasional boob, most of the R rated classics could air uncut but bleeped on prime time today.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:08 a.m. CST

    The first Expendables had 7 F bombs

    by seasider

    which is actually not very much for an R rated action movie. A PG-13 will technically allow you 2 F words but I've seen movies that "stretch" that rule. What made the first movie R rated was the flashes of gore during some of the battle scenes inspired by Stallone's "John Rambo" movie. With Sly not directing there was gonna be a departure in how the action scenes would be portrayed either way. I'm not a fan of the decision to aim for a PG-13 but I don't think the movie will suffer all that much because of it.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Myabe not 10. Maybe....6.

    by bah

  • Robocop, Total Recall, The Fly, The Thing, The Road Warrior, etc. But your point is well taken, old man ;)

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Die Hard 3 has that pretty bloody knifing scene

    by UGG

    and McClane shooting the guy's in the elevator was another scene that always used to be cut. The sound alone in that one was probably the reason. Watched it recently and no way would they be in a PG13 today. Even after the fight with "Lurch" when he's rushing around the boat covered in blood wiping it away with his vest desperate and battered, was better in every way than any scene in DH4 And McClane would have the "I Hate Everybody" sign

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:18 a.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch could rate Expendables 2 Buy Now or Best in Breed and it would still be self-indulgent campy crap full of grandpas mugging for the camera. These movies are not later day Robocops or Die Hards. Not even later day Commandos. These are new model Cannonball Runs.

  • To make a pg 13 expendables is to set out to make art at odds with it's self.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    The only time I ever got caught and kicked out of an R movie...

    by CatoTheCensor

    ...was, of all things, Air Force One! AIR FORCE ONE! Screw you to this day, Loews (Sony) Wayne NJ near the Willowbrook Mall. Oh, but jokes on you, because I snuck into Freddy's Dead no problem when I was 13.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by ilovemichealbay

    Fuck Norris he's only in for a few seconds, fuck your PG13 movie. I won't be there opening day. SLY I LOVE YOU, BUT your making a HUGE FUCKING mistake remember LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, I try not to!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:23 a.m. CST

    It's setting out to make a curtailed experience.

    by UltraTron

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST

    I have some questions about this

    by JackSlater4

    Do we get an R rated directors cut? Will the smoke from the cigars be CGI'd out for the theatrical and blood CGI'd in for the directors cut? Why the fuck wouldn't you tell Chuck Norris to go shit in his hat because the R rating is more important than getting his Just For Men Ginger ass in this movie?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Ok, those who are saying Expendables sucked obviously didn't get it

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    I didn't pay to see the Expendables expecting a classic along the lines of Predator or Enter the Dragon. I was just expecting a cheap, but fun thrill ride full of decapitation, mutilation, gruesome deaths, lots of swearing.......................and maybe a boob or two. What the Expendables detractors don't seem to realize is how sick everyone of our generation is of seeing the same watered down pg-13 comic book/disaster type movies on the big screen. It's either Batman or a disaster movie. Batman or a disaster movie. Batman or a disaster movie. Batman Forever or Twister. Batman and Robin or Armageddon. And that was just during the 90's!!! Do any of you realize how much garbage we've had to endure from 2000-2009???? Now it's either Transformers or a Pixar movie. Transformers 2 or Cars 2??? Which one ya want to see??? Which one? NEITHER! I DON'T WANT TO WATCH EITHER MOVIE! Well tough titty kids, cause thats all that we can come up with here at Hollywood.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:40 a.m. CST

    So what, no blowing dudes in half with grenade launchers on camera?

    by JackSlater4

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:41 a.m. CST

    My first R rated sneak was Red Heat

    by bah

    Not so much a sneak as nobody at the theater cared. And there was only one other person in the theater so they were probably glad to sell the tickets. After that it was Major League. Twice. But the one everyone had to see in my day was The Toxic Avenger. A friend's mom actually rented it for us. And watched it with us, in the middle of a Saturday afternoon. We had to take it back as soon as the kid's head got run over. Later I was able to sneak a full viewing when my dad's friend loaned him a copy.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:42 a.m. CST

    So what, Braunsweiger gave up cigars now?

    by JackSlater4

  • I already have a Batman movie.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Stop! Or The Expendables Will Shoot!

    by RockChestwell

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    I wonder if they will allow the 1 PG-13 F bomb

    by JackSlater4

    Maybe Dolph Lundgren could say "Fuck off you out of touch, wannabe karate cowboy AARP ginger old bastard!" To Chuck Norris

  • but said no, because he wanted to play Rocky himself? Didn't matter how much money he had, he was not going to sell out. Do you also remember that guy who let fame and fortune go to his head, made some terrible decisions in the movie business, then admitted to his flaws, and clawed his way back in 2006? That's the Stallone we admire and respect, the guy who did things the right way. Right now you're about to lose all of the respect and clout that you've managed to once again garner. A PG-13 Expendables movie makes no sense on ANY level whatsoever. From the original "R" rated, very successful film, to the older stars, to the director of the "R" rated Con Air, to the characters who are mercenary's (essentially hired killers with a conscience). It doesn't add up. Do not fuck this up, demand an "R" rating, because a PG-13 Expendables movie will bomb, and at your age, you ain't going to make another comeback.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST


    by ben

    Too many films coming out to waste my time and money on another teeny bopper pg13 piece. Congratulations on closing the gap between your films and Harry Potter &/or Twilight. You can do better than this.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Now go drag you red and gray old balls back into obscurity

    by JackSlater4

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Ditch Chuck Norris, reshoot his scenes with a new actor.

    by JackSlater4

    I promise he won't be missed.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    This can be R Rated. Hi audience isn't younger than 60

    by Mennen


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    And don't even consider asking Mr. T to for part 3

    by JackSlater4

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    I hope Chuck's character dies in this.

    by JackSlater4

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    So you attempt the manliest movie ever made

    by Nerd Rage

    And then you censor it for high school kids? Idiots.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    The violence will be like the A-team tv show

    by Nerd Rage

    No one gets shot and every once and a while a grenade will send 4 guys flying in slow mo'

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    The problem is....

    by Your Moms Box

    that most people don't care. They don't care or they don't know better. They don't realize how badly a PG-13 hurts the quality of a film like this until AFTER they've spent their money to see it in a theater. Bad reviews and word of mouth mean nothing once Lionsgate starts counting their money. It's all too little, too late. The only way to stop this nonsense is to not contribute to the box office. But I doubt none of you will refrain. You'll see it. It will make $100 million and they'll have proven their point and been given motivation to make another one. The pattern repeats. And don't get me started on the "R" rated version on Blu-Ray. The uncut version of "Live Free or Die Hard" made me more angry than the version I saw in theaters. All that dubbed-in dialogue and CGI blood. Fuck outta here.

  • This movie should be for adults who grew up in the 80s.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    talkbacker with no name

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    Any good that the lower rating does will be undone by the amount of people that stay away due to the poor quality of the first film. Of course violence and swearing doesnt make a better film, but cutting around violence and neutering the tone of a film can certainly from the finished product.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    I disagree with your moms box regarding Die Hard 4 uncut

    by JackSlater4

    There were obviously alternate shots of dialogue, not dubbed in dialogue. Movie is mint.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    They lost my $8

    by AnarchyWorldsEnd

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    RE: DIE HARD and PG-13

    by DerLanghaarige

    The first movie is full of bloody head- and body shots, so even if you cut out the swearing, it would stll be R. Also DIE HARD 4.0 didn't suck because of its PG13 rating, but because it was an overall bad movie.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST

    if this had been the 80s....

    by yabory

    it would be R. during the time when these guys really set themselves apart as the bad-asses of bad-asses. to say that a pg-13 rating does not hurt this type of film, with these characters of violence, guns and mayhem is ridiculous..naive at best. i'll wait till the Rated R director's cut bluray hits stores.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    No Point Anymore

    by Darth Smails

    You f'd up Sly. Shouldn't have gotten greedy. Will there be enough teenagers interested in watching you to replace all those fan's you've turned your back on? Think about it. Its not too late to reverse course & fix this. Chuck Norris' involvement is NOT worth this high a price.

  • IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A PG-13 RATED MOVIE, DON'T MAKE A SEQUEL TO THE EXPENDABLES. The consensus is in and the audience would like to swap Chuck Norris for some graphic violence and some swear words. Now do what you did with the suggested Rambo 5 synopsis and LISTEN to the audience, it's why we love you.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Chuck Norris - Legend No More....

    by Han Cholo

    Way to kill what small legacy you have, Chuck. Instead of helping your career, you have killed it, along with what could have been a dream movie filled with action stars of yesteryear going out on a high note. Instead, you want kids to see this(?!?) so you think dispensing with the profanity makes it acceptable? Who the hell made you The Authority? Fuck you Chuck.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Barbeque asskicking? Prove it!

    by Andreas Bengtsson

    "When the phrase”barbeque grand scale ass bashing” came up in Sly´s response, I immediately thought of ACTION JACKSON and came to the conclusion; On that day,you can make a PG-13 actionmovie that tops ACTION JACKSON, Satan will be iceskating to work…

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Why even fucking bother anymore?

    by octagon71

    They don't make movies for us anymore. We are obsolete, replaced by PG13 shit-fest imitations. This sucks Sly, Why fuck your fans over?, you really need more money? I give up, I'm officially yelling at children to get off my lawn.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Sly, you son of a bitch

    by therightclique

    No PG-13 sequel has ever been better, or even good. It's not that PG-13 movies can't be good. It's that movies that should be R-Rated, but get neutered down to PG-13, ALWAYS suck. Always. Every single time. This is a huge fucking mistake that has ruined the allure of this movie. Fuck this movie. Fuck Chuck Norris. That guy shouldn't even be involved. Ruining good movies with his born again bullshit.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Re: "Ditch Chuck Norris, reshoot his scenes with a new actor. "

    by Stalkeye

    Yeah like Mark "Marky Mark" Walberg. After all, he "knows" how to handle Terrorists. Fucking Idiot.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Do. Not. Want.

    by Jaster Mareel

    You had me Sly. Rocky Balboa, Rambo, you were kicking MAJOR ass. Then you did Expendables, which seemed like a fantastic idea. It's an ok film. But THIS SHIT? No fuckin' way man, no fuckin' way. Like others have said, it makes no fucking sense that you are nuetering a film for people from the 80's so tweens can go in and light up their phones and talk shit all through the fucking movie. It will NOT make you more money because us hardcore fans will stay away in droves and the reviews will fucking TANK it. Chuck Norris is not the fucking boss. YOU are an international star, a damn talented one too. You cow-towed to a has-been with no artistic talent whatsoever. It's a damn shame. Maybe I'll bother pirating this thing, but I doubt it. Like Robert De Niro told you in Copland "YOU BLEW IT!"

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    funniest thing about the Die Hard 4 unrated disc

    by Bouncy X

    there's this scene after the building blows up where the kid is spewing what is obviously a swear filled rant. of course he was completely dubbed over in theaters and badly dubbed over at that. there was no lip synch whatsoever and they didn't even try to hide his mouth. so when the unrated cut came out, i wondered what it is exactly he was saying. so i'm watching the movie where they used alternated cuts or whatnot and there's typical swearing galore throughout and then we get to that scene............they didn't even change a thing. that was just weird.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Not that i endorse UFC

    by hallmitchell

    Yet if Bruce Lee entered that. He would get his ass kicked! Martial arts is not the ultimate form of fighting.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    by roger

    What terrible news. Thanks a lot Chuck. Way to ruin a franchise. & I loved the first one. Doubt I'll even see the sequel. Action movies are supposed to be rated R for profanity, gore, and violence. Chuck's last 2005 crapper was rated R. Screw the "children" or whatever BS excuse we're being fed. I can't believe Sly agreed to this.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    As so many others have said...

    by Hugh G Rekshun

    ...this saves me the cost of a movie ticket. I'll probably get the unrated BluRay/DVD (if one is released). I can't believe they're actually doing is beyond my comprehension.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Terrible News For Francise: Fuck Chuck.

    by roger

    Gore, profanity, violence made the first one. What is going to do it for the sequel? Chuck Norris? NOT!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST

    =Martial arts is not the ultimate form of fighting.=

    by KilliK


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Well ladies and gents, at least we have Pirahna 2 to look forward to........

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Gary Busey...............enough said.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST


    by tomdolan04

    WITH ALL THE SAME 80'S STARS. <p> Rated PG-13. <p> I can only echo the sentiments of the majority - a poor choice, purely on the grounds that the impression is that Sly wants this franchise to be a love letter to those romps of years gone by. Furthermore the other prevailing sentiment on here - FEW PEOPLE UNDERAGE GIVE TWO CRAPS ABOUT CHUCK, JCVD et. <p> I'm sure the actors involved, and with respect to Sly him as well, will be singing from a different hymn sheet than the one in this article when they are trying the sell the inevitable Uncut version = though the probably with those cash in's is by then the tone of the movie has already been set and mostly it'll be a few reshots with naughty words added in as an after thought <p Still don't blame Chuck for this - he's just being made a scapegoat for the producers

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST

    What morally fucked up world are they living in!?

    by btvs2000

    I had the same issue with Terminator 3, apart from the fact it was shit, movies like that are not for 15 year olds or younger. Chuck Norris... its MORALLY worse to make a movie about killing people PG-13, i.e. young kids will see it. At least with an 18 rating or R in the states, that reduces the chances. It is impossible for this film now not to suck. As already stated they killed the Terminator, Alien, Predator and Die Hard franchises with this PG-13 shit. Sly, you are the man... but for fuck sake.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST


    by Mugato5150

    Air Force One was a PG-13. You got BLEEPED over.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST


    by ckone

    Expendables 1 was a fun guilty pleasure of a movie for me. I looked forward to the balls out nature of it , the blowing shit up of stuff, and the ripped apart bodies that were strewn everywhere just for the pleasure of the nostolgia of 80's actiony movies done in the here and now. There wasn't much to the movie, and I am sorry SLY as much as I completely have adoration for you and your work, I am dissapointed by this choice. It just won't be the same. Bruce did it to us for die hard. It just doesn't work when you go in knowing the balls are cut off, I was SOOOO loooking forward to this movie, NOW?? I am left with a MEH feeling. DAMN IT!!! FUCK CHUCK!!!

  • Guys get shot. Have you seen Taken? Qui Gon takes out like a dozen guys, shoots a guy's wife to make the guy talk (stolen from an episode of 24), tortures a guy with an electric chair and leaves it on and leaves for him to slowly die. The girl from Lost, the 30 year old playing a teenager, along with her friend and a bunch of other girls are sold into the sex trade. PG-13. Now what in Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or virtually any other movies from the '80s were more violent?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST


    by ckone

    It's a movie about a group of mercenaries who have to go and blow shit up even bigger this time then last time. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU MAKE THIS WITHOUT GOING R???? If I want to watch a pg-13 movie about bad guys and good guys, I will go watch Taken or unknown, DAMN IT!!! FUCK CHUCK!!!

  • FOR CHUCK NORRIS: "Give it a chance. After all, how many PG13 movies have you sat through with far *less stellar* casts?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST


    by tomdolan04

    "...takes out like a dozen guys, shoots a guy's wife to make the guy talk...tortures a guy with an electric chair and leaves it on and leaves for him to slowly die...the 30 year old playing a teenager, along with her friend and a bunch of other girls are sold into the sex trade" <p> That shit got passed because it was mostly set in Paris, your rating board in the states probably thought it was a documentary

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    The internet killed the R rating

    by howlingmudd

    For all the complaints that this would've been rated R back in the 80s, that's also because there would've still been a market for it. Sure, movies like Die Hard, Predator, and Rambo made a lot of money, but they didn't make it all on opening weekend. It wasn't unusual for stuff to play for months back then, since the window between theater and home video was so much longer. Studios could gamble on an R rating, since there was a greater chance of recouping the budget. Today everyone is programmed to rush out on opening weekend, which means it's become crucial for films to make as much upfront as possible. Look at The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. It's slowly getting to $100 million, but it's simply running out of time. Twenty years ago it could've played through to March, but today it's just a case of too little, too late. (In less than a month!) The R rating has also lost all sense of taboo for younger audiences. 80s comedies earned their raunchy reputations like a badge of honor, and kids would go out of their way to try and see something filled with swearing and nudity. Obviously, that's no longer a big deal in the internet age. If anything, kids are now desensitized to it. When a movie like Piranha 3D, Punisher War Zone, or Conan the Barbarian promises cheap thrills, kids are more likely to mock it than offer any support. So it doesn't surprise me that the studio wanted a lower rating. It's really the only way they could've justified a higher budget, securing all those actors, and a $15 million paycheck for Stallone. The reality is that there's a certain audience that will show up for movies like Rambo 4 and The Expendables, but it's one that's only good for a certain amount at the box office. It also skews older, which means there's a greater chance many of the fans might wait a weekend or two before heading out to the theater.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Respectful response to Sly

    by C Magna

    I am a longtime lurker / first time poster who read this response and registered just to add my feelings on this situation in the offhand chance that Sly actually reads this, although it is so far down in the talkbacks that this is probably unlikely. I am very disappointed by the news that Expendables 2 will be PG-13. This is not merely a reactionary response, and does not mean that a PG-13 version of this film inherently sucks, as we have not seen the finished product. However, it gives many people, myself included, great pause that this Expendable tale is not a continuing adventure in the lives of the characters you created, but instead motivated by a "cash grab" than the story. Part of this goes back to your friend Bruce, who made Die Hard 4 a PG-13 film, and promised that it felt more like the first Die Hard and that it could still be gritty and have the same tone. This was not true: John McClane's character was inhibited by the rating, and the foul-mouthed dialogue from the first three films was lacking. While it worked as a film, it was not Die Hard in either tone or, most importantly, character: Die Hard 4's John McClane did not feel like an older version of the John McClane we had seen in three other films. As a matter of fact, I don't even use the f-word personally, and I was extremely disappointed for it to have been cut out of Die Hard 4, because John McClane seemed to have mellowed to such a degree that I no longer felt as invested in the character. I will compare it to early CG effects: your eye immediately detected the "fakery" and knew that something wasn't right. Similarly, the character wasn't right, and you could feel the places where the character's dialogue was trapped by what it was and was not allowed to say. You see, Mr. Stallone, as much as I really enjoy your films for your acting, and superb directing, I actually respect you more for your writing talents. Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and the original Rocky are excellent not just for the acting and film, but for the characters that the audience was invested in. You take the time to plot out the story arc, as well as dialogue that differentiates each character from one another, and focuses on their motivations. For instance, in each of the Rambo films, the character of John Rambo never starts the fight, although he is sure to finish it! From First Blood where he is pushed by the Sheriff, First Blood Part 2 where he has to do recon to get out of jail, Rambo 3 where he fights to rescue Trautman, or Rambo where he fights to rescue the missionaries, Rambo never seeks out a fight. This is why you never wrote a story for Rambo to, say, travel to North Korea to kill as many people as possible before breakfast. Why? Because that would not be true to the character, the audience would feel that it was bogus, and just an easy way to propel the plot forward to the next set piece. According to Mr Norris, "In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. . . I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13." While you did not return to direct this installment, we do know that you wrote the screenplay. And based on your previous responses in Q&As, I understand your commitment to the characters in the film, which was present before the screenplay was edited. My fear, and the fear of many who frequent this site, is not that a movie will be lousy if it is not rated R, but that the tone and character will be compromised. It's not about the foul language, or even the gore or violence, it's about the story and the tone of the film. I am not the type of person who will boycott a film sight-unseen, but this feels like a betrayal of the character and tone of the film that was set by the first Expendables. Even though you are not directing, nor producing Expendables 2, Expendables (1) was your inception and your "baby." You still have some pull. Doubtless some of the decision is financially motivated to allow 13 year olds to see the movie. But is it worth compromising the adult film that most of your adult fans want to see for the wishes of fans born between 1995 and 1999? Moreover, kids aged 13-17 do have the opportunity to still see this film if it were rated R: they can see it with their parent or guardian. Some of my best "bonding" moments were watching R-rated films with my father. These days the films are rated PG-13 so the kinds and fathers can do things separately. . . You ask us to trust you, that the film will deliver and we will not go hungry. I'm willing to give it a chance, but I am wary that I will be disappointed because the rating will have shackled the tone and characters from achieving the film it could--and should--have been.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Nice reply Boba

    by tomdolan04

    The only thing I'd probably chip in with is that when you say: <p> (With) "Die Hard 4, because John McClane seemed to have mellowed to such a degree that I no longer felt as invested in the character" <p> It's the same problem Plinkett pointed out in the Indy 4 review (and I'm aware RedLetterMedias style isn't for all). You have a character like McClane in Die Hard, immortalized by having problems with wife, being drunk / hungover / wearing a wife beater / being sprightly 30 - 40's / kicking ass and not giving a flying fuck. You revisit the character ten years later. Do you put in the wifebeater and have him be the same character? Trying to have him beat the shit out of people that are as old as McClane was in 1988? Or do you want the character to mellow a bit or generally age normally so it feels like a natural progression of the character <p> Either way feels kinda wrong because the appeal of the imagery of the character, moreso than the character itself, is the draw. When I was kid I wanted to be Indy Circa 1984, not 2008. Equally McClane ended for laughing the Zeus at the end of Vengeance (and I'm a big fan of that movie, warts and all. The opening 45min are probably the my highpoint of 90's film making. <p> I'm not particularly caring about how McClane is doing two days near retirement - we've had Danny Glover for that kinda work :) Going back to the point - if the iconic characters from the OTT bloody T&A filled films of the 80's are going to reunite, why the feck isn't it for an OTT romp. Oh, Oh right it's because we want to see them as people and see how they've progressed as individuals and matured. <p> (Don't get me wrong on the final point, seeing people like Sly in films like Copland really can work well)

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    rabble rabble rabble rabble

    by Nuts

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST

    I realize that my argument seems contradictory

    by tomdolan04

    But the whole marketing of this and the first seems to be saying "I WANT TO BE LIKE THE 80'S ROMPS SO BAD'. So having it be PG-13 seems very contradictory in itself. <p> The marketing of this is blatantly trying to mislead the movie going public because when they see the wall-to-wall concentration of 80's action stars, they're immediate reaction will be "OH MAN THIS IS GOING TO BE BLOODY AND HYPER VIOLENT". <p> Unless you are 13 years old and don't have a fucking clue who any of them are

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST

    R or not, the first one sucked devil taint anyway.

    by Behemoth

    Probably the biggest movie letdown of the season when it came out. Truly a terrible movie. If they actually make something with characters I care about, not just use an "R" rating to go on some sort of magic shotgun shooting spree, then I don't care. Still, Chuck Norris is a be-wigged puss. His meme should be forever stricken from the records of the interwebs. Fuck that bald douche.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Taken is a poor/incorrect example

    by btvs2000

    Taken in UK was a 15... which is bare minimum for this type of movie. Terminator 3 had a 12A. If expendables 2 is PG 13 and this translates to 12A in the UK... i wanted to link to a BBC advert on the watershed... it showed a funny clip of police chasing criminals and was all 'PG13'... unfortunately cant find it!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Fucking Chuck Norris

    by GQSioux

    I think fat suit Ben Stiller said it best in that final scene from Dodgeball:

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    i never post, always a long time lurker..but

    by btvs2000

    just completely gutted that there is absolutely no chance of Van Damme saying to his minions about Sly and Arnold ...."Fuckin'- What the fuckin'. Fuck. Who the fuck fucked this fucking... How did you two fucking fucks...Fuck!"

  • It'll mean an awkward reshoot or two where the characters drop a few extra F-bombs, regardless of whether or not the scene warrants them. This whole argument is kind've hypocritical, because on one hand, everyone is saying the film should be allowed to be what it is. However, what if PG-13 is exactly how it was envisioned? Sly always said Expendables was an attempt to reach a more mainstream audience than Rambo, and the overall tone of the first movie was obviously more jokey than brutal. Let's also not kid ourselves about the "characters" of Expendables being compromised here. Seriously? Does anyone really believe that movie boasted any characters that weren't wafer-thin cliches?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:37 p.m. CST

    gqsioux - Brilliant.

    by btvs2000

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Fuck Chuck Norris

    by Chris

    As washed up, has been actors go, I liked Chuck Norris. Thought he was entertaining in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. Now I think he's a tool. I won't see this movie in the theaters. What a terrible idea to take a hard ass, balls to the walls, violent action film and castrating it all for the sake of Chuck fucking Norris who probably isn't even in the movie for too long. The suspension of disbelief only goes so far for me, shit blowing up and people catching onto speeding planes is one thing, but bad ass mercenaries not cussing is unbelievable and stupid. Fuck you, Chuck Norris. Fuck you up your has been ass. This is amazingly hypocritical of Mr. Norris. The movie has to be PG-13 so the kids can see it, we don't want them hearing dirty words, but it's perfectly OK for Chuck to go around drop kicking peoples balls and breaking their necks. Why is violence toward your fellow man perfectly acceptable behavior but saying 'Fuck' isn't? Fuck Chuck Norris.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    to: tomdolan04

    by C Magna

    I have no issue with a character aging: that's part of the natural progression of things. In fact, I didn't even have a problem with this for Indy 4. However, it didn't feel true for the case of John McClane. As people age, they either get mellower or more cantankerous, and McClane's not the kind of character to mellow as he ages: quite the opposite, the expected character arc would be for him to become *more* ornery rather than *less*. That said, creatively, there are always ways to have a story arc cause an unexpected result in a character. For instance, if one of McClane's kids had died, and the loss devastated him. You can even set it up that the villain of the piece is related to that in some way, such that you are invested in the character *more*. And you'd be okay with McClane not wisecracking constantly. With what was presented in Die Hard 4, this clearly was not the case, and I felt that, while this was a decent action flick, it wasn't Die Hard by a long shot. To be clear, I don't mean to come across as one of those people who armchair quarterbacks and says, "This is how it should be done," but that these are possible dramatic characterizations which would get the audience more invested. To take this one step further, you could even have it such that the more taciturn McClane becomes more of his old wise-cracking self as the film progresses, such that the audience enjoys it that much more when he returns to form. Although that would mean by the end it couldn't be PG-13.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    An alternate Norris meme

    by Behemoth

    Care Bear spawn ask to sleep in Chuck Norris sheets. Pantaloons were once called "Pants of Norris." The sweat of Norris pollinates tulips. Chuck Norris' hairpiece legally changed its name to "pubepiece" since it's covering a giant pussy. Chuck Norris splits fecal logs of hypocrisy. Some aboriginal tribes believe the rains of a monsoon are really the tears of Chuck Norris' ancestors, still weeping over the cancellation of "Silver Spoons."

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    I've seen a few PG-13's recently........

    by david starling

    Or 12A's, as they're known in the UK - and trust me, they'd have been 15's or even 18's when I was a teenager (the 1980's!!). I'll wait to see the film. I'm sure there's going to be all sorts of kickassery, and it'll satisfy those hungry for action.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    The Raid is gonna get my money over this.....

    by griffin

    I'm not going to contribute to the pusstfication of action movies that back in the 80's -90's would have been made for a hard r rating. I saw more r rated actionfests as a kid than i ever do/will get to see now as an adult.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Do 13 YO know who Chuck Norris is?

    by Chris

    If the movie has to be PG-13 for the kids, I ask you this... What 13 year old knows who Chuck Norris is? What 13 year olds have seen Lone Wolf McQuade, Delta Force, or Missing in Action? For that matter, do any of these kids even know who Dolph Lundgren is? Stupid move taking a franchise for adult fans of 80s action movies and cutting its balls off just so Chuck Norris can take his great grand children to see it.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST


    by Acquanetta

    Yeah, the age issue is a fundamental problem with all these long-in-the-tooth sequels. If you think about it, 1980s kids are really the first generation to expect actors in their 50s and 60s to reprise iconic roles. I personally didn't have any problem with McClane's lack of swearing. For someone that much older- and having been through everything he had- it made sense for there to be change. (He almost appears shell-shocked at times, such as when he admits to not killing anyone "for a long time".) I found it easy to relate to, since I'm not exactly the same guy I was in 1995, either. But I can understand why a lot of fans didn't like it. No one goes around saying, "I'd love to see my favorite hero as an old man." What they really want is a movie that can give them back their youth- if only for a couple of hours.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Fuck you, Chuck Norris

    by Chris

    I just can't get over this stupidity.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Oh, shut the fuck up, creepythinmanlives

    by Mugato5150

    Christ you're fucking obnoxious. Does anyone know of a site that people can talk about movies without being shitheads?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST


    by JethroBodine

    If Stallone was an artist he'd stand up for an R rating. Remember when Rambo was rated R and they made toys and cartoons anyway? The fucking kids still watched that shit even though it was rated R. No now Stallone is just in it for a cash-grab, and so is everyone else in that movie. Sure he isn't chastised for it like Pacino and Deniro are whenever they are slumming in a shit film just for the money, because he was never one of their ranks to begin with, but make no mistake, he's not interested in making good movies for adults anymore, he's interested in selling tickets to bad movies to kids. And with him starring in shitty little PG-13 movies for kids that he sold his credibility to make, that makes him no better than Barney the Fucking Dinosaur. Sylvester "Barney The GODDAMNED FUCKING DINOSAUR" Stallone. FUCK YOU STALLONE.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:54 p.m. CST


    by griffin

    Your joking, right? This is the internet...........

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    ABking here: "Sly, PLEASE DO NOT ""SELL OUT""

    by ABking

    OK....I had to sleep on this news to get my true feelings out there. And here it is...I will only be seeing this film once in theaters!!!! Everyone knows "ABking" as the BIGGEST Stallone and Schwarzenegger fan on the PLANET. Well, even the "BIGGEST SLY and ARNOLD FAN EVER" is not happy with this BAD and WRONG decision on the filmmakers part. LIONSGATE is a smaller studio, but they are good at their brand -- hard action movies and horror movies. What made the first EXPENDABLES movie awesome besides seeing all those action stars together was that it was a throwback to seeing bad guys get blasted away real good like in such classics as DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, RAMBO, TOTAL RECALL, CLIFFHANGER etc. The fact that Sly, Arnold, Chuck Norris, Avi Lerner etc. decided to WATER DOWN and gut this franchise on the second film is going to back fire. People automatically assume that PG-13 means more butts in the seats. WRONG!!! Not for a film like this. Two points...1) the franchise did not start out PG-13 like say MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or BOURNE. Had it started out as a PG-13 then that would be fine. BUT it started out R. By dropping the rating it seems like the film is going in the wrong direction and it is telling the fans and the public hey we are more family friendly, bring the kids. If a films rating starts out PG-13 and then goes to R with a second film at least you can say hey they upped the ante...don't do it the other way around. 2) A film like EXPENDABLES begs to be R rated. I mean lets get real here: a movie starring STALLONE/SCHWARZENEGGER/WILLIS/VAN DAMME/CHUCK NORRIS does not scream PG-13. IT must be an R rated movie, PERIOD! There are going to be SOOO many people that are going to wait for the "possible unrated cut on blu ray" that they are not going to pay to see this in theaters. This WRONG rating is going to back-fire, trust me. I saw the first film in theaters 6 times and loved it each time. I brought friends and family members to it. I will not see EX2 more than once if it sticks with this watered down rating...and I will go it alone so that no one will see the disappointment on my face. Simon West directed the cult action fest known as CON AIR. I remember seeing that kick ass action movie back in the summer in 1997. It was a true action movie. It had testosterone and then some. It was a hard R rated action movie that was bad ass and it delivered on every level. Now imagine if that film was rated PG-13. How can the man that directed such an awesome R rated movie like that settle for a movie with the BIGGEST action stars on the planet being PG-13? Grow some balls Mr. West and let Avi Lerner and Sly know you want this film as an R. EX2 should be better than CON AIR. I would rather EX2 have the true rating it was meant to have and gross 90 million in the U.S. than for it to have that false rating of a PG-13 and gross 180 million. At least years from now when people own it they can watch it over and over and actually love it. Would Quentin Tarantino make one of his movies R just to please the studios...NO! Would he sequelize PULP FICTION then say I'm gonna make it PG13! NOOOOOOO! Does anyone want to see that epic AIRPORT scene in EX2 with Sly, Willis and Arnold taking on hundreds of bad guys and wiping them out...yet you only get to see little blood or cut-away shots??? HECK NO!!!!!!! I want to see Arnold use that shotgun that was seen in the trailer and blow a hole into someones stomach. I want to see Sly use those two hand guns and put a bullet between someones eyes. I want to see Willis mowing down bad guys with that machine gun like he did in DIE HARD 2. I don't want to see the family friendly version of all that. I also do not want to see Terry Crew's awesome gun from the first movie "remember me at Christmas time" get its balls cut off. I mean really! Sly please don't do that. Sly: PLEASE don't be a sell out! People are already calling you that now and I never in my life thought I would ever use those words and Sylvester Stallone in the same sentence...but if you and the powers that be make this film PG-13, I will think you SOLD OUT. The film can be LARGE and GRAND and EPIC as you say with an R. Everyone will still see it if the film is that good. Word-of-mouth will spread about how KICK ASS EX2 is. RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II got bigger than the first. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY got bigger than the first. PLEASE let EXPENDABLES 2 get bigger than the first as well. Bottom line: The fans are DISAPPOINTED with Sly right now. But you still have more than enough time to make the right choice and give us a movie sequel to remember...MAKE it "R"! Like someone said, a PG-13 EX2 is like a porn without the sex.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Each character should have a shock collar on...

    by Acappellaman

    That zaps them every time they curse. The evil dictator hates foul language, so he puts the collars on everybody because his mother taught him to rule with kind words. To appease his loving mother, he only kills with blunt weapons and weapons that do not cause external bleeding. Ta daaaa! PG-13!!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST

    And there goes my ticket...

    by Heckles

    Will not see this flick. Pandering to Norris, appeasing his holier-than-though sensibility over his fanbase? Kudos, Sly. It's like a college reunion without the booze.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Dark Knight, Casino Royale and Taken DON'T COUNT!

    by FadedLineVigil

    Those were story based films that required bits of violence as part of the story progression. THIS movie is all about the violence and action with the story taking second fiddle. If you asked me what the plot was of the first film, I couldn't tell you. What I COULD tell you is which specific scenes of violence, gore and over the top testosterone I liked most. This is like prepping for an Indy car race then dropping a 202 HP V6 in and hoping for a win.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Let Lionsgate know how we feel!

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Send them a polite Tweet here...!/lionsgatemovies Or send them a polite e-mail here... or here... Let them know that we want an R Rating for Expendables 2 and will not see it otherwise. Spread the word at other forums/social networks you visit.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Damn, you even pissed of ABking Sly

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    That should give you pause for thought. Hey why not make all the guys guns fire nerf arrows too?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    So we CAN'T get a rated 18 action film in the cinemas?

    by havehope

    Is that the case now? Pg-13? Are you KIDDING me?! As a guy said, who under 17 gives a heck about these movies and what they are about?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    We all saw this coming...

    by IndyJonze

    ... when Stallone clashed with Wayne Kramer on Bullet to the Head - and released a statement saying that Kramer's vision of the film was too violent for him. There's a good chance that one will be PG-13 as well. The guy is only about the ego and the big bucks. He doesn't give a shit about his audience. I was looking forward to Bullet to the Head having an insane Running Scared vibe and then Stallone nixed that one because he wants big box office these days - after he blew up and massacred half of South East Asia and earned his R rating with pride in Rambo, but not so much $$$ at the box office. Then he directs that piece of shit THE EXPENDABLES and blew up some more heads with his crappy CGI violence and, shocker, the audience turned up, even though they felt jipped. So how does he reward them. With a big fat, juicy PG-fucking-13 on the very franchise that was born on a hard R rating. I can't believe all the posters who write: I don't remember why the movie was even R. Jesus, he exploded more heads with shotguns in Expendables than probably in Rambo. The bottom line: the guy wants to make big bucks... to go along with his already big bucks... and he wants to be uber-popular again. He's always been about 'the popular' which is why he'll never be a great artist. I will never see the PG-13 version of this shit fest.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Awww, Harry.

    by TommyGavinsEgo

    Dude, really. Just as you claw back a shred of integrity and respectability from your followers with a well-considered, well(ish) written item (your piece on SOPA and the net blackout) ... you throw ten shreds back. If this was ANY other movie made by someone who doesn't occassionally check in with you to shill his latest flick, you'd be as APOPLECTIC as the rest of that this smacks of fuckwittery. Of ALL the movies to be watered down and castrated. Don't sugar-coat this. It's a ridiculous decision designed to get asses in seats under the usual, unfortunate notion that bringing in the kids equals big bucks. Of course, they'll make their money back anyway when the Unrated DVD comes out - which, if the flick is even halfway decent, people here will sadly snap up. Anyway - The Expendables was kinda disappointing in the first place. The A-Team pissed all over it as far as '80s nostalgia throwback unapologetic testosterone 'splosion-fests go.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    An ACTION movie, in the classic sense, CAN'T be PG-13

    by havehope

    It just can't work. Die Hard 4.whiney proved that....

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Universal Soldier 4 seems to be the one for this year then

    by havehope

    Only properly rated Action film this year

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to Sly's reaction to this tb

    by alienindisguise

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris had nothing to do with this

    by Mattman

    Total studio decision. They probably planned for a PG-13 long before Chuck made his egotistical demand.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 2:40 p.m. CST


    by havehope

    I actually remember Avi Lerner, producer on this film, wanting the last Rambo or the first film to be a PG-13 rating

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Good -'cause I hate violence and swearing in action movies

    by UnCoolNews

    So, basically every action hero from my childhood is getting together to make Cocoon?

  • LOL

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    havehope, that does sound familiar

    by Mattman

    I just love how Norris actually thinks he has anything to do with it. Because he's such a big diva action star.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Hopefully Sly gets the one F-word

    by Mattman

    Or Arnold.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST

    wasnt The Sixth Day PG13?


    that was like Total Recall diluted...very much how i expect the Farrel remake to be(which will also be rated pg13)

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    I'm sure this is not Stallone's fault guys

    by Jaster Mareel

    I've been areading a lot of posts saying "Fuck Stallone", "Sellout" and that type of shit. I am QUITE sure Lionsgate said "PG-13 or nothing". I highly doubt Chuck Norris was cracking the whip. Perhaps Norris brought it up and convinced Lionsgate it was the way to go, but this is Lionsgate's decision. So put yourself in Stallone's shoes. He has his dream cast, and if we are to believe him, the dream script for this type of film. It's now or never. What would you do? Oh sure it's easy to say "If that were me I'd tell the studio that backed my ass for 3 films to go fuck themselves!" I'm positive that if Stallone had the option, this would be a balls-out R rated can of bullet-meet-face. But he didn't have that choice and had to compromise his vision, as EVERYONE in Hollywood must. So the one, dim hope is that it WILL actually be shot the way we all want it to be and will come out in the unrated cut on Blu-ray. If that happens, all will be forgiven. If Chuck Norris has actually turned this film into Sidekicks: The Jungle Adventure, then Norris needs the chair treatment from Casino Royale.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    I'm glad

    by taff

    I'm glad it's PG13.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    killik - theres NO WAY ON EARTH Prometheus will be R rated


    does anyones still seriously think in this climate of PG13 wheere even Sly Stallone has had to cave in, that the 150m budget Prometheus will be anything other than PG13? maybe if stuff like GWTDT had been a huge hit (like 500m worldwide) then they'd be a chance but no way - not in this climate. the days of the big budget R rated movies like Total Recall, T2 etc died a long time ago. i think this modern era of PG13 (especially downgrading R rated series to PG13) was started in 2004 with AvP...then we got Die Hard and Terminator 4 etc

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Throwinator makes perfect sense


    if youve seen the movie. otherwise no i guess it wouldnt

  • It was supposed to fully embrace the over the top feelings, settings and cliches of a past generation. And YES foul language and gratuitous violence are main parts of that! Without them, no matter what the movie is, it's not what it set out to be.

  • the rest not so much....maybe Die Soft 4 - im a sucker for how pleasingly simple that one is and Excuseables 2 was pretty inspired as it just came to me when i had no clue how to pun Expendables

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Prometheus can easilly survive not being R

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    It potentially has waaaaaaaaaaaay more going for it than expendables 2. Plus knowing ridley we'll get a directors cut later on no matter what anyway.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by sickerandsweeter

    This news ruined my day! Looks like "The Dark Knight Rises" will be the only movie I have to look forward to this summer. The 13 year olds today don't deserve the PG-13 "Expendables 2"! NOBODY DOES! Even if "Expendables 2" has a better story or character development than the first it won't matter, cause that's NOT what the "The Expendables" stand for! It supposed to stand for bringing back an extinct genre of filmmaking that hasn't existed since "Die Hard". Over-the-top violence is the most important character of "The Expendables"!!! GODDAMMIT! WHY?!? WHY?!?!? This is upsetting!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST this Slys 1st PG13 shoot em up action flick?


    Arnies had 6th Day and Willis has DH4 is this Slys fisrt foray into PG13 action? (not counting the Rockys of course) i think it might be!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    PG13 Makes this movie Expendable for me- or Excremental

    by Rue The Day

    The Expendables at PG13 sucks cock, Sly should stop sucking Studio/Chuck Norris cock and make a bad ass/kick ass movie, like the first one, without pandering to all the PG13 licking pussies.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4 p.m. CST


    by Your Moms Box

    I invite you to watch "Live Free...." (the unrated cut) once more. As a matter of fact, you can have mine. There are clearly dubbed-in profanities. Take, for example, the first major action piece, when Willis goes to pick up the Apple kid and the apartment is under attack. McClane dives around and yells "Mother fucker!" no less than three times, and every single time he does, the audio is way off. You can tell it was recorded in over the soundtrack. But yeah, there are also plenty of alternate dialogue cuts too, and most of those are horrible. In any case, my main point was that I am tired of these cocksuckers having their cake and eating it too. Release the movie in an "R"-rated format or don't. At least have the balls to stick to a decision, instead of trying to shoe-horn in some eff-bombs and blood splatters after the fact in a shallow effort to appease the fans you jerked off with a lackluster effort in theaters. Sly is full of shit. You can't make an action movie of this type PG-13. It will just come across as corny. All this film will do is piss off anyone who grew up with the hard-R films these guys made a career with, which are the people it is supposed to be aimed at. Not people aged 13-17.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    might this also be JCVDs 1st PG13 action movie?


    Arnie also had Last Action Hero as PG13 and Willis mustve had a whole bunch of pg13 action stuff surely? (the latest being GI Joe2) with Sly - just appears to be Daylight which wasnt an action movie with guns etc and the Rockys - i did think Judge Dredd or Demo Man may have been pg13 but i checked and nope they were R but what about JCVD?...oh wait....Street Fighter!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    maybe Chuck and Sly are just fucking with us?


    Sly knows how much we'd hate a PG13 Expendables so maybe its just a joke with Chuck to hype us all up so when it comes out and is HARD R we all high 5 at having been got by Chuck and Sly

  • There are plenty or R rated action movies that suck ass, just like there are PG-13 movies that are very good. Saying "it's PG-13, it sucks" is way too reductive.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    How can you all be so narrow minded?

    by goodhorse

    A good movie - even an action movie - doesn't rely on foul language (unlike talkbackers). In fact, it challenges writers to be more clever in their work. And the addition of swearing doesn't make an average movie any better. Nor does pools of gore. How can you all be so narrow minded?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST


    by ckone

    Cut him out of the movie and give more lines to Jet Li, let him go back to his ab slider or whatever it is, if he doesn't want to "play" with the big boys, then he should have stayed home. How moronic is it that a guy who made a living off action movies that blew the hell out of people left and right, ala Delta Force, has a problem with swearing?????? Give me a break. Couldn't he just have HIS character not swear, SHIT, I would even love it if he has a G.I. Joe moment at the end of the movie, and gave a little speech as to why it's not nice to swear, but WHY Nueter the movie?????? Remember the opening scene to EX1? where they blow the crap out of those bad guys?? the blood and body parts that flew all over the place was EXACTLY why I was planted in my seat for the movie. I don't want that "implied" or cut away, and I will not pay for a "directors cut" either. DAMN... C'MON SLY!!!!!

  • So essentially this will be exactly like the first on w/o the crappy klingon blood.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST


    by ckone

    I was so excited for this movie, I was even starting to sell my wife on it, cause I wanted to take her to see how awesome it was going to be to have all the action heroes kicking major ass. I was actually going to make her sit and watch what I thought was going to be an action movie. UGH.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Another address to send your (polite) complaints...

    by Wes_Reviews_ Let them know you have no interest in a watered down, PG-13 Expendables 2. R rated or nothing!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Agree indyjonze

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    Ego definately plays a part in this. And Hank Henshaw, I dont see many people saying that, only an idiot would see things that simplisticly. This is a problem though, it will drastically alter the tone of the film in respect to the first one, which could have done with squewing more adult anyway.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST


    by ckone

    It seems narrow minded, but it's not. KNOWING that they are pg-13 makes sure that certain things that can happen in an R can't happen. Take the opening scene in EX 1, like I have mentioned before, did the scene NEED to have the body parts flying apart, and blood splatter all over the place? No. BUT it did ADD to the feel of FUCK YEAH, this is awesomeness. Another horrible way to put this is, as in DIE SOFT 4, when Bruce utters one of the MOST MEMORABLE lines a hero character has ever spoken " Yippie Ki Ay motherBOOOOOOM" it was terrible, lame and cut the true meaning of that line. He says that CURSE for a reason, and it means something, you can't just throw it away. That is not narrow minded. It's disappointment.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Not interested in being "touched on an emtional levels"

    by Ratphink

    I'm here to see the action cast of the century and massive carnage, not a TV movie being held back from it's potential. Saw Expendables in the theater and loved it, looks like I'll be waiting for DVD on this one.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Pathetic and sad

    by double_l88

    The only good thing about the first one was the brutal action, and now hes making it pg for somebody who has no place in the movie in the first place.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:47 p.m. CST

    ABking does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    ABking, that's a strong post my friend - and I do hope Stallone might see it from his number one fan. I feel exactly the same way. When some people dissed THE EXPENDABLES I was there sticking up for the movie. I enjoyed it. But this news is a real shame. I don't put personal blame on Chuck Norris or Sly Stallone - of course not, this is a *commitee* decision. But the fact that it seems to have been done for dollars is cold. You'd think that THE EXPENDABLES is Stallone's IP and he's rich enough and wise enough already not to compromise and sell out for a few extra bucks (a decision which may well backfire and result in the opposite). Better just to make a great movie than to make one specifically for a demographic like a cold product.

  • Yeah, there are a few exceptions, especially when it comes to profanity, but most of the action in R-rated 80s actioners would fall into today's PG-13. Today's R would easily be the 80s X-rating. Frankly, I don't care if the blood is only a few squirts or gallons of spew. I don't care if people say motherfucker this or cock sucker that. It's all bullshit. The rating isn't a deal breaker for me. If you're one of those people who gets off on action heroes with Tourette's and a lust for viscera then those old school 80s action flicks may very well disappoint you. Me? When I go to a movie like this, I want the Michael Bay treatment. I want to see crazy stunts, goofy alpha male posturing, and shit blow up in the most outrageous ways possible. You can still do that in PG-13. Now, if we were talking about a horror movie.... THEN I'd be pissed. An action flick? Ain't but a thing.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Well, there goes my interest in the movie.

    by Denizzz

    Live Free or Die Hard sucked because of this very reason, and so will this. I thought this was supposed to be an homage to the action movies of the 80's and 90's? Shame on you, Sly! The Sly of that era would have never pussied out like this.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    "80s R-rating is not far off from today's PG-13"

    by Mattman

    Rsanta, that is simply not true. 80s action flicks are rife with the f-word, nudity, and gratuitously bloody gunshot wounds. You cannot do any of those things in a PG-13 today (except one f-word).

  • as is a potential Arnie vs Dolph punch up. and it goes without saying anything between Arnie sly and willis. the key reason to see this (and EX1) is the interactions with the action stars and who might showdown/shoot at with who fuck the rating...i must see it!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    It is awesome...

    by tomdolan04

    how prophetic Demolition Mans vision of a sanitized future was.

  • all the rest including Avengers, spiderman, bond etc are secondary to Prometheus, EXP2 and TDKR im alittle miffed by the rating but fuck it we live in the time of the PG13 blockbuster now and id rather see stuff like an Alien prequel directed by Scott and Sly vs Van Damn AT THE CINEMA with big budgets instead of STDVD with no name directors and R rated

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Conan's failure is the real culprit here

    by Acquanetta

    If Avi Lerner's big gamble on Conan the Barbarian had paid off, you can bet that Expendables 2 would be R rated as well. Instead, it failed miserably. Right around the time Expendables 2 was gearing up. Just like nearly all the recent R rated action films from Lionsgate and Millennium have done. And fanboys everywhere cheered, apparently not realizing that these things have consequences. This is especially true when dealing with small movie studios that need to maximize the profit potential of every hit. (Not to mention, the current state of the economy and the fact that R rated action is a dying breed.) Of course, the argument is always, "No! Studios should only be rewarded for making R rated films that are also high quality!" And that's probably true in some ideal, fanboy reality. But not in the one where we finally get a movie with Arnold, Bruce, and Sly and it has to be PG-13 in order to be viable.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Conan failed because it sucked, not because it was rated R

    by Mattman

    Of course, Hollywood will never realize that. R-rated films used to do very well because they were GOOD.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    tomdolan04, could swear the last time I ate at Taco Bell

    by Mattman

    the tacos were even smaller than before...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Doesn't matter...

    by ddschneider1972

    2 reasons 1) if you go back and watch R rated 80's action movies they'd probably be PG-13 today. As long as there is no nipple...Us Americans fear the titty apparently. 2) I'll see it like I saw the 1st one, on DVD in which we all know will have an "Unrated" cut. Bruce Jenner got a woman's face in his old age; Chuck Norris apparently got a vagina in his.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    The only modern-day, FUCK-YOU-MAN's-MOVIE is:

    by LaneMyersClassic

    CRANK 2. The Crank franchise (more specifically Crank 2) is what future generations of nostalgic filmakers will try to re-create and fail miserably. Just like what we see happening here with 80's brass balls action flicks and The Expendables debacle. OK, so you don't have a story - go apeshit with everything else like they did with Crank. Don't pull punches - try to please everyone and you will please no one. You really need over the top villians, sexy nude bombastic women and gore - or take your fucking shine box and go home. THE EXPENDABLES = FAIL.

  • Mr. Stallone, your core audience and the fans are who you should be thinking about. Them alone can make EX2 flop if it gets a PG-13 and people make fun of it 8 months in advance. PLEASE make this the best possible movie and that means we must see you, Arnold, Bruce and even Norris killing people in graphic ways. This isn't STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:47 p.m. CST

    My biggest worry about the rating

    by roger

    Was this decided before or after filming began? Will there be violence/profanity/gore on the editing room floor that can be packaged in an unrated director's cut version? Or was this terrible mistake decided by stupid producers before filming and will we only have this weak pg13 version? With plenty of pg-13 options in the theater at the time of its release, I'm pretty sure that Lionsgate will be shocked that EX2 didn't draw as many kids as their greedy pockets anticipated. And Fuck Chuck for his "role" in all this PG13 business.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:50 p.m. CST

    In the words of White Goodman from Dodgeball...

    by what0083

    Fuckin' Chuck Norris...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    C'mon guys...

    by Hipshot

    "The Dirty Dozen" would probably be PG-13--or PG, and it's as tough and mean as you can get. Sly deserves a little trust.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    PG-13 shenanigans will kill the tone of the Sequel. Fact.

    by Jason Adkins

  • are you sure that's the right direction to take this Sly? I want emotionless violence. Action Goes Emo: EX2

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Padron me

    by jemagee

    but what the hell else do you EXPECT STallone to say. Congratulations to Aint It Cool for giving Sylvester Stallone free PR to spin his version of his PG-13're cool now

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    HITLER mad at the EX2 rating: HILARIOUS!!!

    by ABking

    Watch and laugh...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:37 p.m. CST

    The Tunnel Scene from the 1st one....

    by Zipperhead

    Crewes mowing down soldiers with the 50 calber....Statham and Li breaking necks backwards.....can't be done PG-13 style. Fuck this sequel if the rumor stands true.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Not going to this barbeque ...

    by Dan the Man

    You can make a case that a PG13 comedy vs an R comedy will bring in more money for the soulless fuckwits who don't understand how they're killing the very art form they leech off of, but this is stupid as hell. People didn't want to see John McClane after he had his balls removed, they're not going to line up to see a bunch of old farts jumping away from CGI explosions without the promise of a little CGI blood along the way. Especially since about the best you could say regarding the first installment was that it was adequate.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Makes Franchise Pointless

    by Charlie

    Isn't the purpose of this franchise to be hard R rated action for people who grew up and lived through the 80s, early 90s action films. Not for people born post Matrix.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 6:49 p.m. CST

    abking that youtube vid was -

    by Player01

    - fucking hilarious. I like the last line too...

  • My perception of it might be skewed by the contents of my DVD collection, which has ballooned up to about 3,000 titles. My collection is likely different than yours. To each his own. The question you really have to ask is, "Will making subtle changes actually destroy what makes the movie fun?" I'm not so sure. Robocop is, arguably, an 80s action classic that was pretty violent for the time. Given the state of 2012's rating system, could you shoot the same film for PG-13 and still be true to the essence of the vision? I'm inclined to say yes. The current state of the MPAA rating system is such that what's considered R today might as well have been X rated 25-30 years ago. There is no way that films like Hostel or The Ruins would've gotten the R back in 1984. Likewise, with a little clever editing and some script tweaks, for profanity, and Die Hard could easily be turned into today's PG-13 and the movie would largely the same affair. I'm not sure that anybody can make the case that yesterday and today's R ratings are equal. They're not. Even today's "soft R" is probably akin to 1985's "hard" variety. I will say that 80's rating were a little wonky though. A movie like Sixteen Candles (1984) would have to be edited to squarely fit in any of the current rating categories. Released about 2 or 3 months before the PG-13's adoption, the John Hughes comedy garnered the lesser PG in spite of the fact that there was frontal nudity, f-bombs, and other miscellaneous profanity. Likewise, there were action flicks like American Ninja (1985) that were the limpest R possible and could've be argued down to PG-13 with a little effort. 80s ratings were a little fast & loose and it probably would've flown. Besides, do you realize how that the difference between R and PG-13 can be as simple as 5 seconds dropped on the editing room floor? Hell, it could the difference between a few dropped frames. Look at some of the unrated DVDs to R movies. The amount of deleted footage that would've made the movie NC17 is sometimes so very minor that the average person wouldn't have noticed either way. PG13 is not an automatic death notice to an action flick. While a PG13 would certainly destroy something like 2008's Rambo, I'm not sure that a R rating would've made 2007's Die Hard 4 any better. Look at the unrated version. The limiting factor is the quality of the script. Die Hard 4 wasn't mediocre because of the PG-13 and the lack of the word "motherfucker". No. Die Hard 4 was mediocre because John was turned from vulnerable everyman into a nigh indestructable and unrelatable superhero. I'm with Stallone here. Give it a chance. Don't jump to conclusions because of some arbitrary rating, which means all of jack shit in the end - when it comes to quality.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:17 p.m. CST

    two words

    by longloaddropper

    unrated dvd

  • The movie as it is, is already fairly lackluster. But at least there were silly, fun, over the top bits of gratuitous language and violence. So we at least felt we got pretty much what we were promised.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST


    by crazykrug72


  • I dont think so. Could it be filmed to be PG-13? Yeah sure, and we're probably gunna find that out soon when the remake comes out. But it would change the tone of the film greatly.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 7:59 p.m. CST

    player01, sadly that HITLER video is what fans are thinking!

    by ABking

    Sly and LIONSGATE (a company that makes hard R action movies): do what is right for the fans and the core demographic...make the film an R rated MACHO FEST like the first film and movies like CON AIR. Hitler video for those who havn't seen it:

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:08 p.m. CST

    The subtext of the rating is important

    by Dan the Man

    PG13 is an obvious concession to the studios. They're giving him more money to make a sequel to a movie which wasn't very good and didn't perform very well, so he clearly had to give them something in return. But for every fan of big action films, seeing PG13 on the marquee will negatively impact their perception before they even stand in line for their ticket. PG13 simply does not make sense for this movie, and it cannot be the vision Stallone had when writing it. Every single frame of this movie is compromised. Every gunshot, every explosion, every one-liner burdened with the knowledge of "What would that have been if the suits didn't cut his balls off."

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Sly, how could

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST

    You do this to us!!!

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Sly u lost respect man.

    by Fritzlorrerains

    Shame on you

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    This will suck!

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Re: Conan failed because it sucked, not because it was rated R

    by Acquanetta

    It doesn't matter WHY Conan 2011 failed. The bottom line is that the studios which produced and distributed it are the same ones behind Expendables. They can't afford another big budget loss- and need any potential hits to be as successful as possible. If they're spending even more money to make Expendables 2, they're obviously going to need it to gross considerably more than the first one did. As for R rated films being better in the 80s, that's because the law of averages was on their side. For every Terminator, there were a dozen low-budget knockoffs which were just as bad as Conan 2011. It's not like Hollywood sat down and said, "We're only going to make quality R rated films during this decade!" They were able to churn them out in greater quantities because a market actually existed which supported the rating. Today that's no longer the case. Older moviegoers don't necessarily rush out during the first two weekends, while younger moviegoers have now grown up believing they're film critics. If fanboys want to boycott a violent R rated film because it doesn't meet their standards, that's perfectly fine. But they can't then turn around and scream bloody murder when the R rated market collapses and studios no longer want to risk the rating. There were a grand total of three R rated action films released in 2011 and they all flopped. They were also all released by the studio behind Expendables 2. When you consider that Millennium is just a couple flops away from returning to DTV hell, it's not too surprising that they no longer trust the fickle fanboy audience to justify such a large budget.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Is anyone else surprised that True Lies was rated R?

    by MJDeViant

    I did not think that was the Grandma took me and brother to see that...

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST

    I can't wait to see those poster blurbs...

    by chaburchak

    "It touched all of my emotions!" Roger Ebert "I appreciated the verbal restraint shown by these cinematic warriors. Real mercenaries could take a lesson in manners from these guys!" Rex Reed "Delivers on every level! Especially those of civil discourse and non-inflammatory language..." Gene Shallit

  • And that's a throwaway January release.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:26 p.m. CST

    @ mjdeviant

    by Mugato5150

    True Lies is another example. Profanity aside, there's nothing that would constitute an R rating nowadays. If Jamie Lee Curtis let the puppies breathe, then R but the violence? Completely PG-13.

  • that there must have been a huge influx of younger talkbackers at AICN in the last couple years. Because I don't remember it being such an issue for people in the past. And at some point in your life you realize it doesn't matter. A good film is a good film - ratings make absolutely no difference in that regard. There are no exceptions to this rule, either. Poltergeist was rated PG. The LOTR movies are all PG-13. I could go on and on and on, but it doesn't matter, because there's a very vocal crowd here lately that will post some reason why I'm wrong. Fortunately, I'm not. Try just enjoying good movies for what they are without your preconceived hang-ups attached. You'll enjoy a whole lot more of 'em.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:36 p.m. CST

    If Sly hadn't been disingenous we wouldn't be superpissed

    by DougMcKenzie

    He came out to us, here... the film geeks and nerds... and told us he was as fed up at us, with shitty compromised studio garbage. He promised US no more, he was going to make movies true to only HIS vision and with HIS fans in mind. Money was not going to be the driving factor, the content came first, and the Execs could take a flying fuck. RB was going to be true to the original. Rambo was pull no punches. He delivered there and got our hopes up. Then he told us that since those had done well enough that he could get an all-star crew together and make a homage to 80s actioners. Expendables was alright. Mired down by a weak story and crappy villians. But the talent was there and we were interested in seeing where he could take it. First, he announces he won't direct this time and that was the first warning sign. He was making it easier on himself. Now, we see it is totally under studio control and he's just showing up for a cheque.... Lovely, so was Sly lieing to us this whole time? Did he work us and prey on our jaded views to resurrect his career to where it was before (and not in a new direction at all). Did Sly work us over?

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST

    jaka, for many films, the PG-13 rating is fine

    by Mattman

    What pisses me off to no end is watering down R-Rated material. A bunch of muscle men with guns channeling an 80s action flick? AND it's a sequel to an R-rated movie? THAT'S R-rated material. It should not be PG-13.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Right and what in Con Air warranted an R rating

    by Mugato5150

    Violence-wise, not profanity or nudity.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:49 p.m. CST


    by scotsman75


  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Bruce Willis fed us this horseshit, also...

    by Bill Clay

    Yeah, Die Hard 4 will be a smashmouth flick! Better than the first one! PG-13 is fine, ratings don't matter!

  • Again, I could write up a LONG LIST of PG rated 80s movies where people shot guns for nearly the entire length of the movie. That's PG, not PG-13. The violence in an average PG-13 movie these days can be nearly as vivid as that in the R rated ones, they just have less nudity and fewer f-bombs. Again, my point is the constant complaining that's gone on lately about what a movie SHOULD BE rated when nobody has seen the movie yet. You can't possibly know what the tone or style of the movie is yet, because you have. not. seen it. Now, if you're going to live your life with the assumption that it can't be good because the themes you like can't be done justice without an R rating, I think that's sad, and it's your loss. <p> Also, as an aside and coming from a completely different angle - I also find it sad that people need so much violence and gore to suspend their disbelief these days. I'm not a prude in this regard, either. In fact, I was just recently quite impressed with the slo-mo head exploding in Immortals when I watched it the other day. But if it hadn't been there would it have made me like the movie less? No, it wouldn't. I don't think its necessary for their to be graphic violence in every movie. Sometimes what the eye DOESN'T see can be just as powerful, if not more so. <p> Lastly, because I do get verbose sometimes, Sly has done the graphic, vivid violence in movies about 40 times already. He's gone to great effort to get all these guys together to bring us, the FORMERLY movie loving public, these films. If this one needs to be PG-13, so what? What if the movie turns out to be great? What it its just some ridiculous, escapist fun, without being graphically violent? Does that make it a bad movie? This is what I don't understand. See the movie first - complain later.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Terrible grammar in that last post. Apologies.

    by Jaka

    I should have done a quick proofread.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Name a good PG-13 movie in the vein of The Expendables.

    by JediRob

  • I'll wait to catch it at home.

  • I agree with you that not all things have to have a certain rating to be good. I acknowledge that the rating scale has fluctuated over the years. I don't think that is relevant. I don't think one person is suggesting that there needs "to be graphic violence in every movie" or "that people need so much violence and gore to suspend their disbelief these days." No one is saying that at all. But there is very much a time and a place and an audience for such things. And I find it very reasonable when that audience is aggravated when it is taken away best, and at worst totally mislead.

  • Some people have decided ahead of time what THIS MOVIE should be. It's clearly not the same movie as the last one. It's a new movie that you haven't seen yet. <p> If you want a vividly graphic war movie, where blood spurts out of every bullet strike, limbs get hacked off and heads explode, there's about 1000 of them out there. Shit, the guys in this movie have been in about 300 of 'em. Expendables 2 is obviously not going to be that. But since nobody knows exactly what the tone is yet, how can anyone claim it has the wrong rating? How can anybody claim something is bad if they haven't seen it yet? Spurting blood, hacked off limbs and exploding heads don't equal quality, just violence. <p> And really, there's plenty of other people out there making ultra-violent films right now. A majority of them contain nothing memorable beyond that violence.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:42 p.m. CST

    theres only one way to settle this


    Revolution, down with the corporations, up with the R Rated action!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 10:59 p.m. CST

    ckone - you make your point!

    by goodhorse

    I'm just not sold that an action movie has to be R to be good or that a PG-13 is going to be inferior... However, I concede that something like the Expendables is geared toward a certain demographic and comes with certain expectations - ie, a high level of bad-ass-ness that can't be adequately portrayed in the world of PG-13!

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:05 p.m. CST

    ckone - the problem with DH4

    by goodhorse

    Wasn't its PG-13-ness, it was trying to be R and maintain PG-13. It just brought attention to the fact it had been neutered. Were the best parts of Die Hard that we all know and love the "R" parts? If yes, just make the sequels R and embrace your demographic. But if you can show why John Maclane is a legend without relying on the cussing catch phrases that highlight your limitations and weaken your film, then use your imagination and make a PG-13 film that keeps studios in business and entertains the fans.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:14 p.m. CST

    by roger

    Yo Hanyoyo, I don't think that you've seen the first Expendables, nor will you see this sequel we're all talking about. So I guess you were intrigued to post your comment because you don't understand what we're upset about. Dougmckenzie hit the nail on the head. hilariously points it out. Real Men enjoy violent movies. Great PG-13, PG, & G movies exist. But in action, the best ones are always R. Hard R at that. The first Expendables had the back bone R rating. The sequel has lost its back bone.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:54 p.m. CST

    The fault is on the rating system

    by Yan Dut

    The problem is the rating system. In this day and age, where any toddler over 3 can find pornography and real deaths videos on the Internet, and where parents can find tons of information about movies online (including much more info than just a simple rating such as whether a character drinks beer *gasp*), what does the rating system accomplish? Nothing. Or actually more like censorship and killing of originality. Remove the ratings altogether and let the filmmakers do their jobs! So that we can get real yipee ki-yay, motherf*cker again. This comment has been rated PG13, for mild use of censored expletives.

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Sly, I am not

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:55 p.m. CST

    To buy the 'unrated' blu ray so don't bother

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Fuck chuck!

    by Fritzlorrerains

    You are a pussy

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:56 p.m. CST

    PG-13 = watered down crap

    by Fritzlorrerains

    No thanks

  • Jan. 19, 2012, 11:58 p.m. CST

    "before your readers pass judgement, trust me

    by Fritzlorrerains

    In other words, give me your money and then be upset that the movie blows. As long as I get your money I don't care.

  • That was Sly's whole idea. he siad as much. He was tired of the current crop of watered down action movies and stars and wanted to deliver a love letter to fans of the genre. And to your point, I agree a movie should not go out of its way to be super violent to garner an R rating. But with that in mind it should equally as much not strive for PG-13 which is what these two statements regarding the rating of this film indicate. If the concern is legitimately to create the best movie you can, then do that and let the rating fall where it falls. But that is not what is happening here.

  • Probably have been spouting off like a sailor with tourettes on Xbox Live while they cut people in half with their chainsaw bayonets in Gears of War. I suppose if they ever get around to making a movie out of that game, it will also be PG-13.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:38 a.m. CST


    by ckone

    Thanks.. I have a lot of issues with DH4 aside from the rating. Yes, trying to be R while keeping the rating pg13 was part of it, but I was okay with the rating going in thinking, well, these days pg 13 gets away with a lot, and so it should be okay. But John the Character was just not there, Story wise, I can suspend disbelief for certain things but when Mcclane goes from being a regular guy in a tough spot that goes crazy, to becoming a pseudo super hero, it falls apart for me. When he flies a FIGHTER JET in between a crashing down freeway structure and SLIDES DOWN the freaking thing without a scratch, it stretches the limits too far..the plucky side kick computer geek, meh... Things I loved about DH1, were that he was real, and dealt with almost unreal situations, but stuff you could believe, like having to run through a hallway full of shot up glass barefoot!! Climbing through an elevator shaft by the skin of his teeth. Each subsequent movie turned up the level of crazy, but I do have a love for the original more then any of the others.Oh yeah, and the plump side kick who likes twinkies...classic!! The thing for me about the R is that, there are moments in a film like this that just add that one little hit where you go, "OH SHIT" and you can't have that in a pg 13..YES there are GREAT pg 13 movies, but not great violent shoot em ups. Not like DH.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Bullet to the Head will be PG-13 as well...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Why else would Wayne Kramer be shown the door? Just think about that for a moment.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Okay now that I have calmed down a bit (fuck chuck)

    by ckone

    Sly, don't know if you will read this, but, I feel like I was one of those rush to judgement guys, who flies off the handle at the mention of a change like this. And I guess I am. I don't think I happen to have had another film that I was looking forward to more the EX 2 this year, and I am a full fledged comic geek...and with the comic movies coming out this year and next, that is saying a lot. I enjoyed EX1 for the sheer simpleness of it all, I was along for the ride, and I knew I was getting certain things from it that I just wouldn't get from the Takens and the A-teams( though I did enjoy that film for what it was). My issue with the switch to pg13, is that , you have a movie that is filled with the most bad ass killers going up against all odds, do they HAVE to say fuck all day? No, and I don't care if they do, BUT I like knowing that if you need to take a character there, you can because your rating gives you that freedom. And I am not talking about the "allowed" pg13 fuck. I am talking about if you have a character, who at a certain moment of the film, the best fit is for him to say fuck, while getting ripped to shreds R style, you have that allowance in an R. These types of movies are supposed to have that. I don't want to watch a bunch of supposed badd ass guys rolling around hitting each other flinging missles and bombs and flying away from explosions with IMPLIED violence and IMPLIED gore. Some time, the movie calls for it. My other issue is, WHY THE HECK would you want to share that with 13 year olds?? Who wants to make a Violent gang of bad ass killer movie for teenagers?? If you DO happen to get the blood and guts in there, then why are you subjecting teenagers to that anyway?? Now, the thing is, when I was 13, I WANTED so bad to see these R movies, and my big bro was a huge catalyst for why I was able to see em, and it was another reason why I have a love for the genre in itself. But they were made R for a reason. And lastly Sly, Bruce did you in with this. He came on here, and proclaimed that DH4 was as good as the original, and it did not hold a candle to it. If you sit and watch that thing, you will agree. So you are up against it with this one. I am a HUGE fan, and am just jaded about this thing , when I was soooo looking forward to it. Thanks...

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Thank you ckone

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    ... for echoing my sentiments exactly, and very nicely.

  • The only emotions anybody is trying to fucking feel with a movie like this are: Primal bloodlust. Love for violence. Holy shit! It's our fucking favorite action heroes going balls to the mother fucking walls. We don't really give a collective shit about the emotional development of these characters bro, because it doesn't fucking matter. When I watch Rocky, I give a shit about Rocky's arc, because it's fucking Rocky. When I watch a collection of the most badass action heroes ever to grace the silver screen, playing goddamn mercs, with guns, killing shit, I want it to be as R rated as possible. A bunch of dudes who have been doing this shit for years, are gonna say fuck, a lot. They aren't going to be tame. It killed Die Hard that the foul mouth motherfucking John McClain was all of a sudden NOT dropping f bombs, as it was in his character, as such, it didnt feel like John McClain. The pg-13 among other things fucked with the last Terminator. PG-13 doesn't belong in this movie. You sound like Willis did when he tried to sell us that Live Free or Die Hard Bullshit. Come on man, you're cool as shit, but part of that is you're the type of guy who will make a movie like Rambo 4 and not fucking bend on the violence or your vision. Honeslty, people wouldn't have missed Norris had he not appeared. You're cutting the balls off your own series, one sequel in. No matter how you sell this shit to us, it will be timid by comparison to what it could have been. I won't be seeing it in theatres. I like you though, as an actor and I love the Rocky movies, except 5, and Demolition Man is one of my favorites too, haters be damned to I'll redbox it instead of pirating the fuck out of it....still, I can see why you went PG-13...i just think it was a bitch move Sly..your being a bitch nigga...(i'd sell the fuck out in a second and see this shit 12 times in theatres in a heart beat if you responded to this, for no other reason than to tell my friends that I called Stallone a bitch nigga and he berated me and/or responded to my very real concerns.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:09 a.m. CST first real action movie was Terminator 2 ...I was 5.

    by ajt2111

    Im 24 now, it remains my favorite action movie. Even at 5 I saw the fucking magic in that move and just fell in love. I own the Ultimate Edition DVD and watch it a few times a year( the extended version, I feel it adds to the film). I watched a nightmare on elm street when I was 6. Yea it scared the fuck out of me, but it's still my favorite horror movie to this day. A little blood and gore and cursing won't hurt a little fact in my experience, they end up loving it.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:44 a.m. CST

    fat_rancor_keeper has a point

    by Russ Whitfield

    Fat Rancor Keeper says "since chuck norris is apparently the uptight dickwit who didn't want cursing and whatever else in the movie they should have JUST made his character like that. Now that would have been interesting and a cool contrast....while everyone else is bashing skulls and cursing up a storm chuck could have been the level headed straight man frowning upon others excessive behavior. Art mimicking life. This worked great in rocky balboa. The character of Rocky's uphill struggle for one final bout while everyone doubted and mocked him perfectly paralleled stallone's real life difficulty just getting the movie made and having people laugh at the thought of an older man going into the ring again onscreen." This is a great idea - I wish they had thought of it !

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:50 a.m. CST

    The 4 Stages of Loss and Grief


    1. Denial Die Hard 4 was a great movie, I don't really care that much that it was PG-13. 2. Anger Fuck you Stallone! I'm boycotting your fucking weak-ass pussified faux-action flick! 3. Bargaining If only we hadn't paid $11 to see Die Hard 4, then maybe things would be different 4. Depression Fuck I hate movies now, they all blow. I'm just going to play video games and eat Cheez-its. 5. Acceptance It's 2012, corporate greed reigns supreme and there's no going back.

  • there will be a standard edition with minimal special features, a special edition with more features and then a harder rating version with all the special features... i know its coming yet im a sucker when it comes to Slys films... just know that i know what youre doing and im not happy about it. P.S... this film needs Nic CAge !

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Sly, how can this deliver on every level?

    by Fritzlorrerains

    It cannot deliver on gore and language with a PG-13 certificate.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 4:55 a.m. CST

    An 'unrated' or 'uncut' version blu ray would be an insult

    by Fritzlorrerains

    So do not bother. You made it PG13 so keep it that way.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:27 a.m. CST

    dosnt PG13 allow 3 'fucks' ?


    if so use them...but use them wisely...for the correct use will give life....the false use will take it

  • No way Chucky Fucky is getting my hard earned money. Pussy. And yes, I would say it to his face.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:34 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    PG-13 rating. He chose... poorly.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:47 a.m. CST


    by scotsman75


  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Norris is weak! You ruined the movie Chuck

    by Fritzlorrerains

    Thanks alot

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:25 a.m. CST

    I feel betrayed

    by Fritzlorrerains


  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Let this be our final battle!


    i really hope Dolph gets to utter those amazing words to VD at some point

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Cut out Norris's scenes. He neutered your film sly!

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Its not Chucks Fault, they could have said no.

    by higgledyhiggles

    No great woes. Expendables 1 was fun but not exactly a classic. so...errrm.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:35 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:48 a.m. CST

    CG a cock and balls on Chucks Face ?

    by higgledyhiggles

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:53 a.m. CST

    wait.. no need.

    by higgledyhiggles

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 7:27 a.m. CST

    Props to Sly for the reply and sticking by the decision.

    by tradeskilz

    He's telling us how it is even if we may not like to hear what he is saying. The guy is building up a lot of good will.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Cowboys and Aliens rocked the PG-13

    by Neosamurai85

    I think that film would have been R ten years ago. Most of the action movies this film is supposed to be a throwback two were pretty tame in gore, and the first film wasn't exactly the f-bomb-tastic voyage. The thing that's always a downer about PG-13 is that it can create a sense of safty-net (in Horror more so than Action) where you know things won't go 'too far' while with an R rated things could go dark as hell at any moment. You could be riding alone in this chill political suspense drama and then all of a sudden you stumble into fucking LAST KING OF SCOTLAND. With PG-13 you know that sexuality will remain just a tease, no one will be eviscerated on screen (probably) and that everyone will talk more or less the way they would around their grandmothers. Again, in Expendables 1, no one got fucked, eviscerated, or talked as if their grandma wasn't in the room, so I can't find it in me to get riled up. Just blow shit up good and deliver on Sly versus the Muscles from Brussels.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Bruce Lee

    by Mark

    Should come back from the dead and assrape Chuck again.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Too Bad

    by Lucky13

    Let me start this short little rant by saying that; yes... there are plenty of good/great PG-13 movies out there. But when an action movie about mercenaries who kill lots-o-people AIMS for PG-13... then its a problem. I love Sly and wanted the first Expendables to be great. But it was weighed down by sloppy writing... horrible dialogue. Much like the speech scene in "Rambo" where the dialogue was very forced (telling the blonde woman to 'go home', in the rain, at night)... Just very awkward. In Rambo, it was more or less just that one scene... in Expendables, it was the whole movie. I saw EX1 in theaters, then bought the BD... so I'm no 'hater'. I find plenty to enjoy in The Expendables. But a PG-13 cash grab? Sorry... I'll Netflix it when it becomes available next Thanksgiving, or 2015, or whenever the studios decide is 'okay' for me to rent it. Lastly, I doubt VERY MUCH that fucking Chuck Norris influenced the rating. That sounds like a self-important douche rag claiming responsibility for something that had already been determined. I obviously have no way of knowing this for fact... but it seems the more likely then CN single-handedly changing the movie.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Prometheus will be PG13 too...heres why


    -they can gross more $ on PG13 rating -they can release the harder R cut on DVD/BR therefore increasing dvd sales. -they can kind of get away with abit more these days on a PG13 rating (e.g. Knowing and Apollo 18 were pretty intense SF horror wise)....even an F bomb or two -many articles report Scott is going for a 2001 style vibe - 2001 was rated G (and still has disturbing scenes of horror/mystery/eeriness) -Fox has already done a PG13 Alien movie before which ended up the highest grossing film in the series(unadjusted for inflation) -Alien/Predator (FOX), Terminator, and Die Hard(FOX) have all been PG13 recently so its not entirely a shocking thing now -Avatar made nearly $3b for Fox....Prometheus is half being promoted as another 3D Avatar type movie (as opposed to being a full on Alien prequel) -the characters in this story are scientists/highly intelligent people - not space truckers/marines/prisoners - so wont be so prone to cussing every other word (so abit like AvP in that respect) -alien terror/damage can come under "intense sequences of sci-fi/fantasy violence" - more PG13 than R these days -Prometheus isnt a full on Alien film (i.e. its not called "Alien:Prometheus", wont have Ripley, much of the xeno etc - therefore its less of an issue if its rated pg13 instead of R) - they've skirted round the issue saying it hasnt been decided yet, theres to be 2 cuts then decide, there will be topless scenes, it will be intense/scary etc (just like what happened with Terminator 4):

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:30 a.m. CST


    by Knugen

    I'm burning my t-shirt.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST

    I have no problem with the PG-13 rating...

    by brocknroll

    Honestly, I think that's what the Expendables franchise needs to make it a better film, a PG-13 rating. A PG-13 rating will not harm the film, in my opinion. I think the rating will help make the film a little better. Even if it will be a PG-13 movie, it can still be an intense, bloody, violent action movie. Look what happened to movies like, "Taken" and "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol". Both of those films were PG13, yet, they were both still great action movies, and they were very successful. We all know, that most young kids are big fans of these action stars in "Expendables 2": Sly, Arnold, Van Damme, Dolph, Willis, Jet Li, Chuck Norris, etc. The PG-13 rating is just an opportunity for younger kids to go in the theaters and see their favorite action stars on the screen. To those here who have kids, would you like to take your kids to the movies to introduce these stars to them? I have no problem with the PG-13 rating. A good action movie doesn't always have to be about blood and swearing. As long as the writing and filming is good for the next movie, I don't care about the rating. I just want a better "Expendables" film than the first one. The first one should have been PG-13.

  • Then I realized it wasn't the director's cut people were talking about on here. I read the reviews at and saw that the whole film was completely re-edited by Sly and everyone says it is 100% better than the theaterical version, so I didn't even watch it. I'll sell it to a pawn shop and pick up the director's cut eventually.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST

    God I loved Rambo 2008. More of that please.

    by Lakewater

  • I gotta meet that grandma of yours. She sounds like a good time. That line is a perfect example as well. It was apparently improvised by Bruce Willis. That's the kind of freedom you have to let loose and have fun when you don't have a studio imposed PG-13 rating hanging over your head.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Bring back the '80s and '90s

    by Tyson

    I will keep an open mind despite the PG-13 Rating, but I miss the '80s and '90s when it seemed more action films were R or hard R.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Expendables 2: Just wait for the Blu-ray Unrated Cut

    by CuervoJones


  • No. An R rated film does not boil down to just a few swear words thrown in after the fact. It's a question of tone and freedom while filming. So, thinking that the DVD is going to be the real movie is not the case as it's being neutered from the base.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Exactly Jedirob

    by roger

    The "unrated" cut will have a couple of Fucks in it probably no added violence. Just a couple of fucks to sell the "unrated" version. Here are a couple of fucks from me: Fuck this movie. Fuck Chuck.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    An R rating means anything goes...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    With a PG-13 movie, you know that at the end of the day, there are certain lines that the film you're about to watch will not cross. It's safe. An R rated movie, however... the villains can do much more horrible things to people, and therefore there's an unsafe feeling for the characters. Something horrible could befall them at any moment. Tension is added. But PG-13... that's made-for-TV type stuff. For those who say "a rating doesn't matter", would you be in favor of a G or PG Expendables 2? I have no interest in a PG-13 Expendables 2, and I will not be seeing the film now and will actively urge my friends to do likewise (I took 11 people to the opening night of the first one, and ended up seeing the movie 4 times in all at the theater, taking 2-4 people each of the other three times I saw it). I have too much respect for Arnold, Sly, JCVD, Bruce, Chuck, etc. to watch them fumble around in what is essentially a Disney version of an action film. PG-13? Gimmie a break.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    Agreed, Jedirob

    by Lucky13

    As an example... the Terminator Salvation "Unrated" BD was almost exactly the same as the theatrical. It didn't install any more sense of dread, it was still just a 'fun popcorn movie'... not really what I want out of the Terminator franchise (though I didn't hate it nearly as much as some.. I was expecting much worse from that fuckwad McG). It seems that when they aim for PG-13 going in, they don't have the resources (mental or monetary) to also create the darker TONE that an R rated film can have. It's not about 10 frames more of a slit-throat here, and an extra F-bomb there... that's the stuff the teenies that are 'kept out' from an R rated film would care about. It's just the overall feel of the film that gets compromised when you set out to create a PG-13 world out of what obviously should be an R rated atmosphere.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Let the studios know, R or nothing!

    by Wes_Reviews_

    Be polite! Lionsgate Films' Twitter Page...!/lionsgatemovies Millennium Films' Twitter Page...!/MLNMFilms Millennium Entertainment's Twitter Page...!/Millennium_Ent Lionsgate Films Customer Service & General Inquiries Addresses... Millennium Films' General Info address... Millennium Entertainment General Info address... Expendables 2 is still filming. Plenty of time for reshoots to get the R rating this film deserves. Do your part. Spread the word and Tweet/e-mail all of the above!

  • Might as well get Baz Luhrman to direct and land a solid PG rating. "A macho, heroic tale of three long-time friends who are redacted against their will to an Off-Off-Broadway tranny show." Nicole Kidman makes a special climatic cameo to put a bullet in each of your heads. Maybe it can shit all over Woo's legacy like you did with Hodge's "Get Carter."

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Sly, you gave us a bad ass action gore fest

    by KinjoAlcoholicNinja

    With John Rambo. And that's just one reason among many why I adore you and the vast majority of your work. Don't puss out on us here. When I saw the poster with all my old action heroes from my childhood, I nearly shit. I hear PG-13 and I think to myself....of all those guys on the poster, was there a PG-13 movie made by any of them in the 80s or 90s that I actually liked? I can't think of any. Plenty of R rated gems though.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Violence is golden

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    People may complain that the desire to see extreme violence is immature or even sick... but I bet they too laughed in a mix of horror and delight when Arnie put that piece of metal through the dudes head in Total Recall or used that guy as a human shield on the escalator or when Sly sewed up his arm in first blood, or when Bruce shot the asian guy in Die Hard and the blood splattered on the fucking lense! You wont get that in a PG-13 movie and it wont be the same.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    You ain't going to change nothing

    by Spartacus44

    Although I whole heartedly agree with the anti PG13 sentiment here for EX2 you are deluded if you think petitioning the studios will do a damn thing - they do not make movies for the fun of it they make them to MAKE money and if that means pissing off a relatively small handful of loyal fans to a particular franchise to enable a greater share of the demographic to see the film then they will of coarse - then they can make the blu ray more attractive my making it unrated. Its a business not a charity and to the suits the cash will ALWAYS be more important than the art - thats why we have such a creative drought at the moment - sad but true :(

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST

    I don't Think there is going to be an R or Unrated DVD/Blu-Ray

    by Joseph Wilson

    From what I have heard, and maybe Harry can confirm, there is no R-rated or unrated cut of the movie. Apparently there was a decision to cut down the script and film it at PG-13 about a week to 2 weeks before filming started. Simon West had confirmed in a interview the script was "Hard R Action," however due to budgetary concerns (again its all about money), and a belief from Lionsgate that there is no more money in R rated fare, at least not the kind of R rated movies they have made in the past. Chuck Norris is an idiot, but I don't think changing the script to suit his needs was what did it, I think the failure of Conan(which they should have know was going to fail) really scared them into making the script changes. Again, from what I heard the feeling was if they shot the movie balls out and R rated it would be a problem editing down for the theatres to a Pg-13 rating, and they didn't want to take the chance that by editing it down it would drastically change the feeling of scenes. Reportedly, there is talk that the movie focuses on less gunplay, and more on martial arts and fighting so that they coud go all out with those scenes and not hold anything back where with gunplay there is only so much you can do in a Pg-13 universe. This wasn't Sly's call from what I heard, but it was either pg-13 or the studio slash the budget in half or more to make it feasible for them. I do feel bad for Sly because if this thing flops it will all fall on him. Arnold is not in the movie that much as has a few R-rated projects on the pipeline. Van Damme is starting to branch out to different projects and Lundgred has a solid DTV resume with some really bad movies and some that are more watchable then others. Norris' career is done and he killed his cred amongst the action fans, but he doesn't really care about that stuff anymore as he prides himself as a man of god and conviction, lol. I have a feeling Expendables is going to feel like a more realistic GI-Joe, unfortunately I think that the fanboys turning on this is going to be poisonous for the movie regardless of if it is a good movie or not. And I don't knock the fanboys for doing so (I am one of them), I think most are just jaded with this news.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris=Nipples on Batsuit, Flames on Optimus,whathaveye..

    by Stalkeye

    EX2 is like Ex LAX. Expect shit to happen.

  • Bravo for having the courage of conviction sir.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris

    by Philvis

    Good for Chuck. God forbid someone have an opinion and belief system that isn't in agreement with the trolls on AICN. Chuck Norris would still be able to roundhouse the 'kids' on here even at 71. The MPAA doesn't decide movie ratings, Chuck Norris does. Keep on busting skulls Chuck!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Yeah, shooting for PG-13 = no Uncut/Unrated Blu-Ray/DVD.

    by Wes_Reviews_

    The Expendables 2 is and will always be PG-13... unless everyone voices their opinion loud and clear to those in charge. Lionsgate Films' Twitter Page...!/lionsgatemovies Millennium Films' Twitter Page...!/MLNMFilms Millennium Entertainment's Twitter Page...!/Millennium_Ent Lionsgate Films Customer Service & General Inquiries Addresses... Millennium Films' General Info address... Millennium Entertainment General Info address...

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    This really isn't that complicated.

    by Your Moms Box

    Stallone says the film is LARGE and delivers on every level. Well, if it's PG-13, no it's not and no it doesn't. Plain and simple. The film is supposed to be a throwback to the action films of the 1980's that these guys used to make. You can't deliver on every level with a PG-13 rating. There is plenty that you miss when limited in what you are permitted to show on screen. People hating on this aren't being narrow-minded. They are seeing the big picture. Fans won't be left disappointed? Yes, they fucking will, Mr. Stallone. They'll be disappointed from the very first kill, when they expected Mortal Kombat arcade and got Mortal Kombat Super Nintendo.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    You kidding me? I'll kick Chuck's ass before having breakfast

    by Stalkeye

    Good luck with him pulling off a roundhouse at his age. Arthritis is a Bitch aint it?

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Your Mom's Box

    by Lucky13

    LMAO --- Great analogy. Fuckin' SNES MK... damn it all to hell. Sweat instead of blood. Thanks for bringing back bad memories.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Sly responds to the PG13 rumor on EXPENDABLES 2...

    by Brian Tepper

    This is disheartening news. It's obvious that they've had succumb to studio pressure, not Chuck Norris. As for emotional content, I take this as a warning, re the last installment of Rocky. What we expect is rock'em sock'em to the max, not a "feel good" flick or a psychological dissertation. The first installment succeeded as a sleeper of sorts, because it satisfied our appetite for a real throw back action flick and not some boilerplate crap!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Word of mouth for this movie is starting to become poisonous

    by Joseph Wilson

    I have a feeling that even if this movie is good, which I somehow doubt, (though the first was no masterpiece) that the fanboy outrage over the rating is going to hurt the boxoffice take in the long run. I think they made a big mistake, because without fanboy love pushing this thing it might not have any legs at the B.O. Stallone will end up bearing the blame, even though I don't believe this is his fault or was his call.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST

    What about Drive....

    by Will

    Critics and audiences loved that movie despite it's R rating and ultra-violent watermelon head smash in the elevator scene.... Whatever happened to adult entertainment? (not porn u nerd) Pushing the limits of the PG-13 limit just to get kids to see the movie only encourages our youth to see violent themed films anyway. Despite that, the studios know PG-13 films sell more tickets, so that is why they did it. Chuck can think what he wants but it was the Studio, driven by the almighty dollar, that roundhouse kicked this film into crap.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 2:22 p.m. CST

    So is basically an episode of The A-Team?

    by Koji_Kabuto

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    I just watched all ten episodes of STRIKE BACK

    by IAmTommyWiseau

    And it was fucking awesome. There was at least one headshot in each episode (including an assassin literally getting his brains blown out the back of his head), people had their throats slashed and the main characters used the word "fuck". The fact that I'm likely to see more entertaining action in a cinemax television show than in fucking EXPENDABLES 2 is a shock.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 2:25 p.m. CST


    by chuffsterUK

    What about the uncut dvd release of `Taken`???

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Kind of like a nuetered dog.....

    by kainsreign

    It might still go through all the motions like normal......just without the big pay-off.Look at all the older films that have elevated to a "cult"status......Rambo,Conan the Barbarian,Terminator,T2,Die Hard,Mad Max......all "R"films........look at the sequels that tried to go PG-13,Conan the Destroyer,Terminator Salvation,Die Hard4,Mad Max:Beyond Thunderdome,Robocop 3.Kids these days are'nt interested in a film with a bunch of iconic action stars from the 80's,all they want is the big fx films for the "WoW"factor,Transformers,The Hobbit,The Darkknight,and other "comic book"based stuff. Not older guys running around beating the shit out of people,not exciting enough for the video game generation.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    I like '80s action movies as much as the next red-blooded male...

    by Jared Syn

    ...but some of the comments in this talkback are embarrassing.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    jaka, a sequel to an R rated action movie should be R

    by Mattman

    Anything less is pussified moneygrubbing. And btw, the PG-13 will probably do more damage to this movie than anything else. The last movie did very well because it spoke to the right audience. Now they're trying to pander to teenagers who don't give a shit about nostalgia.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Can't believe some people actually defend this shit

    by Mattman

    Seriously disgusting.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Fuck chuck!

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Sly, we trusted Bruce Willis, too and Die Hard 4 was AWFUL.

    by Wes_Reviews_

  • It just adds a few extra punches and the like. I like Taken. A lot. But I can definitely see where they held back in a number of aspects to avoid the R rating. The DVD did not fix that.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    is this as bad as the Taken 2 news?

    by btvs2000

    still undecided. both blow. taken 2... liam neeson is kidnapped and the daughter rescues him! first Sly now Mr Besson? you guys are killing me.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Fuck Chuck!

    by DrMurdock

    In what universe is a PG-13 Expendables 2 going to sit successfully next to an R rated part 1? I'm more excited about Van Damme being in it, couldn't give two flying fucks about Norris. If he didn't like it they should have shown him the door. And then fucking kicked him through it.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Bruce Lee probably will be in Expendables 3

    by v3d

    At some point it will occur to them that cgi technology is close enough to producing a computer generated Lee. If you've ever seen some of the junk the family has allowed to be licensed, I think it could happen.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    they should put Bruce Lee A N D 2pac in expendables 3

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    Then sit back and count the loot Hollywood!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    fanboys win

    by Eric Strauss

    I still maintain that an R rating in and of itself isn't going to make this a better movie, however, some of you fanboys have actually made some rather compelling arguments for why this absolutely should be an R rated movie. I'm in agreement now. This is bullshit.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    yea I also can't believe people are defending the pg13 just doesn't make sense for this movie.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Think Stallone sees this TB?

    by Chris

    On here, Dark Horizons, Joblo, and other movie geek news sites you have people raging over this news. Do you think Stallone and Co are going to realize they've made a big mistake and back off the PG-13 rating? The thing I don't think they understand is we don't want a good story, we want blood, violence, bad language, AND a good story. No Expendables movie could ever be decent without an R rating because the entire point of the franchise is to be an over the top homage to 80's action movies and their stars. And all for what? Chuck Norris? Who couldn't act his way through a good story even if he managed to get into one? He probably isn't even in the movie for more than few minutes. I just don't get it. Someone should've sat Chuck down and explained this was his last chance at being in a real movie again as a character rather than him playing himself and he should really reconsider the rating. Further, who compromises their artistic integrity over one casting call? "Great script, but we need to erase half of it because one of our cameo roles is upset about the potty language." How sad.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 4:41 p.m. CST

    PG-13???? Damn, (oops, I mean "darn") shame..

    by thot

    C'mon Sly! There is NO WAY you are going to be able to replicate the raw, ass-kicking carnage of the first Expendables with a PG-13 rating! One of the most talked about scenes in the first one was when Terry Crews brutally annihilated the bad guys with that insane high-caliber gun he was sporting!! I agree with other posters here that the action stars in this flick built their careers on "R" rated fare. I am officially luke-warm about this one now. Very disappointing.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST

    EXP2 PG13:

    by KilliK

    -Sly: Gosh fellas,i just learned some bad news. -Statham: What is it lad? -Sly: I was having my weekly manicure in the beauty salon and the nice ladies there told me that a bad dictator in a tropical island is stealing the candies and toys from the kids and then sells them here, in the black market. -Dolph: Oh,no.That's the meanest thing i have ever listen in my life. -Sly: I know.We must do something about this. -Statham: Like what? -Sly: Go there in the tropical island and teach some good manners to that mean man. -Couture: But Pink Barney,tomorrow the Housewives Club is having the seminar: "Period and Sex: When women dont have time to bleed." I will be there to give a speech and you know how much i love the cookies and pies that they bring. -Chuck: And i am conducting the Morning Prayers in the St Norris Church.I cant leave my flock just like that. -Li.Next week my kids are coming to see me so i cant.. -Sly: Short Rounds,you dont have any kids. -Li:Alright.alright.That's doesnt mean that i will be available next week. -Dolph: I have to visit my grandma in Sweden for her birthday,i wont be here for the next few days.I have already bought her the new dvd episodes of her favorite show: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic,she will be happy when she sees them. -Statham: What new dvd episodes? the ones where the little ponies face that evil dragon and defeat them with happy songs? -Dolph: Yes,they were just released in dvd. -Satham: Oh jolly,i like these episodes,they are great. -Sly: Lads,lads,please can we concentrate for a moment to our subject? ......... -Sly: Alright. Listen all.I know that you have your own life and your own οbligations.But as a team we stand for something more than just killing for money.Truth,justice and the american way are qualities that we follow,serve and protect.Right now somewhere in the world there are children who cry because someone is stealing their candies and toys.Something must be done about this,dont you think? -Statham: I think yes. -Sly: Is this not what God says in his bible, that he wrote 360000 years ago: "I will punish the world for its evil" ? -Chuck: Preach it my brother. -Sly: So,what do you say lads,are you with me or not? -Li: I am with you Pink Barney. -Crews: I am with you too. -Statham: Me too. -Chuck: And me. -Dolph: Count me in. -Couture: Say the word. -Sly: Glad to hear that my friends.I promise you that when this is over,i will take you for ice cream. -Dolph: Will you take us to Disneyworld too? you had promised it in our last time. -Sly: ok,ok i wll take my buddies to Disneyworld too,i promise. -Everyone: Yippeeeeeeeeeee -Crews. FUCK YEAH !! -Sly: Language. -Crews: Oh sorry,i meant: Hurray !! -I knew my buddies would disappoint me.Now while i am planning our mission,start making a preparation with the weapons and the supplies you need to take with you. -Dolph: I will take my very big knife with me.I have it to cover the bread with peanut butter but i think it is time to use it to cut someone throat in the most non-visceral,non-graphic way possible. -Couture: I am taking this brown fits nicely the color of my brown boonie hat. -Crews: And i am taking this BIG,BAD, i mean this shotgun that my uncle Tim gave me as a present in last Christmas. Sly thinking: In the end,everything is going to be O-K.We will beat down that mean guy,the kids will get their lollipops and dolls back and i will be having fun with my friends in a theme ride in Disneyworld.I am so happy for my team.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    The hardcore action movie genre is DEAD now. R.I.P.

    by IronEagle74

    Fuck all of you assholes who keep allowing Hollywood to feed us this watered down sanitized shit. Yes, I'm talking to YOU Michael Bay fans.

  • There are PG movies, not PG-13, but just PG movies from the 1980's that have more language, nudity, and violence than any PG-13 movie has today. That's a fact. You just have to see those movies to know what I'm talking about. And for those of you who blame this on right-wingers, excuse me but Hollywood is run by a bunch of fucking left-wingers and they're the ones making these decisions. Most of the hardcore action stars from the era of action movies we all love are all Republicans/conservatives too. It's the Republicans who have never been afraid to kick ass, while Democrats just want to talk to our enemies and occasionally send in a small strike team or a bomb. SO FUCK YOU!!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Can't help but think Sly used us to rekindle his career..

    by Fritzlorrerains

    And now he stabs us in the back for some quick cash. Not cool at all. I will not be seeing this crap.

  • Coming up blank. What's a good gun-based action movie that's rated PG-13?

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST


    by heyscot

    That's all. Mother.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    killik thanks for that

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    It made me chuckle. Pink Barney will now forever be the name of Sly in the expendables.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Will not be watching this film. Shame on you.

    by happybunni

    Bullshit it's going to be the same movie it would have been if it were rated R. The tone changes drastically in a lot of cases, memorable scenes suddenly are easily forgettable. Not even going to mention about language being censored, but violence being fine.. Just stupid. In this day and age, I would have though the ERSB/MPAA would have updated their stance. But no, I guess we have to wait for the old stubborn farts to all die off before we can erase their idiotic rules from history.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    The rating does not matter -

    by m_prevette

    I've never understood that knee jerk reaction to a PG 13 action movie. What does it matter if it gets an R? The script, directing, the action, acting, the score...all of this matters. PG 13... so what?

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 5:32 p.m. CST

    No has a problem with PG13 action movies

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    They have a problem with THIS one being a PG13 action movie. And if you don't understand why then you're a moron.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:04 p.m. CST

    After Dark Knight is the PG-13 criticism even valid?

    by Cruizer Dave

    Only if your some kind of idiot, illiterate trailer trash that needs to hear the word "fuck" in order to understand the dialog.

  • ...because this series was presented to us as created to be in contrast to those films. Everything about it's inception was to cater to excess. At least with those movies I'm not surprised they're maybe trying to bring a new audience in. a young audience. But this franchise was supposed to be for the older crowd. I mean the cast is on the majority 60+ for Christs sake!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 6:16 p.m. CST


    by CT1

    PG13 works for movies with complexity and depth, oh just pick randomly like oh The Dark Knight or something like that, the movie didn't NEED much, it had SUBSTANCE (some people claim). The Expendables is lightweight fluffer Alzheimers-Contributin' empty shallow void of any sort of theme or idea, dazzle them with big explosions and take them back to better times in their shitty zombie lives when the era of Arnold and Sly was new and novel, and the generation at the time wasn't as stupid and empty-headed as the current one. Hear good things about the Spiderman Reboot though, cool "modern" updating to the costume, slippers, weird crotches and twink-like builds. That's pretty sweet, maybe it'll be as good as Scott Pilgrim.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    This blows. PG13 80's style action = suck!!!!

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris says R is Rated for Religion.

    by Zurge


  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Chuck Norris has endorsed Newt Gingrich

    by Roger Moon

    This pathological thinking originates from Chuck's sexually confused youth when he was an insecure Kansas twink with a vast, ape-like upper lip an insatiable appetite for older, hairy men.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Whine fanboys, whine!

    by Philvis

    Your 150 fan boycott is really going to sway the rating, hahahah! Sorry, but 99% of the people who go see this movie are not thinking, "Shit, this is PG-13, I'm not watching it now!" Seriously, if it is that important to hear "fuck" instead of "damn" or "shit", you've got issues. It's pretty sad you think a movie needs to be boycotted because a guy will only get shot and killed as opposed having his head lopped off while the character shouts "fuck". Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone are both stand up guys. Good for them on having principles. And so what if Chuck Norris endorses Newt. You don't mind when the rest of Hollywood endorses a democrat. After listening to so many BS political comments on here, I guess it's safe to say there are a lot college students or recent college students on here who haven't been introduced to the real world yet...thus the bitching and moaning about a movie being only PG-13. Hahah!

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    = Grand Scale Ass Bashing = ?!

    by Wookie_Weed

    AICN is doing some grand scale ass sucking!

  • I copped a lot of hate for it, but going by the "fuck you, PG-13" posts in this talkback, I feel very very vindicated.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Rambo - PG-13

    by Wookie_Weed

    Can you imagine if Stallone's adventures in Burma were rated PG-13?

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 9:14 p.m. CST

    What was so horrible about Die Hard 4?

    by Mugato5150

    Well the villain was kind of lame and Kevin Smith was there for some reason and that fucking Mac Guy was in it but action-wise, what was so bad about it? I mean it was shit compared to the original but what isn't? I thought it was a decent action movie.

  • Period, end of story. Its sad that so many of you can't seem to wrap your head around that concept.

  • Hell no! They wouldn't be the same movie. Don't tell me rating doesn't change anything. That chest buster scene, probably the most memorable scene of any movie? Yeah, that wouldn't exist. Like I said earlier, you water down a film by converting it from R to PG-13 in order to make money. This makes you film less than it would have been otherwise, memorable scenes become less memorable. The overall movie becomes less awesome as it was supposed to be. You think that a PG-13 rating will get you a bigger payday, but in the end your movie gets worse reviews since you made it tame and less people will want to see it or buy it on DVD or follow the series.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by happybunni

    And you the director are left with a movie you know that could have been better had you just stuck to your guns. Left and right you will be apologizing, saying that you know it could have been a fantastic film if you had kept in what you wanted to instead of compromising and making an average film

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Expendables 2=GI JOE 2

    by Joseph Wilson

    The Rating does matter if It changes the entire Tone of the Movie, it matters a great deal. This went from a feel good action movie based on an 80's style of action to GI:JOE 2 type of movie. And guess what the rating matters. GI Joe is supposed to be PG-13 it fits the tone of the movie and what they are tryting to convey onscreen. This movie should not be trying to emulate that tone, its a big mistake

  • The next gen systems (Xbox III/PS4) are due in a couple more years. If they are really a big leap closer to photorealism than where graphics are now, then I think we could see another big shift away from movies towards games by the coveted 13-25 year old demographic.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Sly should listen to his fans more

    by elsachmo

    The fans want some hardcore, R-rated action, not touching drama or whatever. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope it bombs to teach him a lesson to stop trying to go after the money versus making a quality, hardcore action film.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Lionsgate panicked after Conan the Momoan flopped

    by Joseph Wilson

    Once Conan shit the bed, Lionsgate panicked and decided that they finally wanted out of R rated fare. It's just too bad that EX2 had to be the sacrificial lamb in all this. And people were right to not go see Conan, it looked like shit, plus many people have an great affinity for the Arnold movies, Barbarian more then destroyer, but this latest movie didn't even look as good as Destroyer.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Sylvester Stallone Raped my Childhood

    by Joseph Wilson


  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:51 p.m. CST

    R Rated movies used to be the Norm, now they are a dying Breed

    by Joseph Wilson

    The studios just don't want to make them unless they absolutely have to, because the script or the content on display will not work in a PG-13 environment. The mistake with EX2, I believe was letting the budget go out of wack, once it stated to veer in the $100 million category, it was obvious that some pany suit would argue that the only way to recoup their money was to allow for it to be seen by a "broader audience." Stallone, and Terry Crews trying to spin this sounds like what Bruce did with DH4, and we all know how that turned out. Bruce knew it was his reputation on the line, but the suits could care less. And yes DH4 made money but very few people really liked it in comparison to the originals. Stallone should have fought for the R, even if it mean drastic budget cuts, so what a movie can be really good but on a smaller scale. Most foreign action movies that are good are shot for shit and most are pretty entertaining and violent.

  • Jan. 20, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST

    I agree deaft0ne, they should never have remade Conan and Total Recall

    by Joseph Wilson

    The studios almost want to fail it would seem with these dumb ideas.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Deaft0ne, I read it on the Stallone Zone from his facebood page

    by Joseph Wilson

    I kill more baddies in the first 3 min of EX2 than I did the whole last movie. Don't let the smooth taste fool you. This suckers got kick.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:13 a.m. CST

    That was his quote

    by Joseph Wilson

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Here is another Quote from Mr. Crews

    by Joseph Wilson

    I feel your pain about the EX2 PG-13. But do you really think we've all gone soft as baby thighs? No sirs. You will love it. Trust ya boy.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST

    I think its damage Control, but its not his fault

    by Joseph Wilson

    He seems like a great guy and I am positive this movie will have a high body count, I just don't think the violence will be all that realistic in tone. I hope I'm wrong, but even if the movie is good with a Pg-13 rating, which is a possibility, I will keep thinking deep down what could have been had they gone all out on this.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:19 a.m. CST

    jedirob, I hear ya, but the thing is...

    by Neosamurai85

    I forgot about that line because it was forgettable. It wasn't a catch phrase or even remotely clever. I smirked more at the reaction shots, being so overly dramatic than Bruce's delivery. It was like the f-bomb in the PG-film -- the 'GASP, he went there!' sort of moment -- 'he spoke of our secret man-love!' Did it make the characters any more badass? Nope. Just more limp. So if that's the best argument for Expendables R, I'll pass. I'm all for R action. Predator is one of my all time favorite action movies, period. But when I watch a movie that was essentially PG-13 in attitude (THEY BROUGHT DOLPH BACK FROM THE DEAD LIKE A FUCKING G.I. JOE!), and hear it's sequel is going to own up and be what it is, I do have trouble getting worked up.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:29 a.m. CST

    And yes...

    by Neosamurai85

    Many great lines of cinema have been improvised, but having this many egos on set cutting loose does not strike me as the greatest idea. Robert Altman in his prime, Simon West is not.

  • ...PG-13 makes quite a bit of sense. Listen, I'm 22 years old. This movie was not made for me, I get that. And I understand those of you who are saying, "Anyone under the age of 17 won't want to see this movie anyway, so why not make it R?" The simple facts are that the principals involved NEED this to be successful. Sly seems like a cool guy. He's made some really ambitious projects in his career renaissance of the last few years with "Rocky Balboa," "Rambo" and "The Expendables." But he needs commercial success just as much as the next guy; he is on a creative leash just as much as the next guy. The sad fact is that Sly needs this to be a hit. Bruce Willis needs this to be a hit. Arnold, most definitely, needs this to do SOMETHING. And as for the rest? Chuck, JCVD, Crewes, whoever else? They're likely happy to be receiving a paycheck. If I were 65 years old and wanted to make a SEQUEL to a high-octane yet only-marginally-successful action film, and the studio's only caveat was, "Here's $90 Million dollars... just keep it PG-13." Do you know what I would respond with? "Yes sir, massah."

  • Alot of PG-13 movies fail, and its a crowded summer market. And EX2 aint the Avengers, or even GIJOE 2, 2 movies that are PG-13 that will have an easier time getting that audience that EX2 seems to be catering to.

  • You implied that there was no iffy language. Why does an example that negate your implication make the movie "more limp?" And if you thought the first one was not mature enough (as I also felt) then the idea of a sequel, might bring some hope of fixing that. Or maybe not, but that's not the point at hand. No one is saying you need to get "worked up." If you're not interested in the new film, because you thought the first film failed, that' no problem. All we're doing is somewhat lamenting what may have been. And personally, I think Bruce Willis suggesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone are going to "such each others dicks" is pretty funny.

  • I don't think you are reading what the majority of the posters have stated very very clearly many times. PG-13 is wonderful, but not for everything. For some content an R rating needed. Where does the line get drawn? What about as someone suggested, a PG or G rated version of The Expendables? Ridiculous? Why? What if it's a good G rated movie? I think the answer would be, who gives a shit? A movie, that is set up as a tribute to other movies, should posses the same qualities.

  • This is a studio film. You really think that The Expendables 2 possesses some kind of moral principal? That the rating is not an obvious money grab?

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Sorry guys, the damage control wont work.

    by Fritzlorrerains

    We still remember Bruce Willis lying to us about Die Hard 4.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 1:56 a.m. CST

    Watered down Expendables, what a shame.

    by Fritzlorrerains

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 2 a.m. CST

    Still shocked

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    It never even seemed like it was ever a question to me. R, not even a question, no hesitation, no doubt.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 3:59 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 4:31 a.m. CST

    the death of action happened in part 1

    by Vern

    I agree that this is a mindbogglingly stupid idea, and that it completely violates the balls out man's man type of movie that Stallone talked about when first hyping up THE EXPENDABLES here, and that they marketed with their whole anti-whatever-the-Julia-Roberts-movie-was campaign. But to me the symbolic death of old school action already happened in part 1 when Stallone and friends got together to revive good old fashioned '80s style action movies... by shooting all the action scenes in the shitty incomprehensible style everybody uses today. I enjoyed the movie for the novelty of seeing all those guys together, but to this day it pains me to think that there is actually a fight scene between Dolph Lundgren and Jet Li on film, and yet I can't even enjoy it because it's not clear what they're doing to each other. Or that Stallone was so dedicated that he broke his neck in his fight scene with Stone Cold Steve Austin, and yet not dedicated enough to have a steady camera pointing at it when it happened. Compare the way Soderbergh took advantage of Gina Carano's skills in HAYWIRE to what Stallone did with Randy Couture. That guy is one of the toughest sonofabitches ever, and was in this huge hit movie that millions of people have seen, but I bet most of them who aren't familiar with UFC have no idea what he can do, if they even remember him in the movie. PG-13 EXPENDABLES is an asinine idea that is gonna force me to give up my naive hope for an improved sequel. But if action died it died a long time ago when showing action stopped being a requirement of the genre. Sadly, this is the post-action era, as far as mainstream movies are concerned.

  • for the action movie fans.I hope we see you here more often,your input about the action genre is always enlightening. You are absolutely correct about E1 and how it has nothing to do with a throwback to the 80s old school action,as it was promised and promoted by Sly. 80s action style is long gone dead,EX1 gave the hint,EX2 confirmed it with the PG13 rating.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 5:24 a.m. CST

    Think about this

    by Vern

    The fact that Soderbergh wanted the HAYWIRE fight scenes to be shown clearly is a major selling point mentioned in all the interviews, reviews and articles. As recently as 10 years ago that would seem insane that it even had to be mentioned. What used to be basic competence is now a novelty. I want an EXPENDABLES movie that goes back to that basic competence era. Unfortunately Simon West is one of the pioneers of incomprehensible action, so I'm not holding my breath. And thanks for the kind words, Killik.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 5:43 a.m. CST

    The ironing is delicious..

    by Axl Z

    Yippie Kay-Yay Melonfarmers!

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    Book him. What's the charge? .....He's a lollipop stealer.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    You are one ugly teddy bear.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    Leave anything for us? Just toys.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:53 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    I'm too old for chocolate ice-cream.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    Yippee-ki-yay, mother Teresa.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST

    DIE HARD PG13:

    by KilliK

    Yippee-ki-yay, mother Teresa.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Lionsgate only wants PG-13 movies (check this out)

    by Joseph Wilson

    The horror-thriller-movie The Possession (previously Dibbuk Box), by Ole Bornedal - known by genre fans because of Nightwatch opens in US-theaters on August 31st, 2012. The flick has already been presented to the MPAA last fall and was rated R ((for violence, terror and disturbing images). Since Lionsgate wanted a PG-13 rating, though, they appealed. Therefore, The Possession was re-rated in November 2011 and the conclusion: Rated R. The people at Lionsgate were not happy and took the final measures to receive the wanted rating and censored the film. This toned-down version was submitted to the MPAA and received the PG-13-rating.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Stallone's aging, rawhide face.

    by Philip Tolken

    yes - he may be in great steroid induced shape but for his fan base of TAPOUT/MMA fans out there I have news for you; PG13 or R, a turd is a turd and this my friends will be a turd. All evidence points to it. If you want to argue this point, I suggest you watch a real action movie.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Bade Decision

    by MontyBoy

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Bad Bad Bad Decision

    by MontyBoy

    This will go down as one of THE worse movie making decisions of all time.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    So Harry...

    by chuffsterUK

    ...will Sly respond to the response to his response?

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Re: The amount of fucks you can have in a PG-13 movie.

    by Your Moms Box

    You are allowed one, as is my understanding. And the one can have no sexual connotations whatsoever. Hence why McClane was denied his catch-phrase in Live Free or Die Hard. "Mother-Fucker" implies intercourse with one's mother. If that doesn't sum up why you can't do a PG-13 action movie based off hard R precursors, I don't know what does. "Yippie Kai Yay Mother <BLAM>!" Bad-ass, Bruce. Way better than the original.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    cruizer dave, yippie kai yay mother flipper!

    by Mattman

    Yeah, only trailer trash would have a problem with that.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Fuck Chuck Norris

    by Larry Jay

    Yeah, I said it. Double Fuck Chuck Norris and his John Bircher, religious fantatic, Agenda 21 bullshit. Yeah, I said it. Chuck got an issue with it, I live in Delaware. Come settle up. Nutjob.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 3:52 p.m. CST

    When kids are having oral sex at 11

    by happybunni

    In today's day and age, kids are now having oral sex at 11 years old and younger. And the age keeps getting less and less. So kids are sexually activate, and you're blocking them from seeing a movie because of a boob? Or because of a few curse words that they have used dozens of times before?

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Moms Box

    by havehope

    You are so right, man. That bit in Live Free or Don't Watch this Movie was the final nail in what was an embarassment for a McClane outing

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    PG-13 is the new Hays Code

    by Nem_Wan

    If it has any kind of budget it is required to be PG-13. The Motion Picture Production Code of the 21st Century. The ratings system was created because the Hays system was broken. It's broken again if every movie has to have the same content standards. Time to hit the reset button again.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 5:36 p.m. CST

    They don't get my money

    by Adam

    Same as Drag Me to Hell. I don't do PG-13 action flicks or horror flicks any more. Sorry. I'm an adult.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Kids can see R movies in the states anyway

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    I mean its not like here in the UK where 18 means 18 and 15 means 15, so I cant see how it would make a massive difference to the BO anyway. For all the tickets they will gain they will lose an equal number I'm sure. The final film is going to suffer needlessly as a result of this decision.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Most kids don't even know who these guys are or what to expect from them

    by alienindisguise

    Catering to them is a mistake.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    jaka you have a faulty straw-manish argument going

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    Nobody here is saying PG or PG13 movies (across genres) inherently suck. That's clearly not true and not one person is necessarily claiming that. I think we can all agree a good movie is a good movie regardless of rating. What we ARE saying is THIS movie will likely suck and be watered down as it will be hampered with an unnecessary PG-13 rating. Whether that's due to Chuck Norris or the studio thinking about making more $$money&& is debatable.....But in neither case is the new Pg13 rating an artistic or creative choice with any real merit or credibility. Also, lets not forget the 1st expendables was rated R and marketed as a homage to hardcore 80's action why wouldn't the 2nd movie in the franchise remain consistent with that gritty tone & unique idea? Why wouldn't the 2nd movie continue the balls to the wall tradition and push things even further? The audience for this movie is NOT really the younger's for an older crowd who are fans of these older action stars. If the younger kids can get in with pop or an older If not, too bad.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Pg-13 Can Work, just NOT in this case

    by Joseph Wilson

    There is no reason for this movie to be Pg-13, other then financial reasons and unlike alot of the other Pg-13 movies coming out this summer, Expendables 2 will end up a compromised product because of this choice. The first movie wasn't anything spectacular, but I would argue that one of the only reasons why it worked was due to some of the more violent aspects and because of the tone. Pg-13 will change that drastically. Lionsgate made alot of bad decisions in regards to some of the movies it has got behind in the past, and I am certain the completed failure of Conan is the real reason why Expendables 2 is getting this type of treatment. They wanted to do this last time on the first one, but Sly fought them, it looks like he just gave up this time around. Unfortunately for Sly he is the face of this franchise and will bear the brunt of the blame.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Our final battle is one for the ages

    by chuffsterUK

    The ages 13 and under...

  • My buddy saw Sly the other day, a few months back, at a hotel in New Orleans. He was eating lunch at the food court and going to the gym at the hotel. My buddy was respectful and did not say anything to Sly, just let the man eat his lunch in peace, but just the same, we thought it was cool to see him hanging out in New Orleans. I wonder if he's filming all his movies there now? ...A girlfriend of mine saw Gerard Butler filming some movie the other day in Shreveport as well. It's weird having all these Hollywood types in Louisiana. Anyway, I don't know what he was filming, but I'm cool with this film being PG-13. I don't think the first film was a hard R by any means, and I don't think the second one will be affected much by a PG-13 rating. After all, a modern day PG-13 is a lot more violent than PG-13 movies were back in the 80's. I don't really see it as that big of a deal so long as they don't make him cut too much of it. Mainly, they'll have to cut a bit of the gore, but I didn't think the first one was overly gory to begin with, so no big deal for me. I'll be there opening weekend for this one and I enjoyed the first one for what it was, a good time old fashioned throwback action movie. I really would like to see another Rambo movie though. My suggested plot synopsis: It should be set in the pacific northwest with Rambo being called in to track down a younger version of himself. Someone back from Iraq with PTSD with special forces training who is hiding out in the woods and having metal issues. Rambo eventually hunts the kid down, fights him, with lots of cat and mouse fighting and very little gunplay. More of a battle of the wits sort of thing. Eventually, Rambo gains the guy's respect and talks him out of the woods, but only after a bad-ass showdown. Also, throw in a subplot involving Rambo's father...maybe Kris Kristofferson? At the end, Rambo has made peace with himself, his father, and there's big chances for ending the franchise with a lot of the drama that the first movie had. You could even stick with PG-13 due to the lack of gunplay, but make the movie sell because, well, it might be a damn good film. Hell, I'll write it for you Sly. Just give me the word. :) I know we'll probably never see another Rambo movie, but there really is a lot of opportunity to bring the franchise back to it's roots, which had loads of suspense and drama and surprising little gunplay up until the end of the movie.

  • Thats like the only thing of value you can do in R that you cant do in PG13, and they didnt go there.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Someone explain to me...

    by Splinter76

    How T&A, guts and gore makes a better ACTION movie? The last Rambo movie was a hard R for violence and it was not a run away success. So you pervs please tell me how the trinity I listed above guarantees a "better" movie. That's just bull crap. Seeing all of icons on the screen and having kick ass action on the screen is what's going to make a great movie. Not the crap you idiots are whining about.

  • If Expendables II was actually rated R as some of us assumed (or hoped) it would be and this post was simply a confirmation of the R rating.....would you guys be in here saying "why is this rated R, I'd rather see it be PG-13!" I really, really doubt'd probably be like us and pumped as hell......and probably hoping the envelope was pushed even further this time around.

  • Jan. 21, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST


    by Jaka

    It doesn't matter if it's PG, PG-13, R or whatever! It doesn't matter what anybody assumed (always dangerous) it would be. A film's rating has ZERO to do with quality. It could be a graphically violent gorefest from beginning to end and be just as shit as if it was all implied, off screen violence with a PG rating. <p> All this talk about how it can't work for "this film" is ridiculous because NOBODY has seen this film. There is NO ARGUMENT for this FACT. If can't suck if you haven't seen it. Why is this so damn hard to understand? <p> And what if the film is a piece of shit? What if it sucks? Do you really think an R rating would fix that? Or do you think things like, oh, you know, STORY, DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY or EDITING might have something to do with it. It's just a ridiculous concept that a rating has anything to do with the QUALITY of a film.

  • They're just trying to make good, MODERN movies with a bunch of actors who worked most during that decade. Stop projecting your own ideas on to this movie and you might actually end up enjoying it.

  • .... doesn't deserve a response. Grow up and learn how to have an intelligent conversation people. However, telling anyone who disagrees with you to "shut the fuck up" is exactly what I'd expect from a person who can't understand why a movie they've never seen can't suck.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Fuckin' Chuck Norris...

    by Kyle

    What a bag of douches he is. Hopefully he gets killed over and over again in the movie. This movie is going to suck now. I thought Ahhhnold had an actual role in the movie...Four days of shooting? Oh what's that? Four minutes of him in the movie? Fuck they shoulda just kicked Douche Norris to the curb and let Ahhhnold play his part. Not like Chuck Norris has ever done anything worth while anyways.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Why encourage 13-17-year-old kids to see this?

    by kevred

    Yeah, we all enjoyed this kind of crap when we were kids, but that doesn't mean it's good for us as kids. We (if we have any sense) know better now, and this may as well be R. It's tough. You give it a PG-13, and you're giving this kind of bone-headed glamorization of violence the official stamp of approval for kids, which it shouldn't get. But if you give it an R, the kids will find a way to see it anyway, and you'll be adding one more increasingly violent and profane movie to the mix. Damn you, internet. You're killing a whole generation's innocence.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 2:44 a.m. CST

    people still care about tits in movies?

    by CT1

    really? I mean with the internet, isn't that kind boring? I feel it would really take the audience out of the movie, theyll probably just start thinking about the sick hardcore porn they could be watching while their fat wives slumber and that would kind of like suspend their suspension of disbelief or some shit? This is a good move for this production, I mean The Dark Knight was rated PG13 too, and look at what a colossal stupendous success THAT was. Hollywood has its fingers right on the life-pulse of America, I think you can rest assured the final product will be of high quality and worth the gross "tonnage" of wealth "totally and utterly fucking WASTED" on what's sure to be a long-remembered oft-discussed contribution to the history of America.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Fuck You creepythinman!

    by phantomcreeps

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Point still missed JAKA: SETTING UP A STRAW MAN

    by judge dredds fresh undies

    Youre the idiot missing the point. And CT1 no one really cares about the nudity aspect unless there was an erotic romance at the core of this film which seems unlikely. Fact is this is not about the quality of the film, its about money, its a compromise for money. There is no artistic reason E2 should be PG-13 but here is for it to be R. That is why people are so pissed. Terry Crewes and Jaka's strawmen just make people even more frustrated. There is no way I will not see this movie but I will be very suprised if the final result does not feel like meal missing a crucial ingrediant.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 12:56 p.m. CST

    @Jaka, again, what if EX2 was filmed for PG or a G rating?

    by JediRob

    As stated a few times above? What if it was an amazing G rated movie? Who the hell would care? That would obviously take a strong concerted effort and to me that whole way of film making contradictory to what you're saying. I agree first priority it to make a good movie and the rating is not important. But that door has to swing both ways. If we're to take Chuck Norris' statement as fact, the script was written as an R rated film originally and then altered. To make a better movie? Or to satisfy some other agenda? You keep saying the same thing over and over and are ignoring all the excellent point a number of talkbackers have mentioned.

  • Are you really going to try to say that's not the case?

  • That was much the case with the first movie. The majority of us fell that it wasn't that great, but it delivered enough gratuitous stuff that we still had fun. Specifically that Terry Crews scene was the highlight that pretty much everybody agreed on. That moment is R rated. I wouldn't watch a car movie for the dialogue. I wouldn't watch a musical for the story. I don't watch kung fu movies for the layered social commentary or pornos for the set design.

  • As was the case with the first one. Most of us didn't think it was great, but it at least had a enough pretty fun gratuitous moments that made it fun. Specifically that Terry Crews scene. i think pretty much everybody agreed that was a highlight. That is an R rated moment. I wouldn't go to a muscle car move for the dialogue. Musicals don't have to have deep character. I don't watch kung fu movies for social commentary or pornos for set design. Certain genres come with built in expectations and priorities.

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 1:50 p.m. CST

    =Specifically that Terry Crews scene.=

    by KilliK

    yep.everyone in my theater applauded in that scene.THAT'S why you need R-rating in this kind of movies.To satisfy the dormant hunter instinct which is part of our human nature.

  • if you can't get an R out of an action flick - it's not much of an action flick then is it? So sad you sold out to the pg-13 kiddie market Sly.

  • jaka NEW RULE - you CAN'T hop on a pedestal and fault others for their arguments when you BLATANTLY IGNORE THE POINTS MADE BY OTHERS. ---All this talk about how it can't work for "this film" is ridiculous because NOBODY has seen this film. There is NO ARGUMENT for this FACT. If can't suck if you haven't seen it. Why is this so damn hard to understand?----- I'll REPEAT EXACTLY WHAT I SAID EARLIER - What we ARE saying is THIS movie will likely suck and be watered down as it will be hampered with an unnecessary PG-13 rating. AGAIN .... THIS movie will L I K E L Y suck and be watered down as it will be hampered with an unnecessary PG-13 rating. like·ly (lkl) adj. like·li·er, like·li·est 1. Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable: They are likely to become angry with him. 2. Within the realm of credibility; plausible: not a very likely excuse. ------------------------------------------------ As jedirob keep repeating the same things over and over and over and over ....but you are ignoring all the excellent points a number of us talkbackers have mentioned. I also asked WHAT IF THE MOVIE WAS RATED R, would you be in here crying and saying it SHOULD be PG-13?

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Who cares?

    by Biddlerama

    Forget watching geezers in overly choreographed slow mo action scenes. Go watch Haywire and see Gina Carano kick and punch a cast of A list actors into submission. This chick in one movie is more of an action star then those over the hill, over rated, overly priced jabones were in their respective careers (excluding Bruce, he rocks).

  • Jan. 22, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    lol *puts haywire on list to check out*


  • Jan. 23, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Chuck bashing idiots...

    by Ninja Nerd

    I would point out that the ONLY person in Expendables that is an actual martial artist and could still kick the ass of everyone ELSE in the movie is Chuck Norris. (Van Damme is technically the other martial artist in the film but never fought anyone like Bill Wallace...or Bruce Lee; just saying) I was trained by folks who were trained by Chuck and have met him. While he's a nice guy, I have no doubt he can still fight and quite well. Quit crying about the movie'll be fine and probably do a ton of business.

  • Jan. 23, 2012, 9:30 a.m. CST

    headbooter....stop talking out of your ass

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    ---I would point out that the ONLY person in Expendables that is an actual martial artist and could still kick the ass of everyone ELSE in the movie is Chuck Norris.---- Ummm...NO....Jet Li Chinese is a martial artist and a wushu champion. Let's not forget Stallone, Austin and Statham aren't guys anyone would necessarily mess with in real life. Crews played in the NFL for fuck's sakes. In Stallone's case, the dude has been doing his own stunts for years now...and he's suffered a million horrid injuries during his career.While shooting a scene with Austin on the 1st movie he broke his neck and needed the insertion of a metal fucking plate.

  • Jan. 23, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST

    PG-13 = Death of the film's tone

    by roger

    I think that if the first film was rated PG-13 it would have been poorly received. Just think about all the "artistic" scenes with the general/that whole sub plot. Is the sequel going to be just that? a bunch of "emotional" crap meshed together without any masculinity. Off screen deaths, and quick cutaways. No squibs. No CG blood. Just stupid cat and mouse tricks with no kicks. *One More Thing:Fuck Chuck*. All of this meme shit has made his ego out of control. I'm sure he had no part in this. It was the producers that neutered this.

  • Jan. 23, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    This movie will fail with a PG13 rating

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    And even it "succeeds" @ the box-office it will still FAIL. It will always be a neutered film that sold out it's core fans who supported the 1st one and were happy to support the entire franchise. Spiderman 3 "succeeded" as well. How much real fan love does that get?

  • Jan. 23, 2012, 2:58 p.m. CST

    True Grit

    by skoolbus

    The Coens' True Grit was PG-13, and somebody got shot in the face in that one.

  • Jan. 23, 2012, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Here's the problem

    by Nem_Wan

    The rating system is corrupted if it's being used for marketing. That's not what it was meant for. We need a new rating system that completely scrambles the rules, so that it's impossible to equate any of the new ratings with any of the old ratings, and so the studios ability to market with ratings is completely incapacitated until they've released enough films to re-learn what rating does what. And then the system should be scrambled again. I submit that the late 60s through the mid-80s were a great period for film partly because the ratings system was too new to be abused as it is now, and also because the absence of a PG-13 rating generally made things more interesting.

  • Jan. 25, 2012, 8:12 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    1) Jet Li is a Wu Shu champion, which is roughly equivalent to "combative gymnastics." He's not a fighter, primarily, by his own admission. 2) Norris was a superb point fighter, but never fought full contact professionally, and by his own admission has never had a street fight. 3) Dolf Lundgren was a Kyokushin-style (Mas Oyama) champion, of amazing strength and durability. Kyokushin matches are basically full-contact with no punching (but kicking) to the face. Brutal affairs. 4) Randy Couture is a UFC champion ## The question of who would walk out of a room if these four were locked in is an interesting one. Afraid I'd have to go with Couture, or perhaps Lundren. Don't see a way for Chuck to win.

  • Jan. 25, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    I though Temple was retroactively rated PG-13

    by bah

    I swear I remember it being on the theater marquee as PG-13 after the rating came out. IMDB still says PG though.

  • Jan. 25, 2012, 9:15 a.m. CST


    by fat_rancor_keeper

    I hear ya. That was my point toward headbooter, that Norris wasn't THE only genuine bad-ass in Expendables.

  • Jan. 25, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Stallone is a big pussy.

    by ethan

    He's obviously lost his influence around Hollywood. He fucked up with his INSTONE nutrition bullshit. So like any sell-out he's doing what the studio wants: cut it down to PG-13 THEN come out with an "EXCLUSIVE DIRECTORS CUT" six months later. Sly, retire already. FUCK YOU.

  • Jan. 26, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    I'm not going to repeat everything that has been said 100 times over on this talkback

    by AvadaKedavrainthearseohsnap

    about how this is a studio cash-grab (it is) and how they are toning it down for big Chuck-e (they are). But i will say this: this whole Chuck Norris fad wil end when Dolph Lundgren says so.

  • Jan. 26, 2012, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Fist in beard!!!

    by Alex Moore

    Chuck Norris is so tough, there's no chin under his beard, just another fist!

  • Feb. 1, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Harry - Ask Sly...

    by Sam Malone

    If he has really thought this through the next time you talk to him. Also, I'd like to know, will the theaters be giving out bottles of baby formula and jars of baby food to those seeing the movie? Is it true that the audience will get recordings of Chuck Norris reading the Bible and touting the quality of Depends? Tell Sly that we don't give a shit about seeing "emotions" we want to see a kick-ass R-rated action movie. What a waste. All those action greats and a PG-13 rating. Also, I'd like you to ask Sly, since he betrayed his fan base with this rating, is he now planning to do Rhinestone Cowboy 2 and Stop or my Momma will shoot - the return? What a joke.

  • Feb. 7, 2012, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Why do people always blame conservatives?

    by IronEagle74

    By my count, it's mostly conservatives who have been responsible for going to war. It's been mostly conservatives, or Republicans, who have made the best and bloodiest action stars in American film history. Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis are all Republicans or conservative-minded. I'm a conservative, my family was when I was growing up, and my parents took me to see lots of R-rated action movies. Maybe before some of you choose to use this mess to enhance your own political gain, you should stop to remember that maybe who you're referring to are the FAR RIGHT radicals, the Bible-thumping evangelists, who are against this sort of movie. The rest of, the majority of us conservatives, are in favor of R-rated action glory.

  • Feb. 13, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Rating may have been changed to R after all!!!

    by Wes_Reviews_

  • Feb. 17, 2012, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Wes Reviews

    by roger

    Given the generalized "interview" and the fact that the website you linked is a "build your own site" engine, I'm going to have to call out your bullshit. Wishing that Sly will man up and give us the R we want.