Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Robert Zemeckis' BEOWULF is gonna poke you in the eye, viking style!!!

Personally by LOTGA	Oct 25th, 2006 03:51:57 AM
I don't think they should do a PG-13 cut at all.
Probably not first...and.. by Big_Bubbaloola	Oct 25th, 2006 03:54:01 AM
what is Real D??? Probably a dumbass question but do we have them here in the UK?
"he's second only to cameron" by Big_Bubbaloola	Oct 25th, 2006 03:58:59 AM
Really????? I think i'll check out his back catalog on imdb before passing more comment on this!
NC17 Version? Yes please. by DOGSOUP	Oct 25th, 2006 04:00:29 AM
Mmmm Grendel.
Oh, this movie looks sick! by WONKABAR	Oct 25th, 2006 04:08:04 AM
In a good way. That Beowulf and Grendel was uh....kinda, well, I fell asleep. But Gaiman, Avary, Zemeckis, Glover, 3-D? Fuck, I'm game.
zemeckis? by BadMrWonka	Oct 25th, 2006 04:25:17 AM
that could be anything! it could be Roger Rabbit, or Castaway...Ilove the story, so I will see it...but I don't think he's gonna get such leeway from the general public...
Zemeckis - way overrated by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 25th, 2006 04:53:23 AM
The only great film he has made is Back to the Future. The rest are merely enjoyable films.
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Oct 25th, 2006 05:27:28 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
Hurry up Cameron!! by TraumReiter	Oct 25th, 2006 05:28:37 AM
"Coming 2017... the 146th movie using the (new) 3D technologie... AVATAR!!" Directed by the guy who did "Titanic" 20 years ago.
Still waiting for Jaws 19... by film_fanatic_in_the_original_bla ck_and_white	Oct 25th, 2006 05:53:44 AM
In amazing 3-D, however, I'm sure the shark will still look fake.
Good! by lionbiu	Oct 25th, 2006 05:53:55 AM
I hope we do get a NC-17 version, about time someone showed some balls.
Every movie should have an NC-17 version by godoffireinhell	Oct 25th, 2006 05:57:42 AM
seriously
Crispin Glover? by Spartacus Hughs	Oct 25th, 2006 06:00:50 AM
What was the bad blood between Zemeckis & Glover over BTTF II?
Crispin Glover... by film_fanatic_in_the_original_bla ck_and_white	Oct 25th, 2006 06:03:54 AM
Crispin wanted more money than Michael J. Fox for BTTF II & III. He also had way out there ideas for his character which neither Bob Gale or Zemeckis agreed with.
A Beowulf movie that. . . (spoiler alert) by Ingeld	Oct 25th, 2006 06:20:51 AM
has Grendel the bastard child of Hrothgar and Grendel's mother has such a profound misunderstanding of the original text that it is beyond redemption.
Lionbiu by Banky the Hack	Oct 25th, 2006 07:21:32 AM
You only want an NC-17 version so you can see balls? There are gay websites for that...
PG-13 and NC-17 versions? by BizarroJerry	Oct 25th, 2006 07:44:09 AM
What happened to an R rating? Lord, how much do you have to edit a NC-17 movie to get it to PG-13?? That's like going from an edited-for-television version of Basic Instinct to a version with full-on penetration and a close up of the leg-crossing scene...
There is no way in hell it gets a NC17 by PhilConnors	Oct 25th, 2006 07:57:34 AM
And no, Beowulf doesn't need a NC17, because there's no sex in it (at least the original story). Just violence, and you can get away with plenty of violence with an R rating.
Zakk Wylde was great by Skankardly	Oct 25th, 2006 08:09:58 AM
as Grendel
Beowulf is a great poem for adaptation. by rbatty024	Oct 25th, 2006 08:15:11 AM
Zemeckis seems like the perfect person to bring the English language's oldest classic to the big screen. As far as the NC-17 version, I'm sure that's just rumour. I'm hard pressed to believe any film can get NC-17 just on violence nowadays.
Meh- I'm a bit worn out by all the Viking-stylee stuff. by brycemonkey	Oct 25th, 2006 08:30:10 AM
What was the last good Viking movie? Exactly. That one with Tony Curtis being the only gay viking. And he still chopped balls! I hope this will be good but Zemeckis isn't my go to guy. And I agree all movies should have an NC-17 cut, even Disney movies. I know you perverts would snap up an NC-17 Little Mermaid...
NC-17 by DirkD13"	Oct 25th, 2006 09:09:18 AM
Why is that rating considered a box office death sentence?? Surely people must like going to watch a film where there are no kids in the theatre at all? It's the same as the 18 rating here, but there have been plenty of massively successful 18 rated movies. And R is a fucked-up rating too, kids just shouldn't be allowed to watch most of them, but can if accompanied by someone over 17. Zemeckis has been mediocre since Roger Rabbit.
But will it live up the the Lambert version? by StovetopStuffin'	Oct 25th, 2006 09:23:50 AM
Will this version of Beowulf live up to the awesomeness of the Christopher Lambert version. Yeah....that..uh..rocked. I mean, in the original story, they had nightvision goggles and a guillotine like a giant straight razor. Right? (Please note sarcasm.)
Still very much looking forward to this... by Childe Roland	Oct 25th, 2006 09:24:13 AM
...but if there ends up being a PG 13 version, I'd rather not know about it. I don't think it needs an NC-17 (seems to me the violence wouold have to be so outrageous under those circumstances as to be unbelievable), but a good hard R will give it the breathing room it needs.
NC-17 > * > PG-13 by scrivener	Oct 25th, 2006 09:48:30 AM
Here's the thing - now that I know an NC-17 version is even possible I won't bother seeing any PG-13 version of the movie. Ever. Give me the NC-17 version in total 3D and I'll be one hell of a happy camper.
if this gets NC-17, i'll see it 10 times on principle by triplefive	Oct 25th, 2006 09:55:03 AM
cant wait for this madness
Ingeld...about grendal by JackLint	Oct 25th, 2006 09:55:57 AM
It's a strange interpretation about the origin of Grendal, but it isn't uncommon. I have no idea where it started, but I have heard it referenced in multiple places. Even the shitty Christofer Lambert movie had it that way. It's not like the poem, but I wouldn't discount this movie for using it. In fact, I actually think it makes it a bit more interesting.
rbatty024 by scrivener	Oct 25th, 2006 09:57:12 AM
You really can't get away with much violence in an R rating any more. The MPAA gets more and more tightassed and hypocritical every year. Why do you think there is an Unrated version of just about every R-rated horror movie released in the last 10 years? Because they had to tone it down to get it into theatres.
Box Office Death by Flickerhead	Oct 25th, 2006 10:02:02 AM
Dirk, the NC-17 is considered box office death for several reasons: 1) Many chain theatres will not play NC-17 movies. 2) Many mainstream media outlets won't accept ads for NC-17 movies. 3) Blockbuster and Hollywood Video refuse to stock NC-17 movies. The rating severely limits a film's moneymaking potential. Now, what the fuck is "Real D"?
scrivener by Flickerhead	Oct 25th, 2006 10:04:45 AM
The whole "unrated version" phenomenon is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get teenagers to see a shitty movie a 2nd time. Filmmakers can get away with absurd amounts of violence in an R-rated movie.
scrivener, I'll tell you why... by JackLint	Oct 25th, 2006 10:07:19 AM
There's an unrated version of every horror movie in the last ten years because of DVD, pure and simple. It's a marketing ploy. Don't believe me? Look at the Exorcism of Emily Rose Unrated DVD, the unrated version had 3 extra minutes of courtroom scenes. The vew cut was not re-submitted to the MPAA, so it was technically unrated. So they put UNRATED really big on the cover, and everybody assumes it must be too extreme for theaters! It's bullshit. Seriously, I can't think of ANY "unrated" DVD thats even noticeably different. Even when it is legitimate, it's always juat an axtra frame or two, or a stray shot. You can get away with a LOT of violence with an R.
Real D....In-Three by Westonian	Oct 25th, 2006 10:10:29 AM
is one of the 2 new digital 3-d companys. The other being In-Three. In-three takes a normal 2-d peice of film and makes it 3-d using a process called demensionalizing. I'm not sure how Real D does it. Though I know In-three uses LCD shutter glasses and Real-D uses circularly poloarized glasses..or something. But heres the sites if you want to check them out. --------------http://www.reald .com/cinema.asp-------------ht tp://www.in-three.com/-------- -----Its kinda wierd Zemekis is going with Real D, since he is picture on the homepage of the In-Three site. George Lucas is using In-three for the 3-d star wars re-releases, and I'm pretty sure they are who Cameron is using for Avatar. I doubt it makes much of a difference. I'd have to see what they both look like before deciding which is better of course.
banky the hack by lionbiu	Oct 25th, 2006 10:43:38 AM
a gay joke.....how original rolls eyes.
I'm all for the NC-17, but no chance it's happening by YackBacker	Oct 25th, 2006 10:44:41 AM
They have a hard-time selling movie tickets as it is, do you think exhibitors are really going to cater to such a narrow demographic? It's about money, people. No way in Hell do we see a theatrical run for the hardcore BEOWULF. Sorry.
NC-17? What makes that better than R or PG-13? by anchorite	Oct 25th, 2006 11:45:44 AM
So there would be more gore? Is that it? I doubt that would make the heroic story any more appealing, unless you are a gore-hound. If they did indeed produce a very graphic product, wait a few months after the initial theatrical run. It'll no doubt be available on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Then you can get all the gore you want in 1080p. It's all about the money, after all, and the studios are not going to market an NC-17 theatrical run in wide release.
I'm with you on this, anchorite. by Childe Roland	Oct 25th, 2006 12:09:39 PM
In fact, I'll go a step further and say that the amount of gratuitous/excessive gore they'd need to come up with to acheive an NC-17 would be detrimental to the serious experience of the film. It would have to be so focal as to dominate the screen and would run the very real risk of being perceived as cartoonish. You'd be likely to have 17- and 18-year old boys going to this thing specifically to see that one really nasty scene, just because they can, and they'd shout "Oh, yeah!" like some crazed Kool-Aid Man every time the camera zoomed in on a severed, still pumping limb or some viking fucking an open wound on his downed opponent's torso. I think it would detract from the story, and with Gaiman and Avary involved, that's what has me interested in this movie.
How do you say? Ah....yes by playahatersball	Oct 25th, 2006 12:54:08 PM
will the, how do you say, Antonion Banderas be in this one as well? Will the entire third act be filmed in the dark without a single light to iluminate what the fuck is happening on screen? The only really cool thing about "13th Warrior" was how Mcternin stole his own device for having a foriegn language in an american movie for five minutes and then switiching over, ala "Red October".
seriously though, by playahatersball	Oct 25th, 2006 12:55:05 PM
this might be cool. I need to go back and re-read Beowulf before next summer.
Concerning the NC-17 rating. one word: Robocop by AnakinsDiapers	Oct 25th, 2006 01:15:56 PM
Some posters are assuming an NC-17 rating means excessive gore and what not. While that is definately a possibility, history has proven that it's more probable that the MPAA are just being asses again. Robocop was threatened with an NC-17 just for a couple of sequences: the extended "Murphy gets assed out" sequence, and more puzzling, a longer shot of the ED-209 firing on the hapless exec for like 10 more seconds. And it wasn't like the shot was of the exec being turned into hamburger close up. No, it was an extended close up shot of the ED firing. The director was pissed on having to cut that shot because it took away from the comedy of calling for a medic afterward. Let's not assume gore is simply the reason for an NC-17. It could be as inane as "we counted 35 limb removals, but our cut off point for making the R rating is 25".
An NC-17 rating?! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 25th, 2006 01:20:44 PM
Uh, I'm gonna have to say that's highly unlikely with Zemeckis at the helm.
I'm all in favor by Mechasheeva	Oct 25th, 2006 01:39:27 PM
of a hard R for Beowulf, but like others have said, an NC-17 would have to be pretty damn disgusting, and probably have some gratuitous nudity in there for good measure; stuff that would detract from the experience. However, a watered-down PG-13 Beowulf would probably be pretty bonk too.
That's a good point Anakin's Diapers, but... by Childe Roland	Oct 25th, 2006 01:40:02 PM
...Robocop came out a pretty long time ago. While the MPAA are still idiots, they have definitely become more permissive in terms of violence on the screen (unless it's sexual violence or, worse yet, just sex...because no one should ever see, talk or think about sex...ever, apparently). Just look at the Saw movies and Hostel. Or, before them, Se7en. No way Robocop would've encountered the same difficulties if released within the last five (possibly even ten) years. I'm not saying the MPAA has become more reasonable by any stretch. But their resistance on the violence front has been worn down (or most of them subscribe to a certain right-of-center world view that believes gratuitous violence is less offensive than the human body neaked...that's definitely a possibility). Either way, I think it's appropriate you cited Robocop, because -- while I loved that movie -- it used violence and gore to comic ends (that inherent danger I pointed out in my previous post about too much violence acheiving the opposite of the natural revulsion response and becoming entertaining for its own sake). In no way do I want Beowulf to be like Robocop.
Childe, are you kidding??? by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 25th, 2006 01:44:29 PM
Don't you want to hear Beowulf yell out, "Dick Jones! I work for DICK JONES!"???
The MPAA like to keep NC-17 so they can 'ban' by performingmonkey	Oct 25th, 2006 01:50:55 PM
They make sure it's the 'death knell' so they can slap it on something to either cause controversy or actually stop people from seeing it. They're fucking dicks. It's NOTHING to do with children, I promise you.
Beowulf and Grendel was just fine by Gwai Lo	Oct 25th, 2006 01:59:32 PM
Why do we need another adaptation again?
Fuck Yeah! by dirtsandwich	Oct 25th, 2006 02:39:53 PM
IMAX 3D NC-17 in your face. The new 3D is tits and I'm sure a feature length flic will be killer. Although Cameron is using HiDef or HD3D which is digital. A lot of the smaller movie theaters are going to hurt because they won't be able to see any of this shit unless they upgrade. If I had a movie theater and didn't have digital it would be useless to even show the 2d versions of Beowulf, Avatar, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D or the re-released versions of Kong, LOTR and Star Wars all in 3D.
NC-17 by Staldo	Oct 25th, 2006 03:21:21 PM
or the NC-17 could just be for the gruesome sight of a gigantic, naked ogre-mom with pedulous breasts.
My God, Robocop was so violent! Especially the scene... by anchorite	Oct 25th, 2006 03:33:00 PM
where Murphy gets shot up by the bad guys - the impetus for his being turned into Robocop. It was like The Wild Bunch x 1000. Peckinpah could have learned a thing or ten from Verhoeven. The ultra violence worked okay in Robocop and Starship Troopers, but would be terribly taxing on an important piece of literature like Beowulf. I don't want Beowulf to turn into a Uwe Boll production. Did anyone see BloodRayne? Do you want Beowulf to end up like THAT?
staldo... by anchorite	Oct 25th, 2006 03:35:17 PM
You said, "or the NC-17 could just be for the gruesome sight of a gigantic, naked ogre-mom with pedulous breasts." If that were the case, About Schmidt would have been NC-17. Do you remember the Kathy Bates nude scene?
Oy! i mention Robocop... by AnakinsDiapers	Oct 25th, 2006 04:27:11 PM
..as an example and my entire point gets lost within the movies' dark comedy and excessive violent content. That point being, actual gore is just the obvious thing the MPAA pounces on. The editing of the scene with the ED-209 wasn't a gorey part. The very IMPLICATION of excessive violence was cut out, thus almost hamstringing the comedy of the scene in the process. Robocop was dark satire. I'm not sure what beowulf is going for, but i'm sure every movie out there that is in danger of an NC-17 has to question whether cutting a certain scene will adversely affect the intent of that scene. In the Robocop example, the disired effect was comedic. All i'm saying is excessive gore is not only the easy answer, but often is the wrong one. The MPAA seeems to make arbitrary decisions as to what is appropriate based on how they are feeling at the time of their assessment, how they fell about the particular filmmaker, and whatever other kneejerk sensibility they are in the grips of. "Oh my, 20 entire seconds of that machine firing on that poor guy is just too much, cut it. what do you mean cutting it will ruin the punchline? how can anyone get comedy out of that? It's sick."
EVEN IF... by cornponious	Oct 25th, 2006 04:32:25 PM
it got an NC-17 (X) rating, it couldn't be bloodier than Braindead. And by the way, the ED-209 scene in the director's cut of ROBOCOP did feature more blood than the theatrical release. I know, I have the laserdisc. The scene that was cut out was a closeup of Mr. Kenney lying on the model of New Detroit being bombarded by bullets from ED-209. In the commentary, the effects guy says they sent somebody to the 7-11 around the corner to get the biggest zip-loc bags he could find, and they completely filled them with stage blood for the scene. It is quite gory, but nothing worth mentioning these days...
And another thing... by cornponious	Oct 25th, 2006 04:36:24 PM
It's also a well-known fact that all of Verhoeven's films originally were slapped with an X, or NC-17, rating, usually for violence. He had to edit all of them. The only one, of course, that was released with the rating it received was Showgirls. \/\/00+.
yeah, i have the criterion version.. by AnakinsDiapers	Oct 25th, 2006 04:58:57 PM
...uncut. The scene in question was a bit bloodier than the theatrical version. But the blood was not the big problem, it was the time the Ed-209 took shooting. I remember watching an expose of the MPAA on 20/20 years ago where that particular scene was broken down. The big problem was was the length of time spent on the ED as it shot. It was still a funny scene, but i can just imagine how even funnier it would have been in the theater if it would have been left alone.
Exactly what merits an NC-17 rating with this film? by Doc_Strange	Oct 25th, 2006 05:32:04 PM
Does Angelina's CG character do the nasty or what? Are there extensive shots with tits n' ass? Someone tell me please.
It's sad that by villifying NC-17... by rbatty024	Oct 25th, 2006 05:48:20 PM
the MPAA is actually letting more violence get to children. Because NC-17 is not a commercial option, films have slowly pushed the amount of violence in R films to Kill Bill and Passion of the Christ levels. Now an R-rated movie contains either large amounts of gore or someone saying the f-word twice, which makes it impossible for a parent to determine whether a movie is appropriate on the rating alone. The MPAA is doing the exact opposite of what they're supposed to: help parents make smart decisions.
umm... by PeteBogs	Oct 25th, 2006 06:14:47 PM
Zemeckis doing a film of the first ever long-form work of literature? somehow I think this deserves at least a Ridley Scott...
NC-17 for violence by dirtsandwich	Oct 25th, 2006 06:33:11 PM
They have already stated it will be violent. Unless Angelina has a scene rubbing her box or something. WOTW should of been at least a fucking "R" Mr. Spielberg. War is not a puss-downed "PG-13". Come on, Saving Ryan was an "R". So I want to see shit as how it would be in the real world. Fuck, it's only a 1 year difference. Make a it an "X".
JackLint (NC-17 should be easy for Beowulf) by scrivener	Oct 25th, 2006 07:32:39 PM
I understand that "Unrated" has become an overused marketting gimmick - but it's still acceptible practice to censor a movie to an R rating, knowing that the original cut can be released on DVD. It's hypocritical and retarded. Personally, I'd prefer NC-17 to R if for no other reason than no whiny bastard kids in my movie. Also, if any of you had read the story, you should already know how easy an NC-17 would be for this material. Arms ripped off, an entire mead-hall butchered... it's a very gory story in it's own right... so stop fucking bitching about how you "think" the movie would be too exploitative were it NC-17. It'd merely be ACCURATE. It would be impossible to do the story justice with a PG-13, and it'd be difficult to do it justice with an R. NC-17 merely means they're not going to censoring the original material or it's translation to the big screen. Deal with it and see the Nickelodeon cut if you've got a problem.
MPAA by Christopher3	Oct 25th, 2006 08:40:46 PM
Needs to be sent to Gitmo.
There SHOULD be an NC-17 version of every film. by FluffyUnbound	Oct 25th, 2006 09:04:15 PM
I would buy the NC-17 DVD of Mean Girls, for example. Existing version? Not so much.
no way nc-17 by occula	Oct 25th, 2006 10:14:45 PM
a zemeckis movie, nc-17? that is a hilarious concept. won't happen. however, the visual of a viking fucking an open wound is something i'd pay good money to see!
good point by Staldo	Oct 25th, 2006 10:23:34 PM
good point on Cathy Bates. Forgot about that one.
Robocop by Staldo	Oct 25th, 2006 10:40:17 PM
Robocops 1 & 2 were examples of those movies that went from good, to bad, to good again in my young mind. 1.good when I thought it was a straight up superhero movie when I was 7 2.bad when I thought it was a straight up superhero movie with lame characters and dumb dystopian future cliches. 3.good again when I realized it was supposed to be a parody. However it was blatant misinterpretation that led to the robocop series being made. Anybody can see that. The parody was lost.
James Cameron... by Rindain	Oct 25th, 2006 11:42:31 PM
Please please please make Avatar asap or you'll get your thunder stolen. Avatar needs to be the giant, mainstream coming out party for stereo/3D.
Gwai Lo.... White Ghost..... by Seph_J	Oct 25th, 2006 11:50:28 PM
.... Beowulf and Grendel was not 'just fine'.... it was very slow and...... a little...... boring...... and........ slow..........and........borin g..........and.........slow.
MCMLXXVI you are a dick. by Seph_J	Oct 25th, 2006 11:52:40 PM
The Michael Bay thing is old an tired. Stop embarassing yourself.
Beowulf and Grendel just plain sucked. by Westonian	Oct 26th, 2006 12:08:32 AM
That honestly might be the worst movie ive ever seen. The sex scenes alone were "what in THE hell" moments worthy of the worst movie ever.
I agree Rindain by dirtsandwich	Oct 26th, 2006 12:57:26 AM
But Beowulf is set for Nov 07, and Avatar is probably summer or later of 08. I've read the Scriptment for Avatar and the visuals will be the coolest shit our eyeballs have ever seen. But one good thing is any 3D films that come out before Avatar will get the ball rolling for the format and get the audience familar with it. And more digital theaters. Otherwise Avatar might not get the full chance it deserves. I don't think people realise what's around the corner with 3D. Yeah you have to wear glasses or even wireless/goggles but the affect is as 3D and real as your everyday sight. This ain't Mickey Mouse 3D anymore. This is serious shit. Go see Deep Sea 3D and picture a full length film like that. This will be the norm down the road. So even sappy romantic comedies will be filmed in HD3D. The next step/trick will be no glasses. They already have a 3D TV with no glasses and holograms are in the infancy.
The Day Walker.... by JoeyGladstone	Oct 26th, 2006 02:35:15 AM
Off topic, but has the IRS caught wesley snipes yet? Did I miss it?
Another Beowulf project by Droogie Alex	Oct 26th, 2006 03:11:01 AM
you know, there's a very high-end Beowulf operea that played in NY & LA to rave reviews. It may be re-mounted in the next year.
Erm by Ridge	Oct 26th, 2006 03:21:28 AM
"If any story called for it, it'd be BEOWULF. What do you folks think?" Erm... no, not really? Why would Beowulf 'call' for it exactly?
MPAA...you know.. by kuguy3000	Oct 26th, 2006 07:56:35 AM
For all the bitching and moaning and screeching about what an unfair, corrupt system the MPAA is.... the FACT is...for the most part they do a pretty good job with the ratings. Sometimes they slip, but I can't think of that many films that, while watching, thought "Gee, this film was most certainly rated incorrectly!" Give them some credit...
Zemeckis by kuguy3000	Oct 26th, 2006 08:01:32 AM
For my money, he's the second most commercially + creative director ever. Of course he's the Beard's student, but he's really made a great thing for himself. Love Back to the Future (all of 'em), LOVE Roger Rabbit to Death, loved that zombie Goldie Hawn/Meryl Streep flick, loved Gump, loved Contact, and loved Castaway. All wonderfully wonderful and flawed... but had more imagination and love than most. I'm excited about this new Beowulf. I almost loved Polar Express! ...almost...
I've read the work, scrivener. Many times. by Childe Roland	Oct 26th, 2006 09:04:09 AM
And there's nothing in there that couldn;t be done under today's version of an "R" rating. You can show lots and lots of decapitations under an R. The question becomes whether or not you take the camera through the cut and down the neck hole a'la "sword time" photography. Or whether you show someone using that severed arm to jack himself off. An NC-17 at this point would be a gimmick...something done exclusively for shock/marketing value to that loud subset of people who still seem to equate excessive cartoony gore with a superior cinematic experience. Nothing more.
It'll never happen. by Harry Weinstein	Oct 26th, 2006 09:35:32 AM
MPAA rules state that you can't have two versions of the same film with different ratings in theatrical release at the same time. Source - THE MOVIE RATINGS GAME by Stephen Farber. Informative read, that.
First long form work of literature? by CatoTheCensor	Oct 26th, 2006 09:52:57 AM
"the first ever long-form work of literature?" Uh, The Iliad predates it by about 1500 years. Not to mention the Epic of Gilgamesh. No one really knows when Beowulf was written. The manuscript is from the 10th century. Some assume that to be the century of the poem's origin, some propose dates as early as the 8th century. The Iliad is, uh, way way older than that. Way older. More time passed between the composition of the Iliad and the composition of Beowulf than between the composition of Beowulf and this film version.
No reason for NC-17 by CatoTheCensor	Oct 26th, 2006 09:59:50 AM
There is no sex in Beowulf. There is violence, but nothing extraordinary. The most violent act is Beowulf ripping Grendel's arm off. There is no swearing, unless you count Beowulf damning Unferth to hell in the flyting scene. People saying that NOTHING COULD BE COOLER than an NC-17 Beowulf clearly know nothing about Beowulf. cwaedon thaet he ware wyruld cyninge, monnum myldust ond monthwaerust, leodum lythost and leof geornost (excuse spelling, going from memory). "They say he was a worldly king: the mildest of men, the most courteous, kindest to his people, and most eager for fame." He is not some mindless killing machine.
Childe Roland by scrivener	Oct 26th, 2006 10:39:12 AM
You give the R rating way too much credit... although it would still be MUCH better than the PG13 alternative. Really, I a PG13 Beowulf would be aweful. So long as Zemeckis makes the movie well, and is happy with the product, who gives a flying fuck what rating the MPAA slaps it with? I've never seen Zemeckis make anything even remotely approaching exploitation, so if it's going to get an NC-17, well, then that's just the way it is. Stop bitching about it.
Wait a sec, wasn't Temple of Doom PG-13? by anchorite	Oct 26th, 2006 12:01:57 PM
Don't you remember the hart being ripped out of the guy while he was watching? How about all the other gross stuff in that movie - the bugs, the monkey brains and eyeballs being eaten... So if that makes it into PG-13 way back in the 1980's, don't you think they could manage to tell the story of Beowulf fantastically and keep it well under an NC-17 rating? I sure do. A piece of literature as time honored and important as Beowulf isn't served well by being treated as gore porn. Save that for the next Friday the 13th movie.
What's next, a XXX version of Milton's Paradise Lost? by anchorite	Oct 26th, 2006 12:02:57 PM
You guys are cracking me up.
Temple of Doom MADE the PG-13 rating happen... by Batutta	Oct 26th, 2006 12:21:22 PM
That movie and Gremlins got PG ratings and forced the MPAA to create a new rating when they were besieged by upset parents.
yes, arms ripped off, heads crushed.. by JackLint	Oct 26th, 2006 12:45:17 PM
do-able with R. Hey, if this story is true, than that's awesome. I'm not complaining at all. My only argument is that you don't have to water down OR exaggerate the source material, you can do it exactly right with an R rating. But the big thing is you never know. Remember when clerks was rated NC-17 for repeated use of the term "blow-job". Kevin Smith complained to the MPAA how insanely rediculous that was, and re-submitted it without chaing a FRAME of footage, they gave it an R. It's possible that whatever content is in this movie would hav gotten an R if it was a traditional live-action movie, but maybe the MPAA thinks it being CG makes it more inappropriate, giving it an NC-17. And yes, not having shitty kids in the theater is always a plus.
Snipes is in South Africa filming a flic. by dirtsandwich	Oct 26th, 2006 12:48:26 PM
I hope he comes back acting and dressed like he was is Demolition Man. We need another LA car chase busting heads live on TV.
I'm hardly bitching, scrivener. by Childe Roland	Oct 26th, 2006 12:49:52 PM
I just had to point out that you clearly didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed the movie couldn't be made faithful to the source material with less than an NC-17. I know it probably sounded like bithcing to you because you apparently would rather your opinions not get all obscured by facts, but what can you do?
Remember that episode of Full House where by Phalex	Oct 26th, 2006 03:51:33 PM
they got caught sneaking into a PG movie and got in trouble? It was awesome.
Namibia by playahatersball	Oct 26th, 2006 04:22:41 PM
- Snipes is filming a movie in Namibia- hardly the same country. And anchorite, batutta's right, the PG-13 rating was created in reaction to Gremlins and Temple of Doom, both of which were rated PG. I was one of those poor four year olds who went to see Gremlins in the theatre thinking it would be a cute childrens movie (as the Mcdonalds happy meals had us belive at the time). I cried through most of it, but wouldn't let my dad take me out. I just had to see how it ended- the power of cinema indeed.
Uncut DVD by Dersu	Oct 26th, 2006 05:16:47 PM
Where I live, I don't think there are any IMAX theatres. I hope the NC-17 version comes out on DVD. Any news on that?
There are 3 IMAX theaters, all about 1 hr away from me. by dirtsandwich	Oct 26th, 2006 05:36:21 PM
Go to http://www.imax.com and search your area. Search your area for a digital theater http://www.dlp.com/. Go to cinema then theater search, type in your zip.
Don't forget Poltergeist. by minderbinder	Oct 26th, 2006 05:39:52 PM
And supposedly Dragonslayer was a factor in PG-13 as well. I don't think there's any question that they're going easier on language and violence, but it's incredibly rare to see nudity in PG13 any more. Look at something like 16 candles that had a shower scene with full-on breasts. What was the last PG13 movie that had a topless shot? (at least one that wasn't in darkness or otherwise obscured) The last famous one I can think of is Titanic.
Great article Quint, but couldn´t find concept art by MasterKenobi	Oct 27th, 2006 07:35:42 AM
This film will be a bloody affair with a little sex if everything goes according to plan: "We went off to Mexico [Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary]together and wrote it as a sort of Dark Ages Trainspotting, filled with mead and blood and madness,..." And this is even better: "I wrote the script six years ago, and it is based off the whole poem... It will be the story you read in high school, filled with bravery, need, sex and lots of fun spanning from Beowulf battling Grendel to 50 years later when he sets out to kill the dragon that attacks his people. Robert [Zemeckis] really wanted to do something more adult after The Polar Express and this is it." That´s why it will be NC17! Neil Gaimans own words. Sounds good to me, and I don´t care if it´s not based on the poem. Bring on Angelina, bring on man slaughter and dragon slaying and a little mead. Niiiiice. I have read it, and yes there is no need for NC17 if they gonna make it exactly like the poem, but since when did Hollywood, or any other fimmaker in history follow a work of literature from first to last word? It´s like 300, it´s based on an historical battle, but has not much to do with real history. The real fun will beging when people start crying about why the film is so different from the sacred source material. It will be Tolkien purists vs LOTR film fans all over again.

Talkbacks

Robert Zemeckis' BEOWULF is gonna poke you in the eye, viking style!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks