I work at a movie theater and parents are trying to buy tickets for it for their kids and they are getting really pissed that it's rated R. Whining about how Hollywood is ruining their kids heroes boy it's gonna be awesome to see how many more parents are gonna get angry when Logan comes out
share[deleted]
Cinematic Wolverine has been around for 17 years... his fans are way over 21.
share^ also why can't the kids just watch The LEGO Batman Movie?
shareHonestly, I see why they're upset. The X-Men movies tended to be aimed towards family, even though a bit darker and grittier than most superhero movies. My little brother and I just finished watching the series, from starting last year. I'm 20, and he's 15, but we've been very sheltered most of our lives, lol.
Granted, now I watch Game of Thrones, so whatever gore or sex or whatever they put in this, I'll probably be fine with. I'll definitely see it, and looking forward to when it comes out in theaters or bluray.
But I'm somewhat concerned about how many kids will try to sneak in to see it, or watch it at home when it comes out. Or how it might change perceptions about the existing characters.
I mean, what do they really need to add to make it R-rated? There can be dark, gritty, violent PG-13 movies, as long as they don't cross certain lines.
Oh FFS
shareI'm glad they made a violent Wolverine movie. Getting tired of all those Marvel movies where no one ever dies.
shareIt's very vey violent. No kids!
shareWhy is violent "better"? Honest question, because most critics think 1939 was the best year for movies, and it was under the Hays Code. Everything would have been rated G today, and it relied on top notch writing and acting.
shareWolverine is a violent character, and in previous installments that had to be toned down to achieve a PG-13 rating. Violence doesn't necessarily make a movie better but it can if it serves the characters and the story better. I'm not sure where you get the idea about most critics thinking 1939 being the best year for movies. There have been loads of great movies made since then, many of them featuring violence.
shareThe critics I'm referring to are the pros who watched movies for decades and make it their obsession. I realize that there's a dedicated group of fans who really love violent movies, but this is comic book stuff, right? I can see why they'd try to make a movie that parents could bring their kids to. Catering to the dedicated group gets great reviews on movie boards -- that group tends to be quite vocal. But broadening the audience appeal brings in more bucks, and after all, it's a business.
shareAgain, I'm not sure what your source is for this "1939" is the best year of Cinema. Is this in some article you read? Violence in cinema far pre-dates "comic book movies." Ever hear of The Godfather, Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Alien, A Clockwork Orange, Seven, No Country For Old Men, and many many more. These movies are considered to be excellent to masterful. The only good movies I can remember from 1939 are Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Sure, these are "great" movies (I don't care for Gone With The Wind personally).
I could pick just about any year and name several great movies. 1992 brought us Dracula, Aladdin, A Few Good Men, Unforgiven, Last Of the Mohicans, Glenn Gary Glenn Ross, The Crying Game, Reservoir Dogs, My Cousin Vinny, A River Runs Through It, Chaplin, etc. That's a pretty great list there too.
As for commerciality, Deadpool changed the rules regarding comic book movies and an R rating. That movie made mega bucks ands studios are now much more receptive to the idea of R-rated comic book films. There are far many more people seeing these movies than a just a "dedicated group."
"Again, I'm not sure what your source is for this '1939' is the best year of Cinema." Okay:
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-01/entertainment/ca-223_1_greatest-year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/dvds-1939-the-best-year-f_b_86897.html
http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/07/12/the_unrivaled_year_for_moviemaking_1939/
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article.html?id=968558%7C955206
There are others, but it's been being said for decades now. Since you can't remember but three great movies from '39, you'll be enlightened by those articles.
I read the articles. It's mostly pretentious nonsense. In reality, there is no mythical "Greatest Movie Year of All Time" where its all downhill from there. There are plenty of great movies in any year, including 1992, which I mentioned in my previous post.
Also, it really has nothing to do with violence in films and whether a good movie can have violence.
Those were only some of the articles, but if I gave you more...and then more...and then more, you would only say the others were "pretentious nonsense," too. There are, often, great movies in any given year, but most critics I've read point to '39 as being the best overall year that Hollywood ever had. Perhaps if you were more familiar with more of the great movies of that era, you might agree. But if you tend toward comic books as source material, probably not. (I like MIB and RED, so comic books as source material aren't always a bad thing. But the end result is like a comic book -- not particularly challenging.)
BTW, I never said a good movie couldn't have violence. I just didn't understand why some people think a movie has to have a lot of R-rated violence in it to be good.
We do agree on GWTW, though -- that's a movie where you want to take most of the leading characters and knock their heads together!
The point of a CBM is to make a live action comic.
shareDon't trust critics. They're easily brought off, care more about politics than the film's merits and will base their reviews on stupid things like praising it simply for having a female lead or decrying it for having "too many guns" or complain about the race of the person firing the gun.
share[deleted]
Awesome if you have a psychological need to rebel against parents. Still living at home?
Yeah, Wolverine cuts people up with his claws. But mostly in a cartoonish and bloodless way, like a lot of comic and TV violence. For decades he was a character written primarily for kids, so I can see why parents might get annoyed that Fox has decided some established kids characters are now for adults only.
Would have been cool if they released a PG13 version in the theaters and you had the option of viewing the director's NC-17 cut at home, like a lot of movies have done. But we're in a world now where enough comics lovers have grown up and want to see their favorite characters get naked and bloody, so we get Deadpool and Logan.
That might actually have been a good idea. I'm trying to think of how much they would need to cut, but it definitely seems like it would have worked.
shareWolverine has been hyper violent from the start. I can tell you never read the comics.
shareYou meant watch the pg13 cut down version at home, right? :P
share