Jump to content
Ocean

Constantine Rating at MPAA Site

Recommended Posts

I'm with Tom. It's not like they got the R rating first then decided to go all out with the blood and gore. They've been angling for a PG-13 all this time and just happened to be unfortunate enough to get lumbered with an R. It's still the same movie that it always was.

 

Even if they did fill it with gore, it wouldn't affect the base quality of the film either as entertainment (average) or as an adaptation (abominable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is because your depth of perception in this matter is stunted.

 

ie you are not going to see it so it does not matter to you.

 

But I suggest you go and see a PG13 "horror" film some time, then you'll understand.

That's harsh man.

 

I quite like The Ring and Sixth Sense. Both of which are PG13 "horror films".

 

Next!

 

So they are.

I tend to equate PG13 with 12, but it seems that sometimes they are 15.

 

I stand corrected on the "try and watch a PG13 horror film" thing.

Well done, you have removed one of my reservations about seeing this.

 

Of course, Ring had similarly buggered up the motivations from its source material - but mostly because the original Ring hardly had any !

 

I guess one of the factors that would have to be sacrificed for a PG13 is the "mature readers" material. Another is the slightly blasphemous motivations of our John Constantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Tom. It's not like they got the R rating first then decided to go all out with the blood and gore. They've been angling for a PG-13 all this time and just happened to be unfortunate enough to get lumbered with an R. It's still the same movie that it always was.

 

Even if they did fill it with gore, it wouldn't affect the base quality of the film either as entertainment (average) or as an adaptation (abominable).

 

The reasons for R ratings are hardly "gore" related.

Especially in this case.

"violence and demonic images" ?

Have they never seen Buffy ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I'm with Tom. It's not like they got the R rating first then decided to go all out with the blood and gore. They've been angling for a PG-13 all this time and just happened to be unfortunate enough to get lumbered with an R. It's still the same movie that it always was.

 

Even if they did fill it with gore, it wouldn't affect the base quality of the film either as entertainment (average) or as an adaptation (abominable).

 

The reasons for R ratings are hardly "gore" related.

Especially in this case.

"violence and demonic images" ?

Have they never seen Buffy ?

 

R ratings mean nothing, Remember The Punisher and how bad it turn out? Don't belive the hype. This movie has crapfest written all over it and the bad reviews prove that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be clear, I am not equating "R" with good.

Merely saying that it would improve this film - partly *because* of the scenes we know were amended to try and downgrade it.

 

Also: The Punisher ? Not my scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a random selection of films with similar plot to Constanteen,

just goes to show, you can't trust them ratings people:

 

Angel Heart USA:R UK:18

Ninth Gate USA:R UK:15

Hellraiser: Inferno USA:R UK:18

Bedazzled USA:PG-13 UK:12

The Devil Rides Out USA:G UK:PG

Little Nicky USA:PG-13 UK:12

Dust Devil USA:R UK:18

Dogma USA:R UK:15

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey USA:PG UK:PG

Devil's Advocate USA:R UK:18

The End of Days USA:R UK:18

Spawn USA:PG-13 UK:12

Spawn (director's cut) USA:R UK:15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Also: The Punisher ? Not my scene.

 

 

I suggest you educate yourself with it then, because Constantine will be as watered down as The Punisher was.

 

R rating or now, the movie looks like crap and we have to thank Keanu for that, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spiderlegs

I don't blame Keanu for the direction this film took. He was cast in the role because WB wanted a "star" for the lead. That's just typical Hollywood. The people to blame for this ghastly blunder of celluloid are the producers, director, and those at WB who signed off on the direction of this film. I believe that Keanu wanted to portray the character of John accurately--I really do--he just is not capable of doing so. But he didn't write the script, and he didn't direct or produce the film. He is merely an unwitting accomplice in this crime against comics, the forementioned ringleaders should be strung up from the highest branch of the tallest tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Can they change the movie and resubmit it, again? Or is there too little time?

 

I guess if they can, they'll pump up the movie with more violence and gore and accept the R rating, because they cannot risk toning it down and getting R for the third time. But I'm not sure they even have that option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Tom. It's not like they got the R rating first then decided to go all out with the blood and gore. They've been angling for a PG-13 all this time and just happened to be unfortunate enough to get lumbered with an R. It's still the same movie that it always was.

 

 

 

R ratings mean nothing, Remember The Punisher and how bad it turn out? Don't belive the hype. This movie has crapfest written all over it and the bad reviews prove that.

 

All you hear for months is - "is it R and if it's not they watered it down. " Now that it's probably R you all find some new angle to slash the film BECAUSE it's getting an R. Another case of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

And about those supposed bad reviews - from what I read there were three -- and they all had reactions to Keanue (stereotypical reaction to him from people who don't even watch his films) and the character being an unlikable prick. Most if not all still had praise for the film. And many of those have never even read the comic, so remember what kind of people who see a sneak and rush to get their "exclusive voices" heard online . They are not the general audience, or even the general fan. I've been to the test screenings and the film got a great response everytime. Even applause at the end. So who do you believe?

 

It's not the comic, and I'm sorry for that, but it's a good film none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not all one person, Tears. You'll notice that at least some of the people who've been complaining that this film SHOULD be an R have posted here expressing relief and satisfaction that it now apparently is one.

 

Others of us have never cared what rating the film is, and honestly don't care now. I wouldn't go to see this film if it wasn't based on Hellblazer, because I'm not generally fond of the type of film this is being marketed as. As a fan of Hellblazer, I see no reason to go and see a film I wouldn't watch otherwise, purely in order to be annoyed by the fact that, as you say, it isn't particularly closely-related to the comic, in theme or content.

 

Is that so difficult to understand? Try to avoid tarring all of us with the same brush. Please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't blame Keanu for the direction this film took. He was cast in the role because WB wanted a "star" for the lead. That's just typical Hollywood. The people to blame for this ghastly blunder of celluloid are the producers, director, and those at WB who signed off on the direction of this film. I believe that Keanu wanted to portray the character of John accurately--I really do--he just is not capable of doing so. But he didn't write the script, and he didn't direct or produce the film. He is merely an unwitting accomplice in this crime against comics, the forementioned ringleaders should be strung up from the highest branch of the tallest tree.

 

That's bullshit. Sorry, but if you hate or love the film (one you haven't seen yet) Keanu does have some responsibility for that. He chose the role and the film got made vbecause of him. He also had a hand in changing the character to the way he wanted to portray him - every star does - so saying he walked in with no opinion and no control and no influence and was just a pawn in the scheme of things is a clewar sign that you have no idea what the %^^ you're talking about. Keanu signed on BEFORE the director and chose him out of many many ones. I get a little sick of actors taking 12-20 mill salaries and claiming no responsibility to the failure but sucking up the success. Anyone who has reached the 10-20 mill level has HUGE influence on how a film gets made, esepcially one with a first time director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's bullshit.  Sorry, but if you hate or love the film (one you haven't seen yet) Keanu does have some responsibility for that.  He chose the role and the film got made vbecause of him.  He also had a hand in changing the character to the way he wanted to portray him.

 

I'm almost relieved to hear that. It puts a human face on most of the things I object to about this film, and said human face is that of one of my least favourite actors. Result! I get to hate Keanu Reeves for a reason other than his baffling lack of talent!

 

Boy, this reactionary hatred lark is easier than it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't blame Keanu for the direction this film took. He was cast in the role because WB wanted a "star" for the lead. That's just typical Hollywood. The people to blame for this ghastly blunder of celluloid are the producers, director, and those at WB who signed off on the direction of this film. I believe that Keanu wanted to portray the character of John accurately--I really do--he just is not capable of doing so. But he didn't write the script, and he didn't direct or produce the film. He is merely an unwitting accomplice in this crime against comics, the forementioned ringleaders should be strung up from the highest branch of the tallest tree.

 

That's bullshit. Sorry, but if you hate or love the film (one you haven't seen yet) Keanu does have some responsibility for that. He chose the role and the film got made vbecause of him. He also had a hand in changing the character to the way he wanted to portray him - every star does - so saying he walked in with no opinion and no control and no influence and was just a pawn in the scheme of things is a clewar sign that you have no idea what the %^^ you're talking about. Keanu signed on BEFORE the director and chose him out of many many ones. I get a little sick of actors taking 12-20 mill salaries and claiming no responsibility to the failure but sucking up the success. Anyone who has reached the 10-20 mill level has HUGE influence on how a film gets made, esepcially one with a first time director.

 

ooh did keanu offend you or somethin' I never heard him say that he had no resonsability in it. So what exactly was keanu's influence, TearsInRain?? Can you tell us a little. Just curious :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spiderlegs
That's bullshit.  Sorry, but if you hate or love the film (one you haven't seen yet) Keanu does have some responsibility for that.  He chose the role and the film got made vbecause of him.  He also had a hand in changing the character to the way he wanted to portray him - every star does - so saying he walked in with no opinion and no control and no influence and was just a pawn in the scheme of things is a clewar sign that you have no idea what the %^^ you're talking about.  Keanu signed on BEFORE the director and chose him out of many many ones.  I get a little sick of actors taking 12-20 mill salaries and claiming no responsibility to the failure but sucking up the success.  Anyone who has reached the 10-20 mill level has HUGE influence on how a film gets made, esepcially one with a first time director.

 

Well, gee, I sort of thought those types of things were beyond his realm of understanding. Are you sure it was him and not his agent or business manager (also known as the "guy pulling the strings") making those decisons. That implies some sort of active brain capacity, and...I gotta say, I don't see it. Of course, at least he has his apologists who post on message boards. Can't have too many of those when combatting a public relations nightmare. I'll wager your video collection has a bunch of Pauly Shore films in it. You're a Kevin Costner fan, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummm... i can't believe i'm saying this, but

 

jackNichPort.jpg

 

"Little people, why can't we all just get along?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and this is why I tend to stay out of this part of the forum. Who needs this shit?

 

I'm outta here. Enjoy the 'debate'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to get fond of TearsInRain. I hope he sticks around after Constantine is over and done with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R ratings mean nothing, Remember The Punisher and how bad it turn out? Don't belive the hype. This movie has crapfest written all over it and the bad reviews prove that.

 

All you hear for months is - "is it R and if it's not they watered it down. " Now that it's probably R you all find some new angle to slash the film BECAUSE it's getting an R. Another case of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

 

Now this is why you fucking annoy me so much.

 

Because you choose not to see the difference between the people who wanted an R and the people who are criticising it in spite of (ie not BECAUSE) it is an R.

 

"You All" are one person, Tears.

"We All" are legion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I think it's the difference between the qualities of Constantine as FILM and ADAPTATION which is the main problem. Making it an R isn't going to make the film any more faithful to the comics, so Tom's having none of it. An understandable attitude, but not one guaranteed to mesh well with the debates of people who've accepted that it'll be a shitty adaptation, but are still curious as to whether it'll be a decent (or at least tolerable) film.

 

I'm slightly more in Tom's camp, though, so I can't really lay claim to any kind of objectivity. If this film was nothing to do with Hellblazer, then based on the trailer and pre-release information put out so far I wouldn't have the slightest interest in seeing it (Keanu Reeves? CGI demons? Kid sidekick? Supernatural gadgetry? Over-use of coloured filters? No thanks...), and the unfaithful adaptation would just have me standing up in the cinema and shouting at the screen like a crazy person, so why should I put myself to the trouble?

 

I strongly disagree. The mood, tone, and subject matter has EVERYTHING to do with the R rating. Those on board with this film did not give way to the pressures from the producers of this film aiming for the PG 13 are to be highly commended for not getting swallowed up by the Hollywood machinery. There was immense pressure and guidelines to stay within PG13 parameters and lines were intentionally crossed. There became a point to MANY involved with this project where the subject matter and content became more important than the money. Afterall, That was why they signed on in the first place- BECUZ of the subject matter. Do "PG 13" films historically make more money- YES! However, are we going to tone this movie down to the point that it compromises the subject matter, mood and tone adapted from the comic source material? Why don't we change the mature subject content- suicide. Let's tone it down. What about the notion of hell itself- (tone that down). What about Angel Gabriel and her role as betrayer- (ohhh so unacceptable), what about God- How do we view him...... and the devil???? What about Constantine being the antihero- Mainstream audiences aren't ready for that. FUCK THAT if you're saying there is no difference between the R and the PG13. Actors, writers, and director went up against the $$$$$$ from the powers-of-be and challenged their projected earnings formula. This was no little endeavor especially during the reshoot process and the editing room where the intense pressure STILL remained for the almighty dollar. You Spiderlegs who talk so loosely don't know any SHITE of a difference behind the makings of this film and you continue to spout off as if you are in the know. The R rating represents a degree closer to remaining true to the source material and IN KEEPING with the comic- FOR MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY!!!!!!!!!! And Keanu is very much proud of being a part/player of that process.

 

 

Now this is why you fucking annoy me so much.

"You All" are one person, Tears.

"We All" are legion.

 

Legion my arse (as I chuckle at that comment thinking of the movie The Skulls (secret society) or perhaps- The Masons). You are no Spanish Armada nor a Sir Francis Drake so stand down soldier. Take a qualude and chill with Napolean in the corner.

 

ooh did keanu offend you or somethin' I never heard him say that he had no resonsability in it. So what exactly was keanu's influence, TearsInRain?? Can you tell us a little. Just curious

 

He heavily influenced keeping the R rating and NOT toning it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree.  The mood, tone, and subject matter has EVERYTHING to do with the R rating.  Those on board with this film did not give way to the pressures from the producers of this film aiming for the PG 13 are to be highly commended for not getting swallowed up by the Hollywood machinery....Why don't we change the mature subject content- suicide.  Let's tone it down.  What about the notion of hell itself-  (tone that down).  What about Angel Gabriel and her role as betrayer- (ohhh so unacceptable), what about God- How do we view him...... and the devil????  What about Constantine being the antihero- Mainstream audiences aren't ready for that.  FUCK THAT if you're saying there is no difference between the R and the PG13.

 

Interesting. You seem to want to make the producers out to be the villains of the piece, and list various elements of the script that would not be allowed in a PG-13 movie.

 

The same script that was rewritten by Constantine producer Akiva Goldsman.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I strongly disagree.  The mood, tone, and subject matter has EVERYTHING to do with the R rating.  Those on board with this film did not give way to the pressures from the producers of this film aiming for the PG 13 are to be highly commended for not getting swallowed up by the Hollywood machinery....Why don't we change the mature subject content- suicide.  Let's tone it down.  What about the notion of hell itself-  (tone that down).  What about Angel Gabriel and her role as betrayer- (ohhh so unacceptable), what about God- How do we view him...... and the devil????  What about Constantine being the antihero- Mainstream audiences aren't ready for that.  FUCK THAT if you're saying there is no difference between the R and the PG13.

 

Interesting. You seem to want to make the producers out to be the villains of the piece, and list various elements of the script that would not be allowed in a PG-13 movie.

 

The same script that was rewritten by Constantine producer Akiva Goldsman.

 

Thoughts?

 

Akiva is one player, albeit an important player- but one nonetheless. Akiva at least had the most knowledge in attempting to strike a balance between script and subject matter with rating. Not too successful eh?

If you dance close to the bucket of water with the source material, you may just get to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reeks of changing the horse midstream. They wanted it intense? Why did they fire months ago Lisa Gerrard for being too intense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R ratings mean nothing, Remember The Punisher and how bad it turn out? Don't belive the hype. This movie has crapfest written all over it and the bad reviews prove that.

 

All you hear for months is - "is it R and if it's not they watered it down. " Now that it's probably R you all find some new angle to slash the film BECAUSE it's getting an R. Another case of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

 

Now this is why you fucking annoy me so much.

 

Because you choose not to see the difference between the people who wanted an R and the people who are criticising it in spite of (ie not BECAUSE) it is an R.

 

"You All" are one person, Tears.

"We All" are legion.

 

Fair enough. So which side are you on again? The one that doesn't care if it's R or one who wants it R but doesn't care about the POS the film obviously is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...