# Gorehounds, AVP (Unrated Director's Cut) due November with 14 more minutes...



## frankthedm (Aug 5, 2004)

original name*Send the kids, save your money gorehounds, Alien Vs. Preadator is PG-13
*

link below


A very bad sign from the TV trailer. If you had hoped the ratings delay was fighting off NC-17 for gore, prepare for disapointment, they were wussifying the movie down to a family flick. It looks like the studio wants to make as much as possible on opening weekend.


----------



## KenM (Aug 5, 2004)

They'll put out the "extreme gore DVD edtion" when it comes out on DVD to make everyone hapy.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 5, 2004)

Did you know that this year has seen a shift in the ratings?  What was NC-17 a few years ago has been getting PG-13 this year, or at leat that is what was reported on one of the news channels.  

So, don't be so sure of that rating.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 5, 2004)

I thought NC-17 was the rating only given to porn, and that movies with too much violence were rated R.

That said, this is disappointing, but I suppose not surprising.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

Oh no!  The movie is sure to suck because it's rated PG-13 instead of R!    Get a grip!


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Aug 5, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I thought NC-17 was the rating only given to porn, and that movies with too much violence were rated R.



No.  From bigscreen.com: 



> NC-17 Signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of sexually-oriented language, and/or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or pornographic in terms of sex, language or violence.




While most NC-17 films seem to be rated so for sexual content, some movies get that rating for violence.  According to filmratings.com, "Evil Dead" was rated NC-17 in 1994 (must have been a re-release).


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Aug 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh no!  The movie is sure to suck because it's rated PG-13 instead of R!    Get a grip!



 You're absolutely right.  It's gonna suck because Paul W.S. Anderson's writing and directing it.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 5, 2004)

*re*

I just looked it up. I guess _Aliens_ and both Predators were rated R. I will have to read some reviews. I'll personally be disappointed if they have toned down the violence too much. Predators and Aliens are violent, warlike creatures that tear people apart. It will be kind of lame if the violence is glossed over. I personally liked seeing alien tails ripping through human chests and predators skinning and deboning humans.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 5, 2004)

I wonder if the aliens' razor-sharp tails will be replaced by walkie talkies.

/obligatory joke at Spielberg's expense.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

IIRC, and I do because I just rewatched them, the violence wasn't really all that in-your-face in either the Aliens or Predator movies.  I think the era in which they were made as well as the language has as much (or more) to do with their rating than the violence.

Of course, that's more true for the Alien movies than the Predator movies, which did show more bloody body parts, but I still think the idea of the movie as a PG-13 is totally doable without watering down the concept.


----------



## Sorren (Aug 5, 2004)

*sigh*

Please don't let this suck...


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 5, 2004)

Sorren said:
			
		

> Please don't let this suck...



Too late.

Things are pretty much going against it already (takes place in modern day, PG-13, some might say Paul W.S. Anderson, etc.)... I'd be surprised if anyone is expecting this to be good. (And for those that are... well, there's a certain point where a level of optimism becomes pathetic.)

I sure hope I'm wrong, though.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 5, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I thought NC-17 was the rating only given to porn, and that movies with too much violence were rated R.
> 
> That said, this is disappointing, but I suppose not surprising.




Not true.  Since the advent of the NC-17 rating (it's the newest one), Porn has generally been unrated.  Before NC-17, there were three ratings for porn X, XXX, and XXXXX.  These got nixed.

NC-17 is used for explicit material that the elite parents of Hollywood (the ratings group is just made up of some semi-random group of parents) believe should be prohibited from children watching, whether or not their parents would allow them to (implying that the parent is incompetent or misguided).

Some higher profile (translation: movies you may have heard of) NC-17 movies include:

Boondock Saints (original cut): Not even close to being sexually explicit (one bared breast for about 5 seconds).  Excellent movie.  I suggest everyone see this.

Clerks (original cut): Kevin Smith's original Jersey flick.  I've never seen the original cut...

Crash: Fictional documentary about people turned on by car crashes and death.  The sexual material (from what I've heard) is no greater than your standard Rated R fare, but the added deviance of the car crashes gives it an NC-17

Evil Dead: Cult classis.  Nowadays it's released as unrated.

Kalifornia (original rating): One of Brad Pitt's finest movies.

Kids: Now goes unrated.  Disturbing look at inner city youth drug and sex.  Not explicit, but as it dealt with underage actors and characters, got the NC-17 rating

L.I.E.: From what I hear, it's a very touching story.  But unfortunately for the producers, the touching story involves an aging homosexual pedophile and a young boy.

Monster's Ball (original cut): Big 2001 hit starring Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton

Rated X: Biopic with Emilio Estavez and ? Sheen.  It's the true story of two gentlemen opening a strip club and getting into the porn industry.  Probably explicit, but not exactly a porn, either.

Romper Stomper (original cut): Russel Crowe breakout movie about neo-nazi like gang behavior.

Trouble Everyday (never released in America, but I guarentee it would get an NC-17, also known as Gargoyle): I can't even describe this movie without sounding explicit.  It deals with sex and cannibalism.  I'll leave it at that.


----------



## reanjr (Aug 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> IIRC, and I do because I just rewatched them, the violence wasn't really all that in-your-face in either the Aliens or Predator movies.  I think the era in which they were made as well as the language has as much (or more) to do with their rating than the violence.
> 
> Of course, that's more true for the Alien movies than the Predator movies, which did show more bloody body parts, but I still think the idea of the movie as a PG-13 is totally doable without watering down the concept.




I agree.  The entire Alien line of movies could be release today as PG-13 movies if they cleaned up the language a little.  They might not even have to do that.  F___ is now considered PG-13 if it's used sparsely or comedically in good taste.


----------



## Krug (Aug 5, 2004)

The clip from Yahoo! movies is rather uninspiring: http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/alienvspredator.html

Looks and feels like a WWE fight.


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Aug 5, 2004)

It actually looks promising to me. I'm not expecting a great plot or anything, just a fun little movie to entertain me.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Aug 5, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Things are pretty much going against it already (takes place in modern day, PG-13, some might say Paul W.S. Anderson, etc.)...




More precisely, it's a violation of general franchise precepts on both sides of the family.

_Alien_ never got close to earth (and this, along with aliens having eyes -- windows to the soul, but alien killing machines don't have souls and therefore don't have windows to them -- and Ripley being promoted to god-emperor of the franchise when she had started off as a deep space trucker trying to get home for her daughter's birthday, is why the fourth film was so unacceptably bad).  Alien was always distant, remote, and cut off from any kind of outside help with resources being distressingly constrained (Cameron's giving Ripley unconstrained resources at the end of _Aliens_ was a lovely catharsis after having the dropship smash the APC early-on -- but the cutting of the nifty-cool sentry guns entirely from the original release?  To reduce the humans' resources even more and thus increase the pressure on them...).  AVP is set on earth where... we've got everything we need to nuke the heck out of everybody.

_Predator_ is drawn to the hottest parts of the earth the the most flash-point conflicts.  They step into the middle of brutal violence and beat down the winner to prove that they're even better than all that and a bag of chips -- it's not like they're going on interstellar surfing tours, you know?  But AVP is set in Ant-freakin'-arctica using imported game from another franchise that wasn't due to arrive on earth for several centuries (and probably the worst sequel its ever been my misfortune to see).

The only way I might be tempted to not despise the script is if, when the Predator temple is discovered under the ice, one explorer turns to another and says...
"It looks like a hunting lodge for rich wierdos"

to which the audience replies...
"But rich wierdos aren't in season!"

::Mr Kaze


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh no!  The movie is sure to suck because it's rated PG-13 instead of R!    Get a grip!



 No, it will suck in same manner of T3 -hollywood squeezing a franchise dry with a movie with a few scence of coolness-. Since I doubt AVP will have as high a end of movie kill ratio 



Spoiler



In T3 whole planet gets nuked despite all efforts 


AVP has to make up this with gore or a final scene of aliens overrunning planet earth as a Predator hunting park.{not spoiler, i only guess.] AVP might be a fine popcorn movie, but from what i have seen, things look worrysome. 

My post was directed at lovers of movie carnage, it was not saying AVP will suck BECAUSE of being PG-13, it was saying it might suck AND have little good gore to make up FOR that.

I will likely hit the cheap showing, i just have low expectations. A perfect ending {to ME} like T3 would make up for the rest o the crap.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 5, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Things are pretty much going against it already (takes place in modern day, PG-13, some might say Paul W.S. Anderson, etc.)... I'd be surprised if anyone is expecting this to be good.



I don't understand most of your complaints.  Takes place in modern day?  Hmm...  So do both _Predator_ movies.  PG-13?  Yeah, I don't like any PG-13 movies .  Paul Anderson; I liked _Event Horizon_ and the original _Mortal Kombat_ well enough -- _Mortal Kombat_ in particular took a profoundly silly concept from the source material and turned it into something watchable.  Plus, Anderson has been the consummate fan of both the _Alien_ and the _Predator_ franchises.  He's as likely to get it right as anyone else in Hollywood that would direct it.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 6, 2004)

I hope so. I've been dying to see an Aliens Vs. Predator movie for YEARS, now! I've heard about the possibilty of one since the mid-90's, so it's nice to see it finally materialize. Just hope it's good. :\ (And yeah, Alien 3 and 4 sucked hard).


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 6, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't understand most of your complaints.



I'm not asking you to. (And really, I couldn't care less if you do or don't.) Needless to say, JD, I don't expect to be seeing eye-to-eye with you on the subject of movies.


>



I see the removal of the icon still doesn't stop people from attempting! Can it. (Or at least, put in the effort to include one of those wicked-cool custom smilies you use...)


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 6, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm not asking you to. (And really, I couldn't care less if you do or don't.)



But isn't that the whole point of making a statement on a messageboard?  I care; I want to understand why present day is so egregious for instance (especially given the Predator movies, which were all present day timeframes.)


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> Needless to say, JD, I don't expect to be seeing eye-to-eye with you on the subject of movies.



Quite possible.  That doesn't mean I can't come to understand what you think about them.  After all, I don't always see eye to eye with Roger Ebert either, but I understand him (after reading enough reviews) so I can use his response to a movie to gauge what my own will be


			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> I see the removal of the icon still doesn't stop people from attempting! Can it. (Or at least, put in the effort to include one of those wicked-cool custom smilies you use...)



Ah,   We miss you so.  I didn't mean this as a rude gesture, though -- merely that I don't understand what makes an R rating so desirable, or what makes a PG-13 rating such an omen of impending disaster for this movie.  Plenty of my favorite movies are PG-13.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 6, 2004)

As reanjr said the NC-17 rating is just for porn, that's the perception however, so studios avoid it like the plague.



			
				reanjr said:
			
		

> Boondock Saints (original cut)




Where do you get this? Assuming it's possible that is.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I didn't mean this as a rude gesture, though -- merely that I don't understand what makes an R rating so desirable, or what makes a PG-13 rating such an omen of impending disaster for this movie.  Plenty of my favorite movies are PG-13.




R is so much cooler, all the cool kids say so!


----------



## Iron_Chef (Aug 8, 2004)

NC-17 is not for porn. NC-17 means the film is more extreme than an an "R" but it does not contain pornographic close-up penetration type scenes. Porn films are unrated or self-labeled as "X" or "XXX". To obtain any rating other than an "X/XXX" requires a distributor submit (and pay) the MPAA to screen (and most likely, impose censorship on) their film, as the MPAA owns the rights to use their "G/PG/R/NC-17" rating system, and films released without an MPAA rating often can't be distributed in theaters or advertised in newspapers. Most people confuse NC-17 with porn and therefore the rating is the "kiss of death" to distributors --- the rating is therefore a complete failure. And don't get me started on how the MPAA butchers the artistic vision of filmmakers and applies a doublestandard to independent films vs. studio films (an independent film will get a worse rating than a studio film with the exact same type of content every time).


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 12, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> To obtain any rating other than an "X/XXX" requires a distributor submit (and pay) the MPAA to screen .......
> 
> And don't get me started on how the MPAA butchers the artistic vision of filmmakers and applies a doublestandard to independent films vs. studio films (an independent film will get a worse rating than a studio film with the exact same type of content every time).




i thought it was more of the studios can keep submiting a film until a sympathetic panel of raters gives them the rating they want? {from what i heard south park kept resubmiting the movie [not to emtion addingw worse stuff]until they got an 'R'.

Crunch time is almost here, we will see how things go.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Aug 13, 2004)

Would you all consider this to be a Horror or Action movie?

Because I don't know that many "Horror" movies that were good with an R rating. I'm not judging, just predicting. 

I do know there's the exception, like Poltergeist.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 13, 2004)

Saw It. 

they had the right ideas, just could had use them better. I went to the edge  if my seat at a few points, felt let down at others. a mixed thumbs up.

Movie had many good ideas and special effects. however the execution in the movie could have been better. Also lead female was not mentally resolved/ strong willed enough for the role she was given.[aliens-Sigorny Weaver / T2 Linda hamilton she was not] Not as bad as many expected, but the flawed
deliveries did hurt it at times. I enjoyed several parts of it. I especially liked the early exploration parts- gave me that whole "at the mountains of madness" feeling.

As far as earning its PG-13, it did, not too much human gore, but there was a few sprays of glow stick juice and copious spendings of acid. The alien drones actually used thier tails



Spoiler



for implales and spewing acid when the tip was severed. Also aliens seem to learn to use thier internal acid once they become aware they have it


.

Pred's face has been changed to look less vaginal, while the Face_hugger_ 's mouth looks exacty like a vagina now.

Preds seem more bulky now.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 13, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Saw It.



I just got back an hour or so ago too.


			
				freankthedm said:
			
		

> they had the right ideas, just could had use them better. I went to the edge  if my seat at a few points, felt let down at others. a mixed thumbs up.



I agree.  Somehow the characters weren't quite as engaging as I'd hoped them to be, so I didn't care quite as much when they started biting it, with the exception of a few of the more major lead types.  _Alien_ did this better, as did _Predator_.  But other than that, it was much better than many have decided (in advance) than it could be.


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Movie had many good ideas and special effects. however the execution in the movie could have been better. Also lead female was not mentally resolved/ strong willed enough for the role she was given.[aliens-Sigorny Weaver / T2 Linda hamilton she was not] Not as bad as many expected, but the flawed deliveries did hurt it at times. I enjoyed several parts of it. I especially liked the early exploration parts- gave me that whole "at the mountains of madness" feeling.



Yep, yep, with you there.  I didn't think the lead was quite as engaging as Weaver, Schwarzeneggar, or even Danny Glover.  She was a discount action star, I suppose, and it shows.  She's just not quite charismatic enough.

Her performance is certainly workable; it didn't ruin the movie for me or anything like that, but it just wasn't quite enough to make the movie really scary because you really cared about her as much.  I did also get that mountains of madness vibe a lot; I remember thinking that specifically as they explored the first location in Antarctica a little.  Too bad they didn't make a little more out of that, actually.


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> As far as earning its PG-13, it did, not too much human gore, but there was a few sprays of glow stick juice and copious spendings of acid. The alien drones actually used thier tails
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, they'd cut away at the last second, and maybe show a _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ style spray of blood on the snow, and things like that.  And the language was significantly toned down from either _Predator_ or _Alien(s)_.


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Pred's face has been changed to look less vaginal, while the Face_hugger_ 's mouth looks exacty like a vagina now.



Heh.  Not that a bunch of nerdy D&D players have any idea what that looks like anyway, right?  


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Preds seem more bulky now.



Too much so.  These were the linebacker versions, apparently.  They lost some of their sleek gracefulness of the past.  It's really hard to imagine these guys climbing in the trees like the first one did.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 16, 2004)

*re*

Is it true that they had the face huggers impregnated a host and the alien burst out in 20 minutes growing to full size in less than an hour failing to follow the conventions of the previous films? I'm a real stickler for following previously set conventions, and this will really bother me. Difference between going to the movie theater and waiting for rental for myself.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 16, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Is it true that they had the face huggers impregnated a host and the alien burst out in 20 minutes growing to full size in less than an hour failing to follow the conventions of the previous films? I'm a real stickler for following previously set conventions, and this will really bother me. Difference between going to the movie theater and waiting for rental for myself.



Yeah, the gestational periods were kind of wonky. There were some that burst out and grew up too quickly and then there were a couple where the aliens seemed to take quite a bit longer. It was probably the largest continuity problem with the film. Still, I think the aliens were born and reached adulthood at about the same rate that they did in Alien IV.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Too much so. These were the linebacker versions, apparently. They lost some of their sleek gracefulness of the past. It's really hard to imagine these guys climbing in the trees like the first one did.



I got the distinct impression that these were young inexperienced predators who had yet to really develop their own style of hunting. They seemed to be relying on their size and their weapons more than their actual hunting prowess. I would assume that the one Arnold fought was far more accomplished.

Overall I was satisfied with the movie. Check your brain at the door, don't ask continuity questions, enjoy the fight and you should come out satisfied.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 29, 2005)

AVP - Alien Vs. Predator (Unrated Director's Cut) (2004)

List Price: 	  	$26.98
Price: 	  	$20.23 and eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details.
You Save: 	  	$6.75 (25%)

Availability: This item will be released on November 22, 2005. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives.


Edition: DVD

See more product details

Product Details

    * Starring: Sanaa Lathan, Raoul Bova, See more
    * Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
    * Encoding: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. This DVD will probably NOT be viewable in other countries. Read more about DVD formats.)
    * Format: Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby
    * Rated: Unrated
    * Studio: Fox Home Entertainme
    * DVD Release Date: November 22, 2005
    * Run Time: 115  [prevoiusly 101]
    * DVD Features:
          o Number of discs: 2


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Aug 30, 2005)

I wonder what's changed. This could certainly be a good thing.


----------

