NOOOO!!!(terminator)

[PH3AR]

I just saw the new trailer for Terminator:Salvation and it said it was PG-13 i know there were other threads saying it may be but now its offcial i am really sad and i dont even know if i want to see this movie anymore!

[ScarredLungs]

It is not going to be a terrible movie due to the fact it is PG-13.

[funnymanbing]

Originally Posted by cvm

It is not going to be a terrible movie due to the fact it is PG-13.

Yeah, but it's Terminator. It should be rated R. I'll pass.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by funnymanbing

Yeah, but it's Terminator. It should be rated R. I'll pass.

Why should it be rated R? The original certainly wouldn't be R today.

I'd rather they just make the best movie possible, rather than simply adding in additional foul language, gore, and gratuitous nudity just to pad the film up for an R rating. Who cares what the rating is.

[Filmmaker85]

Yeah I kind of see how this could effect a movie. Look at the latest Die Hard. It was rated PG-13 and in my opinion was probably the worst out of the four films. The only reason a studio wants a PG-13 rating is so they can increase the audiences demographic and boost revenue. It's sad. I will still see Salvation but will it have the same effect as T1 or T2 I don't know.

[dgator783]

I agree, Terminator 1 or 2, shouldnt be rated R....if an R, a very light R....In Terminator 1, you actually do not see people getting shot until the terminator enters the police station and still very little blood. Arnolds naked frame and some language got that an R, not the violence....and the same with 2....not the violence.....Salvation will be fine, its not like the Terminator or J. COnner is gonna say "Yippe KYIA Mother Fu*ker" every other line....

[steve_99101]

i had a bad feeling about this movie in the 1st place. this is it for me. i will pass.

for those that don't know this is the same guy who directed Charlie's Angels

[funnymanbing]

Originally Posted by Beast

Why should it be rated R? The original certainly wouldn't be R today.

I'd rather they just make the best movie possible, rather than simply adding in additional foul language, gore, and gratuitous nudity just to pad the film up for an R rating. Who cares what the rating is.

I agree that they should make the best movie possible, but studios want movies to be PG-13 just so teenagers can go see it. I think Terminator is a movie that should be rated R, so if anything they are cutting stuff to snag a PG-13 rating, not adding gratuitously for an R. Just a personal opinion.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by funnymanbing

I agree that they should make the best movie possible, but studios want movies to be PG-13 just so teenagers can go see it. I think Terminator is a movie that should be rated R, so if anything they are cutting stuff to snag a PG-13 rating, not adding gratuitously for an R. Just a personal opinion.

Which makes perfect sense. After all, the rating system isn't as strict as it used to be.

The film doesn't need to be Rated R, and you have no clue if anything was cut to get a PG-13.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by steve_99101

i had a bad feeling about this movie in the 1st place. this is it for me. i will pass.

for those that don't know this is the same guy who directed Charlie's Angels

seriously? i mean that's your opinion so whatev, but give the guy a break. i certainly respect him for trying to branch out and try different things instead of staying with charlies angles-type movies. christian bale obviously saw something in him and that aside i dont see how it's so hard to give this guy at the very least a chance. as for the rating, i'm sorry but a movie is not made by it's rating. the story and the acting are what really counts imo--not the amount of violence/nudity/profanity/etc--and whatever rating is slapped on as a result is trivial to me. who...cares...what it's rated

[Galactus]

Dark Knight was PG-13 and it was great so grow up and quit b!tchin' about it.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Blu Blood

Dark Knight was PG-13 and it was great so grow up and quit b!tchin' about it.

Well... it wasn't great. But Terminator IV certainly can with the same rating.

[brettallica]

I'd never see or not see a movie because of its rating (unless it was rated X ). To me, I don't really even ever look at the rating; I usually don't even know what a movie's rating is if someone asks me.

To each his/her own, I guess. Bring on the newest Terminator, I say!

[funnymanbing]

On a side note, I do think that the ratings system is funny. A guy can blow somebody's head off or blow up a government building and it's PG-13, but if anybody drops a couple 'F' bombs it's an R.

[OrlandoEastwood]

I had called the MPAA back when this whole PG-13 bull came about. The rating for Terminator Salvation was not listed on their website so I wanted to know the truth and I called them and they confirmed it; PG-13 for Sci-Fi Violence and Some Language.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Beast

Well... it wasn't great. But Terminator IV certainly can with the same rating.

*sigh* I ment it was a success.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Beast

Why should it be rated R? The original certainly wouldn't be R today.

I'd rather they just make the best movie possible, rather than simply adding in additional foul language, gore, and gratuitous nudity just to pad the film up for an R rating. Who cares what the rating is.

This is the terminator. I don't expect gratuitous nudity but I DO expect language and gore, just like Die Hard. Otherwise, it just feels like the movie is holding back the whole time.

There is a certain realistic freedom that comes with an R rating. It's not worrying about barriers.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

seriously? i mean that's your opinion so whatev, but give the guy a break. i certainly respect him for trying to branch out and try different things instead of staying with charlies angles-type movies. christian bale obviously saw something in him and that aside i dont see how it's so hard to give this guy at the very least a chance. as for the rating, i'm sorry but a movie is not made by it's rating. the story and the acting are what really counts imo--not the amount of violence/nudity/profanity/etc--and whatever rating is slapped on as a result is trivial to me. who...cares...what it's rated

While I agree, Terminator and Terminator 2 were great, at least in part, because of the over-the-top and unforgiving deaths scenes. This means no hearts getting ripped out and very limited gore effects (like what was in the preview showing the chest cavity of the terminator all bloody). Regardless as I said, I agree. I still have very high hopes for this movie. It would have just been nice to know that we'd be seeing some more terminators ripping humans apart. Whatever....

[Astalder]

Having watched the Sarah Connor chronicles there is absolutely no good reason this movie needs to be R, the studio would be moronic to intentionally make it so just to satisfy these crazy people that think if an 80's movie was R the 00's version should be.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker85

Yeah I kind of see how this could effect a movie. Look at the latest Die Hard. It was rated PG-13 and in my opinion was probably the worst out of the four films. The only reason a studio wants a PG-13 rating is so they can increase the audiences demographic and boost revenue. It's sad. I will still see Salvation but will it have the same effect as T1 or T2 I don't know.

That is where you were wrong. The last Die Hard was better then the second and was a solid action movie. People don't realize action movies with loud explosions, high tech special effects, and a good story can be PG-13.
R rating means gore and a lot swearing. Ask yourself does the Terminator need to have a ton of swearing and gore? No. People have to quit their *****ing about PG-13 it is a tired arguement. Rated R is for horror movies.