:eek: For real?
The Thing is the goriest and most violent movie I have ever seen. How can it not be an R? Hell, if the MPAA was doing their job, it would have been an X.
It was rated R. CalMeacham is arguing that the argument used to question the R rating for The Matrix could be used to question The Thing’s R rating.
That was my point. I honestly don’t understand the question. The Thing couldn’t have been rated anything but an R (there was no PG-13 when it was released, but even still, it’s gory beyond belief). The real question should be “Why wasn’t The Thing rated X?” because it’s that fucking gross and violent.
Two words: Blu-ray
Since discussion is continuing in this zombie thread I wanted to address this question, although I see Achernar hasn’t been active for years.
While the G rating is not strictly limited to movies aimed at children, I think it is so strongly perceived that way by the American public that filmmakers would want to avoid this rating if their movies are geared at grown-ups. This may be even more true now than it was in the past, as many recent Disney/Pixar films for family audiences (Lilo & Stitch, Up, Tangled, etc.) have been rated PG.
I have heard that the 1996 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma actually had a fleeting “damn” dubbed into the scene when Harriet Smith is menaced by vagabonds in order to avoid the dreaded G rating. There is no other profanity in the movie, no nudity, no sex, and no violence aside from the brief scene where Harriet is grabbed/shoved. But young children would probably be bored stiff by this movie, even if there is nothing their parents are likely to find objectionable.
I haven’t seen the 2005 adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, but it was also rated PG for “mild thematic elements”. It would be easy to make a G rated adaptation of this novel, so I can only assume that the filmmakers thought a PG rated movie would do better and threw in some non-G content.
For real? What other gory, violent movies have you seen that you thought were less so than The Thing?
Take a look at the movie again – all that gore and blood* was made-up gore from a made-up creature. That wasn’t even harmed by losing the blood, I might add.
When it’s totally imaginary blood from something that doesn’t even resemble a reakl creature, why would it be rated R for gore? That’s my question.
You ask; How can it NOT be rated R. I ask, in equal sol=emnity, Why SHOULD it be rated R?
If I made a film about a sentient evil water balloon that leaked, would it be rated R?
How about if it leaked red water?
You see my point?
*except for the de-handed Doc. Copperr and the two head shots, of course.
Well, is the blood red? Because the way Star Trek VI got around it was to (temporarily) make Klingon blood purple.
So my guess is that, the problem is that the blood resembles human blood, not that it comes from a human.
So? There’s enough blood and guys and viscera on display in The Thing to fill an elevator in The Overlook. Does it really matter that the thing being bloodied is a human-like alien instead of a human?
What does Blu-Ray have to do with anything? You know the post you quoted was from 2003, yes?
I have no idea why you posted this.
A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they post something random.
I swear you just said this. Weird.
CalMeacham is mocking this kind of argument as applied to the violence in The Matrix. Does that clear things up for people?
If he is, he’s doing a very poor job of it. The Matrix is nearly bloodless while body parts fly with abandon (quite literally) in The Thing. The two are not comparable, even if neither is particualrly realistic in its choice of vicitms.
And the posts are trolling anyway. Don’t take that stuff seriously, Urstupid.