MovieChat Forums > Rambo: Last Blood (2019) Discussion > Subtlety and visual poetry in a time of ...

Subtlety and visual poetry in a time of exposition and explicity

posted 6 years ago by Starman (412)
38 replies | jump to latest

To open up wholly new psychological vistas for the spectators this film would probably need to be PG13 in order to achieve subtlety with a violent subject matter, as that becomes the paradox of rating, very often dark and gritty story in a PG13 environment becomes even more pronounced and powerful than if it was Rated R, because it does not depend on the language, nudity or violence to make an impact, but conversely on the mood and subtlety of emotions towards all of this, human imagination is far more powerful when it has to make up for what is not seen and heard. Look at violent and war films in the black and white era of cinema, people didn't feel like it was not gritty because they didn't see lots of blood. A realism is about a grounded worldview, not a focus on gore. Some of the biggest horror and violent films of the first 60 years of cinema of the last century would ALL of them probably be regarded tame nowadays, what happened? Well, humans have lost relatablity towards subtlety. things that are gently touched on to make an unbelievable impact. Film is still a form to produce an imagination, it is all suspense of disbelief, we know it is not real, it's all pretending, I think it is time to go back to the core idea of what story-telling is about, and what purpose it's supposed to serve. How much is it supposed to feed you without you feeding your own imagination to finish the film in your own head? Is this why a lot less people read books?

Stallone and Morrell had a more daring unsual script for Rambo 5 that producers didn't allow, because it was less commercial and too different from the previous films that made money, it starts with the people going to see these films, it is the people who force the system to make decisons more based on profit than art, and definitely less demanding films in terms of subtlety and originality. To go take a risk with film funding, you have to first believe that audience is a lot more unpredictable.

With regards to subtlety towards violence, observe the bloodshed in PG13 war films like Nolan's Dunkirk or Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, a lot is achieved by the focus on people's emotions towards the act instead of the act itself, that is the difference between a video game and a story-telling film.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

People wont even read subtitles, never mind books.
You make a good point and I would be down for a pg13 version. It could still have all the suspense elements etc.
It wouldnt sell though. people would refuse on principle.
some people who are watching for the story / plot feel it wouldnt be fleshed out or "realistic" without swearing & violence.
the other 50% are morons who are watching purely for "gore"

[–] Starman (412) 6 years ago

I realize this might not be the right board for my post, as it's more of a statement about most uber-violent films in general, I'm just having this thought recently how far can we go in films, how far people can push the violence, films like Hostel was the furthest it could go probably, in a few decades Rated R would be rather standing for utter decadence, unless filmmakers turn it around and start using more imagination once again. But making this Rambo film, as the fifth film in the series old fashioned way, it would be quite a statement. If the film is great, it's going to be popular no mattter what rating anyway. It would have to stand on its own though, enough for the new younger generation to go see it, I know some franchises like Die Hard an Expedables used PG13 for their last films, but in my view it's not because of rating they were not as good, but the quality of films in general.

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Terminator 4 and 5 were PG-13 and look how that turned out.

PG-13 was created to allow a PG film to get away with a little more , now it’s just being used to dumb down an R rated film because PG-13 is more marketable

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

We should just scrap the PG13 rating. It's either PG or R. An adult / mature themed movie should be rated R even when it does not contain nudity or gore. It's the concept and the topic that can influence young minds. Of course, it's okay to have nudity and gore too in an R rated movie, who cares.

Then we need another rating for movies WITH nudity or gore but not have adult themes (like American Pie-style raunchy comedies, etc.) Maybe N (for Nudity) and V (for bloody and gory Violence) or something.

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

I personally don’t think we need PG-13, a four rating system is completely logical :

G - Appropriate for all audiences (although may have some material questionable for children, it’s still the parents responsibility to preview it and make sure that their kids are watching things that meet with their approval). It can get away with slapstick violence, and mild language like hell or damn. Films that would fall under this rating: your standard Disney film, Despicable Me, Home Alone, Star Wars, the original planet of the apes,

PG - as the name says parental guidance suggested as in parents need to supervise their young children if they choose to let them view it, this isn’t difficult. Films that would fall under this rating: The Dark knight, Indiana Jones, your standard James Bond movie, your standard Marvel movie, Jurassic Park Lord of the rings, etc.

R - Restricted as in inappropriate for children under 17. Children under 17 need a parent to see it in theaters and no parent should let a small child watch it. Depending on the maturity of the child a child 13 or up could probably handle it with adult supervision. Films that would fall under this rating: Rambo, Die Hard, your standard gangster film, Schindler’s List, One Flew Over the cuckoos nest, etc.

X - Reserved for films with completely over the top sexual scenes or violence. Films that would fall under this rating: wolf of Wall Street, human centipede, boogie nights, a clockwork orange, porn.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7515) 6 years ago

You do know X doesn't sell anymore, right?

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Which is why it is reserved for films that are overly violent or sexually explicit

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7515) 6 years ago

Yes. But my point is if Wolf of Wall Street were rated X it wouldn't have been successful. Also according to my dad who was 17 when it came out, A Clockwork Orange was rated X. The rating was changed later.

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

And it was still nominated for Best Picture so an X rating doesn’t automatically mean a film is going to be unsuccessful

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

The reason G doesn’t sell well is most people assume it’s a kids only film, the reason X doesn’t sell well is people assume it’s porn, if the rating system was reconfigured our perceptions would change

[–] doomydoomdoom (34) 6 years ago

You guys don't really understand some things.

(part one) First, there is no "X rating" anymore. There was one. It wasn't trademarked by the MPAA, resulting in porn and exploitation distributors self-applying the rating and exploiting it in advertising materials to try and get asses in seats. It was replaced by NC-17 in 1990 because ever since the 1972 porno explosion, the public associated X with porno and so an X-rated movie could not be advertised or distributed by a major studio. Newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, etc. refused to advertise X-rated films. Prior to that, from 1968 - 1972 approximately, an X rating was just fine, which is why A Clockwork Orange was nominated for an Oscar. That wouldn't and didn't happen after 1972. In the late 80s, film critics began demanding that the MPAA abolish the X rating and replace it with an "A" rating for "Adults Only" or something similar because well-received artistic films like 9 1/2 Weeks, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover were getting X ratings, forcing them to be cut to get them widely distributed. Horror and action films like Stallone's own Nighthawks and Cobra, Friday the 13th series, etc. were all rated X until they were edited to the MPAA's satisfaction. A notable exception was Scarface, which was rated X until Brian De Palma fought an appeals battle to make the MPAA re-rate it R with no cuts, which they did. George Romero released X-rated Dawn of the Dead without a rating, only a violence disclaimer in ads.

In response, the MPAA instituted NC-17. Video stores, retailers, movie theaters, TV networks etc. immediately responded by declaring that they would not rent, sell, show, or advertise NC-17-rated films. Major studios refused to legitimize the new rating, and NC-17 was immediately blacklisted, and its negative connotations ensue to this day. The MPAA uses NC-17 to strongarm filmmakers and distributors into censoring a film to their satisfaction to get an R.

[–] doomydoomdoom (34) 6 years ago

Second, the PG-13 rating is necessary. In 1968, when the rating system was instituted, there was no PG or PG-13, only M for Mature Audiences. Rosemary's Baby was released with an M rating that year. In 1970 M became GP for General Patronage. Feeling that this wasn't adequate enough a distinction and sounded the same as G for General Audiences, they changed it to PG for Parental Guidance Suggested in 1972. Violent and sexual films such as the James Bond series, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Jaws were rated PG. It wasn't uncommon to see nudity and violence and hear swearing in a PG-rated film in the 70s.

In the 80s, the violence factor was being upped in movies. After Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which featured a famous scene of a heart being ripped out of a guy's chest on-screen, parents and critics decided the PG rating was being too liberally applied. However, films such as Indiana Jones were not R-rated material. Just not suitable for 9 year olds either. Spielberg got on the phone with the MPAA and told them it was time for a responsible rating that would allow him and others to continue making films like Temple of Doom without the threat of backlash. PG-13 was instituted in 1984.

Does the MPAA rating system need an overhaul? Yes, desperately. I propose that only three ratings are needed: G for General Audiences, T for Teenage Audiences, and A for Adult Audiences. This would cover the gamut of film content and let filmmakers be free to make what they want. As it is, the system has too many nonsense ratings (what's the difference between G and PG these days?) and still has the untenable NC-17. Under my system, T would go to films like superhero franchises, Hunger Games, YA novel movies, etc. A would include R-rated films, James Bond (some Bonds have been cut to get a PG-13 here in the U.S.), adult superhero franchises like Deadpool, etc. as well as all films that would ordinarily be rated NC-17, only this time without the stigma. If you have a driver's license, you can get into an A-rated film without a parent or guardian.

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 6 years ago

Sorry but I don't buy that the PG-13 is necessary. Parental Guidance Suggested is pretty clear, parents should be in the room or preview the film first if they are going to let their children watch it that way they can either put certain things into perspective (like mild sexual dialogue) or fast forward through certain scenes that may be too violent or scary (like the priest removing the victim's heart). PG-13 was initially created to allow a film that would have been PG to get away with a little more without having to worry about getting an R-rating but now it's just being used to dumb down films that normally would have been rated R (Live Free or Die Hard, The Expendables 3, Terminator Genish!t). Temple of Doom, Jaws, Airplane fit perfectly under the PG rating as stated previous: PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED. I agree that there should be 4 different tiers:

- Tier 1 (I would call it a "G" rating) - It's fine for children to watch by themselves but it may not be completely clean, there may be a few elements that are a little edgy
- Tier 2 (I would call it a "PG" rating) - There are going to be things that parents may object to small children watching like blood, mild language, mild sexual dialogue or a few shots of nudity. Parents should preview it first or be in the room if small children are going to view it. This is the perfect rating for films like Jaws or Temple of Doom
- Tier 3 (I would call it an "R" rating) - Inappropriate for children under 17, children under 17 can't get in without a parent and parents should think long and hard if they are going to let their children watch it. It is definitely inappropriate for children under 13, children 13-17 should have parental guidance. Scarface with all of the swearing and blood that DePalma originally intended fits under this rating.
- Tier 4 (Call it "X", "NC-17", "M", "A", or whatever) - Typically films with overly sexual content or over the top graphic violence, children under 17 can't get in period or rent or buy it period. Boogie Nights, Cannibal Holocaust, A Clockwork Orange, the original cut of Robocop or The Wolf of Wall Street would fall under this

[–] FilmBuff (6857) 5 years ago

There is too large of a gap between your 2nd and 3rd tiers. If you can't see the difference between Jaws and The Lego Movie, well... Also, your notion that parents will be able to watch every movie their kids may want to see ahead of time, to make sure it's suitable for them, is absurd. Ratings exist so that such an impossible task is not necessary.

The way it is set up now is working fine.

[–] johnmiller (3605) 6 years ago

Uhhhh...no.

[–] Master (1494) 6 years ago

one of the worst things is a pg13 sequel in an R rated Franchise.

[–] Starman (412) 6 years ago

For me it is the exact opposite, each film in any franchise is supposed to be original, and not a copy of the previous film, the more different sequel is the more reason for it to exist, otherwise what's the point besides just making more money, studios want more of the same because they are scared of losing the money and fans of the original, that's why they push for more formula of the franchise, hardly taking risks, hence why they also tend to lower the rating, not for the sake of the story and originality, but for the reasons of more profit, the rating is supposed to be true to what the film and story requires, not the franchise, that's how studios think, including some fans who think they own the franchise as if it was one long film, or it's supposed to be more of the same. Problem why films are not more original is not only down to the influence of studios, but especially many toxic fans like this. And that's where lies the ultimate paradox.

Conan films are a good example for me, considering how the pg13 sequel was more popular worldwide and in my experience far superior for most people even today, the rating was appropriate as the nature of the story required it, as it was more fantasy like the comic books they were based on, they were for children from the very beginning. There's dozens of examples, especially outside Hollywood when filmmakers themselves opted for a different rating in the sequels, and not the studio.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

A PG-13 Rambo? Are you fucking high on drugs?

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

You probably didn't get what we've been discussing here all along, making a crucial point, are you staying imprisoned by the past? Then jump on the bandwagon of Hollywood machine funneling more of the same. Power to you.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Doesn't matter what you've been discussing, that's not the point. The point is a PG-13 Rambo film is a terrible idea.....period. No I'm not "staying imprisoned by the past"(whatever the fuck that means), I'm just using plain common sense and far too many R rated franchises have been ruined by that stupid rating. I don't want more of the same dude, I want a more mature adult film that's not made for kiddies LOL...WTF are you going on about? You can have an R film and be different, the rating itself is irrelevant......what does a rating have to do with being more original or unoriginal? I don't understand that logic.

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

What that has to do with being original? By having an EXPECTATION, by saying "I want", right there it is limiting the originality and what the film is meant to be. Discussed rating here is just an example of how people can be mind controlled, to react, to perpetuate the safety of archetypes and familiarity. I've been basically using rating as a decoy to make this point, because in essence none of it should matter in the face of original creation, whatever that may be.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

When it comes to originality....yes the rating doesn't matter but I'm not just talking about originality here, if you want more creative freedom of your content then the rating does become relevant in that context because the MPAA will only allow certain things in a PG-13 film....that rating does restrict creativity to a certain degree which can hurt a film's original vision/integrity of what it should be.....that's MY point. A Rambo film won't work with a PG-13 rating because: A. there has never been a PG Rambo and it would alienate long time fans so why even do that? Most 13 yr olds teens(and younger) these days don't even know who Rambo/Stallone was or even care to know so what audience would a PG-13 Rambo be made for?, B. Rambo has always been a violent and gritty world and a PG-13 would soften that world up and change the tone of the franchise drastically....these films are not meant for younger kids to begin with, C. A PG-13 Rambo is just a bad idea period LOL! Also, he's going after an ultra violent and savage Mexican drug cartel in this new film....how can you possibly make a PG-13 film dealing with that kind of heavy subject matter? Have you not seen or heard what these creeps actually do? I get a feeling this is going to be even more hardcore than Rambo 2008.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

No no and no. Ever hear the tale of Expendables 3?

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

Yes, a film that proves my point about the audience.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

There are great, dark, gritty and violent pg13 films but Rambo is a franchise where people expect blood and gore. Especially after the last one, you can't take that element away. People go to the collosuem to see blood shed not character development and and good script.

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

[–] Wuchak (8301) 5 years ago

People go to the collosuem to see blood shed not character development and and good script.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? "Rambo" (2008) had both, which made it the best Rambo flick since the first one; and arguably on par.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

You're right it can and should be both.

[–] sut6432 (2858) 5 years ago

Rambo being rated PG:13 is wrong. I will not watch a PG:13 Rambo film.

I still haven't watched Terminator: Salvation, Die Hard 4, or The Expendables 3 because they sold out for a PG:13 rating. I hate the "sellout" mentality.

Hopefully this doesn't happen. Rambo is an R rated film franchise. Don't ruin it.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

At least Sly admitted making Expendables 3 pg13 was a poor business decision.

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

This dude wants Rambo to be PG13...

Guarantee this kid was 1. Raised by women 2. Never worked out a day in his life 3. Has a small penis

[–] Master (1494) 5 years ago

no it doesn't it does need to be the last one though