Filed under: Clearing the Air

'Terminator Salvation' MPAA Rating Bickering, New Photos and Trailer

I want an R-rating! Well, you can't have an R-rating!

Photo: Warner Bros. via Yahoo! Movies

Apparently while at WonderCon McG, director of the upcoming Terminator Salvation, got convention goers all riled up by saying a Warner Bros executive wanted him to edit his current cut of Terminator Salvation in hopes of a PG-13 rating as opposed to the certain R-rating the current cut would receive.

Peter at SlashFilm says the exec is referring to a topless shot of star Moon Bloodgood. Peter then goes on to say:

Having seen the footage myself, not in the context of the film or even scene, I will say this – it was beautifully and tastefully shot. I’m not sure if it furthers the story along (as I said, I did not see the shot in the context of the full scene), but it didn’t seem gratuitous at all.

Don't most people say "Playboy" is tasteful when compared to "Penthouse"? While I understand Pete's position in terms of not seeing it in context I have to say — without seeing the scene — no matter what it is gratuitous, just as I believe 98.1265% of all nudity in scripted films is gratuitous. I don't say this as a staunch advocate against nudity, but let's be real here, it is hardly ever necessary. You didn't see Arnold Schwarzenegger's full-frontal in the Terminator films because it wasn't necessary. Kristanna Loken didn't put her happy hats entirely on display in Terminator 3 because it wasn't necessary, and both those films were rated R.

I believe it was Eva Marie Saint in a DVD feature for North by Northwest where she says something to the effect of, "You saw them go into the room together. You didn't need to see anything happening because you knew what was going on." This is just the same as what's going on with Arnold and Kristanna, we didn't need to see Arnold's cock to know he was naked just as we didn't need to see Kristanna's breasts to realize she was naked. If you can cut out one thing and get a PG-13 rating instead of an R-rating I don't see a problem with the studio asking the director to remove it. However, I am a staunch advocate of giving directors as much freedom as possible — if not complete freedom — and if McG is as adamant about leaving it in as he seems based on Slash's report then leave it in there.

Of course, all the Terminator films to this point have been rated R without Arnold's dick or Kristanna's tits so go figure. I just wonder, will the violence in the new film still be on par with the earlier films, and society has simply become so desensitized to violence only nudity offends the censors now? I mean, we can't show a naked woman, but we can show a beheading and mice slitting throats in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and get away with a PG-rating. Someone please explain that one to me, it still has me baffled.

Photo: Warner Bros. via Yahoo! Movies

Now, with that behind us, I can point out some new posters and photos that have popped up over at Yahoo with new character posters and a nice dose of new images (examples are seen in this post) from the film all in preparation for a new trailer that will debut on Yahoo tomorrow, Monday, March 2, at 4 PM PST.

You can check out the complete gallery of images right here and I will have the new trailer for you once it's released tomorrow.

Terminator Salvation hits theaters on May 21, for more information on the film click here.

Related post categories: Clearing the Air :

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

I think it's been well documented in the past that you can pretty much dismember someone, piece by piece, with little issue; but let one person swear or show a breast and everyone loses their minds. I personally don't see the big deal, but studios gots to get their money so I'm sure they'll cut out whatever they need to to get 13 year olds in.

Terminator films SHOULD be R-Rated, and while the trailers and everything look good thus far I was really hoping they would go all out with this thing and not reel it in for a certain audience.

But it has been well documented as well that common sense isn't exactly prevalent in hollywood.

…That was a long-form way of saying I wouldn't mind seeing Moon Bloodgood topless, let's be honest here.

- Trevor
( March 1st, 2009 | 8:41 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

I think the whole thing is a smokescreen to hide the fact that McG doesnt really give a damn about the rating, and hes looking for a scapegoat, because he knows damn well that its going to be PG-13. If he acts like hes trying to put up a fight, then he wins some fanboy brownie points.

Lets face it, the guy knows what he shot…he knows that, apparently theres not a tons of graphic violence or profanity…so if a titty shot is the only thing that puts it into an R…then yeah, this is gonna be PG-13.

- ckybltz
( March 1st, 2009 | 8:50 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

Terminator Salvation should be R. The first 3 were R plus this looks dark. Moon's tits should not hurt it's audiance. Terminator has a strong fan base. It will stay strong with an R rating like The Matrix. Wake up Warner Bros. Keep it R!

- Gene
( March 2nd, 2009 | 12:05 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

FUUUUUUUUUUCK. I can't stand it when studios twist the director's arm to make what could be a faithful R rated action flick into a obviously toned down kiddie fest. Same thing happened to Die Hard. Let me say this, why would a teenagers see this when they all probably haven't even seen the others? I think this would make more money rated R, because then wouldn't it draw back the original fan base who enjoyed the originals?

- Tim
( March 2nd, 2009 | 1:57 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

@Tim: Would the original fan base REEEEALLY completely avoid the movie if it IS PG-13? And if they DO avoid it just because of that, then should they even be considered true fans? I think if they were true fans, they would still give it a fair chance.
More likely though, the original fan base probably doesn't even read the ratings anymore, and will go in and come out thinking that it was R like the others.

I agree with Brad. Nudity never usually NEEDS to be in films. No matter what, it's ALWAYS gonna feel gratuitous in some way. Read this quote from McG though:
"Sometimes, you want to say that the softness of the human flesh is one of the things we're fighting for. It's decidedly human and it's not like the machines."
Well why not just show her complete bare back then? I think that gets the point across enough.

- Chuck Bartowski
( March 2nd, 2009 | 2:43 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

Anddddd, it would be more tasteful and sensual and of course keep the film in the realm of a PG-13.

- Chuck Bartowski
( March 2nd, 2009 | 2:44 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

Trevor's got a good point there and it got me wondering:
Isn't this about a war? And the soldiers do not get killed in horrible way's? on camera off course. And no soldier uses profanity while being shot at or something?

Sure the level of violence needs to be pretty high before the MPAA reacts but still, this is not a simple shootout. It's a global war.

Only a nipple or two is the difference for this movie for 13 or R? I doubt it.

- rattler76
( March 2nd, 2009 | 6:30 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

all of us fans want a R rating. but ether way i will see it. but i really want it too be R lets see what happens with watchmen then we go from there

- kylec
( March 2nd, 2009 | 5:34 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

Forget the rating… I've got a better question – If Kyle Reese died in T1…how the heck does he turn into a teenager soldier in t4??

Beer for anyone who would answer that

- mihirkula
( March 21st, 2009 | 3:54 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

@mihirkula: Uhm, well, Kyle Reese is born sometime in the 2000s, he survives judgement day, and joins the resistance. Thus he is a teenaged soldier in the resistance come 2018.

In 2027, John Connor captures Skynet's time machine thingy, and sends back Kyle Reese into 1980-something.

You owe me a beer.

- PeterZeroOne
( March 23rd, 2009 | 7:45 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

^^ yeah but since Kyle is already sent back by Connor, and dies…according to the new timeline Kyle shouldn't have been born again at all ainnit?

Kyle impregnated Sarah Connor in T1 and died… the child turns out to be John Connor … years later, after Kyle and Sarah and dead, John Connor leads the resistance…and daddy Kyle pops up again as a TEENAGE SOLDIER?? WTF??

- mihirkula
( March 23rd, 2009 | 8:58 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

^^I'll try explaining this without hurting you ;D. The Kyle Reese that impregnates Sarah is NOT from her timeline. He was from the FUTURE. She bangs him, gets pregnate. John Conner is born. Along the way, Kyle Reese is born.(he does have to be born in order to go back in time) Then Judgement Day happens. Kyle Reese is a teenager and yes, John is older than him. The war ends and John sends Kyle BACK to the past to protect his mother and impregnate her so he can be born. Hard to wrap your head around but if you think about it, it does Make sense. And it's only make believe!!

Now about the article, it is true, society has become desensitized by violence. Look at some of the PG-13 movies and you notice that they just as much if not more violence than some of their R-rated counterparts. Maybe not as graphically, but if someone is getting beaten, stabbed, shot, or murdered, it's usually shown outright, not insinuated. The only difference? More time than not, the F-bomb is dropped only once, maybe twice if it's obscured. Language, frontal nudity, and sex scenes usually determine an R-rating. Critics aren't looking at how much violence is in a movie to give a rating anymore.
Don't be surprised if Salvation is PG-13, especially given how much Watchmen has dropped off in its sales what with how much it cost to make.(about $150 million) It's all about profit anymore, and if a movie has to be dumbed down to bring more people, it will be done…more times than not.

- DP Jacobs
( March 24th, 2009 | 5:24 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

I have a hunch Salvation WILL be dissapointing. Why? You cant make an end of the world apocalyptic movie where humans are being exterminated and make it PG-13. That is so stupid. They are trying to make a movie using an R rated plot and delute it using PG elements. That is like trying to do a hardcore porn movie rated R. It just doesent make sense and no one watching will be satisfied. I am tired of watching all these PG-13 mediocre movies where the action falls short because the studio doesent want to put any violence that could offend minors and hope they can fill all available seats in the theaters. I am a Terminator fan but because the studio decided to be a total wuss about MPAA rating, I will NOT go see this movie in the theater. I will wait until someone buys it on DVD and go see it at their house.

- Cisco P
( April 26th, 2009 | 8:44 pm )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!