I've never played this Mass Effect game but from the youtube comments I have seen it Mass Effect does seem to be an influence on the costume designs.
I think I read somewhere that this will be a 2 and a half hour film. If the film is half as good as the trailer looks, then it needs to be even longer
On the Total Film website, there seems to be a struggle between getting it R Rated and PG 13 in the states. Which means it'll either be a 15 or 12A over here. Going by the trailer, I can't imagine this being PG 13. Even one of the film's screenwriters has gone on to say that he'll be surprised if this isn't R Rated.
Personally, even if it does end up being PG 13, I won't be too put off. The Dark Knight changed my opinion on what an adult PG 13 film can pull off. It's just i'm usually mostly worried about the thematic and dark restrictions that come with the PG 13 rating rather than the violence and swearing.
Either way, I can't see this disappointing anybody right now. Ridley looks to be on top of his game.
If they do not give this an R rating in the US, than I definitely will not go see it in the theater, will just wait for DVD.
Why? Will it be less visually beautiful because it's not rated-R? Will it not be a sequel to one of the most beloved film franchises of all time from the very director who started it because it's not R-rated?
That's fair enough I guess, but even if it does turn out to be a 12A (PG 13), then it can still be quite scary, just the gore won't be explicit. Though I get the impression from the trailer that Ridley is going more for spectacle and action rather than full out horror like he did with the first film.
EDIT - Maybe it's my ignorance on the way these things work, but why don't they just release two versions of the film simultaneously? A watered down version showing all over the world AND an R rated version showing in select cinemas at late night or something?
Is it? Where did you hear that? You mean like a toned down version for a cinema release and then a graphic version on a special edition DVD or something?
I think it was something to do with showing two versions to the producers and deciding which would be better, don't think it's on now for cinemas going by this bit from an interview with Scott on the rating, but it's apparently getting a director's cut version on the dvd release like he did with Kingdom of Heaven:
“The question is, do you go for the PG-13, [which] financially makes quite a difference, or do you go for what it should be, which is R? Essentially, it’s kinda R. It’s not just about the blood, it’s about ideas that are very stressful. I’m not an idiot, but I’ll do everything I can to get the most aggressive film I can.”
^ I thought that was what Scott was doing with this film? two versions.
The news I read was that when editing the film Scott built an R-rated version and a PG-13 version and he along with the producers will decide what version to release. It's also my understanding that he's done this with other films, too.
@ akatemple, So you're willing to not see those amazing visuals on the big screen because of the rating?
Well they should just release two versions at the same time at cinemas, imo. That way you still get your PG 13 audience and you don't risk, ahem, alienating spectators like akatemple who might potentially boycott it due to the watering down.
Either way, i'm almost convinced this can be high quality filmmaking, but if what the Bounceman said about Ridley being the one to make the final decision is true, then it is a bit disappointing that he wouldn't just take a fairly small risk and just release it the way he feels it should be released rather than thinking about the profit. With these big studio films it's essential to put as much of a a stamp on the piece as possible.
Last edited by The Prestige; 04-01-2012 at 05:31 PM.
Well they should just release two versions at the same time at cinemas, imo. That way you still get your PG 13 audience and you don't risk, ahem, alienating spectators like akatemple who might potentially boycott it due to the watering down.
Either way, i'm almost convinced this can be high quality filmmaking either way, but if what the Bounceman said about Ridley being the one to make the final decision is true, then it is a bit disappointing that he wouldn't just take a fairly small risk and just release it the way he feels it should be released rather than thinking about the profit. With these big studio films it's essential to put as much of a a stamp on the piece as possible.
The way I read the article (I think it was on /Film), it seemed like he does this frequently and he goes with the version he likes versus which one will make more money. Don't get on the man without understanding that several of his latest films have come out with R-ratings. I don't think he does it only thinking about profit. I'm sure he has the films best interest in mind otherwise he wouldn't consider an R-rating at all.
Linear Mode
