I caught this on aintitcoolnews.
My fingers were crossed on this one. I was hoping for a chance Eddie Murphy would sidestep these kiddie movies he's been doing and give us an R-rated sex 'n' violence flick, the kind that made him a star in the '80s in the first place.
It was a dim and flickering hope, given that Brett Ratner was on board to direct, but a hope nonetheless.
Reading the quotes in the article... I think it's clear Leonard's guess is closer to reality, we'll get a PG-13 version of a BEVERLY HILLS COP movie.
Which is painful in its own way, because in the article Ratner is talking about introducing the BH franchise to younger kids, 10 and 12. I saw the first BH when I was about that age, in all its R-rated glory, and somehow I managed to survive intact. Why do we have to soften it up for this generation?
This shit concerns me on a deeper level. I believe art and culture -- and films are a big part of this -- are a reflection of the zeitgeist. Movies are the collective dreams of a society given form. In some ways, we're seeing some really sophisticated entertainment: compare the superhero movies of today versus the crap that was coming out in the '70s and '80s. On the other hand, why have we gotten so squeamish about sex and violence? Is it because there's more than enough in real life, and we want escapist entertainment? Or are we becoming weaker and more dilluted as time goes on?
Robert E. Howard's central thesis was the natural state of humanity is barbarism, because it is a closest to our purer selves. Attempts to civilize humanity only weaken us, leading to inevitable domination by the next generation of "barbarians."
And I buy into Neal Stephenson's idea that humanity didn't dominate this planet because we're the toughest animals in the jungle -- it's because we're the craziest. Now, put a pin in that idea, and take a look at what Hagakure tells us, that this world is just a dream.
Bringing us to the conclusion that this entire world is nothing but a collective dream about an insane asylum. Which means movies are the recorded ravings of the inmates, straight from the tap of our own craziness.
If our craziness is becoming softer and more sophisticated, does that mean we're heading down the road of weakness, waiting to be pushed aside by a more vibrant, "barbaric" group? Or are we already there?
Or maybe I'm reading way too much into the idea of a PG-13 BEVERLY HILLS COP IV.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Don't forget that what is PG13 now is far different than what it was 20 years ago. I remember people actually sticking to the rule of me having to show I was 17 in order to see Predator. Kids are standing in droves for that kind of flick now.
Very true. Some movies that were PG when we were growing up would likely be PG-13 or R now... the best example is probably JAWS.
As a sidebar, the only time I ever had to show proof of age to catch an R-rated movie was for THE FRIGHTENERS ... and I was 19 or 20 at the time.
The Frighteners was R rated??? That would be PG now.
Yep, and you have to wonder why. There's nothing worse in that movie than, say, THE RING.
Thought The frighteners was a comedy.
I'm just really happy to see you use the word "zeitgeist."
It's in my top 5 favorite words nowadays.
Here's the problem with PG-13: it all seems to depend on subject matter, who's directing, and star power. Alien vs. Predator 1 seemed wimpy and kind of non-violent due to the originals being based on the brutality of the Predators in their hunt and the danger of the aliens (which is easier to do when you see a guy shot one only to have acid spray him, his flesh melting off).
While it wasn't much of a Die Hard movie, Die Hard 4.0 was at least pretty hardcore in having Bruce Wilson get into some down and dirty fist fights and ram a woman with a car (and she didn't even have a gun on him, he was just tired of screwing around!), some nice explosions, etc. The original Die Hard didn't have much in the way of gore or blood except the basic glib on a guy (passable now, but they still didn't do it in 4.0 for some reason) and Willis having to step over glass and cut up his feet. Nor did they have nudity, except the incredibly awkward opening to 2, where a villain does kung fu in his hotel room in the nude. However, the lack of cursing really seemed off, since it was part of Willis' character (they should've had him say he tried to "quit" to get back with Holly and it became a habit). The cut off "Yippie Ki Ay motherfucker" really got to me, especially since it's in the unrated edition as well as the cut one.
I don't really remember many more PG-13 sequels/remakes except maybe Amityville Horror, but in that case the original was ok at best and the remake not much more interesting.
Oh, I forgot to mention my conclusion, and since we don't have any edit buttons, here: BHC4 will probably be pretty bad, since the old one was so raunchy and it depended on that time of comedy (plus the blood and violence) to make it what it was. In a way, the Hills Cop series is so linked with the 80s, it's almost impossible seeming to make a sequel to it not in that time. Or, at the least, it'd be a very difficult challenge to keep that glossy, yet crude, tone--I'm sure someone out there could do it, but probably not Ratner.
My opinion: it's all about money and marketing. Marketing to make money.
What's going to appeal, or be acceptable to the largest amount of people and therefore make the most money? Which is why there's even a Beverly Hills Cop sequel in the first place. Or an Indy IV, for that matter. *shudder*
That may seem like an overly simplistic approach, as there are always other factors, but as I see it, in the end it all comes down to profit and safe gambles.
Post a Comment