Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... - Page 18

Starkers · February 13 2013, 10:06 PM

Oh you're kidding?!

shite...

Shazam! · February 13 2013, 10:12 PM

Well that's me not seeing it at the cinema then.

Lonemagpie · February 13 2013, 10:16 PM

"During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a 15 certificate but that their preferred 12A classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made:

to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both fuck and motherfucker) and
to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals.

The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'."

So I guess we won't be hearing the signature line

Starkers · February 13 2013, 10:20 PM

Well you can say fuck in a 21A...but can you say motherfucker?

Lonemagpie · February 13 2013, 11:00 PM

Starkers wrote:

Well you can say fuck in a 21A...but can you say motherfucker?

It'll probably be like the last one, where the middle of the word was drowned out by something else (a gunshot, in that one)

Starkers · February 13 2013, 11:28 PM

21A? What was I thinking!

Trekker4747 · February 14 2013, 03:50 AM

I think the last one is the weakest, only because the plot was too "grand" for it to really fit into McClane pretty much just been the everyman in the wrong place at the wrong time. But here he gets involved in a national incident that'd likely have pretty devastating effects on things? It just really didn't seem to fit into the "Die Hard Universe."

I still enjoyed though but it had it's problems, also being PG-13 harmed it and the R-Rated/"Unrated" cut doesn't improve things. Just over LFaDH I'd put Die Hard 2 which also has some problems. Die Hard itself is obviously an endless classic and Vengeance is just pure awesome.

Dream · February 14 2013, 04:32 AM

Zero stars from Ebert!

Lonemagpie · February 14 2013, 11:19 AM

Dream wrote:

Zero stars from Ebert!

Actually, one and a half stars - your link goes to a 404 page

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....IEWS/130219989

Dream · February 14 2013, 11:48 AM

Lonemagpie wrote:

Actually, one and a half stars - your link goes to a 404 page

He had it at zero stars a few hours ago.

Guess he changed his mind.

Still, one and a half still isn't that hot...

Infern0 · February 14 2013, 12:20 PM

It was always going to be rubbish

It's all about that 12A rating these days, watered down psih

Trekker4747 · February 14 2013, 04:16 PM

Ummm... That review credits Richard Roeper, not Ebert.

Deckerd · February 14 2013, 05:01 PM

You have to wonder how relevant rottentomatoes think they are, since the critics give it 14% and the nearly 27.5 thousand bum-on-seat reviews give it 82%.

Shazam! · February 14 2013, 05:14 PM

I wonder how it would have fared with the critics had it not fallen under the Die Hard franchise umbrella.

Captain Craig · February 14 2013, 09:00 PM

We going to do an actual proper review thread since this was essentially the lead up thread? I'll start one.

February 13 2013, 10:06 PM	#256
Starkers Admiral Location: Behind enemy lines...	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... Oh you're kidding?! shite... __________________ Werewolves on the Moon Now with Star Trek Into Darkness review The Devils of Amber Street

February 13 2013, 10:12 PM	#257
Shazam! Rear Admiral	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... Well that's me not seeing it at the cinema then.

February 13 2013, 10:16 PM	#258
Lonemagpie Writer Location: Yorkshire	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... "During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a 15 certificate but that their preferred 12A classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made: to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both fuck and motherfucker) and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'." So I guess we won't be hearing the signature line __________________ "I got two modes with people- Bite, and Avoid" Reading: Mystery Man (Colin Bateman) Blog- http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com

February 13 2013, 10:20 PM	#259
Starkers Admiral Location: Behind enemy lines...	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... Well you can say fuck in a 21A...but can you say motherfucker? __________________ Werewolves on the Moon Now with Star Trek Into Darkness review The Devils of Amber Street

February 13 2013, 11:28 PM	#261
Starkers Admiral Location: Behind enemy lines...	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... 21A? What was I thinking! __________________ Werewolves on the Moon Now with Star Trek Into Darkness review The Devils of Amber Street

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 14 2013, 03:50 AM	#262
Trekker4747 To boldly go... Location: Kansas City	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... I think the last one is the weakest, only because the plot was too "grand" for it to really fit into McClane pretty much just been the everyman in the wrong place at the wrong time. But here he gets involved in a national incident that'd likely have pretty devastating effects on things? It just really didn't seem to fit into the "Die Hard Universe." I still enjoyed though but it had it's problems, also being PG-13 harmed it and the R-Rated/"Unrated" cut doesn't improve things. Just over LFaDH I'd put Die Hard 2 which also has some problems. Die Hard itself is obviously an endless classic and Vengeance is just pure awesome. __________________ Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.

February 14 2013, 04:32 AM	#263
Dream Admiral	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... Zero stars from Ebert! __________________ TWoP Forums .

February 14 2013, 12:20 PM	#266
Infern0 Captain	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... It was always going to be rubbish It's all about that 12A rating these days, watered down psih

February 14 2013, 04:16 PM	#267
Trekker4747 To boldly go... Location: Kansas City	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... Ummm... That review credits Richard Roeper, not Ebert. __________________ Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.

February 14 2013, 05:01 PM	#268
Deckerd Fleet Arse Location: in the Frozen Wastes	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... You have to wonder how relevant rottentomatoes think they are, since the critics give it 14% and the nearly 27.5 thousand bum-on-seat reviews give it 82%. __________________ They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

February 14 2013, 05:14 PM	#269
Shazam! Rear Admiral	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... I wonder how it would have fared with the critics had it not fallen under the Die Hard franchise umbrella.

February 14 2013, 09:00 PM	#270
Captain Craig Vice Admiral Location: Nashville,TN	Re: Die Hard V - Not Looking Good... We going to do an actual proper review thread since this was essentially the lead up thread? I'll start one. __________________ "Picard never hit me." Q-Less(DS9) "Freedom is the Right of All Sentient Beings" Optimus Prime Twitter:http://twitter.com/#!/CaptainCraig1