The Expendables 2 - August 17, 2012

[Voorhees27]

Quiggle Mumbles, scene 5, take 3!

 

[Biojex]

Quiggle Mumbles, scene 5, take 2.

Quiggle Mumbles, scene 5, take 3!

So what you're saying is, We've been quiggled?

 

[CelticPredator]

I'd rather have a PG-13 rating, then that bull____ _____ R-Rating the first one had.

There was only one actual practical gory effect in that movie.

So, whatever. It doesn't bother me. You can successfully do bloody squibs now in a PG-13. So it's cool.

 

[Voorhees27]

So what you're saying is, We've been quiggled?

Affirmative good sir.

 

[CelticPredator]

If you need F bombs and over the top bloodshed to enjoy a movie, so be it, pass on Exp 2, but the rest of use find more substance to even the first, you could clean that up to be PG-13 and it wouldn't change the movie at all.

Not at all. Which is why I didn't enjoy it. It felt too "last minute" with the gore.

And I doubt this thing will have any substance. But I have a feeling it will be more fun. Simon West is awesome. Stallone and him could make a great team.

 

[Voorhees27]

Not at all. Which is why I didn't enjoy it. It felt too "last minute" with the gore.

And I doubt this thing will have any substance. But I have a feeling it will be more fun. Simon West is awesome. Stallone and him could make a great team.

I have no doubt Stallone was trying his best to get the message across (Burma genocide) with the grotesque violence in Rambo. That and a low budget equalled the pretty damn bad CG.

 

[CelticPredator]

Rambo or The Expendables?

I thought Rambo did alright in the CGI department. And he actually used practical effects, which worked, and gave actual emotion.

seeing a CGI baby flying into the fire would've been comical. What was in the movie was not.


I was talking about The Expendables though, and the violence in that flick.

 

[MaulFan]

I really didn't notice anything strange about the blood effects in the first Expendables, the only CGI work that I really noticed was the chase scene with Gunner, you could tell it was green screen.

 

[Voorhees27]

Rambo's CGI was worse than Expendables imo. Much worse. I'm referring primarily to the body dismemberment scenes in particular.

 

[thenammagazine]

Rambo or The Expendables?

I thought Rambo did alright in the CGI department. And he actually used practical effects, which worked, and gave actual emotion.

seeing a CGI baby flying into the fire would've been comical. What was in the movie was not.


I was talking about The Expendables though, and the violence in that flick.

Rambo's CGI was worse than Expendables imo. Much worse. I'm referring primarily to the body dismemberment scenes in particular.

Celtic, you need to have your eyes examined. The CG in RAMBO was horrid. Worse than SyFy horrid. Specifically the throat rip and bisection of Captain ********* at the end.

 

[CelticPredator]

I agree it was horrible...but I let it slide because of the good practical effects before it.

But, I still think it was alright for the movie. Which I knew was cheap as hell.

I'll judge the CGI on the budget of the film. Hell, sometimes the CGI is so good, I would've never guessed the budget.

See GI JOE's 100 million dollar CGI VS. District 9's 30 million...

 

[MaulFan]

 

[Biojex]

New pics

 

[thenammagazine]

I agree it was horrible...but I let it slide because of the good practical effects before it.

But, I still think it was alright for the movie. Which I knew was cheap as hell.

I'll judge the CGI on the budget of the film. Hell, sometimes the CGI is so good, I would've never guessed the budget.

See GI JOE's 100 million dollar CGI VS. District 9's 30 million...

But the budget for RAMBO was $50 million.

 

[MaulFan]

According to wikipedia, the first Expendables was $82 million to make.

 

[thenammagazine]

According to wikipedia, the first Expendables was $82 million to make.

Yeah, these are hardly small budget movies.

 

[MaulFan]

I wonder how much is spent just on the stars with such big names involved.

 

[CelticPredator]

But the budget for RAMBO was $50 million.

That's pretty cheap. Most Hollywood blockbusters are 100 million and up.

50 million is chump change. When you take away the marketing, and distribution.

Check this wiki article out. You can see the (i'm assuming estimated) budgets of the biggest Hollywood blockbusters of today mixed in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

Expendables was defiantly closer to a standard Hollywood flick.

 

[thenammagazine]

That's pretty cheap. Most Hollywood blockbusters are 100 million and up.

50 million is chump change. When you take away the marketing, and distribution.

Check this wiki article out. You can see the (i'm assuming estimated) budgets of the biggest Hollywood blockbusters of today mixed in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

Expendables was defiantly closer to a standard Hollywood flick.

$50 million is not chump change when you look at where the film was shot. And given the scope of RAMBO, it's fairly generous.

 

[CelticPredator]

Expensive to everyone else. Nothing to Hollywood.

That's what I meant. Especially when you're doing a film in a well known series.

Terminator Salvation cost about $200 million bucks. Rambo was pretty low.