Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What the Chuck?

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Jangler Newbie

Jangler

Posted
Posted

http://www.blackbookmag.com/movies/thanks-to-chuck-norris-expendables-2-will-be-pg-13-and-thus-lame-1.44140

ok, it's not a difficult formula: guns, muscles, babes, blood, explosions, blood diamonds, evil dictators, grit and gore and dialed-in racial caricatures right down to the Jamaican guy in dreads who yells "Yeah mon!" as he whips a grenade into an orphanage. The Expendables 2 should not be difficult to make. But thanks to Chuck Norris, it'll be a PG-13 movie, one without the cursing you'd assume is necessary for a vehicle with so much testosterone. /Film transcribes an interview with Norris in which he told a Polish website, "With The Expendables 2, you have a lot of hard language in there that means that means that young people won’t be able to see it. I said, I don’t do movies like that. I didn’t do them in the past, I didn’t do them on my TV series. I said, you have to cut out all the language, hardcore language or I can’t do it. So they did, and Expendables is now a PG-13 film so kids can see it."

Okay to show people getting killed but yelling 'fug you' while you do it, that's too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jessicasmith0
      Does JetBlue have free cancellation?

      By jessicasmith0 · Posted

      https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • tukafan21
      Mason Graham Bandwagon

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • Carolina Mike
      Mason Graham Bandwagon

      By Carolina Mike · Posted

      This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...