Jump to content

Expendables 2 Teaser & Synopsis


Karlos

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

And here’s the official synopsis:

“The Expendables are back and this time it’s personal… Barney Ross (Sylvester

Stallone), Lee Christmas (Lee Statham), Yin Yang (Jet Li), Gunnar Jensen

(Dolph Lundgren),Toll Road (Randy Couture) and Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) -

with newest members Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth) and Maggie (Yu Nan) aboard - are reunited when Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) enlists the Expendables to take

on a seemingly simple job.

The task looks like an easy paycheck for Barney and his band of old-school mercenaries. But when things go wrong and one of their own is viciously killed, the Expendables are compelled to seek revenge in hostile territory where the odds are stacked against them.

Hell-bent on payback, the crew cuts a swath of destruction through opposing forces,

wreaking havoc and shutting down an unexpected threat in the nick of time —

six pounds of weapons-grade plutonium; enough to change the balance of power

in the world. But that’s nothing compared to the justice they serve against

the villainous adversary who savagely murdered their brother. That is done the

Expendables way…”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Member
I hate censorship, even (or perhaps especially) when it's self-imposed.

If you read the comments below the article, Todd Brown (from Twitch) had this to say in defense of Norris: "This isn't censorship, by any measure. There is no external pressure or force requiring anybody to change anything. This was a decision made purely on internal factors. Chuck has things he doesn't want to do anymore, no different from a female performer who doesn't want to do graphic nudity. The producers accepted that. End of story. If they felt the content was worth keeping they'd have simply cast someone else."

Agree or disagree, I think it's an interesting comparison.

Jackie also wanted to make his films for families, like Norris, but if this is your goal...why sign on to do Expendables 2 in the first place???

Anyway, another interesting comment below the article, "I couldn't give a flying fuck if it was GP, PG or PG13. Just make an entertaining action film. Snappy PG one-liners are a tonne better than expletive filled ones.. "Here's a couple of acres" is a zillion times better than "Fuck you buddy"."

I agree with this, the movie isn't going to automatically be bad because it's PG13. Do what you gotta do...just make it good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Markgway

The original film was a hard 'R' so I can imagine fans being very disappointed by the unexpected drop to PG-13. Don't they remember the negative reaction to Die Hard 4? I respect Chuck's decision, but he appears to have forgotten about 75% of his R-rated back catalogue - The Hitman or Invasion USA, anyone? Chuck even drops the f-bomb in the former (that's when he's not committing acts of gross brutality). Ultimately I don't care as long as the resultant film is good - the original proved that tons of violence and swearing doesn't a great action film make. Also you can have loads of strong violence in a PG-13 as long as it isn't overtly bloody (see Bond and Bourne for popular examples). On the plus side the low rating means we won't have to endure awful CGI bloodsplatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

Please Sign In or Sign Up