Wasn't the first one also shot for a PG-13 and then beefed up through CGI and a few out-takes to get the R? It's really not that big of a deal as I feel the end product will be (love or hate it) real close to the first one.

So that means the violence will be bloodless as well, thats fucking pish, oh and in the 80's Chuck did do R rated movies, shit i was realy looking forward to this, now not so much...FUCK

To be clear, I don't think Norris has done anything wrong here and doesn't deserve to be on the receiving end of any fan anger. He was offered a job, he gave his terms and the producers accepted. And now, rather than hiding the producers - which would be really easy to do - he's being totally up front about what he asked for in his contract.

If you're mad about the decision the people to be mad at are the people who made it, and that's the producers.

I remember a scene towards the end of Fast 5: Dwayne Johnson shoots the villain, who is lying on the floor, point-blank in the chest. The complete and total lack of any blood whatsoever was offputting; I knew that there would have had to be blood, that gunshot was so close. But then I remembered, this is a PG-13 movie! I didn't necessarily need to see someone strangled with their own intestines, eviscerations, decapitations or disembowelments, just don't allow the scenes to ring false, as that scene in Fast 5 did, and immediately took me out of the movie. As far as language goes, I don't remember that much profanity in the first Expendables movie. With all due respect to Mr. Norris, that he was able to make the studio cave to his pressure is a testament to his Badassery and overall appeal, shame on the studio for giving in. I appreciate this news from Twitch, I know now to save my money and wait for the (hopefully) unrated extended director's cut special edition. Fuck censorship.

The theatrical release for The Expendables was rated R.

http://www.fandango.com/theexpendables_124778/movieoverview

As far as Expendables 2 and a PG-13 rating goes, it is just plain wrong. There is a reason that rated R sequels are downgraded to PG-13 and that's bigger box office $$. Sure, they'll say Norris wanted it PG-13 and that's probably true, but the producers didn't have to give in to the request unless they really wanted a PG-13 theatrical release in the first place.

I really don't see how this can be a deal-breaker. The first "Expendables" was at best flawed and at worst tedious and confusing. The added gore didn't serve to help or hinder the overall experience. Also, Chuck Norris' whole schtick for the past twenty years or so has been as this wholesome, Christian right-wing do-gooder. Maybe they should've cast the internet meme instead.

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'd rather see a phenomenal action scene in a film called The Expendables, than yet another unnecessary CG squib splat !

And according to the MPAA here is your PG-13 rating:

PG-13 — Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

:shrugs:

A harder rating does not a better movie make.

Gore and violence does not a better movie make (see the last "Rambo" movie if you want proof.)

Thus, I'm still going to go see it.

I'm skimming the comments and see a lot of hate, but I'm actually pretty cool with this being PG-13. Everything that made the first movie an R was superfluous. If the majority of the cuts were language-related and they don't add any bad cg blood, the sequel will already be more solid than the first.