Tyrant_Lizard_King wrote:Meg is a giant shark that can swallow people whole. The gore would have just come across as forced and edgy. I probably wouldn't have even bothered with it.
So I take it you didn't bother with Jaws then? That film was bloody and graphic as hell. No doubt it would be R if it were released today, and Poltergeist would be given an R rating today for the face-peeling scene alone. I highly doubt whatever violence had to be cut from The Meg to avoid an R rating was as graphic or gory as the deaths in Jaws.
I'm not one to advocate for edgier films just for the sake of it (I already said Star Trek's supposed R rating doesn't make sense), but for a film like this and others, I don't see how they can possibly be anything less than R (how can you make a movie about a guy going beserk and becoming a mass murderer in clown makeup NOT be rated R?).
Hell, there's actually a vid that explains how watering down films geared towards an R rating can and has ruined many of them (most relevant bit starts at 6:57):
It also completely dismantles the "PG-13 movies are more explicit today" argument (I never understood this argument, having bodies drop like trees in the background after gunshots isn't "violent" in any way regardless of body count). Hell, BvS couldn't even have the full Africa scene without getting an R rating, which was relevant to the plot, once again proving how PG-13 limitations can negatively affect the story and they're not as lax about violence as people pretend like they are.