Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Passion of the Christ re-issue "Recut"

This is topic Passion of the Christ re-issue "Recut" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003882

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-05-2005, 05:10 PM:

OK, we all knew that "Passion" would come out again for this Easter season, but I.M.E. reports that it will be "edited down" from its R-rated version and be released unrated, under the title "The Passion Recut."

WTF?

This reminds me of when Paramount released a PG-rated version of "Saturday Night Fever" to cash in on the disco-crazed kids.

BTW mods: -- I looked at all of the old "Passion" threads from last year and couldn't decide which would be right for this post, so I decided to start a new one. Feel free to merge, edit or delete at will.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2005, 05:24 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised to see a reissue of The Passion with the violence toned down in a different edit.

I've noticed since "The Ring" made a decent profit at the box office there has been more in the way of PG-13 edits where I would have expected an R-rated cut. Just take a look at all the PG-13 rated thrillers being released ("White Noise," "Boogeyman," "Cursed" etc.). I was surprised Fox released "Alien VS Predator" with a PG-13 rating since all the previous films in both series had been rated R. Then you have to examine the audience paying to see those films. I had no desire to see "AVP" (I try to pretend that only "Alien," "Aliens" and "Predator" exist), but lots of teenage kids probably lined up to see it.

Maybe that's the deal with having some kind of less violent cut of The Passion. Maybe the filmmakers and other evangelical types want to get more teens and even younger kids to see the film. Or maybe they just want to cash in on what they see as better box office potential.

I know people who have very serious religious beliefs, but flatly refused to expose their kids to any of the extreme violence shown in the original R-rated version of "The Passion." If I had any young kids of my own I wouldn't let them watch it. Same thing goes for movies like "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan." The violence is just too harsh. Every parent has to make a judgment call on what they think is acceptable for their kids to see based on their age and maturity level.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-05-2005, 06:57 PM:

Cash in on the box office with a PG-13 cut and save the "unrated" stuff to sell DVD copies. (The version you COULDNT see in theaters!)

But re-releasing stuff in theaters recut? I thought the director's cuts were bad enough...

=TMP=

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2005, 07:08 PM:

I could just see the special limited directors cut deluxe edition DVD now: "See the footage that the Devil didn't want you to see!"

"I rate every movie high just so I can get quoted!"
-Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-05-2005, 08:38 PM:

I thought South Park's "The Passion of the Jew" was much better...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2005, 01:36 PM:

Found this sentence on boxofficeguru.com:

Although essentially still an R-rated film, Newmarket will release the Mel Gibson megablockbuster unrated and is hoping to appeal to devoted Christians who either want to experience the film again on the big screen or have been waiting for a more tame version so relatives not fond of gore and brutal torture scenes can come and see a more palatable version.

Also, Mel Gibson was on the Tonight Show last night and said it "still has an R." (He seemed exceedingly nervous the whole time he was talking about The Passion.)

Finally the "light bulb" came on over my head....they are releaseing it unrated so the church people who won't go to "R rated movies" will see it.

So it'll essentially be the same movie, maybe with a bit of the gore cut out, but it won't have that big nasty letter R so it'll be much better. [Roll Eyes]

Mel, he's no dummy.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-10-2005, 01:50 PM:

Our company will not be playing it because they have decided to re-release the film without a rating. I wonder how many other companies made the same decision based on the fact that the film has no rating.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-12-2005, 10:38 AM:

According to the BBFC the recut version is 121:42 long compaired with 126:35 for the origional.

This would equate to a difference of 4 minutes 53 seconds

The rating has gone down from an 18 to a 15 however the consumer advice is unchanged at "Contains extended scenes of strong violence"

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-12-2005, 11:40 AM:

Cinemark and Regal are not running it here. The closest place to Eugene where it's showing is the Carmike 12 in Corvallis, about 30 miles from Eugene.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2005, 12:29 PM:

Carmike is showing it in Billings MT but in their crappy older plex, and on just one screen.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-12-2005, 12:45 PM:

In Central Ohio, the film is playing at all 3 AMC theatres and the 2 Marcus sites. It is not playing at Regal, Cinemark or Marquee.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-12-2005, 12:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I know people who have very serious religious beliefs, but flatly refused to expose their kids to any of the extreme violence shown in the original R-rated version of "The Passion."

Before his passing, Fred Rogers was famous for saying, "The world is full of violence, cruelty and hatred. Our children are going to find out about it whether we want them to or not. It is OUR duty to help them understand these things in order to grow up to be healthy adults."

That essentially means that shielding children from ALL violence is bad for them. Yes, we need to protect them from unnecessary, gratuitous violence but as they are mature enough to understand it, children need to be exposed to certain amounts of it, lest they be shocked, horrified and potentially scarred when they are suddenly exposed to bad things all at once.

Mind you, Mr. Rogers was a Presbyterian minister. That officially makes him "Church People". [Wink]

Second, the story of Jesus' crusifition *IS* a very violent series of events! Although I don't necessarily agree with Gibson's point of view on the subject, I think he did a good job of not pulling any punches when it comes to portraying the cruel reality of the tortures our Savior endured. The amount of whitewashing of these realities that most people who claim to be religious do in the name of "family values" is an extreme disservice to the religious community as a whole!

So... Don't shield children from the violent reality of the religion you attemt to teach them unless you want them to grow up to be hippocrites just like YOU! [Mad]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-12-2005, 01:14 PM:

Brenden and Crown are playing it here, on one screen each.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 03-12-2005, 01:22 PM:

Well said Randy. I have a cousin who refused to let her son (now age 7) to say the word "gun" when he was in preschool. It really got to be ridiculous when they studied stuff like the Pilgrims hunting for Thanksgiving or the Patriots fighting during the Revolution around July 4th. Finally, my uncle told her to give it up because it was actually retarding his learning process. Today he's a fairly well adjusted kid.

And something else . . . I'm not a bigot, but I found that the evangelical types who wanted to shield their kids from violence the most while we were growing up, are the same parents who love to tell their neighbors that their "little darling" is "kicking Islamo-facist ass in Iraq" . . . Isn't it ironic.

Posted by Shane Hoffmann (Member # 1620) on 03-13-2005, 11:33 PM:

We're playing this at our 8-plex in a town of 40,000. We've had about 15 people tops since Friday night. No one came at all on Friday. Is anybody seeing any business for the re-cut?

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-14-2005, 12:43 AM:

o.k., Ive been out of the exhibiters side of the business for a while. How does a film get released "unrated"? How do the theaters deal with customers? Is there an age limit, or can any age person buy a ticket? What is the purpose of not having the film rated?

Just curious,
Rick

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-14-2005, 12:52 AM:

Definitely a "came and went" movie. Dying everywhere for sure. - Monte

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-14-2005, 01:22 AM:

quote: Shane Hoffmann
No one came at all on Friday. Is anybody seeing any business for the re-cut?

Looks like it's that way all over, Shane. I found this on boxofficeguru.com:

Newmarket Films realized that not all of Mel Gibson's ideas are good ones. The distributor released The Passion Recut, an edited version of the enormously successful The Passion of the Christ with some of the more violent scenes removed, but saw empty theaters from coast to coast. Recut resurrected itself in 957 theaters but grossed only $240,000, according to estimates, for a wimpy $251 average.

I didn't think it would do great business, but I thought it'd do better than that.

Richard: The studios always have the option of whether to submit films for ratings, or not. Many theatre chains refuse to play unrated films, and many newspapers won't advertise them, so that's why almost all movies get submitted.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-14-2005, 10:51 AM:

Ateendance is the same thing for us, which is a shame. Apparently Mel had tons of feedback that basically said "I couldn't take my aunt ethel" or whoever because of the "in your face" violence, which is why he re-cut it.

There may be two problems. 1) I haven't seen much advertising for the movie. We had one 30 second trailer on Million Dollar Baby, and that was it. 2) we had a couple standing in line and the lady said "Hey, Passion!" and the guy said, "Yeah, it's been re-cut, and now it's not rated, so it's even MORE violent than before." The lady looked deflated and said "Oh. Nevermind then."

So that may be a problem. People automatically associate "re-cut" and "unrated" with "WORSE" so that may be keeping them away. Hind sight being what it is, he should have shot for a PG-13 rating. [Frown]