This is topic New [PG-13] King's Speech Prints 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=006380
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 02-27-2011, 09:31 AM:
 
FYI: NATO Announcement RE: King's Speech Reclassification

Subject: Alternate King's Speech Announcement
Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 12:45 PM

Last evening the MPAA contacted NATO regarding a request from the Weinstein Company to waive a rule of the rating system to allow them to release an alternate, PG-13 rated version of The King’s Speech into theaters. As the press release below indicates, we have agreed to the request. We did so after quickly checking with seven representative member companies (big and small) and our Board officers. Here is the quick background:


The Weinstein company submitted a revised version of the movie to CARA in which the swear words for which the movie was originally rated “R” are no longer audible. CARA reviewed the version and assigned it a “PG-13” rating. Now the Weinstein Co would like to release the new version into theaters on March 11. In order for that to happen, the MPAA and NATO had to agree to waive a rule that requires a 90-day separation between differently rated versions of the same movie. The purpose of the rule is to prevent confusion among patrons. The rules permit us to waive the requirement for good cause.

The Weinstein Co indicated that if approved, they would follow this plan:

-release 2000 pints on Friday, March 11 50% digital and 50% film

-the movie title will change to The King’s Speech(Alternate PG-13 Version) and this title would be used in its entirety everywhere

-new posters will be printed with a new title and rating block

-new newspaper ads will be run, and new TV ads starting midweek before opening, as well as a media blitz

-in their media outreach the company will stress the cooperation of the MPAA, NATO and our members to make the new version available to younger audiences

-Technicolor will pick up the ”R” rated version of the movie from theaters at the same time they deliver the “PG-13” rated version. And each theater will be notified about the coming change-out

-Technicolor would also send new digital copies with new keys

-new trailers will also be available for those exhibitors that want them

-for what it is worth, the DVD release date is scheduled for April 9, 144 days after the original theatrical release.

Given those conditions, and the unanimous response of the members we checked with, we agreed to join the MPAA in granting the waiver. The press release below was issued just a few minutes ago.

Several of our members requested that the release date of the new, PG-13 version be pushed back a week or two beyond March 11 to allow more time for the “R” rated version (which may win some Oscars on Sunday) to play longer.

We passed on that message.

>>HERE IS THE PRESS RELEASE<<

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 25, 2011


RATING BOARD ASSIGNS PG-13 RATING TO ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE KING’S SPEECH

LOS ANGELES – The Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) has assigned a PG-13 rating to an alternate version of The King’s Speech submitted by The Weinstein Company (TWC). The original version of the film is rated R “for some language.” CARA rated the alternate version PG-13 “for language.”


Bob Pisano, President and Interim CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) and John Fithian, President and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners, have also waived a CARA rule requiring a distributor to fully withdraw the original version of the film from theaters for 90-days before replacing it with an alternate version.

The purpose of the 90-day withdrawal period is to avoid public confusion about the rating of a film when there is more than one version introduced theatrically. However, the ratings rules allow the film’s distributor to show the MPAA and NATO that a period less than 90 days is sufficient to prevent confusion in light of circumstances related to the motion picture.

“The movie rating system has endured for more than 40 years because it was designed to evolve not only with societal values, but with the growth and evolution of the motion picture industry itself,” said Pisano. “The Weinstein Company has undertaken a commitment to ensure, through a revised advertising campaign, that it will be clear to consumers that a newly rated version of this film is coming to theaters near them. In this case a waiver is justified.”

Added Fithian, “Given The Weinstein Company’s commitment to advertise and promote the new version of The King’s Speech as a differently rated version, to remove all prints of the earlier version, and given the high profile of the movie, we believe there is little likelihood of confusion among our patrons. We are pleased that The Weinstein Company respected the rating system by creating a different version of their movie and submitting it for proper classification before making it available to a wider audience.”

About the MPAA
The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) serves as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Its members include: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

About NATO

The National Association of Theatre Owners is the largest exhibition trade organization in the world, representing more than 30,000 movie screens in all 50 states, and additional cinemas in 50 countries worldwide. Our membership includes the largest cinema chains in the world and hundreds of independent theatre owners too. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a second office in North Hollywood, California, NATO represents its members in the heart of the nation's capital as well as the center of the entertainment industry.

# # #



For more information, contact:

MPAA Los Angeles
Elizabeth Kaltman
(818) 995-6600

Elizabeth_kaltman@mpaa.org
MPAA Washington, D.C.
Howard Gantman
(202) 293-1966
Howard_gantman@mpaa.org

NATO
Patrick Corcoran
(818) 506-1778
pfc@natoca.com

[ 02-27-2011, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-27-2011, 10:20 AM:
 
quote:
-release 2000 pints on Friday, March 11 50% digital and 50% film
[beer]
 
Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-27-2011, 11:40 AM:
 
What an utterly unnecessary pain in the ass! Like kids really want to see this film! Geez, can't they just change out the one reel? Oh, that's right...we have to have a new reel one with the new stupid assed long title!

Oh, Joe Redifer, please say something poignant, yet hilariously funny about this nonsense!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2011, 11:41 AM:
 
I've tried to think of something, but this is just beyond idiotic. I agree, it's not like 13-year old kids are lining up around the block for this one. Everyone who wants to see this movie is at least 40 with a few younger folks checking it out.

quote:
-Technicolor will pick up the ”R” rated version of the movie from theaters at the same time they deliver the “PG-13” rated version.
So Technicolor drops the print off on Wednesday and they will pick up the R-rated version at that time as well? I guess two days of a dark screen isn't bad. [Roll Eyes]

Theaters should just put the PG-13 version in the R-rated cans and send it back out.
 
Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-27-2011, 11:46 AM:
 
Worse, I suspect it will be one those dreaded Friday morning exchanges, leading to a last minute film assembly. I hope not, but do the Weinstein's have these prints ready to go? Have they been secretly stockpiling them in anticipation of getting their way?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-27-2011, 12:58 PM:
 
Well that makes the second "alternate version" swap-out in the last 2 weeks. Its time like this digital really is nice. What's going to be next week's new version? I'm betting on Justin Bieber 3.0
 
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 02-27-2011, 01:41 PM:
 
Crap! I *really liked* the original version. Now it's being dumbed down. Real Oscar material being messed with. I wonder if the original R version will at least be available when it's released on Blu-Ray.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-27-2011, 04:34 PM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
Its time like this digital really is nice.
Or running changeovers...
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-27-2011, 05:44 PM:
 
At least in the UK we have this film uncut with a 12a rating already. In the UK rather than cutting it the producers just whined and moaned until they got the rating they wanted.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-27-2011, 08:02 PM:
 
Fuck buggardy fuck shit ass fuck shit shit shit fuck fuck...

...and tits.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2011, 09:09 PM:
 
They are not allowing the R version to stay around?! That's completely nuts!

I can see doing a trimmed version of a movie that the kids really want to see -- "Saturday Night Fever" is a good example -- but this is just stupid.

People who refuse to attend an R-rated movie "just because it's rated R" are really immature in my book.

And, this movie should never have been rated R in the first place.

By the way, somebody should change the title of this thread to say "PG-13" or else people are going to get even more confused.
 
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-27-2011, 09:13 PM:
 
quote:
his movie should never have been rated R in the first place
I agree

Up here in Canada, we have it rated as PG
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-01-2011, 09:50 AM:
 
quote:
-release 2000 pints on Friday, March 11 50% digital and 50% film
LoL! I didn't catch the 'pints' typo.

I was too busy trying to figure out what I was going to do
with a print that's half film & half digital [Confused]
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-01-2011, 10:02 AM:
 
Are they really going to gain a larger audience with a PG-13 rating? I can't imagine groups of teenagers running out to see it now that it's been modified.

Dumb idea. I hope it tanks, so that no one ever does it again.

One of these days, the industry is going to figure out that the rating system needs to be changed. Eh, probably not.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-01-2011, 11:30 AM:
 
See now...this is where DCinema wins...with a mere change in the rating "clip" it will show as whatever rating one desires...no need to actually change the content! [Wink]

-Steve
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-01-2011, 11:51 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
People who refuse to attend an R-rated movie "just because it's rated R" are really immature in my book.
On the other hand, it seems like everybody knows that the only reason this movie is rated R is that
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
So if someone decides they just don’t want to experience that scene (which is not going to be a surprise anyway) then I would think it’s an informed and, therefore, mature decision.

For some reason, our culture has deemed the “f-bomb” to be the most obscene English word. Some people don’t want to hear it or read it no matter who’s using it nor the context. I remember “Mr. S” who lived down the road from us in Illinois when I was a kid. He seemed to tolerate (and use) every foul word in the book but, for whatever reason, he had no tolerance for the “f-bomb.” When he took some of us (who were under age 17) to see Alien his only complaint about the movie was that a woman used the f-bomb in it. Was Mr. S immature? If so, that's the only evidence I can think of.

And I, for one, think that if anything in this world deserves a little more respect than it’s getting that would be human sexuality. So if there are people who can’t stand the f-bomb, I hesitate to tell them they’re wrong.

As for the wisdom of re-releasing this movie to make a little more cash, I can only imagine that it will just be “a little” more cash. Unlike many other, recent Best Pictures, this one made respectable money. In recent years, the “post-Oscar Bump” at the box office hasn’t existed. People who decided to see this movie knew exactly what they were in for and those who didn’t probably avoided it because they think it’s a slow-paced drama without a lot of drawing power anyway. A new rating won’t change that.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2011, 11:58 AM:
 
From my understanding the MPAA allows maybe one or two F-bombs to stay under the PG-13 rating level. If there's a lot of potty mouth talk happening, even without the F-word, the movie will get a R-rating anyway.

IMHO, this PG-13 watering down of The King's Speech is really stupid and insulting to the intelligence of the general public.

I'm hoping the original R-rated cut is what ends up being used on Blu-ray. If they only use the PG-13 cut they'll lose some customers out of protest.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-01-2011, 12:12 PM:
 
quote: Scott Jentsch
One of these days, the industry is going to figure out that the rating system needs to be changed.
Who's fault is it, really? Culturally, we instinctively know the difference between a G-rated and an R-rated movie. The stuff in between gets a bit cloudy sometimes but, by and large, the rating system is informative. That’s why you can easily tell your friends a story and, in case there’s a question of the nature of the story, you can preface it by saying, “This is an R-rated story” or a PG story or something like that. Everybody knows what you mean.

Whenever anyone advocates throwing away the MPAA rating system and starting from scratch they often admit (but don't dwell on) the fact that the real problem is not what the MPAA is trying to do but what the theatres and newspapers do. If we say that Blue Valentine should never have been rated NC-17 then we’re really saying, “Yes, children of any age should be able to see this as long as their parents are cool with it.” (No, that’s absurd. We’re not saying that, are we?) If it's an adult movie then the NC-17 rating tells you so. NC-17 was invented specifically to distinguish real art from porn. But the newspapers and the theatre operators refuse to play along with that idea so, presto! People complain that the rating system doesn’t work. But what is the MPAA supposed to do? They can’t control the theatres or Blockbuster or the newspapers that reject the ads.

I firmly believe that if the video game industry adopted a rating system which had G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 just like the MPAA (they would have to pay a royalty but it would be worth it) then there would be no calls for video game censorship today. Why? Because everybody knows what those ratings mean and people generally trust them. And those ratings have kept government-backed censorship at bay (at least when it comes to movies) for over 40 years.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-01-2011, 12:40 PM:
 
quote: Greg Anderson
If we say that Blue Valentine should never have been rated NC-17 then we’re really saying, “Yes, children of any age should be able to see this as long as their parents are cool with it.” (No, that’s absurd. We’re not saying that, are we?)
Why is it absurd to say "Parents should decide what their kids get exposed to"?
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-01-2011, 01:32 PM:
 
I just did a triple at my local multiplex (In england) yesterday.

First 'The Mechanic' rated '15' in the UK and R in The US for violent content, fair enough. Then 'The Rite' followed by 'Never Let Me Go'.

In the UK 'The Rite' is rated '15' for strong supernatural horror and disturbing images.

Never Let Me Go is rated 12a for moderate sex and nudity.

Just looking on the internet today I just realised that the ratings are effectively reversed in the US. 'The Rite' is only PG13 (seems horror content doesn't bother those american censors that much), whereas Never Let Me Go is rated R. (american censors are more afraid of female nudity)
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-01-2011, 02:01 PM:
 
Perhaps, there would be a benefit to subdividing the OVER-18 movies. Have an R-18 rating (no one under 18 admitted) for the "Art Movies" that have adult content. But also have an X-18 rating for what many would consider "porn" at some degree. Yes, the X-18 movies will keep the stigma and will likely not be shown in mainstream theatres...thats fine...it is basically a sacrificial rating so that an R-18 art movie can exist without the same stigma of a common place "skin-flick."

-Steve
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2011, 02:21 PM:
 
quote: Greg Anderson
So if there are people who can’t stand the f-bomb, I hesitate to tell them they’re wrong.
When I said "immature" I wasn't implying people don't have the right to get offended by a word. What I meant was, they should grow a little bit of skin. I don't use the F-word very often myself, and I don't always like to hear it in movies (when it's not appropriate) but I would never decide not to see a movie simply because it has some language in it.

There are so many people who miss a lot of great movies just because they don't want to hear a word or two, even if they wouldn't ever say that word themselves.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2011, 03:52 PM:
 
quote: Greg Anderson
Whenever anyone advocates throwing away the MPAA rating system and starting from scratch they often admit (but don't dwell on) the fact that the real problem is not what the MPAA is trying to do but what the theatres and newspapers do.
I have no problem with how the MPAA handles the G, PG and PG-13 ratings. Sometimes the MPAA misses the mark on R-rated movies. I've seen plenty of R-rated movies only rated that way because of some profanity; sometimes there's very little of it as in the case of this year's Best Picture Oscar winner The King's Speech.

It's the mature and adults-only area where the MPAA's system really must be re-tooled.

quote: Greg Anderson
If it's an adult movie then the NC-17 rating tells you so. NC-17 was invented specifically to distinguish real art from porn.
Yes, that was the original intent of the NC-17 rating, but the MPAA made the switch from "X" to "NC-17" laughably pointless when they refused to draw a difference between porn and adults-only content that isn't porn.

The MPAA was also willing to put the NC-17 rating on hardcore porn features. If a porn studio submitted one of their videos for a MPAA rating it would get a NC-17, not an X. Jack Valenti said their organization wasn't willing to make an "artistic decision" on the difference between porn and mature adults-only content.

I think that's a bunch of hogwash because the difference isn't "artistic" or subjective at all; the difference is physical. In one movie a copule is acting like they're having sex. The act is simulated. In a porn movie there is no doubt about it, the two people are really having sex. They're not acting.

Blue Valentine isn't a movie for kids. But it is definitely not porn either.

What's really funny is Blue Valentine will probably be more successful on home video and cable than it was in theaters. And a lot of people under age 17 will see it on DVD or cable.

Premium cable TV channels routinely show content the MPAA would slam as NC-17 rated if the same footage were found in a movie. Shows like Cathouse on HBO show full frontal nudity of men and women. IMHO, the Starz TV series Spartacus has taken graphic violence to levels I have never seen in any Hollywood movie. I have seen movies rated NC-17 play uncut on channels like HBO.

quote: Steve Guttag
Perhaps, there would be a benefit to subdividing the OVER-18 movies. Have an R-18 rating (no one under 18 admitted) for the "Art Movies" that have adult content. But also have an X-18 rating for what many would consider "porn" at some degree.
I think this is what most people thought the NC-17 rating was going to do, be a rating for non-porn adults only movies and then let the porn industry keep using the X. It didn't work out that way.

So, we've seen another 20+ years pass with an arguably screwed up ratings system. Maybe the MPAA will give it another shot.

quote: Greg Anderson
I firmly believe that if the video game industry adopted a rating system which had G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 just like the MPAA (they would have to pay a royalty but it would be worth it) then there would be no calls for video game censorship today. Why? Because everybody knows what those ratings mean and people generally trust them.
The ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system is a better system of rating video games than merely applying the MPAA ratings system. The ESRB ratings have more levels for more age groups and are more specific. The ESRB ratings are also very simple. It would take a customer to be pretty idiotic or have serious reading comprehension problems not to understand the ESRB ratings.

The ESRB is a video game industry controlled ratings body. But then the MPAA is funded and controlled by the major studios in Hollywood, which makes the MPAA every bit as prone to conflict of interest as one might suspect of the ESRB. Another point against the MPAA: that ratings board has a history of giving preferential treatment to major studio releases and being much harder on features from independents.

The plain truth is countless numbers of parents are very lazy at controlling what their kids watch on TV or what kinds of games they're playing. It's very common to see parents buying M-rated (Mature 17+) video games for middle school aged kids. I don't know what video games are A-rated (Adults Only 18+), but I wouldn't put it past some parents to let their kids play those games too. So many parents don't care what the kid is doing so long as he's doing it in another room away from them so they can watch TV or do whatever in peace in quiet. The kid could be playing some gory, violent video game and then watching Blue Valentine recorded on the DVR from cable TV.
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-03-2011, 12:23 PM:
 
The ratings system doesn't work, because there is a disconnect between the people that make the movies, that distribute the movies, and that exhibit and advertise the movies.

Case in point: Die Hard 4 (Live Free or Die Hard).

Muting/changing some swear words reduced it from R to PG-13. The change was done after the fact and it was obvious. Nothing changed about the intent of these scenes or the dialogue. Everyone knows what was really said, so the impact of the scene and its dialogue was unchanged.

Case in point #2: Blue Valentine

I haven't seen it, so I'm going on what I've read. Those accounts have stated that while the scenes in question were extreme, they were not pornographic. Were they extreme enough to earn the NC-17 rating? It sounds as though the rating might have been justified, but once again, I don't know from first-hand experience.

The problem comes in with how the other side of the industry handles NC-17 films. Newspapers won't advertise them, theaters won't play them. NC-17 is the new X, so all they did was change the name.

The challenge is to deliver the information necessary for people to make informed decisions about what they want to see and what they want their kids to see. The ratings system is far too generalized for that to be completely effective, because PG-13 encompasses a whole lot more than many people think it does.

Personally, I think that a system that identifies core areas of content and the severity of that content could work. Such core areas might include:
- Language
- Sensuality
- Violence
- ??

Not only should the monikers be there, but some degree of the severity of each area as well.

The TV ratings system does this to a certain degree.

The descriptions provided by the MPAA help with this, but it's the ratings that theaters respond to. Would it be any better if Blue Valentine were rated "MA" with a sub-rating of "S+" for "adult sexual situations"? I don't know, but I think it delivers more information at a glance, because it's easy to know that the MA rating is because of sexual content. Maybe some parents don't mind if little Jimmy sees someone's head being blown off in a bloody rain, but they don't want him to see how babies are made? [Roll Eyes]

To return to the thread at hand, I'm all for offering choice. If a theater would like to offer a version of "The King's Speech" for those with delicate dialogue sensibilities, that's fine. Make a note in your special showtimes, like is done with Open Caption and Sensory Sensitivity shows.

It sounds like the R-rated version is being pulled in favor of the PG-13 version, which is just wrong.

On the flip side, then give me the ability to see the version of Die Hard 4 without the obviously butchered dialogue.

Even on the Blu-ray release, where the option is as simple as a menu choice, the studio didn't do it. What the **** is with that?
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2