KING'S SPEECH Re-Rated PG-13 After 3 F-Bombs Removed

[AndyDursin]

I have not seen the film but by all accounts this editorial change was not difficult to maneuver and was done with the director's blessing. Seems ridiculous to have a film rated R for a group of "naughty words" when there is sadistic violence in so many PG-13 films...

Anyway, the PG-13 version will be out in theaters asap. The R rated cut, with its 3 additional F-bombs, ought to be on video shortly thereafter -- I'm betting the movie cleans up this weekend at the Oscars.

I've learned that the Weinstein Co was told that, if 3 of the 5 uses of the swear word "****" were muted, then the pic would receive a lesser rating than its current "R". No film footage was altered in keeping with director Tom hooper's insistence that the stammering king's pivotal therapy-by-cursing scene not be cut. Deadline initiatially broke the news that The Weinstein Co was seeking the lower PG-13 film rating in response to educational and church groups who wanted to show the movie.

Not to mention that, if this frontrunner for Best Motion Picture does win the Oscar on Sunday night, the Weinstein Co will be able to draw wider and bigger audiences into theaters and thus make more moolah. Especially because the MPAA waived any waiting period. "

http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/mpaa-gi ... ear-words/

[mkaroly]

Whatever...it's not like people aren't familiar with that word, or that kids don't say that word or don't understand what it means until they're 17.

[Monterey Jack]

It's like that "family-friendly" alternate audio track on the Avatar Blu-Ray...what's worse, letting your kids hear the S-word or a couple of F-bombs, or letting them drink in all of the violence they want? Words are words, and while I wouldn't want a 12-year-old to watch a David Mamet movie, bad language is a much lesser evil than graphic violence.

[Paul MacLean]

I personally saw no reason for the f-bombs; it's not as if the story or characterization hinged on their use. The film will work just as well without them.

Still, I am baffled (and irked) that this film was slapped with an "R" when the f-bombs are used as part of the king's therapy, and appeared in only one brief scene. It isn't like Joe Peshi in GoodFellas!

25 years ago A Room With A View exhibited male frontal nudity -- and that only got a PG-13!

[AndyDursin]

I think the MPAA has an automatic, black-and-white view of profanity. You can get away with the F-bomb once or twice but that's it. In this case all they need to do is mute out 2 instances (I don't even think it's the 3 I wrote in the first post), so they will be able to get the church-and-elderly crowd to get more involved than they have been (not that it's been keeping people away, it's made $100 million which is a nice sum).

But in general I think MPAA ratings seldom make sense. PG-13 films can have more adult content many times than R rated films. Growing up my parents took me to ALIENS when I was 11 because they felt I could handle it (and because I was so crazy about seeing it I made them take me), and also WITNESS, even though they made me go to the bathroom during the tasteful Kelly McGillis topless bit. They were smart, and knew which R rated films I could handle and which ones had more adult stuff in them (and things werent nearly as sadistic in the 80s as they are today -- I cant imagine taking a kid to see crap like SAW though I know there are knuckleheads who do). So Arnold R-rated movies and films like that were always a greenlight for me. Or movies like MIDNIGHT RUN or BEVERLY HILLS COP, which were violent (though not really sadistic) and just had some profanity in there...that wouldn't stop them from taking me most of the time.

The only times they walked me out of a movie was twice during PG-13 films -- PARENTHOOD, which was so obscene in terms of sexual content I still don't understand to this day how it wasn't R, and REVENGE OF THE NERDS II which had a lot of raunchy gags in it. And I think in the latter instance they just wanted to walk out period, lol, using me as a convenient excuse.

[Monterey Jack]

Back in the 80's you could get away with virtually ANYTHING in a PG-rated movie. Even the PG-13 rating didn't really change things that much until the early 90's.

That said, even the bloodiest Freddy or Jason movies seem tame by today's "torture porn" standards.

[AndyDursin]

Back in the 80's you could get away with virtually ANYTHING in a PG-rated movie.

Well, of course -- there wasn't any PG-13 rating until 1984. So the net for a PG rated film was very wide in the 70s and 80s. Some films that should've had a stronger rating were released with a 'MAY BE TOO INTENSE FOR YOUNGER CHILDREN' tag on their advertising like JAWS, JEDI, TEMPLE OF DOOM, etc. That was sort of a precursor for the PG-13 rating.

Even the PG-13 rating didn't really change things that much until the early 90's.

I guess I disagree with you there. There was and is a need for a PG-13 rating (though it doesn't actually keep kids under 13 out, it just 'suggests' that they not go -- unlike the R, where you've got to have an adult bring in someone under 17), and I think right when that happened movies like TEMPLE OF DOOM no longer got a PG (that and GREMLINS basically single-handedly launched the PG-13 in the summer of '84).

PG-13 films today are much more graphic than they were back in those days. I've seen PG-13 films today that are worse than some R rated films 20-25 years ago.

[Edmund Kattak]

Back in the 80's you could get away with virtually ANYTHING in a PG-rated movie.

Well, of course -- there wasn't any PG-13 rating until 1984. So the net for a PG rated film was very wide in the 70s and 80s. Some films that should've had a stronger rating were released with a 'MAY BE TOO INTENSE FOR YOUNGER CHILDREN' tag on their advertising like JAWS, JEDI, TEMPLE OF DOOM, etc. That was sort of a precursor for the PG-13 rating.

Even the PG-13 rating didn't really change things that much until the early 90's.

I guess I disagree with you there. There was and is a need for a PG-13 rating (though it doesn't actually keep kids under 13 out, it just 'suggests' that they not go -- unlike the R, where you've got to have an adult bring in someone under 17), and I think right when that happened movies like TEMPLE OF DOOM no longer got a PG (that and GREMLINS basically single-handedly launched the PG-13 in the summer of '84).

PG-13 films today are much more graphic than they were back in those days. I've seen PG-13 films today that are worse than some R rated films 20-25 years ago.

I was 17 in 1984 and I remember the hoopla with the PG-13 push started with TEMPLE OF DOOM and then GREMLINS. it was big news on the telly during the nightly news broadcast. I remember the objections with TEMPLE OF DOOM stemmed around the "heart removal" during the first ritual sequence. They also cited the earlier Club Obi Wan scene with one of the henchman getting skewered. They then took it a step further and objected to the Pankot Palace "dinner sequence." Who's they? I believe I saw Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA on NBC Nightly News talking about it, although it's been almost 27 years since and I can't remember everything.

Now GRELINS kind of leaves me stumped. The objections there seemed to focus around the "puppet" violence, but they're puppets already, please!

[John Johnson]

Back in the 80's you could get away with virtually ANYTHING in a PG-rated movie.

Well, of course -- there wasn't any PG-13 rating until 1984. So the net for a PG rated film was very wide in the 70s and 80s. Some films that should've had a stronger rating were released with a 'MAY BE TOO INTENSE FOR YOUNGER CHILDREN' tag on their advertising like JAWS, JEDI, TEMPLE OF DOOM, etc. That was sort of a precursor for the PG-13 rating.

Even the PG-13 rating didn't really change things that much until the early 90's.

I guess I disagree with you there. There was and is a need for a PG-13 rating (though it doesn't actually keep kids under 13 out, it just 'suggests' that they not go -- unlike the R, where you've got to have an adult bring in someone under 17), and I think right when that happened movies like TEMPLE OF DOOM no longer got a PG (that and GREMLINS basically single-handedly launched the PG-13 in the summer of '84).

PG-13 films today are much more graphic than they were back in those days. I've seen PG-13 films today that are worse than some R rated films 20-25 years ago.

I was 17 in 1984 and I remember the hoopla with the PG-13 push started with TEMPLE OF DOOM and then GREMLINS. it was big news on the telly during the nightly news broadcast. I remember the objections with TEMPLE OF DOOM stemmed around the "heart removal" during the first ritual sequence. They also cited the earlier Club Obi Wan scene with one of the henchman getting skewered. They then took it a step further and objected to the Pankot Palace "dinner sequence." Who's they? I believe I saw Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA on NBC Nightly News talking about it, although it's been almost 27 years since and I can't remember everything.

Now GRELINS kind of leaves me stumped. The objections there seemed to focus around the "puppet" violence, but they're puppets already, please!

In the UK, the heart removal scene from Temple of Doom was severely cut.

[AndyDursin]

was 17 in 1984 and I remember the hoopla with the PG-13 push started with TEMPLE OF DOOM and then GREMLINS. it was big news on the telly during the nightly news broadcast. I remember the objections with TEMPLE OF DOOM stemmed around the "heart removal" during the first ritual sequence. They also cited the earlier Club Obi Wan scene with one of the henchman getting skewered. They then took it a step further and objected to the Pankot Palace "dinner sequence." Who's they? I believe I saw Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA on NBC Nightly News talking about it, although it's been almost 27 years since and I can't remember everything.

Now GRELINS kind of leaves me stumped. The objections there seemed to focus around the "puppet" violence, but they're puppets already, please!

You're right Ed, those two movies essentially "created" the PG-13.

I think the scene with the microwave and Billy's mom kind of pushed things over the edge in GREMLINS. Stuff like the Gremlins dissolving and the goo is one thing; but there was a level of gore there that was pretty rough for a PG at the time -- especially considering it was a Spielberg production with cute little Gizmo that drew so many kids into the theater. I'm guessing some real young kids really freaked during some of it. It does feel like a PG-13, it's much "harder" than the more lighthearted GREMLINS 2 which still got a PG-13 years later.

My main issue with TEMPLE OF DOOM was the mid section with the heart being ripped out and the extended period spent in the Temple. Not only was it too dark as Spielberg himself acknowledged, but it also weighs the film down and it really sags. The main reason why I find it inferior to both the original and Last Crusade...but the gore and violence there was pretty rough for a PG.

For me, I think there was completely a rationale to have a PG-13 rating -- my issue is the kinds of films that have been able to get that rating over the years, while movies like THE KINGS SPEECH end up with an R for a few bad words.