rabbit77

I was just reading the Van Hellsing thread and there are comments about speculation over the rating, which prompted me this question:

Why don't studios release multiple versions of the same movie into theaters (i.e., a PG-13 and R rated version)? If these googleplexes have 8 screens of oh, let's say, My Boss' Daughter, why can't 4 of them be PG-13 and 4 of them be rated R? Seems like win-win on both sides.

Why do moviegoers have to wait for an R-Rated or Uncut version to come out on DVD, and the theater chains pander to the least mature audience possible of a given film?

Giles

It's because it's cost prohibitive to make more than one print of a film. If theatres were to change over to non-film presentation (i,e DLP) the trend might swing to multiple versions of the same film, but don't expect to see 'films' released this way anytime soon.

chesola

I don't think the MPAA will allow a film in theatrical release to have two ratings at the same time.

Giles

well why not?, as far as I know only the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has such a stipulation. That wouldn't make sense since dual version of films exist on video.

DonnachaOne

In the seventies, it wasn't uncommon. The most famous I know of were the versions of Saturday Night Fever. PG ran during the day, and R was shown at night.

It'd just be too hard to market in today's theaters. There are some people who come late at night to the show with children, and there are older adults who want to watch an "adults" film early in the morning. Also, why would studios risk an audience-dividing measure when today they could just cut a film down to PG-13, allowing for maximum number of ticketbuyers?

It's much easier to market on DVD. There's the market for the watered-down versions in the major video chains, while people will usually choose to pay high prices for "UNRATED!!!!" or "R-RATED!!!!" cuts.

rabbit77

That's why I hate PG-13. It allows for movies that should be for adults to be too tame and movies that are supposed to be for kids too mature. Too much grey area.

chesola

Wasn't Saturday Night Fever's PG version a re-release that was issued after the R-rated version had run its course in theaters? I don't remember the two versions playing at the same time. I could be wrong about that, but I know the PG version didn't come about until long into that film's run.

I also seem to remember the case of an unrated horror film (either Dawn of the Dead or Basket Case) that was reissued briefly with an R rating. The MPAA made sure that there were no unrated prints in circulation at the same time the R-rated version was making the rounds.

Sorry I'm so hazy on the details. It's been a long time.

Pants

Saturday Night Fever isn't the best example. The best Example is Boorman's Excaliber, which was released simultaniously in PG and R rated versions.

Giles

I never knew that about "Excaliber" - which incidently was the first R-rated film my father took me to.

I know "Dawn" was theatrically released with an R-rating when it double billed with "Creepshow". As I recall with "Basket Case" it was initially released with an R but the quick cult status made the distrubuters restore the film to full uncensored glory and released it unrated.

"Caligula" was also initially released in an edited R-rated form, but like "Basket Case" the film's notoriety had Penthouse restore the film to all it's X-rated glory and ganer higher box office money.

Warner Bros. released in the seventies "A Clockwork Orange", "The Damned", "The Devils" with self imposed X-ratings, but when later re-issued, only received R-ratings after trims.

MGM 's "Midnight Cowboy" was initially rated X, but after circulation, the studio resubmitted the film to the Ratings board and was awarded a less restrictive R-rating.

Shannon Nutt

Van Helsing will be PG-13. There's no way the studio will allow it to be released as an "R"...they'll make sure they cut what they have to. Plus, they know it will only make them more money when the "Unrated" version comes to DVD.