I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
#1
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
I finally saw the entire film for the first time ever on cable recently. And in terms of the ratings controversy when it was first released( it got an X, then was cut to an R), I'm really confused. What was cut from the R rated version? The film was not 'that' explicit and could easily be R rated in uncut form in my opinion.
I should note my confusion also comes from the fact that the theatrical R version was shorter than the VHS R rated version! The theatrical print is said to run 112 minutes according to most film review guides I've skimmed through over the years.
On VHS and laserdisc. A new R version was released advertising "Includes scenes never before released in U.S. theaters!". This version ran 117 minutes. An unrated version also was released running 118 minutes and contains only slightly more explicit sexual content in one sex scene. And note I'm basing the running times off the listings on the vhs releases. The actual running time difference is so slim, that they just rounded up or down the time on the releases.
NSFW link,
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3971709
So did anyone see this in theaters back in 1986? What was missing from that 112 minute version that was then included on the 117 minute R rated vhs release? I just can't see what was cut, and can only imagine that version being even more full of hot air than the uncut version. But since that version has never been available on home video, it remains a mystery.
I should note my confusion also comes from the fact that the theatrical R version was shorter than the VHS R rated version! The theatrical print is said to run 112 minutes according to most film review guides I've skimmed through over the years.
On VHS and laserdisc. A new R version was released advertising "Includes scenes never before released in U.S. theaters!". This version ran 117 minutes. An unrated version also was released running 118 minutes and contains only slightly more explicit sexual content in one sex scene. And note I'm basing the running times off the listings on the vhs releases. The actual running time difference is so slim, that they just rounded up or down the time on the releases.
NSFW link,
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3971709
So did anyone see this in theaters back in 1986? What was missing from that 112 minute version that was then included on the 117 minute R rated vhs release? I just can't see what was cut, and can only imagine that version being even more full of hot air than the uncut version. But since that version has never been available on home video, it remains a mystery.
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
Kim Basinger... hotness!
#4
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
That was likely it. The MPAA didn't like penis at all. It was practically an automatic NC17/X back then. I remember Bruce Willis' Color of Night had to make cuts to get an R. Seeing the unrated version, the big difference? A little bit of penis.
#5
RIP
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
I think Rourke going "south of the border" maybe had a bit more to do with muff diving, no?
#6
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
Yes, in the scene linked, that's obvious and I can sort of see that being trimmed back a bit to get an R. However, even more material was originally cut to get an R rating(before being restored in the longer R rated vhs release), and I'd love to know what was missing, since I like finding out about alternate versions of films and all.
#7
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
pretty sad my mind didn't connect that. Been a while since I saw it. MPAA was super stuffy in the 80s and 90s all around. A lot of things that got an X/NC17 would get Rs today. It was very frustrating for someone like me just getting old enough to see whatever movies I wanted, and who appreciated a bit of sex and violence (not necessarily in the same movie). Hell, the stuff they show on Walking Dead would be too graphic for an R back then.
Last edited by brainee; 05-08-13 at 06:23 AM.
#8
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
pretty sad my mind didn't connect that. Been a while since I saw it. MPAA was super stuffy in the 80s and 90s all around. A lot of things that got an X/NC17 would get Rs today. It was very frustrating for someone like me just getting old enough to see whatever movies I wanted, and who appreciated a bit of sex and violence (not necessarily in the same movie). Hell, the stuff they show on Walking Dead would be too graphic for an R back then.
#9
DVD Talk Hero
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
^for the second half of season 3, The Walking Dead IS a TV-MA & they didn't really up the violence
#10
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Re: I'm confused about '9 1/2 Weeks' and the MPAA issues.
Oh ok, well I haven't really watched the series after season one. It wasn't doing much for me(I might catch up with it someday, but I really lost interest fast with the show), but I was always surprised by the tv rating and material shown considering it was t.v.