Isn't the SE supposed to come out this April??

Hope it's not this censored version instead.

Threads like this aren't complete with out Class316 misusing the word "censored."

As long as:

1. It's the director himself (Mel Gibson) doing the cutting, which he is...

and

2. The original is still available, which it is...

...I don't see a problem.

It's probably going to be the cut version.

The Passion: Cut Special Edition 2 Disc

The thing is, he cut it so that it could get a PG-13 rating, but it didn't get a PG-13 rating (apparently, the MPAA "advised" him that it wouldn't, though he didn't officially submit it, which seems to be against the MPAA rules), so he's releasing it "unrated". So it's still gonna be pretty violent, just a little less violent than it was. To me, that just makes this release seem all the more pointless.

I would love if they'd finally release the long-awaited SE of this. I wanna own this, but not the barebones version. The G-rated version would make a hilarious extra feature, I hope they include it.

I consider one version the uncensored version and the other version the censored one. In this case the movie is finalized and the director is released a censored version.

ack!! Don't say scary things like that!!

Maybe it should be called The Passion: Crucified Edition? Especially if they don't include an insert.

*yawn*

"..Always look on the bright..side of life..."

I probably should know better than to jump in the middle of this, but here I go...

I have not seen the film yet, largely because I'm not sure I wanted to expose myself to something as brutal as I've heard this film is. Part of me wants to own it (I'm Catholic and it might be good to remind myself of what Christ went through) and part of me wants to never see it. I've been on the fence and still haven't made up my mind.

Now, I'd like to see how this new cut shows. Obviously, they're not going to cut all the violence. It is easy, however, to cut small bits of scenes and end up with something that is significantly less intense. I would imagine that they could cut less than 10 minutes and end up with a film that's a lot easier to watch. Will it still retain the power and the message of the original? For some people, probably not. For others, it might turn something unwatchable into something meaningful.

I am constantly amazed how a press release like this always seems to make people assume the worst. Mel Gibson doesn't need the money and anyone who suggests this is a money grab is awfully cynical. Maybe now that he's had time to relax after making the project, he realized he didn't need to go as far as he did. Until we hear his thoughts on the matter, it's all conjecture.

I'd also like to remind everyone that directors quite regularly want to alter their movies after the fact. Most of the time, it's to add back deleted footage. Quite often, the revisionist version is not an upgrade, but fans seem to suck these non-original versions up when they're released on DVD. Why should we automatically pan this new director's vision before we know exactly how it's being done and how it changes the movie?

I, for one, an curious to see how this plays out. This new version might be a better choice for my wife and me. I'm willing to give Mel the benefit of a doubt and see what happens.

Because people only like those alternate cuts when the movie is *longer* and, thus, they can say "Ooo, look, MORE!" Shorter cuts are much rarer (I can think of 'Blood Simple', but I think there are a few others).

Fact is, not only are you right, but I'd also point out that, by my understanding, the movie wasn't test screened, so Gibson didn't see it with an audience until it was already released. It's entirely possible that Gibson, much like Kubrick did on more than one occassion, decided to cut it back based on watching it with people. (Well, okay, Kubrick probably didn't watch it with people but, you know, based on the reactions of people.)

I guess Jesus should have died peacefully in his sleep for all of our sins......

I want *more* gore! I demand a Blue Underground special edition!

No, it's "Passion 2: Crucify Softer."

I guess this is a good idea. Even though I'm not religious, I think religious families should have movies that families can watch together, but that aren't (a) after-school-special bland or (b) cutesy and campy. Good representations of historic events make for good and valuable films.

- David Stein

I think it's funny that the trims only total 6 minutes - basically the torture scene. The rest of the film plays as is. And it's still not the PG-13ish experience Gibson is going for!

If he's really serious about making the film acceptable to all audiences, the film should feature optical censoring and stuff like that. Not just nipping one scene. Gibson is now as bad as Lucas.

I wonder if the eye-pecking scene remains...

Nope, but close

The tagline will be

"Passion2: The Kinder Cut"

I wouldn't say so. The Original Theatrical Release of the movie is out on DVD and can still be purchased, yes?

But anyway, I have to at the "as bad" comment. I guess I just have to add that and like Lucas, he couldn't care less what the Internet Fan Boy thinks. I don't see why people care anyway. If you've seen the film and liked it, then you probably have the DVD. No one's forcing you to see this "recut" version. If you've seen the film and didn't like it, or have no desire whatsoever to see the film for your own personal reasons, how does this news affect you?

That's funny...I feel the same about that fat, bloated, bag of scum, who some call Michael Moore.

Nothing funny...about your out of context, insulting posts.

Pro-B

Point taken.





The old "forcing you to see it" argument. I can't deflect that, don't even want to try.

My Lucas comparison is simply about the way Gibson is milking his huge cash cow. There's no need for a less violent cut of the movie - especially after a full year of Gibson whining about the need to have it be this violent. This new cut is simply here to drain some more money out of the Lent crowd - not at all artistically driven.



Well, I might be forced to see it again when the rerelease opens, is that good enough for you?

Eh . . . this one wasn't any worse than the threadcrap that it was responding to . . .


Not saying, of course, that two wrongs make a right.

To shed a little more light on the details of the cut (and the reasons behind it), here is the article that was originally posted in Movie Talk:

Kal-El,

Do you consider yourself to be an "Internet Fan Boy"?

I totally agree with Goucho on this AND I want to add that a toned down version would be better for children. Adults are more desensitized and can handle the uncut version. Children will receive the message much better if they are not traumatized by excessive violence.

This movie is about sending a message.... a presentation if you will. This is different from entertaining someone. For a presentation you want to tailor your message or "sales pitch" to your audience.