Julie Walker

C'mon I know someone out there is seeing this. Fess up,what is it like?

If anyone has seen both versions,a comparison would be nice. I have a feeling this 'softer' version will not be nearly as powerful as the original version.

But it would be nice to hear what the exact changes too the film are and how they get around the more graphic moments.

scott shelton

I'm planning to check it out this weekend, but I'm sure someone will beat me to it. My third viewing too, for a film I didn't even really like!

Geofferson

I think it's only cut by around 6 minutes. Pretty sure the whipping scene is cut in half, if not cut out entirely.

Jackskeleton

Does it have an alternative ending?

Third Baseman

[/jay leno]

redcon1

Yeah, you get to see inside the spaceship.

Jackskeleton

Awsome. My question... What's the point of releasing a less violent version of it? Is it to be able to show younger viewers? The original didn't stop anyone from taking their kids and by watering it down some doesn't it lose the meaning or whatever strong message that the film was suppose to be all about?

I'm pretty sure cutting down the six minutes or whatever it was didn't add anything to character development.

Cygnet74

i really don't undertsand the point of this either. well, actually I do, but I'm just disgusted by it. apparently they were going for a PG-13 on the new cut but when submitted, it too was given an R. so they decided to release it as Unrated and market it as being "safe" for younger viewers, which according to the MPAA, it isn't.

Matthew Chmiel

Are any theaters enforcing any rules for this film? From my experience, when a film gets an "unrated" release, theaters will do one of three things....

1. Not give a shit and it's fair game for whoever wants to see the film (e.g. The Eye, which was later given an R by the MPAA for DVD).
2. Treat it like an R rated film. Nobody under the age of 17 admitted unless with a parent or guardian (e.g. Super Size Me, which was later given a PG-13 by the MPAA for DVD).
3. Treat it like an NC-17 rated film. Nobody under the age of 17 admitted at all (e.g. Y Tu Mama Tambien).

Cygnet74

i read an article that listed three theatre chains that refused to show it. they have a policy of not showing unrated films and are standing by it, even though they showed the R cut.

movielib

Maybe not. It did a stunning $70,000 yesterday. Box Office Mojo predicted $3 million for the weekend. They might be a tad off.

Rival11

I still don't understand why you would edit an R rated film to keep it....well......R rated.

wastro

Yeah, I'm still having trouble figuring that one out, too.

That said, it IS only two weeks until Easter ... I'm sure that played a part in inspiring Mel to re-relea$e it.

scott shelton

I think this has been addressed already in the forum...

Gibson cut the film THINKING he was going to get a PG-13. When the MPAA handed him another R, he felt he didn't want to cut the film further, hence why the film is going out "unrated."

Jackskeleton

yes, that was explained scott, but it still doesn't make any sense to release the esstentially same R rated film. If the goal is to make it PG-13 than go for the gold and don't stop till you get that rating by resubmitting it and taking notes on what needed to go in order to make it PG-13.

By cutting it and then having it fail that pg-13 rating and then marketing it as a safer cut down version you are just fooling the viewers into watching a cut down version that doesn't make it any safer for kids.

scott shelton

Jack, have you seen the new cut? You sound like you have, and many people, including me, would love to hear about it. Please post the changes.

Well, we're not talking about CURSED here, are we? This is the PASSION, and Gibson has pretty much done what he likes with this film.

To get the PG-13, he was probably given a huge list of things to potentially cut, which would clearly dilute even the most remote power and vision from his film. Why do that? He only wanted to "soften" the film, not pick it clean. When the "softening" didn't work for the MPAA, Gibson basically said "screw 'em" and went to the Christian airwaves to find support again, letting it be known that the film had been slightly cut of the more extreme gore so the squeamish can see the film.

It makes sense to me: re-releasing allows for more money. A new cut reaches new viewers = more money.

Besides, this is all a moot point now. The film did $74 PER SCREEN on Friday, which means people weren't fooled twice. Gibson's Easter experiment failed.

Jackskeleton

Actually I haven't nor do I care to.

You're missing the point that me and a few others here are questioning. If the goal was to make it cleaner so that it would be on a PG-13 level and the "message" could be reached to more folks who were worried about the graphic violence in it. And when submitting the film cut down from this graphic violence the MPAA said "No, this is still an R rated film". What sense does it make (besides money making near easter) to release it and say it is cleaner when in reality it is still the same R rated film minus 6 minutes of footage?

I'm glad that this experiment failed. The DVD is out there and if it is the same rated film, minus 6 minutes or so of footage, I see no real reason why anyone would pay to watch it in theaters.

Duder

I too am glad the experiment failed. I think his intentions might have been good (trying to reach more people), but it was a dumb decision, because if he truly went all the way, he would have totally ruined the point of the film. The last thing I wanted was for this version to do well, and then discover that this is the version they do a DVD Special Edition of.

*still waiting for a 2-Disc version of The Passion*

scott shelton

You answered your own question.

When Gibson and money are involved, it isn't supposed to make sense.

He went for a PG-13 and failed, so he blew it off. What part of that doesn't make sense?

That's the point. I've missed nothing.

Criminy, it's not like there's a new shot of Jesus crossing his arms at the end of the film...

scott shelton

As for this, you haven't even seen the film, Jack. You don't know the recut content. How do you know it's the same? That I don't get.

mikeporter

The Passion Recut made $240,000 this weekend.

Jackskeleton

Yes, because articles about the recut can tell us nothing unless you watch it yourself... riiiiiight?

From what I read They cut about six minutes and if it still managed to get a R rating you have to figure that they attempted to cut it down to PG-13, but indeed just gave up and the material is still in the R range. So you get the same rated film (I.E. Not family friendly..was it ever going to be?) and you have it in theaters. So why see a cut down movie if it doesn't have the benefit of being any better aimed or cleaned up some?

I realize money is a big part of this, but I'm also trying to understand any sort of meaning or worthy defense to it but I'm coming up short. Perhaps I just shouldn't try to make any sense out of all this.

scott shelton

...and BINGO was his name-o.

Jackskeleton

Sorry, I just like to disect industry choices. Helps me learn more as I go. But this move just defied all logic and was really a stupid move on Mels part. Sure, he got another few squeezes out of his product, But if he were to add something to the movie and re-release it as anything besides Unrated, he would have gotten ad space and would have milked the Lent/Easter crowd even if they did already have the dvd. Giving the viewer less at the same rating is just a stupid move.

scott shelton

...and BINGO was his name-o, pt 2.