I would also like to thank you for saying this so that I didn't have to.

Yes, it is really true.

If you read the page that I linked to, you'd know that the original ratings proposal by the MPAA did not have a rating above an R. The X rating was added before the ratings system was finalized, but wasn't part of the original proposal.

The lack of a trademark on the X rating was so that filmmakers could self-assign the rating to their films, without having to submit it to the MPAA, and all the costs that entails. This had the unfortunate, and apparently unforeseen, consequence of porn producers usurping the rating for their own films. This doesn't mean the MPAA wanted the X rating to be a punishment though, and has tried throughout the decades to make a rating above R a respectable option for filmmakers.

None of these films had both versions in simultaneous release though. What the OP proposed is simply not allowed.

I agree with Wendersfan, but try telling that to all these people who want extended editions of everything. Even before the new Hulk movie was released, there was talk of deleted scenes, and people were hoping there would be an extended version released. I don't think these are cases of artistic conflicts.

In an ideal world, where the filmmakers get to put their vision on the screen completely uncompromised by any commercial or other outside influence, this might be an arguable case. However, that happens extremely rarely (and often those are the films that don't have any alternate versions).

There actually are multiple versions of Macbeth. The play has been edited thousands of different ways for different productions, and the earliest existent copy of it we have today is thought to have been a revision of the play to adapt it to an indoor theater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth...rmance_history

And of course, while there's only one Last Supper by Leonardo, there's multiple versions depicting the same scene, done both before and after Leonardo.

The argument certainly can be made in both of those cases that the primary "artist" conflict that lead to alternate versions was precisely about how commercial the film could be. For example, the main reason the US theatrical cut of Brazil is shorter than the European cut is because Universal wanted the film to have more showings per day in a theater.

I think the only crossover was Caligula where the filmmakers appeased the MPAA and get a broader larger audience to clip the more extreme scenes. The point of listing those movies was to make known that the filmmakers and the studios that released them were allowing alternate versions to become available in theatrical exhibition not the typical video restorations.

but that didn't stop the MPAA from telling Warner Bros. that The Devils, A Clockwork Orange, Midnight Cowboy (MGM) that they recieved an X-rating. Which they gladly took. The Devils would then be later cut down to a R, and Midnight Cowboy was appealed. As I understand it, but I might be wrong, Clockwork was trimmed slightly.

To think the MPAA would be so blindsighted and not think films would have content exceedingr R rating parameters is unrealistic, they should have known better to have a legimate rating, say like an R-17: meaning 'restricted audience over 17 only' since the 1970's. 'X' being too associate with seX ultimately damned any mainstream movie that had sexual/graphic violence that the MPAA dictated was too much for the average American filmgoer. The attempt to rectify the problem with the newer NC-17 rating, hasn't solved the problem either.

Which really isn't surprising since, while never trademarked, the X rating was still an official rating that the MPAA could issue. That the major studios allowed some of their releases to be released initially with an X rating shows that there wasn't an instant stigma on X-rated releases when the rating was first introduced. It was only after time that the rating got tarnished.

Also, it still was never intended as a "punishment" to films, anymore so than a film was "punished" with an R rating for having material not appropriate for a PG film.

Two of those films were originally released with the X rating, and later had edits made for a theatrical re-release to a larger audience, much like what happened with Saturday Night Fever. The Devils was edited down to an R before release in the US, but countless other films have had edits done to meet a specific rating the studio wants, whether that rating be an R, PG-13, PG, or even G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dev...lm)#Censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnigh...oy#Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clock...tes_censorship

The initial ratings were all different letters, to designate different restrictions. This is the same MPAA that initially labeled PG films "M", which some people thought meant was worse than an R, then changed it to "GP," which some people thought meant "General Patronage," before finding a rating people could understand: PG. It's very hard to predict how the masses will react to anything. Creating the "PG-13" rating came much later in the process when the hierarchy of ratings was so well known that adding a number to one of the ratings made sense.

I don't think "X=seX" was a widespread association back when the rating was first created. That association was created by the porn industry when they adopted the rating.

One can't say the MPAA hasn't tried though. The failure of the rating comes down more on the shoulders of the studios, who seem reluctant to even release R-rated movies these day, and who seem satisfied with releasing more "extreme" versions of films as "unrated" on video instead of submitting the new edits for a NC-17 rating, especially since these new "unrated" cuts may be no worse than the original cut in terms of objectionable content.

The R-rated cut of Caligula was released a year after the unrated cut though. So again, no film has had differently-rated cuts exhibited simultaneously in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligul...tiple_versions

That's never been in contention, and is widely acknowledged. What the OP was asking about was simultaneous releases of differently-rated versions of the same film, which has never happened and is specifically prohibited by the MPAA.

The Devils was cut twice for it's American release, first by it's producers (which was branded an X by the MPAA and released initially as such), then a second time, when Warner's wanted to reissue the film - they cut it to R standards.

the porn industry took the X rating in the mid 70's - they knew exactly how to exploit and take the rating as their own. It's in my opinion that the MPAA should have always had an adults-only rating from the get go - it just down spiraled into a quagmire.

The problem with X-rated/NC-17 films is that some newspapers, theatres and
stores is that they've stipulated that they wont advertise/sell those types of films: sexually explicit films in their minds. There are two many negatives to the distribution and selling of Hollywood films that aren't and exceed R-rated content - the video industry embraces it, but the rest of the pack haven't yet accepted it.

oh and I have accepted the fact that no film has been released simultaneously with two different ratings

From the film's IMDB and Wikipedia pages, it looks like the first cuts to the film was to get a BBFC rating of X, since the BBFC can outright ban films. This cut was then used for the original US X-rated cut. The second cuts were for an R-rated re-release, again not unlike what happened to some R-rated films cut to a PG rating.

Um, they did have the X rating from the beginning of the system. The problem was what they originally intended as a convenience for independent filmmakers, leaving the X rating un-trademarked for easy access, was usurped by the porn industry. It's not like porn really needs a rating, I mean it's porn. It didn't have any ratings before the MPAA system, so it wasn't easily predictable that the porn industry would latch onto a rating meant for "legitimate" films. What we now see as blindingly inevitable is through the benefit of hindsight.

This may have been true in the past, but it's become less and less an issue. Wikipedia's article on MPAA ratings cite recent films where the exhibitors and advertisers that won't accept NC-17 films are in the very small minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_...-17_replaces_X

Fox Searchlight's spokesman said that NC-17 rating did not give them too much problem on releasing [The Dreamers] (they had no problem booking the film, and only a Mormon-owned newspaper in Salt Lake City refused to take this film's ad), and Fox Searchlight was satisfied with this film's United States box office result.

Even with the NC-17 rating, major theater circuits like Regal and AMC had no issue with booking [Lust, Caution], and most newspapers had no issue with accepting this film's ads (except for Salt Lake City)

Also from:
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/8386

Exhibs deny a policy against NC-17, pointing to a NATO survey in which a majority of exhibs said they would give screen space to such a film, depending on the pic, of course.

The real problem nowadays is that studios see the rating as too restrictive in terms of audience. Wheras in the past they would release a film first with the more restrictive rating, then possibly later re-release it in an edited form, now they'll go for the less restrictive ratings in theaters and release the stronger version on video. I mean, not many who saw Saturday Night Fever with its original R rating would want to see the PG version, but plenty of those that saw the R rated version of Knocked Up will want to see the Unrated version on DVD.

Again, from:
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/8386

Studios consider the R rating restrictive enough, with its marketing limitations (e.g., no TV ads before 9 p.m.) and a proviso that kids aren't allowed in without an adult.

The studios' bread and butter comes from films rated PG-13, which in 2006 accounted for roughly 50% of box office receipts.

As one studio exec puts it, "There really needs to be a good, commercial movie that can break through the tide. The problem is, most of the NC-17 films have been niche or arthouse. It's unclear whether the problem is the rating or the movie."

Going back to the OP's example of Die Hard 4, when we have studios editing down R-rated films to get a PG-13 rating for theatrical release, are they really going to take a chance with an even more restrictive rating?

Really, only two negatives?

do you honestly believe what imdb and wikipedia state as fact. The first BBFC approved cut of The Devils was slightly longer than the US first 'X' rated cut, and then yes Warners recut the film to the MPAA approved R-rated version - I've seen all three cuts of the film (plus the pseudo bootleg director's cut)

it was "too" not "two"

I don't take them as absolute or definitive, given as their info is all user submitted. However, they do tend to be a good resource for this sort of info, and typically better than most sites in their accuracy.

The IMDB page does mention the 3 cuts, it's just the scattershot and somewhat vague way the info is presented that doesn't make it that clear:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066993/alternateversions

Originally released with a X-rating, later edited down to allow a R-rating.

The heavily cut R-rated version runs 103 min.

The UK version of the Devils is 111 minutes long. The US version is 109 minutes.

So there's a UK 111min cut, a US 109min cut, and an R-rated 103min cut.

It's interesting that the producers edited cut the film from the UK edit for the US release, considering it still had an X rating. Even if they had cut it with the hopes of earning an R, nothing was stopping them from going back to the longer cut, since at the time they wouldn't have had to re-submit the film to use the X rating on the longer cut.