Why not release multiple rated versions?
 

So I was reading today that the Rogen/Smith movie "...Porno" has been rated NC-17 and they are having a hard time getting it down to a R rating.

We all know that Unrated DVDs are huge. So I had a thought:

Why not release the movie in multiple ratings and let theatres decide which version to show or for big movies show both.

People hated that Die Hard IV was hack up and edited to get to a PG-13. It was on multiple screens anyway they could have easily had both the unedited version and the PG-13 version in theaters.

Same with the upcoming Terminator movie.

In the case of Porno, it is likely to be a niche film so release both versions and give theaters a choice. Many will not see a NC-17 move but there are enough that would.

Thoughts?

I have thouguht of this before, and I think it's certainly feasible. But I doubt the studios would go for it. The idea, of course, is that they want to wring every last penny out of the suckers who will go see the PG-13 versions or whatever, and then on DVD they can rope everyone else in with the Unrated.

if more theatres were equipped with DLP units, studios could in reality make alternate versions on the hard disc sent to the theatre (versus a print which is more costly).

This sounds good in theory, but then we might end up in a situation where the studio puts out a "family friendly" version of every flick and places like Utah only get that version. I'd rather they supported the director in cases like this (although admittedly, an NC-17 is the "kiss of death" for theatrical releases).

While the NC-17 may remain the "kiss of death" I think we should change the rules on "Unrated" movies, depending on their content. For instance, I know that in the past Unrated films weren't allowed to advertise in the newspaper, but I think this movie, for example, should be allowed to post the logo (just the "Zack and Miri" part) with like "From the Creators of Clerks" or something above it with no imagery, and then a list of theaters where it's playing with a large warning that it hasn't been rated. This would allow some filmmakers artistic freedom without the crux of NC-17, even though it's the same thing really.

I wouldn't mind if this stayed at NC-17. I'm still there opening day.

BUT.. overall, I'd love to see something like that happen.

What is it with the whole NC-17 "kiss of death" thing? Its 2008 and the mpaa still make a big deal out of a silly rating. If the movie gets rated NC-17 big whoop. Its not like XXX movie rating. If i had the money I would open a chain of theaters that would be split into two. The NC-17 part of the theater would have an employee that would check ID to let you pass through.

Another thing that pisses me off is the advertisement rule. R rated movies are fine and dandy to be advertised but we cant for NC-17? Whats the big deal?
I hope things change in a few years to where the media doesnt look at the NC-17 rating as a no-no

Someon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing (on a commentary maybe?) that the MPAA specifically won't allow multiple theatrical releases with different ratings simultaneously.

plus, i would think it would cost more money to put multiple versions out. even with little to no marketing on the NC-17 recouping costs and making a profit would maybe be much harder.

I think the average moviegoer would get too confused. There's no point in playing to the very, very small niche of moviegoers who would appreciate and understand that sort of choice.

As a wise man said (RIP George), think of how stupid the average person is. Now think how half the people are dumber than that.


What about Excalibur and Saturday Night Fever? Is this a fairly recent change?

Is it still just language? It boggles my mind that a movie can be rated NC-17 simply because of explicit language. Since this is a Kevin Smith comedy, I highly doubt Elizabeth Banks is going to be getting nekkid (muc less to the degree it would warrent an NC-17) and I'm really not interested in seein Seth Rogan with his giblits-a-flappin', so WHY is this movie getting such a hang-up from the MPAA?


-Doc

What theater chain would want to show an NC-17 if it had the chance to show the R rated version? I doubt more than a handful of theaters would want to have an NC-17 film playing in their theater.

You're correct, the MPAA CARA specifically prohibits simultaneous theatrical releases of different rated cuts of the same film. If there are different cuts that have the same rating, then that's fine.

Section 4, parts C through F:
http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_Rules.pdf

Saturday Night Fever was re-released with a PG rating the year after its initial R rated release. Wikipedia lists the different release dates and even quotes a tagline that illustrates that the PG version was released after the R rated version, not simultaneously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Fever

Where do you go when the record is over? PG: It is now rated PG... Because we want everyone to see John Travolta's dance performance... Because we want everyone to hear the #1 group in the country, the Bee Gees... Because we want everyone to catch Saturday Night Fever.


As for Excalibur, there are some unconfirmed online claims that the R and PG releases were simultaneous. However, the MPAA's ratings database shows that the different cuts were given ratings in different years, the PG cut rated after the R rated cut. That suggests that the releases may have been close together, but not simultaneous.
http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp

The whole point of the NC-17 is to have a safety valve for extreme content.

The MPAA has this rating, NC-17, that they know full well theater owners by and large won't screen and newspapers won't advertise. That's why it's there: To prevent film-makers from pushing the envelope too far. It exists so they can bitchslap down extreme content.

And also, on the belief that if the motion picture industry doesn't censor itself that the government will come in and do it for them. (But that's a whole 'nuther topic.)

The MPAA didn't even want an X or NC-17 rating at first, it was theater owners that pushed for it out of fear of local prosecution:
http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp

However, Fox Searchlight proclaimed very few problems with releasing The Dreamers as NC-17:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_...-17_replaces_X

Certainly Showgirls was a big profile NC-17 film that got a wide release. I think the situation nowadays isn't so much the theater chains or the advertisers, but the studios themselves, who readily cut R-rated features to PG-13 for a larger audience. And who's to blame them, since the strategy seems to work and the inevitable "unrated" video release makes them a second killing.

that's not really true. The MPAA has always allowed an adult rating to exist, they never trademarked the X rating thus allowing the rating to be associated with porn. Granted there's nothing that couldn't stop a porn film to be submitted to the MPAA and given a legimate MPAA rating, it's cost effective - the rating's process proclaims it to be voluntary, but many major studios won't release a film unrated when they think it will have ratings problems, it's okay on home video, but not for actual theatrical distribution.

Saturday Night Feaver was originally R then was later rereleased as PG

the same thing was done with Excalubur

I dont know of any others released theatrically this way

"Chariots of Fire" was originally rated G - a new relooped line to include the word 'shit' was added to up the film to a PG rating. The producers for some reason did not want the film to go out with a G-rating.

'Basket Case' briefly went out with a R-rating, but then got released in it's original unrated version.

'Caligula' also got released theatrically in both R-rated and X-rated forms

'Dawn of the Dead' was released unrated and then when double billed with 'Creepshow' was in an edited R-rated cut.

I read somewhere once that if you don't submit a movie for rating, the movie doesn't reveive an MPAA number and won't have the MPAA logo at the end of the credits, and the MPAA won't stand behind you in a copyright infringemnt case. You would have to sue for infringement entirely on your own.

if that's true, that's the name of the game, the MPAA wants enough power and clout to be involved in the distribution of nearly every film, whether a filmmaker/studio wants it or not.

sorry I had to correct the spelling it was buggin' me.

are you sure about that (the release of the film in PG form - was it unaltered or cut to receive said rating?)

I think it would be too confusing to have different-rated versions of a movie at the same multiplex

unless you have something like the over-21 cinema clubs - it's kind of hard to control anyone under 17 not to enter a NC-17 film in a multi screen theatre.

I would argue against by stating that a film should be a unitary entity as a work of art, not a commodity that can be purchased with various options, like a car - "want that in a 4-door? No problem!" "Want that film to have more nudity? Why sure!" There aren't multiple versions of The Last Supper or Macbeth, so why should there be multiple versions of Last Year At Marienbad? Now, yes, I know that authors and painters revise their works often, producing various drafts until they finish, and sometimes they continue to tinker. There are at least two, if not more, recognized versions of Joyce's <i>Ulysses</i>, much like there are multiple versions of Blade Runner or Brazil. But that's not the same thing. Those different versions exist because of artistic conflicts, not as a result of the commodification of art (although I guess in both cases that argument could be made...)

Well said...thank you for saving me from having to type a longer reply in this thread than this.