here are the one's i can think of right away
clerks Rated R on appeal for extensive use of extremely explicit sex-related dialogue.
Previously rated (NC-17).
As Good As It Gets (1997) PG-13 Rated PG-13 on appeal for strong language, thematic elements, nudity and a beating.
Previously rated (R).
Jersey Girl (2003) PG-13 Rated PG-13 on appeal for language and sexual content including frank dialogue.
Previously rated (R) in (03).

took boys don't cry off because apparently the rape is cut by the mpaa and the europeans have it uncut.

The Wild Bunch was about to get slapped with an NC-17 when it was re-released on video in the early 90's. But the original,uncut version managed to keep an R in the end.

I think Solaris got an R rating originally, due to the prominence of Clooney's ass, but they appealed and were given a PG-13 instead.

Scarface (1983) had originally got an X rating, De Palma recut his film about three times until he finally won the appeal for an R. He decided to release his original cut since the cuts he made were minimal at best.

Jaws was going to get an R rating as was Poltergeist.

I believe Indiana Jones was close to doing that as well.

I think Midnight Cowboy kept the X-rating when it won the Oscar, but then may have been changed thereafter(perhaps because the Academy or Old Hollywood didn't want the stigma of X-rated best pic?) The content has some harsher moments, but nothing overtly gratiutious or graphic, so it was knocked down to an "R" later on with no cuts.

question, does the directors cut have aditional violence thats not in the theatrical cut, is that the reason for the almost NC-17

clerks was going to be rated NC-17?

in 94, (and for the most part today), that kind of talk was consitered shocking, but since its miramax, they lowered it to an R

Miramax hired a big name lawyer to scare the MPAA as they thought the NC-17 was unjustified due to just "language." Once they hired that specific lawyer, the MPAA caved in and gave the film an R.

Nice to know we can count on the MPAA for our moral guidance

no, for the director's cut, non-violent scenes were added into the storyline. The interesting thing about the rerating process was that when the restored cut of the film was screened by the Classification and Ratings Administration filmboard they found the violence to warrant a NC-17. Warner Bros. appealed the rating on the grounds that the restored footage was not of NC-17 content - they obviousily won. This in turns raises an interesting question on what the board can find objectionable. The film's violence while graphic was found to be acceptable in 1969, yet the 1995 filmboard (comprised of parents remember) found the violence should have warranted a NC-17.

As I know understand it, and new MPAA guidelines states that if a film is restored of any 'new' footage, the new cut of the film must be resubmitted in it's entirety and must take a new rating. Previous ratings do not apply for expanded versions of films.

In regards to Clerks - I remember reading that the MPAA had a real problem with the explicit sexual talk specifically the 'snow balling' (I think that's the term) explanation.

Language can in fact ensue a film to get a NC-17 rating. Andrew Dice Clay's, Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy's stand-up comedian act films were all given NC-17's for its coarse language, only Eddie Murphy's film Raw had to be cut to recieve it's R-rating.

In regards to Clerks - I remember reading that the MPAA had a real problem with the explicit sexual talk specifically the 'snow balling' (I think that's the term) explanation.
smith also said that the now famous 37 scene and the scene with the guy in the bathroom, had problems also.

I just watched the Indy bonus DVD, and they mentioned that Temple of Doom was the film that brought about the PG-13 ratings standard. If I remember correctly, the MPAA gave it a PG, but Spielberg wanted something slightly higher, yet not R. So he came up with the idea for an inbetween rating, which later became PG-13. Interesting to know.

both Temple of Doom and Gremlins were the films that initiated the creation of the PG-13 rating.

Weird. I could've sworn that Dreamscape and Red Dawn were the first 2 movies to be rated PG-13 because I remembered first hearing the "PG-13" rating on their TV spots. But according to Imdb (And the Indy bonus disc) it looks like I'm proven wrong.

I'm pretty sure Saving Private Ryan was considered too harsh for an "R" rating, but they changed their minds after Spielberg pleaded his case.

Your Friends & Neighbors was first NC-17 and now it is R for graphic sexual dialogue, strong sexuality and language.

yes. August 1984 saw the release of both (PG-13 rated films) Red Dawn and Dreamscape. Temple of Doom and Gremlins were May/June releases before the rating took affect: they were both rated PG. The advance word of these films being overtly violent caused the MPAA to create the new rating.

Actually Speilberg himself pleaded with the MPAA to create an "in-between" rating for films like his own Temple of Doom. What Speilberg wants, Speilberg gets. I think it's mentioned on the TOD doc from the Indy set.

Abel Ferrar's King of New York was initially given an NC-17 after a succesful appeal and no cuts, it was awarded an R-rating.

Spielberg wasn't on his own here. Parent's groups, big-name critics, and other filmmakers got in on the act after the outrage caused by PG films like Temple of Doom and Gremlins.

Yes - Kevin Smith says on his commentary track for CLERKS that they got an NC-17, but got it down to an R on appeal with no cuts whatsoever.

Here's my favorite though - STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE upgraded from G to PG for its special edition DVD release, just because some special effects were jazzed up! (it's still the cut that was in theaters - meaning no additional scenes...not even the 12 mintues that was on the ABC and VHS versions)