Movie News

F&^k That! THE KING'S SPEECH Re-Released For PG-13 - A Nordling Op-Ed

Published at: Feb. 25, 2011, 9:59 p.m. CST by Nordling

Nordling here.

I think I liked THE KING'S SPEECH more than my contemporaries here at AICN.  It's not my favorite of the Best Picture nominees, and if it were up to me I'd drop it if it meant Mark Romanek's NEVER LET ME GO got a slot.  But for a few weeks now it seems the Weinstein Company has been wanting to re-release this film to get more bang for its buck by re-cutting it for a PG-13 rating, thus ensuring more box office.  The R rating is due to one scene in particular where Colin Firth's King George VI swears like a sailor to get over his stammering, as he's being encouraged by Geoffrey Rush's Lionel Logue.  There's no sexual connotation to it at all, and it's a very funny and effective scene.  But too many F-bombs, in this scene and spread throughout the film, pushed the film to the R rating it received from the MPAA.

Well, it appears the Weinstein Company successfully lobbied the MPAA to allow them to release a PG-13 cut of the film without having to wait the statutory 90 days, and so the studio will begin withdrawing the R version from theaters to make way for the PG-13 version - "to avoid public confusion," according to the MPAA.  As it seems there's a real possibility that THE KING'S SPEECH will do very well at the Oscars Sunday night, it's difficult to see the reasoning behind this other than simple greed.  The film has already done quite well, with over $100 million in domestic money alone, with an additional $130 million in international box office take.  At this point, other than the bump that the Oscars seem to give after the ceremony, who was going to see this film who hasn't seen it already?

I understand that the Weinstein Company would want to maximize their profits, and THE KING'S SPEECH is a good movie.  It may seem like it's just one scene in the film, so what's the big deal?  But when I saw the film with an audience, that scene got a terrific response, and I'd hate to see that response lessened.  It's not a scene, in my opinion, that any kid couldn't handle.  It's real and true and genuinely funny, and sure, the language is rough but that's the point.  I'm certain anyone who has speech issues could relate to it and enjoy it for what it was.  I'd have no problem showing it to my daughter, if she was interested in seeing it.

That's the thing - the subject matter wasn't going to bring the kids in of their own accord anyway.  They'd likely be dragged in by their parents.  How many teens out there on a Friday night were going to see THE KING'S SPEECH?  They'd sooner see something they'd be interested in, even if the film wasn't very good, because THE KING'S SPEECH already has the stigma of being a homeworky type of film.  So what's the benefit here, other than the potential of profits?  It's a complete money grab, and there's no artistic reasoning behind it.

I like Tom Hooper as a director.  I thought that JOHN ADAMS was a wonderful miniseries and he directed the hell out of it with the budget he got, and got great performances out of everyone involved.  But what kind of director allows their film to be recut just to get a PG-13?  The scene they're going to cut or re-dub as the case may be is a fairly essential scene in the film - it helps George come to grips with his affliction, his repressed psyche, and it helps him open up to Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush).  It's integral.  And by doing this, the Weinstein Company is taking all the punch out of the scene.  If I were Hooper I'd be up in arms about this, but so far we've heard nothing from his corner.  Perhaps he doesn't want to rock the boat too much considering the Oscars are Sunday night.  No matter what the Weinstein Company might say, this is an artistic decision and should have been left up to the director. If this was his decision, well, that's definitely going to affect my opinion of his work from this point.  There's ways of pleasing the audience without placating them through scenes that might be uncomfortable for them, even a scene that's as innocuous as this one in the scheme of things.

As far as I understand, THE KING'S SPEECH version that's out there this weekend is the R version, but it won't be for long.  According to the MPAA the R version would have to be removed from theaters if the Weinstein Company wants to release this edited version, so as not to cause confusion with movie patrons.  And we all know how this will end up - two different cuts on DVD and Blu-Ray, and I'm sure the Weinstein Company can figure out how to get the most money for those releases.  It's just a shame that this is happening, over one scene in a film with too many swear words for virgin ears.  I guess the film should have ended with Val Kilmer apologizing to the audience a la KISS KISS BANG BANG - "Sorry we said fuck so much."

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 25, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    F-F-F-FU-FUU-FUUU-FUUUUU-FUUUUUUU...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...DAMMIT!

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:04 p.m. CST

    why not use the DH4 smart way of using curse and

    by KilliK

    remaing pg13? for instance: FUUU-fluuushhhh-UU or SUUU-your dinner is ready sir-LLS or YOU MOTHE-drriiing,drriiiing-ER

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    I swear the director has said he's against this.

    by harosa

    I'd bet money I read somewhere that the director was against this, and I doubt he has the power to stop it anyway, he's not an A-list director who I believe would have the power to be against this.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    King's Speech..

    by ShogunMaster

    is only rate PG in Canada. We can take a swear word and still make it a family pic..

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Th-th-th-th-th-th-th...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...that's all, motherfuckers!

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Nordling,

    by MageKage

    Well said. Agreed.

  • With all the films these days that are watered down (mainly action films) just so they have a chance to make the most money but are therefore ruined for the people who actually want a more hardcore viewing experience. It's surprised me that a film which is so well made and so inoffensive would have such a rating making it less accessible. Just shows you how screwed up everything is. It's just more censorship bullshit. So presumably the people who gave it an R rating believe that the people barred from seeing it because of its certificate will never here a curse word or a string of them. It's so lovely that we have these people to watch over us, preventing us from seeing the harshness of reality so we can live in bliss and ignorance. They're really having an effect on making the world a better place.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:08 p.m. CST

    All they needed to get the PG-13 was mute two fucks.

    by little_lebowski

    Which is exactly what they did. It's not a radically different edit of the film, and doesn't merit any "wah-wah" commentary.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:08 p.m. CST

    FUCK THAT.

    by AdamWM629

    How about we just forget R-rated movies entirely and release everything without swears so the high school kids can see them and say, "Hey, where'd all the fucking swears go?"

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Also...

    by AdamWM629

    The King's Speech was awesome and that scene in particular was hilarious.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:10 p.m. CST

    I mean, fuck...

    by little_lebowski

    They'll do a lot worse to it once it comes to airing on television.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:10 p.m. CST

    I had a feeling they would do this

    by Toe Jam

    After seeing the film, I was rather angry that the stupid fucking MPAA would slap it with an R just for all the f-bombs. I also knew somebody would try to find a way to re-cut it and make it more palatable for the under-17 crowd. Oh, well. This must piss off the director, but at least now I can buy it for my grandparnets when it comes out on DVD. (Yes, they're rather prudish.)

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Tom Hooper & MPAA

    by Flummage

    Hooper has repeatedly batted down a PG13 cut of the film, precisely on the grounds of 'artistic integrity'. This is Weinstein's baby for potential extra dollar rush with the inflated Oscar publicity.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    People are honestly surprised?

    by BrandonGK

    Its the Weinsteins for chrissakes. They'll do anything for a buck and roll over any director whose name isn't Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, or Kevin Smith.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    films...are um...made to make money.

    by BILLY

    Fuck the DIRECTOR. this news doesn't bother me one bit. it's just a few f bombs.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Even worse

    by film11

    Given the trend today in DVD/BD releases, it is likely that the only copy for rental will be the PG-13...and an R-Rated or dual version release for sale only. The studios and home video scene these days is really very scuzzy.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Looks like my original post got CHOPPED!!!!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    This new format is INCREDIBLE. I mean it. Posts disappearing....having to refresh and THEN re-expand the comments....it is a great way to improve the number of 'hits', while treating those dipshits (i.e. talkbackers) who actually PROVIDE those same hits like ginger step-children. Well played, AICN. Well played indeed. Oh yeah....THE KING'S SPEECH? PG-13??? Who gives a shit ANYWAY?????

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Hey Harvey-Fuck you right in your fucking Nazi ass..

    by Jobacca

    C'mon....how can anyone with a last name like Weinstein be in favor of censorship? This is some straight up motherfucking bullshit my friends. Oh I'm sorry...did that offend? I meant its some motherLOVING bullPUCKY...there. Is that better? God forbid we violate the Cocteau Verbal Morality Law.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Well I know a ton of 14 yr olds who will go see it now

    by billcom6

    weinsteins, you so crazy

  • Seriously....why the fucking fuckity fuck do they even think this will matter. Its an adult-orientated film to begin with....its not like a bunch of tweeners were lined up around the block begging to get in(you know..like when they sneak into the latest R-rated SAW flick). What are they going to do....add a Justin Beiber song to the soundtrack? Have the main character bust out in a rousing rendition of Cee-Low's version of FORGET YOU?

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    I'm more surprised by the hate this site gives the film.

    by The_Dark_Shite

    I think this article is the closest I've seen here to an admission of even slightly liking it (& even then it was said with a tinge of guilt). "I like it more than other people on this site, but I'd swap its nominations for "never let me go". <p> Bullshit. <p> If you like movies & you appreciate good acting, it's a fucking awesome film.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Oh. And...tits.

    by The_Dark_Shite

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 8:57 p.m. CST

    How much more money would this movie even have made at this point?

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    It's been out two months already and has made good money already thanks to the awards season hype, so, even considering an Oscar sweep, how much more can it realistically make? Who HASN'T seen this by now? What 13-year-old would WANT to see this in the first place? What idiocy.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Yeah, not a lot of love for KS in geekdom

    by No Respectable Gentleman

    Outright hostility in some quarters. To earn some fanboy cred Tom Hooper clearly needs to make a movie where someone gets his head pulped with a baseball bat. Quickly.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    AMC does this all time tim

    by AshokForgiven

    Mute out a few works here and there. I don't really care. Doesn't really add or subtract from the plot.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Why don't they add some decapitations....

    by Orion

    b/c we all know that would be fine.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Who is this Nordling guy, anyway?

    by rbatty024

    I mean, he writes clean sentences that are relatively grammatically correct, and he makes coherent arguments. Where the hell did AICN find this guy? He must be slumming or something.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    This film is not yet rated...

    by Sean

    is a perfect documentary to show how fucked up our movie rating system is.... two less fucks and it's suddenly PG-13? Even if it doesn't change the scene that is fucking idiotic. it makes me want to gratuitously use the word fuck. fuck

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Tempest in a teapot

    by Blanket-Man

    Who cares? Is this really that different than the hundreds of DVDs that have been released over the past decade or two as the "Director's Cut" and/or the "Unrated" version? Studios and directors have been recutting their movies for a long time now, for a wide range of motives... but I'd bet "a desire to make more money" was near the top of the list every time. So what? I'm sure the original R-rated KING'S SPEECH will be available on Blu Ray in a few months, along with who knows how many other versions. This is much ado about nuthin'...

  • fuck

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Fucking stupid.

    by blackwood

    Yes, it does matter. Does muting two fucks drastically alter the film? No. But it shows that the 'scale of decency' or whatever mythical bullshit the MPAA uses to decide ratings is completely arbitrary, and if you don't think this has anything to do with geekdom, wake the fuck up. The fact that an organization, whose members have literally no qualifications whatsoever other that being allegedly human and for-all-appearances alive, can hold so much sway over how much money a given film 'can make' in theatres -- that these people believe SWEARING is a societal ill that we need to protect children from, specifically children who would be interested in GOING TO SEE A CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED FILM ABOUT A HISTORICAL FIGURE, is a problem. Your priorities are way the fuck out of whack. Thankfully, I am also from Canada, where KING'S SPEECH is rated PG. Because we're not monumentally retarded. And maybe we believe parents should parent, and rating systems should be sensible guildelines, not imposter kings arbitrating morality and box office access.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    King's Speech should win Best Pic but this is a slimy move

    by Andy Pandy

    on everyone's part, Weinstein's, the MPAA. Cutting an important scene in the film prior to Oscars to make a quick buck, no doubt they'll keep it PG13 if they win, fuck that bullshit! And fuck the MPAA for making it R rated in the first place. Totally unnecessary!

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    So it's rated G now?

    by Andrew Coleman

    Without cursing there is nothing in that movie that deserves a higher rating than that. What sucks is this will work but it goes against what I want to happen. Can someone in Hollywood have balls and just not give a shit about R ratings?

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 10:18 p.m. CST

    if they must... just bleep it, no dubbing

    by Adelai Niska

    A loud, obvious bleep is way funnier than anything they could ever dub in

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    It's like those Christians

    by proevad

    Who go in, edit out Kate's tit out of "Tit"anic, and then repackage it and sell it as a "family" version. Thought this was the fringe that was doing this shit. We're all doomed to watch Kirk Cameron films for the rest of our lives. American Taliban is taking over, my friends.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    by MikeTheSpike

    So the film... company, or whatever, makes a good movie with a scene with a few swears, and the MPAA gives them a bullshit R-rating as a result. You can hardly fault this... film company for trimming a scene so they can make a few more bucks. Get on the MPAA's case, not the Weinsteins'.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Great movie

    by dukeroberts

    I thought The King's Speech was a great movie too. This particular scene is integral to the overall story, and is hilarious as it was written and performed in its original version. Any adult that might be interested in seeing a movie such as this should not be dissuaded due to a few utterances of the word "fuck". The idea that a whole slew of moviegoers will flock upon the theaters just to see the "New and Improved, Less Cussier Version of THE KING'S SPEECH" is ridiculous. The people who are the target audience of this film are not the kinds of people who will let a few cuss words keep them from seeing it. The idea is ridiculous. It will add more bank after Sunday regardless of the f-bombs. Leave it as is. In addition, I am a Christian and my favorite scene in Titanic was the Kate Winslet titty scene. She's hot, and the movie sucked up to that point.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 11:20 p.m. CST

    braindrain

    by dukeroberts

    I think it might win. If I were a member of the Academy I would vote for either Inception or Toy Story 3. What do you think SHOULD win?

  • Seriously, spare me this "righteous anger" crap.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 11:29 p.m. CST

    I actually don't have a huge problem with it

    by seasider

    I mean most movies these days are edited down to get a certain rating. If the PG-13 version flops then that's that. Leave to the consumer as long as they aware that they're drinking diet coke and not regular. I'm sure a lot of filmmakers will have a problem with the idea but there are a lot of conservative people out there who miss out on good movies simply because of the R rating. It may not make sense to people like us but a studio can either alienate them or waste time and money on legal battles against outfits like Cleanflicks and Clearplay or they could just provide these decaffinated products themselves and actually make money of these moviegoers. Who knows? Maybe they'll see the PG-13 version and get curious and then see the R rated version and the movie gets twice the profit.

  • Feb. 25, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    Nordling needs a little cartoon pic.

    by Shubniggorath

    Massa has like what, 20? Someone get this kid a picture! The name puts me in mind of a Viking Little Person.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Kiss,Kiss,Bang,Bang

    by vicmackey1268

    Just talking to my friend about how amazing that movie was, he never saw it, went to see the King's Speech, was bored, came back, watched this, loved it, annnnnd said the EXACT same thing, that the Val Kilmer line was amazing and totally would have worked at the end of the credits. Completely underrated movie AND goes from $10.50 to as low as $8.40 NEW on Bluray with free shipping available on Amazon....seems like a no-brainer right?

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST

    It was a 12A in Britain even with this scene :)

    by DaveC

    A 15 was appealed before it came out instead of this far into the release.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST

    maxcherry fuck you

    by john

    you insecure american twat

  • is The Social Network. It could go to either but in my opinion The King's Speech is the better film but it is close.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:05 a.m. CST

    Nordling, you owe Hooper an apology

    by submarinevoyage

    Hooper has indeed directly spoken out against cutting the film to get a PG-13. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/31/tom-hooper-pg13-kings-speech/

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:13 a.m. CST

    No one cared when The Passion was recut

    by eveelcapitalist

    Dude, they recut the fucking story of Jesus fer Christ's sakes. No one gave a shit then, and no one gives a shit now. Why go out of your way to defend a studio decision to...oh, right, cause that was Mel Gibson, who was quickly becoming persona no grata. Tom Hooper, on the other hand, well this man is a rising star! Pathetic. Did Harry bless this vomit or does Nordling think AICN is his own personal soapbox? Cause between this horseshit and the uncredited use of a fan made image in the Superman thread, Nordling is really making this site look really fucking bad.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Restyles

    by eveelcapitalist

    How do you know Max Cherry is American, exactly? Oh, you don't. So kindly take your anti-Americanism and shove it up your rancid, AIDS infected asshole, you useless cunt. Please. With all due respect. Thank you. *kiss kiss*

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST

    But on further consideration...

    by eveelcapitalist

    ...Has it ever been discussed how inadequate the American film rating system is? G, PG, Pg-13 and R...all based around whether or not little Johnny and Sally Thumbsucker can handle the content. Look, the rating system means jack squat. Not only does it say absolutely nothing about a film's content, but studios force themselves to craft their products to these insane little meaningless letters. "We need to make at least $100 million dollars with this film, be sure to include only three 'fucks' and only six exploding body parts to make sure we get PG-13!" The system infantilizes viewers and studios by overemphasizing sex and violence. Then we get shit where sex and violence are, ta-da, completely overemphasized. Now who didn't see that one coming? Really, the entire rating system needs to be done away with. Let bloggers and websites like AICN or other cultural groups rate movies according to their own standards. I can learn more about a movie in a good review than I can with a fucking letter, so why rely on it? Toss it, it was good in a time when entertainment sources were few and far between. Now in this digital age I can find out everything I need to know about a movie with a few keystrokes. Taking a single moment and not only can I find out the content of a film, I can better decide where my hard earned dollars are going. Fuck this PG and R shit.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 2:26 a.m. CST

    I remember Slumdog Millionaire

    by Monkeybrains

    My favorite scene was when the kids disarmed that bomb in the car, and then that one kid had a bomb strapped to his chest and then they had some jam-e jam type of dance and the kid still blew up. Good times

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 2:33 a.m. CST

    BEEP BEEP BEEP

    by darth_hideous

    They should have just left the scene in and covered up all the f-bombs with loud, annoying beeps. It would probably help in getting across the point at how ludicrous the R-rating was in the first place.

  • And I'm not even sure they could do that now a days. The studios want to keep the GOP, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and all these fucking right wing nut jobs out of its business so that's why this utterly asinine and outdated ratings system exists. But in this day and age where sensibilities have changed, I honestly don't think that the feds, the states, or local governments could try to do anything to stop the MPAA from either changing the system or dropping it altogether. Look what's happening in Wisconsin. The Republican governor and his right wing we'll fuck over the working classes regime and agenda is being countered by people on the streets who want to get that dipshit alone for five minutes and cut off his balls. Americans at the end of the day can scream up and down about explicit sex, violence and language in a film but that won't stop them from going down to Walmart and buying media with all that in it or pirating it online to their laptops and computers. This country wants Charlie Sheen picking up briefcases full of coke at his house while he fucks strippers left and right. This country wants ultraviolence being done to third world countries and its populations while some square jawed hero shouts, "shove this up your ass you fucking cunts!" This country wants Robert Downey Jr. going down on three or four women, breasts all up in the air, full frontal for all parties. That's America kids. It's fucking great!

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    this is ridiculous

    by emeraldboy

    george the sixth had a stammer and he had a terrible temper. the stammer made him very frustrated and that sparked his considerable temper. so for the mpaa to censor the film is a butchering of history.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 3 a.m. CST

    geoffrey_fourmyle

    by theKRELL

    Actually . . . most of the readers of AICN jizz over / on a picture of you! *kisses*

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Hear that flushing sound?

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Yeah, that's America circling the bowl, getting closer and closer to that black hole... I love this country, but sometimes, it really, really confuses the fuck out of me.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    They did this with Mrs Doubtfire too

    by Beastlaz

    I distinctly remember seeing Mrs Doubtfire on first release, couple of weeks later there was a huge banner outside the theatre 'New Family friendly version' to this day I've never seen anything of the original version again and when I tell people, about it they think I'm yanking their chain.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 4:28 a.m. CST

    We Brits ....

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    Do SO enjoy winning your little Oscars .... Now scuttle off the rest of the World and actually try to make something worth a shit for next year .... Some competition would be nice!

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 4:30 a.m. CST

    braindrain what Brit movies have you been watching??

    by DiamondJoe

    Brits dont swear?? Er, Four Weddings and a Funeral, any Guy Ritchie film, Trainspotting, Shalllow Grave, 28 Days Later, Layer Cake, Dog Soldiers - fuck, man, the list is endless. In fact I'd say your average Brit movie is far less squeamish about fruity language than a Yank one. Case in point - the fact that King's Speech was rated 12A in the UK despite having several voluble "fucks" and got an R in the states.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 4:32 a.m. CST

    Religious nutters and non-nutters...

    by bubcus

    There are still people in this world that want to watch good movies without an over-abundance of swearing. It's not that bad a thing if Hollywood wants to show them a little love for once. Swearing exercises is indeed an effective way to get rid of stuttering or a stammer and I have no problem with that in the context of the film. I just know a number of non-preachy parents that have a high moral value and refrain from seeing movies with an R-rating. My own parents had the view that they would try not watch a film they couldn't bring their own children to (with some exceptions). Anyway, the DVD/Blu-Ray will most likely remain the original theatrical cut and will possibly include the PG-13 alternate as a bonus feature. No harm in that.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 4:38 a.m. CST

    This was R in America????!!!

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    Fuck me you Yanks are soft as shite ... Remember when you chopped the end off 'The Decent' because it was too depressing! ..... Man the fuck up!

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Instead of giving us less swearing, I wish they would have given us more tits.

    by Doctor_Strangepork

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST

    F&^k That! THE KING'S SPEECH Re-Released For PG-13

    by Kel

    Via Ain't It Cool News

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Remember the good old days...

    by HarryKnowlesNonExistentInceptionReview

    ...when "shit" and "fuck" could be heard in PG movies (they didn't even HAVE PG-13 then), chicks got topless in teen comedies that everyone over the age of 12 went to see, bible-thumpers stayed in their trailer parks and left everyone alone and we all thought British curse words like "bollocks" and "bugger" were just plain silly?

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 6:54 a.m. CST

    creepythinman, Queen Victoria called...

    by LaneMyersClassic

    ...she's not amused by your post. BTW, thanks for Benny Hill, you cunt!

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:34 a.m. CST

    They're doing it for the CHILDREN!!!

    by cookylamoo

    Nothing makes a child's eyes light up like a movie involving speech therapy.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Are we forgetting the family friendly Avatar version?

    by sam jacksons wig

    There was fuck all wrong with the language in that, and with $2.7b in box office alone, who the fuck didn't see it? The world has gone crazy thanks to religeous nuts who are soooooo supressed that they undoubtedly have several hundred whore corpses hidden about their homes, and a stash of porn that would have made John Holmes blush. COME OUT OF THE CLOSET YOU BIBLE THUMPING SELF RIGHTEOUS CUNTS!!! Now I'm off to masturbate to the GOD channel.....

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    I dont get all the love for this movie

    by larry burbridge

    Its ok. But no better than anything on BBCA. Its not even Merchant Ivory quality. Rush is good as always, but Firth, I just dont get. he has never been a great actor in my book. I think the Black Swan far and away blew this away, but it doesnt get the love because it isnt a feel good movie and has some lesbian lovin' in it.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    The King's Speech getting an R-rating is laughable.

    by BigTuna

    R rating for That scene? You've got to be fucking kidding me. And Saw movies get R ratings too?

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    The MPAA is ridiculous

    by ToshiroShimura

    In Canada here, we dispensed with that archaic ratings board over a decade ago, maybe longer. The King's Speech is rated PG in Canada, and this is nowhere near the first time the ratings given have varied widely between systems. We all know the MPAA is run by a bunch of scared old white men (or jews), and most can agree that it's time for this "voluntary" system to be cast aside for something reflecting the changing times. I say, make the ratings boards truly voluntary. I say, leave it up to the parents to make sure their 10 year olds aren't sneaking into a midnight screening of Cronenberg's Crash Uncut. I say fuck the MPAA. How saying "fuck" a oouple of times throughout a whole movie denotes an R rating is beyond me

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 8:45 a.m. CST

    mojoman68

    by ToshiroShimura

    I totally agree, Black Swan is the much better film. Who knows, maybe it will manage to pull a few surprises out of the academy's ass this sunday

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Now it's PG-13?

    by Shawn F.

    If they lopped that scene out, or redubbed it, then the movie should get a straight up PG rating since there is NOTHING else in the film to give it a PG-13. Why it was R is beyond me anyway. I think if the Harvey & Bob really wanted to, they could have had that R rating appealed and brought down to a PG-13. Hell, if Warner Brothers could get "All the President's Men" re-rated to a PG from an R without making a single cut (and that film used the F-bomb quite a bit), then Harvey Scissorhands could do so as well. Stupid fucking studioheads. That blu-ray coming out in April better have the original cut.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:04 a.m. CST

    It doesn't take a genius to see how some stereotypes came to fruition

    by alienindisguise

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:10 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives, Calgary

    by ToshiroShimura

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:41 a.m. CST

    seems the proper solution

    by smackfu

    would be to not have a panel of Christian puritans in charge of rating movies.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:48 a.m. CST

    FUCK YOOOOU Weinsteins!

    by D.Vader

    You fucking hacks, hacking away at people's art. Now you want the public to pay to watch the TBS version of this movie in theaters? Fuck that. I won't be seeing it. Are all the F-bombs going to be changed to "fudge" and "flipping"?

  • They won't know they're not seeing the director's true vision, that they're seeing an inferior product edited by moneymen. That's the real travesty. It's not like watching a movie on basic cable and knowing it's been edited for content.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Yippe-Ki-yay Mr. Falcon

    by MinderThr33

    hopefully they got the guys who used to do Fox tv edits.

  • Then you must also be fine with pandering to the lowest common denominator and have no problem with that slowly becoming the norm.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Because this is what tweens want to watch...period dramas about stuttering.

    by Doctor_Strangepork

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Theres a reason Cleanflicks exists

    by D.Vader

    Its bc when Christian conservatives try and make a movie for families, they turn out really shitty. So instead of trying harder, a company comes along, edits out "objectionable material" from real movies, and then repackages them and sells them to prudes. What they *should* be doing is try and make BETTER movies rather than exploit and cash in on someone else's artistic achievement. Those people make me sick.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 10:19 a.m. CST

    If you are for watered down products in order to "sell"

    by D.Vader

    Then you have no integrity.

  • I swear, you assholes are becoming like little Neros and pagan Rome everyday. How long more until you start throwing Christians to the MGM lions? Why don't you put your ridiculous conspiracy theories aside that Christians are controlling your media empire, because it's a very fucking odd thing to say considering how liberal the media, Hollywood and films are concerning anything with regards to Christian morality. They really couldn't give a shit. But they want Christians to attend their movies too because they want Christian money! What a dilemma! Sorry boys, but Christians have nothing to do with your lousy greedy studios and your screwball Rating systems. And f-f-f-fuck you for thinking you have any sort of right telling others how they will raise their kids and what they are free to watch or not. People will put their money where they damn well feel like. It's not like Christians are banding together to call up the Weinsteins and petition saying, "Please, oh please, censor your movie so we can watch it!!!" Bullshit! Why not use some critical thinking there fellas? People got kids to raise and they're not watching the Kings Speech because their kids would rather watch Gnomeo and Juliet instead. I don't want some bored kids in the theatre while I'm watching the King's Speech. I'm sure the Christian parents will enjoy renting it on DVD sometime.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST

    The reason people love The King's Speach is...

    by dixieflyer

    it is the Karate Kid as told by the BBC. Wax on Wax offuffuffuff... FUCK FUCK FUCK!

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Its not for money

    by rahtard

    This movie has been shown to children in speech therapy and has proven to be very beneficial. There is a demand for a more child friendly version of the film. Its been done before with films like Glory. It isn't censorship or anything like that. THere is a high demand for it as just about every speech therapist wants to use this film to help children. You'll have your R version, so just relax.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    rahtard

    by D.Vader

    If you believe that the Weinsteins seriously did this "for the children", you are deluding yourself. Its a great idea, but these two are not known for great, selfless ideas like that. And if therapists want to use it for speech therapy, you know what they do? Wait for the DVD. I doubt they're taking patients out on fucking field trips to the movie theater.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST

    The Weinsteins ABSOLUTELY did this "for the children"

    by Harry Weinstein

    By which I mean, now schools can drag entire busloads of history students to see this newly PG-13 version of the film, whereas the R version would have been more problematic due to the rating. So yeah, "for the children" and shit.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Re-Released? More like R-R-R-R-Re-Released.

    by Doctor_Strangepork

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by rahtard

    Yes, they are. http://www.thetandd.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_80b5a386-330d-11e0-a36c-001cc4c002e0.html I know of two speech pathologists personally who tell clients to see this movie.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Oh... and hey morons

    by djscott95

    "Slumdog Millionaire" didn't win best pic last year - "The Hurt Locker" did. SM was two years ago. ... and in the end it doesn't matter, because most of the time the best film of the year isn't nominated (it was this year) and the best film of the 5 or 10 NEVER wins. (it won't this year either).

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    MPAA gotta eat.....shit

    by Dr Gregory House

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    The title of this story is ironic

    by Dreamfasting

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Rated 12A in the UK. This is what our board said...

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) said that there were two "isolated instances" where Firth's character used repeated strong language at the instigation of his speech therapist in order to help him overcome a crippling stammer. "The strong language is not aggressive and not directed at any person," the BBFC said in a statement. "After careful consideration ... the (BBFC) board took the view that the way the strong language is presented in 'The King's Speech' did not contravene the language guidelines at '12A' and that the public would understand why the board has reached this decision."

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Get on the MPAA's case, not the Weinsteins'

    by ThePeacockKing

    Thank you the Weinsteins' mother

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    restyles ..I owe you a pint for what you said.

    by The_Dark_Shite

    Braindrain..yes, British people do swear. We do so by using the words that we invented.<p> The very same words that you use, when you're busy shooting each other in the face & eating processed meat for a living.<p> 'Cause using sterotypes & being a dick online is clearly very cool.<p>

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Beastlaz

    by frankenberry

    Want to ask you something about the original version of Mrs. Doubtfire. When I was about six, my family rented the VHS from a small rental store. When Mrs. Doubtfire uses the bathroom standing up, I remember a shot of his - well, you know. Being so little, I thought it was hilarious. Mom was pretty shocked, because she had heard it was a family film. Flash forward to a few years ago. When I became more aware of the MPAA's rules, I thought back to that scene and wondered how did Mrs. Doubtfire get a PG-13 rating. But no one remembers the semi-close-up shot of Mrs. Doubtfire's dong in the movie. Did my family somehow rent this long-lost version you're talking about? (If anyone else has an answer, feel free to jump in.)

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Nordling, please read this.

    by frankenberry

    "If this was his decision, well, that's definitely going to affect my opinion of his work from this point." You mean that if Hooper agreed to the cuts, you're actually to like his films less? How does a director's decision on one film affect his other work? If Martin Scorsese released a family friendly version of Goodfellas, would you suddenly hate Raging Bull and Taxi Driver?

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    -Sung to the tune of the film's end credit music:

    by UltraTron

    Stuttering kiiing, you've stuttered. Stutteriing kiiing, you've cried. Stutteriing kiiing, you're friend is strange pirate looking person And now for a speech training montaaage!! Stuttering kiiiing, cry some more Stutteriing kiiiing, the movie almost limply shoehorns in a human antagonist towards the end but not really Stutteriing kiiing, this is actually kind of annoying..

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Rahtard, your link proved nothing

    by D.Vader

    I said I doubt therapists are taking patients on field trips to movies, and your link said absolutely nothing on the subject. If you know people who tell their patients to see the movie, great! If it helps pple with stuttering issues, great! But that's not a rebuttal to what *I* said about field trips. The fact is, this was NOT a move made out of some grandiose humanistic gesture to help pple with speech problems. You said, and I quote "Its not for money," yet offer no proof, no link that the Weinsteins are doing this to help therapists and kids. The evidence remains- this is a money grab.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Frankenberry

    by D.Vader

    Nordling used the words "that's definitely going to affect my opinion of his work from this point." I took that to mean Norling is referring to future movies made by Hooper, and I must agree. If he agreed to these cuts (which accounts here on the TB suggest he did not), it WOULD throw into question his integrity, his drive, his resolve with future projects.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Sure there's money involved

    by Hipshot

    But I know parents who say, "I wish there wasn't so much swearing, so that I'd feel comfortable taking my kids." Until you've had rugrats, and seen the degree to which they soak up culture and spit it back out at the most inopportune moments, you won't understand this. Purely wishing to make a terrific story available to a wide range of viewers is a fine motivation. There is nothing about "King's Speech" that absolutely needed the cursing, although I laughed my butt off. Money is involved, but there are other motivations as well.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    D.Vader & Nordling

    by frankenberry

    D. Vader, I see what you mean. But still, I don't think it's fair of Nordling. I too wish The King's Speech would remain as it is. But I imagine this "mutual decision" by Harvey Weinstein and Tom Hooper is anything but. Weinstein doesn't want to be known as the guy who took a Best Picture from its director and recut it to make money. And when Hooper talks about Weinstein "collaborating" with him on the cut, we all know what that means. Think about this, guys: Weinstein was going to get his PG-13 cut of The King's Speech, no matter what. If Hooper had said yelled and stormed out in response, what would have happened? Weinstein would have just made the cuts himself and the result would have been a PG-13 version even worse than the one we're getting. At worst, we're now getting a few muted words. Nothing about the story has changed, as it still will contain the language in a smaller amount. Do I like it? No. But blaming Hooper isn't right. And quite frankly, I'm still disappointed in you, Nordling. You're a professional critic. Let's say you're watching Hooper's next film. So you mean to tell us that you could very well think, "Hey, this is an excellent film! I really love - oh, wait a minute, Hooper cut two 'fuck''s out of The King's Speech. I don't like his new movie as much anymore."

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Going to watch, R-rated version in a few mins...

    by Tristan

    Shame on you, Harvey! Censoring a film, which has only ONE fucking scene that has a character, saying the word, 'Fuck' over and over. Lame. And I thought, splitting the Kill Bill films in half and making sequels to certain, Mirmax films, were bad ideas...

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Add Some Tits To The R-Rated Version

    by Autodidact

    Amirite?

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Pointless

    by Verminous

    Any parent that cared enough about exposing their children to a film like this wouldn't balk at a few curses that are totally in context. All you do making this PG-13 is attract a few hidebound types that think cursing is the devils work. The kind that think "Nuts!" was an unacceptable response to a request for surrender.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Robin Williams's junk is never scene in Mrs. Doubtfire

    by Bobo_Vision

    However, his junk is seen in The Fisher King, and it was very tiny. Frankenberry seems to have fixated on Robin Williams's twig and berries and inserted them into the film Mrs. Doubtfire. The cross-dressing aspect of the film no doubt lends itself to thoughts about gender confusion and genitals, yet this seems to be of great concern to Frankenberry, and the notion of it being inappropriate to small children. Perhaps a parapraxes has unfolded.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Thanks, yer mama

    by frankenberry

    No "unresolved sexual issues" here. But good luck with yours. Sounds like you've been studying about them.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    P.S., yer mama

    by frankenberry

    I would have expected such a smartass comment from one of the site's 13-year-old readers. But not from a guy old enough to have cut the trailer to Mrs. Doubtfire. Oh, and by "thanks," I meant "Go fuck yourself."

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    The fact that...

    by TopHat

    ...Hollywood still follows whatever Harvey Weinstein tells them shows how lazy and obsolete the industry is. THE KINGS SPEECH is laughingly mediocre. Its right up there with CHOCOLAT. Hollywood, get some back bone. Stand up to Weinstein.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 6:38 p.m. CST

    thought it was a lovely film

    by Ciderman

    The cast were uniformly excellent, the portrayal of a man struggling with anxieties, fear, culminating in a speech impediment was realistic, as someone who has worked with anxieties believe me. The relationship between King and therapist was based strongly on fact, on journals of Lionels. The crisis of succession and the genuine reluctance of a working royal to take the ultimate office after the abdication of his brother was also well told. My only disappointment was the downplay of Edwards fascist leanings, but then the movie wasn't about him. Not really sure what the film could have done to be better, it was one if my films of the year, I am frankly surprised so many dislike it and the cynic in me wonders if they have yet to see it, in reality ...

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Good F-F-F-F-F-F-F-FUCKING Christ!

    by Subtitles_Off

    This is a joke. It's gotta be. One more thing that AICN has gotten totally wrong from out of somebody's ass.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 7:37 p.m. CST

    ciderman

    by Subtitles_Off

    It's only the blockbustards who hate THE KING'S SPEECH. It's not like it was the kind of movie for that crowd, anyway. Too much talking in it, and none of the talking is ridiculous shit about how dreams might work in some kind of made-up science fiction universe. And, it's about history. History is old. History doesn't knock back Jäger shots and bare its titties. History doesn't know how to leave its brain behind and have big fun.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    The Weinstein Company needs the money

    by PorkChopXpress

    Let them grab the cash...these guys are operating their business on financial life support, practically.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 8:59 p.m. CST

    BTW frankenberry....just kidding

    by Bobo_Vision

    I try not to be too mean.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    billcom6

    by Chang-A-Lang

    You fucking win.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    King's Speech was perfect!!!!!!!!

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    If they remove one F-Bomb I'm ranking that right up there with Greedo shooting first and CG walkie talkies in E.T.

  • Feb. 26, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Heeeeeey Subby!

    by D.Vader

    What's been happenin' buddy? I know you were making a point, but you don't reeeeeally have a problem with jager shots and titties, do you =)?

  • Now they're going to cut out the one mildly amusing part. Brilliant!

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 12:22 a.m. CST

    bobo_vision

    by frankenberry

    I figured you were just kidding around. I guess my memory is just bad. Thing is, it was a fairly big deal at my house. When it came on in this 'family movie,' my siblings were shocked. Mom took the VHS out and returned it. So with all that in mind, you guys can see why I don't understand it never happened. I know I didn't dream it, because we exchanged it for Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I don't know... Anyway, I'm going to drop the subject, before some jackass like 'yer mama' opens his fucking mouth again.

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Grindhouse

    by Henry Fool

    When have the Weinstein's ever taken the high road on a money issue. They milk everything for all its worth. I don't begrudge them it. It's a business after all and I'm personally related to someone who has profited a great deal from doing business with them.<br /> <br /> They're good to they're core group like Tarantino and Kevin Smith. But some of the cuts they've made, such as keeping the theatrical cut of Grindhouse off the market for so long really left a bad taste in my mouth. That's what this does.<br /> <br /> What's next for the Weinsteins? Whatever is best with them. To be fair, they have a new company to build. They've put out some good films on their label (The Road, A Single Man, Feast, Zack and Miri) but they've also made a lot of forgettable movies and had precious few hits. If they don't turn things around, then the Weinstein Company will be remembered as Miramax's death rattle.

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 2:10 a.m. CST

    I like thoughtful sci-fi

    by tomdolan04

    but Never Let Me Go is the most overrated pile of critical bobbin's this year. The leads did a fine job (Mulligan can do no wrong) but it's own self importance and pondering just screamed "LOOK. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE ETHICAL AND ARTY POINTS BY HAVING LOTS OF LINGERING GLANCES". Kings Speech - great little film that is at risk of buried under the weight of it's own hype. Decision to re-release and edit: just plain fucking stupid.

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Here's the reality

    by ThrowMeTheIdol

    Movies are cut in this way all the time for overseas markets. I know first hand, I've lived abroad and witnessed it. So this isn't as rare or surprising as it sounds, what is different only is that usually these edited versions are not shown in the US. It's not that big a deal.

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    I'm ok with this if...

    by UltraTron

    They re-release hellboy with the R-rated blood code turned on. Ya know? The multiple scenes of a guy chopping people to ribbons with 2 swords that have no blood whatsoever- fix that. That needs fixing.

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    FUCK THE WIENSTIENS!!!!!

    by samuraiyao

    FUCK YOU!!!

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Exactly Samurai.

    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    Watch these guys essentially buy another Oscar tonight with the King's Speech. Nice little gifts here and there go a long way in greasing the skids for a smooth run to another best picture. Didn't have to wait the mandatory 90 days huh? Wow, I'm on the floor.

  • But the audience doesn't. So someone in the film sees his junk....I think.....

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    a very good reason

    by taff

    There is a very good reason for doing this; for parents of children who stutter and might prefer to not inflict that level of profanity upon a child. This is a great movie for a stuttering child to see. Some people get offended by profanity and some people, like me, just get bored with it. I overlook it on this site because I like the info and insight but, in general, profanity is extremely boring!

  • Feb. 27, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    http://www.chic-goods.com/

    by chicgoods

    input this URL: ( http://www.chic-goods.com/ ) you can find many cheap and high stuff (jor dan shoes) (NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey) ( lv handbag) (cha nel wallet) (D&G sunglasses) (ed har dy jacket) (UGG boot) WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!! ===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ ===== ===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

  • Feb. 28, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST

    Different Cuts on Blu-ray

    by NativeGaijin

    I'm pretty sure that they'll include both versions on the Blu-ray. Technically, there's no reason to release two different discs when Blu-ray allows both versions to be displayed via seamless branching. I can't wait to hear the director's commentary on the inferior, sanitized version.

  • Feb. 28, 2011, 6:49 p.m. CST

    The fuck-fuck-fuck & shit-shit-shit is integral to the plot.

    by Arafel