Passion of the Christ

Post by **Wolf Tooth** » March 3rd, 2005, 9:22 pm

I don't know where she got this, but my mum told me that there's going to be a cut verssion of TPOTC. I've heard nouthing of the such comming out. Is it possable?

Post by **Josh** » March 3rd, 2005, 9:45 pm

It's true. About five minutes worth of violence is being cut from The Passion of the Christ. I think Gibson was trying to get a PG-13 rating for the new cut, in order for younger audiences to see the film. However, the new cut will still be rated R.

Here's more info, including The Passion Recut's poster and trailer:
http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=7745

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, congratulations on being the first person at the AN Forum for having a quote of a quote of a quote as his or her signature.

Post by **Christian** » March 3rd, 2005, 9:54 pm

Interesting that it's actually called "Passion of the Christ Recut."

Post by **Wolf Tooth** » March 4th, 2005, 7:54 am

Mickey A wrote:It's true. About five minutes worth of violence is being cut from The Passion of the Christ. I think Gibson was trying to get a PG-13 rating for the new cut, in order for younger audiences to see the film. However, the new cut will still be rated R.

Thanks. Hmmm to bad that's it's not 13, I've always wanted to see it(my paerents have issues about rated R movies, and it's not like I can pass as an 18 year old).

Mickey A wrote:By the way, congratulations on being the first person at the AN Forum for having a quote of a quote of a quote as his or her signature.

I was wondering when someone was going to notice that. A gold star for you

Post by **Josh** » March 4th, 2005, 12:54 pm

Wolf Tooth wrote:I was wondering when someone was going to notice that. A gold star for you

Wowee! A gold star- for me?! Thanks!

Seriously, it does bug me a little bit that this new cut still won't get a PG-13 rating, with the recent news of Gunner Palace getting a PG-13 rating despite its violence and thirty uses of the f-word.

And you know why Gunner Palace received the PG-13 rating? Look at this quote from Palm Pictures head of theatrical marketing Andy Robbins: "I believe we won the appeal on the basis of the fact that in the context of war, the language isn't profane but heard with anxiety and emotion behind it."

The PG-13 rating was given to Gunner's Palace because the f-words were said with anxiety and emotion? First of all, if such is the case, then starting with Saving Private Ryan, there are over a hundred R-rated films that need to be re-rated and given a PG-13 rating. Second of all, were not anxiety and emotion also found in the beating and torment of Christ in The Passion?

Post by **Wolf Tooth** » March 4th, 2005, 1:35 pm

I don't know where you get the R rating from. With all the film sites I checked it hasn't been rated yet. But if what you're saying is true, then it could be that the athiests gave it that R rating to keep people away.

Post by **Josh** » March 4th, 2005, 1:43 pm

Wolf Tooth wrote:I don't know where you get the R rating from.

Oh, I am sorry. I made a little mistake. You see, the MPAA was still going to give The Passion Recut an R-rating, despite its trimmed-down violence. Thus, Gibson, realizing that this defeated the purpose of the cuts, has decided to just release the film unrated.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=8311

Still, whether or not The Passion Recut enters theaters rated, it was going to get an R-rating from the MPAA.

Wolf Tooth wrote:But if what you're saying is true, then it could be that the athiests gave it that R rating to keep people away.

I am not saying that is what has happened. All I know is that if Gunner's Palace received a PG-13 rating, then the MPAA has some explaining to do to Steven Spielberg, Mel Gibson, and Ridley Scott, just to name a few.

Post by **askmike1** » March 4th, 2005, 8:04 pm

I'm surprised he even thought of doing this. He was the one who refused to cut anything out so it could air on network TV.

The people who rate this are so narrowminded. They see that there's blood but don't look at it in context. 'Passion' should not be an R rated film. I think it should be PG-13. There were no special effect explosions, no bad language, no nudity, and the violence that was in it portrayed something that happened, it wan't like some guy was rampaging down the street with a gun. But you know what...these are the same people who gave Home on the Range a PG rating.

Post by **Josh** » March 4th, 2005, 8:56 pm

...and Lilo and Stitch, which I'm still scratching my head over.

Post by **macontosh2000** » March 4th, 2005, 9:31 pm

askmike1 wrote:I'm surprised he even thought of doing this. He was the one who refused to cut anything out so it could air on network TV.

The people who rate this are so narrowminded. They see that there's blood but don't look at it in context. 'Passion' should not be an R rated film. I think it should be PG-13. There were no special effect explosions, no bad language, no nudity, and the violence that was in it portrayed something that happened, it wan't like some guy was rampaging down the street with a gun. But you know what...these are the same people who gave Home on the Range a PG rating.

I havnt seen the whole movie but from what i have seen it deserved the R rating. Violence is violence no matter what the subject matter is. It does not deserve special treatment just because the movie is about something that may have happened.

Post by **Josh** » March 4th, 2005, 9:34 pm

It does not deserve special treatment just because the movie is about something that may have happened.

And neither does Gunner Palace.

Post by **Dacey** » March 5th, 2005, 2:00 pm

Yesterday in The Washington Post, I read that this cut would be rated NC-17.

Post by **Josh** » March 5th, 2005, 2:47 pm

Could you post a link to that story? To be honest with you, that story doesn't seem to make sense, since this cut will have less violence than the first version. I am not saying that you are wrong, but that the Washington Post is wrong.

Post by **askmike1** » March 5th, 2005, 10:59 pm

macontosh2000 wrote:I havnt seen the whole movie but from what i have seen it deserved the R rating. Violence is violence no matter what the subject matter is. It does not deserve special treatment just because the movie is about something that may have happened.

The fact is though that it contained a lot of blood, that's it. No nudity, no foul language, no explicit behavior. So many other movies contains all of the above things, yet get pg-13. Tell me what's worse, a movie where a guy essentially get's beat the whole time, or one with half-naked women, gun shooting, and cursing? The first gets an R and the second a PG-13.

Rating a movie R for violence is pointless because someone can turn their TV on (even before 10) and see drama's where people are being killed and killing themselves and others.

Post by **Josh** » March 5th, 2005, 11:50 pm

In my opinion, Passion of the Christ isn't as violent as people make it out to be. I mean, it's violent. Still, it doesn't show anyone getting cut in half, with guts spilling out. Some of the reviews I read for the film made it sound like The Passion showed Christ with a rather large portion of His skeleton showing.