CR -- US vs International version

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by ste7ens, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. ste7ens

    ste7ens Guest

    I noticed while enjoying the DTS soundtrack of my Region 3 "Casino
    Royale" DVD that the international version runs ten seconds longer
    than the US version. R1 time is 144:15, the R3 is 144:25.

    I specifically detected some extra shots during the stairwell fight
    sequence that are definitely not seen in the US release: an overhead
    shot of the first guy impacting the floor 4 stories below; a shot of
    the machete-wielding guy's face as Bond smashes it into the yellow
    stained glass window; a tight shot of the bad guy's hand grabbing for
    Vesper's ankle; a shot of Bond kicking in the bad guy's knee; a
    protracted strangulation; and an additional lingering shot of the bad
    guy's dead face, his eyes still open. Lo and behold, the intense bits
    that represent the MPAA's boundary between a PG-13 and an R rating.

    Not sure yet if there are more extra snips anywhere else in the film.

    In a sidenote, when Daniel Craig did the talk show tour last autumn,
    the film clip broadcast during his interview was a snippet of the
    stairwell fight, and I swore from the moment I saw it that they'd used
    an uncensored version containing the shots of the over-the-railing
    impact and the face being smashed into the window. I caught it during
    a rerun and, having already seen the movie 2x in theaters by the time
    I saw this, I immediately noticed the extra bits I hadn't seen either
    time previously. Now I know I wasn't imagining it.

    Discuss...
     
    ste7ens, Mar 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ste7ens

    Mac Guest

    ste7ens wrote:

    > I noticed while enjoying the DTS soundtrack of my Region 3 "Casino
    > Royale" DVD that the international version runs ten seconds longer
    > than the US version. R1 time is 144:15, the R3 is 144:25.
    >
    > I specifically detected some extra shots during the stairwell fight
    > sequence that are definitely not seen in the US release: an overhead
    > shot of the first guy impacting the floor 4 stories below; a shot of
    > the machete-wielding guy's face as Bond smashes it into the yellow
    > stained glass window; a tight shot of the bad guy's hand grabbing for
    > Vesper's ankle; a shot of Bond kicking in the bad guy's knee; a
    > protracted strangulation; and an additional lingering shot of the bad
    > guy's dead face, his eyes still open. Lo and behold, the intense bits
    > that represent the MPAA's boundary between a PG-13 and an R rating.
    >
    > Not sure yet if there are more extra snips anywhere else in the film.
    >
    > In a sidenote, when Daniel Craig did the talk show tour last autumn,
    > the film clip broadcast during his interview was a snippet of the
    > stairwell fight, and I swore from the moment I saw it that they'd used
    > an uncensored version containing the shots of the over-the-railing
    > impact and the face being smashed into the window. I caught it during
    > a rerun and, having already seen the movie 2x in theaters by the time
    > I saw this, I immediately noticed the extra bits I hadn't seen either
    > time previously. Now I know I wasn't imagining it.
    >
    > Discuss...


    This is being discussed all over the place at the moment. The US R1 DVD
    has cuts/substitutions to the opening pre-credit fight and the stairwell
    fight. The UK R2 DVD has had one shot removed from the torture sequence
    but is otherwise complete. The R3 disc is fully uncut. Results for the R4
    Australian and R2 European versions are still to come in.
    --
    --
    --Mac
     
    Mac, Mar 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ste7ens

    Larry G Guest

    "Mac" <> wrote in message ...
    > ste7ens wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed while enjoying the DTS soundtrack of my Region 3 "Casino
    >> Royale" DVD that the international version runs ten seconds longer
    >> than the US version. R1 time is 144:15, the R3 is 144:25.
    >>
    >> I specifically detected some extra shots during the stairwell fight
    >> sequence that are definitely not seen in the US release: an overhead
    >> shot of the first guy impacting the floor 4 stories below; a shot of
    >> the machete-wielding guy's face as Bond smashes it into the yellow
    >> stained glass window; a tight shot of the bad guy's hand grabbing for
    >> Vesper's ankle; a shot of Bond kicking in the bad guy's knee; a
    >> protracted strangulation; and an additional lingering shot of the bad
    >> guy's dead face, his eyes still open. Lo and behold, the intense bits
    >> that represent the MPAA's boundary between a PG-13 and an R rating.
    >>
    >> Not sure yet if there are more extra snips anywhere else in the film.
    >>
    >> In a sidenote, when Daniel Craig did the talk show tour last autumn,
    >> the film clip broadcast during his interview was a snippet of the
    >> stairwell fight, and I swore from the moment I saw it that they'd used
    >> an uncensored version containing the shots of the over-the-railing
    >> impact and the face being smashed into the window. I caught it during
    >> a rerun and, having already seen the movie 2x in theaters by the time
    >> I saw this, I immediately noticed the extra bits I hadn't seen either
    >> time previously. Now I know I wasn't imagining it.
    >>
    >> Discuss...

    >
    > This is being discussed all over the place at the moment. The US R1 DVD
    > has cuts/substitutions to the opening pre-credit fight and the stairwell
    > fight. The UK R2 DVD has had one shot removed from the torture sequence
    > but is otherwise complete. The R3 disc is fully uncut. Results for the R4
    > Australian and R2 European versions are still to come in.


    I recall an article about the film's release in China that censors had
    approved a completely uncut version of the film there, which most ironicly
    wasn't the case with the version released in the U.S. No sure about Europe.

    Larry
     
    Larry G, Mar 22, 2007
    #3
  4. ste7ens

    Jay G. Guest

    On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:22:08 -0700, Larry G wrote:
    >
    > I recall an article about the film's release in China that censors had
    > approved a completely uncut version of the film there


    It was approved for theatrical screening, but it wasn't unchanged. Dame
    Judy Dench had to change one of her lines:

    http://commanderbond.net/article/4067

    So if you thought the UK/US cuts for violence were silly....

    > which most ironicly wasn't the case with the version released in the U.S.


    The irony is that unlike the changes made in the UK and China, the US cuts
    were completely voluntary and made in order for the film to earn a PG-13
    instead of an R. In Hong Kong, where the uncut R3 DVD hails from, the film
    earned the equivilent of an PG-13 rating.

    > No sure about Europe.


    The UK had a mandatory cut made. Other European countries are typically
    more lax, but it's possible another country's censors wanted this or that
    bit taken out to meet their standards.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Mar 22, 2007
    #4
  5. ste7ens

    Lukan Guest

    > Discuss...

    Honestly, who cares?

    I'm a big 007 fan and all, but saying "hey there's 2.5 seconds of
    additional stairwell shot in the International print!" might be
    interesting in a "hey that's interesting, but really who gives a ****"
    kind of way, that's about it.
     
    Lukan, Mar 22, 2007
    #5
  6. ste7ens

    Mac Guest

    Jay G. wrote:


    >> No sure about Europe.

    >
    > The UK had a mandatory cut made. Other European countries are
    > typically more lax, but it's possible another country's censors
    > wanted this or that bit taken out to meet their standards.


    The UK cut was made, like the US cuts, to obtain a rating (12A). Had
    the film been left intact, it would have been given a 15.
    --
    --
    --Mac
     
    Mac, Mar 22, 2007
    #6
  7. At 11:59pm -0400, 03/21/07, Jay G. <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:22:08 -0700, Larry G wrote:


    >>I recall an article about the film's release in China that censors had
    >>approved a completely uncut version of the film there


    >It was approved for theatrical screening, but it wasn't unchanged. Dame
    >Judy Dench had to change one of her lines:


    >http://commanderbond.net/article/4067


    >So if you thought the UK/US cuts for violence were silly....


    The Chinese people have been kept in the dark about the Cold War? Didn't the
    censors understand that was a dig at the Russians?

    >>which most ironicly wasn't the case with the version released in the U.S.


    >The irony is that unlike the changes made in the UK and China, the US cuts
    >were completely voluntary and made in order for the film to earn a PG-13
    >instead of an R.


    While the US has no Board of Film Censors, cuts negotiated with MPAA CARA to
    get a more favorable rating are in no way voluntary. Movie censorship exists
    in the US because the movie studios are scared to death that it would be
    imposed upon them by Congress. There have been movies shut down in some
    places in the United States for alleged obscenity and pornography and, at
    times, because local authorities were trying to appease the Church.

    Think it can't happen? Congress does censor television and radio, been
    cracking down on obscenities uttered on radio for years. The fines have
    gotten punitively high since the attack of the giant breast.

    Very few movie theaters are willing to show unrated movies in the United
    States. All theaters that belong to NATO (and some that don't) enforce
    CARA's recommended audience restrictions. R rated movies tend not to be
    blockbusters.

    Despite decades of movie censorship, Hollywood has failed to avoid scandals
    like the original Fatty Arbuckle scandal that was the original excuse.

    >In Hong Kong, where the uncut R3 DVD hails from, the film
    >earned the equivilent of an PG-13 rating.


    Interesting.

    >> No sure about Europe.


    >The UK had a mandatory cut made. Other European countries are typically
    >more lax, but it's possible another country's censors wanted this or that
    >bit taken out to meet their standards.
     
    Adam H. Kerman, Mar 22, 2007
    #7
  8. ste7ens

    Jay G. Guest

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:19:24 -0000, Mac wrote:

    > Jay G. wrote:
    >
    >>> No sure about Europe.

    >>
    >> The UK had a mandatory cut made. Other European countries are
    >> typically more lax, but it's possible another country's censors
    >> wanted this or that bit taken out to meet their standards.

    >
    > The UK cut was made, like the US cuts, to obtain a rating (12A). Had
    > the film been left intact, it would have been given a 15.


    My bad. I was thinking this might've been one of those situations where
    the BBFC requested something cut before they'd approve the film to be
    released at all.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Mar 22, 2007
    #8
  9. ste7ens

    Mark Jones Guest

    Lukan wrote:
    >> Discuss...

    >
    > Honestly, who cares?


    You should care when it is only done to appease some censors.
     
    Mark Jones, Mar 22, 2007
    #9
  10. ste7ens

    Jay G. Guest

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:32:07 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    > At 11:59pm -0400, 03/21/07, Jay G. <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:22:08 -0700, Larry G wrote:

    >
    >>http://commanderbond.net/article/4067

    >
    > The Chinese people have been kept in the dark about the Cold War? Didn't the
    > censors understand that was a dig at the Russians?


    It was a dig a *communist* Russia.

    >>The US cuts
    >>were completely voluntary and made in order for the film to earn a PG-13
    >>instead of an R.

    >
    > While the US has no Board of Film Censors, cuts negotiated with MPAA CARA to
    > get a more favorable rating are in no way voluntary.


    Yes they are. The producers could've accepted the R rating the MPAA first
    gave the film, but they chose to go for a lower rating.

    > Movie censorship exists
    > in the US because the movie studios are scared to death that it would be
    > imposed upon them by Congress.


    If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary censorship
    agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.

    > There have been movies shut down in some
    > places in the United States for alleged obscenity and pornography and, at
    > times, because local authorities were trying to appease the Church.


    That didn't happen here though, and was highly unlikely to happen even if
    the film had be released uncut with an R rating.

    > Think it can't happen? Congress does censor television and radio, been
    > cracking down on obscenities uttered on radio for years. The fines have
    > gotten punitively high since the attack of the giant breast.


    Congress doesn't supervise broadcast TV and radio, the FCC does. The FCC
    can do this because they control and license out the radio waves broadcast
    TV and radio use. Cable and Satellite TV and satellite ratio aren't under
    any such restrictions though.

    > Very few movie theaters are willing to show unrated movies in the United
    > States.


    Not really applicable here, since an uncut Casino Royale would've been
    rated R instead of NC-17 or unrated. It's still a voluntary choice by the
    theater owners what they chose to show, and a voluntary choice by film
    producers to change the rating of their film in order to get it in more
    theaters.

    > All theaters that belong to NATO (and some that don't) enforce
    > CARA's recommended audience restrictions. R rated movies tend not to be
    > blockbusters.


    Right, that's why 300 has been the top movie for 2 straight weekends.

    > Despite decades of movie censorship, Hollywood has failed to avoid scandals
    > like the original Fatty Arbuckle scandal that was the original excuse.


    Film ratings weren't enacted until 1968. The Hayes Code before that wasn't
    enforced until 1934, 13 years after the Fatty Arbuckle scandal. And I
    don't see what any of this has to do with the cuts made to Casino Royale.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Mar 22, 2007
    #10
  11. ste7ens

    Nick Xylas Guest

    On Mar 22, 7:26 am, "Mark Jones" <> wrote:
    > You should care when it is only done to appease some censors.


    But there's a difference between a studio making a cut in order to get
    a lower rating from an independent ratings board and a line being cut
    for political reasons in order to appease the Chinese government.
     
    Nick Xylas, Mar 22, 2007
    #11
  12. In message news:ygut4k5s1mxd.1vy0ix41h3b0d$, Jay G. sprach
    forth the following:

    > If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary
    > censorship agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.


    You need to watch 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated'.
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 22, 2007
    #12
  13. ste7ens

    lugnut Guest

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:45:12 -0400, "Jay G." <> wrote:


    >> All theaters that belong to NATO (and some that don't) enforce
    >> CARA's recommended audience restrictions. R rated movies tend not to be
    >> blockbusters.

    >
    >Right, that's why 300 has been the top movie for 2 straight weekends.
    >


    Not to drag this off-topic, but it's a subject I've been curious about
    for the past few years - the "PG-13ification" of American movies. I
    don't know when this happened exactly, it seemed gradual, and then one
    day it seemed like every movie that came out was tagged with the
    PG-13.

    But my question - how and why has this been occurring? R-rated
    movies, at least until the latter half of the 90s, were never
    considered box-office poison. Hell, it was mainly kids who drove the
    never-ending stream of R-rated horror and action movies in the '80s
    and early '90s. Did a law change that would enact fines on theatres
    that sold tickets to 'R' films to minors?

    I'm not advocating studios make films with 'R' content just for the
    sake of making an R-rated film, but it's incredibly annoying when they
    start hacking down movies to get that PG-13. Half of me just wonders
    if it isn't all one big plot to push "unrated omg edition!" DVDs.


    -lugnut
     
    lugnut, Mar 22, 2007
    #13
  14. At 8:45am -0400, 03/22/07, Jay G. <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:32:07 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    >>At 11:59pm -0400, 03/21/07, Jay G. <> wrote:


    >>>http://commanderbond.net/article/4067


    >>The Chinese people have been kept in the dark about the Cold War? Didn't
    >>the censors understand that was a dig at the Russians?


    >It was a dig a *communist* Russia.


    Why would Chinese censors care?

    >>>The US cuts were completely voluntary and made in order for the film to
    >>>earn a PG-13 instead of an R.


    >>While the US has no Board of Film Censors, cuts negotiated with MPAA CARA
    >>to get a more favorable rating are in no way voluntary.


    >Yes they are. The producers could've accepted the R rating the MPAA first
    >gave the film, but they chose to go for a lower rating.


    Huh? They were making a Bond movie, not an R-rated movie. They knew going in
    that they'd make cuts to receive the more commercially-viable rating,
    otherwise they couldn't have gotten financing based on expected US
    distribution of a PG-13 movie. R ratings are specifically enforced to keep
    children out of theaters and to keep movies out of certain communities in
    America. Generally, R-rated movies are not as widely distributed.

    How can you deny that even though MPAA claims the ratings are advisory, that
    they are enforced by film exhibitors? That makes 'em mandatory.

    >>Movie censorship exists in the US because the movie studios are scared to
    >>death that it would be imposed upon them by Congress.


    >If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary censorship
    >agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.


    What free market is that? Is there a choice of classification, or is there
    exactly one classification for the entire country?

    >>There have been movies shut down in some places in the United States for
    >>alleged obscenity and pornography and, at times, because local authorities
    >>were trying to appease the Church.


    >That didn't happen here though, and was highly unlikely to happen even if
    >the film had be released uncut with an R rating.


    Exactly such things happened in the past, which is why the current rating
    system replaced the old one in the late '60's, and why movies that were
    specifically adult in nature and not pornographic were not rated by CARA.
    Recall that "X" meant an unrated movie; none of the early X-rated movies had
    any clear explanation as to why they didn't qualify for R-ratings anyway.
    Within five years, the X rating became unviable as it was adopted by
    producers of bad '70's pr0n.

    NC-17 isn't commercially viable as nearly no exhibitor will show such a
    movie. It is the kiss of death.

    >>Think it can't happen? Congress does censor television and radio, been
    >>cracking down on obscenities uttered on radio for years. The fines have
    >>gotten punitively high since the attack of the giant breast.


    >Congress doesn't supervise broadcast TV and radio, the FCC does.


    Let me be the first to inform you that FCC is carrying out federal law as
    enacted by Congress. One would think that FCC sticks to enforcing technical
    and engineering standards within a scheme of economic regulation, but
    Congress requires FCC to censor television and radio broadcasts.

    >The FCC can do this because they control and license out the radio waves
    >broadcast TV and radio use. Cable and Satellite TV and satellite ratio
    >aren't under any such restrictions though.


    What makes you think they couldn't be? Cable uses public rights-of-way,
    sometimes along highways paid for with federal grants, so that's a way in to
    censorship if Congress chooses. Satelite is licensed, I believe.

    >>Very few movie theaters are willing to show unrated movies in the United
    >>States.


    >Not really applicable here, since an uncut Casino Royale would've been
    >rated R instead of NC-17 or unrated.


    It was an observation that refusal of a producer to submit to CARA because
    the cuts required for more favorable ratings are usually capricious
    (especially for adult movies with no violence at all) is not a viable
    alternative. I suppose there may be examples of a producer making a movie
    that he is aware would not qualify for an R rating forced to make cuts for
    NC-17.

    >It's still a voluntary choice by the theater owners what they chose to
    >show, and a voluntary choice by film producers to change the rating of
    >their film in order to get it in more theaters.


    What don't you understand about the difference between voluntary and
    mandatory? If advice, it's volutary. If enforced, it's mandatory.

    MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS. PG-13: We RECOMMEND that
    children who aren't yet teenagers should not see this movie by themselves.
    R: We RECOMEND that if you let your children under 17 see this movie that
    you should accompany them.

    If ratings were advice to parents, then yes, they would be voluntary.

    The typical theater owner, fearing adverse reaction by church groups and
    others in his community who tell people how to raise their children, which
    is exactly what happened until the present classification system was
    adopted, does not allow unaccompanied teenagers under 17 to see R-rated
    movies. If he belongs to NATO, he agrees to such enforcement.

    In an actual free market, parents would be free to decide whether to allow
    unaccompanies children to see R-rated movies. Perhaps they know that a
    certain R-rated movie has sex but no violence and aren't concerned about
    exposing their children to some sex scenes. Perhaps a parent thinks his
    child isn't old enough to see a certain R-rated movie and won't take him.
    Perhaps he thinks his 15 year old is mature enough to make up his own mind
    and not be stupid enough to act out, copying violent acts in movies.

    We lack such a free market in our society, or theater owners fear becoming
    the targets of community boycotts by people who won't just refuse to see a
    certain movie but will attempt to prevent others from making the choice.
    Recall that these groups once pressured municipal authorities to shut down
    theaters through capricious enforcement of building codes.

    Do you recall that movies that featured black actors in other than
    subservient positions couldn't be distributed nationwide? Was that an
    example of a free market?

    >>All theaters that belong to NATO (and some that don't) enforce
    >>CARA's recommended audience restrictions. R rated movies tend not to be
    >>blockbusters.


    >Right, that's why 300 has been the top movie for 2 straight weekends.


    Is it your contention that blockbusters are more likely to have R ratings
    than PG ratings? That Casino Royale would have made as much money in the
    United States with an R rating?

    >>Despite decades of movie censorship, Hollywood has failed to avoid scandals
    >>like the original Fatty Arbuckle scandal that was the original excuse.


    >Film ratings weren't enacted until 1968. The Hayes Code before that wasn't
    >enforced until 1934, 13 years after the Fatty Arbuckle scandal.


    Did I mention Hayes? Hollywood's original round of industry censorship was
    enforced by Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

    >And I don't see what any of this has to do with the cuts made to Casino
    >Royale.


    Just a bit of historical perspective.
     
    Adam H. Kerman, Mar 22, 2007
    #14
  15. ste7ens

    Nick Xylas Guest

    On Mar 22, 1:22 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <> wrote:
    > Is it your contention that blockbusters are more likely to have R ratings
    > than PG ratings? That Casino Royale would have made as much money in the
    > United States with an R rating?
    >

    Given that the Bond audience is typically the oldest of any major
    movie franchise, I don't see that an R-rating would do that much
    damage in the US. It might to more harm to the box office in countries
    like Britain that have an age-restricted ratings system. LTK's 15
    certificate almost certainly hurt its take there, and the 18
    certificate that they were threatening had the film not been cut prior
    to release would have been the kiss of death. And that, children, is
    why Quentin Tarantino should never be let near a Bond film.
     
    Nick Xylas, Mar 22, 2007
    #15
  16. At 1:08pm -0700, 03/22/07, Nick Xylas <> wrote:
    >On Mar 22, 1:22 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <> wrote:


    >>Is it your contention that blockbusters are more likely to have R ratings
    >>than PG ratings? That Casino Royale would have made as much money in the
    >>United States with an R rating?


    >Given that the Bond audience is typically the oldest of any major
    >movie franchise, I don't see that an R-rating would do that much
    >damage in the US.


    If Bond had been R-rated when I was a kid, I wouldn't have seen the movies
    in theaters. And if anyone says he saw me sneak into R-rated movies when I
    was a kid, he's mistaking me for someone else.

    >It might to more harm to the box office in countries
    >like Britain that have an age-restricted ratings system.


    Children cannot accompany parents?

    >LTK's 15
    >certificate almost certainly hurt its take there, and the 18
    >certificate that they were threatening had the film not been cut prior
    >to release would have been the kiss of death. And that, children, is
    >why Quentin Tarantino should never be let near a Bond film.
     
    Adam H. Kerman, Mar 22, 2007
    #16
  17. "Adam H. Kerman" <> wrote in message
    news:p...


    >>It might to more harm to the box office in countries
    >>like Britain that have an age-restricted ratings system.

    >
    > Children cannot accompany parents?



    only for 12 rated.
    after all - if parents could bring kids into a 15 or 18 film it would defeat
    the whole purpose of it having that rating - what kind of parent would wish
    to bring a small child to a gorefest / sexually explicit film anyway?
    and as an adult i rather like it when there's no kids in the cinema.


    --
    Gareth.

    That fly... is your magic wand.
    http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/
     
    the dog from that film you saw, Mar 22, 2007
    #17
  18. ste7ens

    Guest

    On Mar 21, 8:59 pm, "Jay G." <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:22:08 -0700, Larry G wrote:
    >
    > > I recall an article about the film's release in China that censors had
    > > approved a completely uncut version of the film there

    >
    > It was approved for theatrical screening, but it wasn't unchanged. Dame
    > Judy Dench had to change one of her lines:
    >
    > http://commanderbond.net/article/4067
    >
    > So if you thought the UK/US cuts for violence were silly....
    > [...]


    The cut that still bewilders me is the placing of the rat in the pink
    breathing solution in THE ABYSS. The BBFC (British Board of
    Film Censors/Certificators) claims they required that cut because
    of trauma to the rat.

    Uh, didn't they realize the rat had already been placed in the
    pink liquid when the movie was filmed? :)

    And it's a rat, fer crissakes.
     
    , Mar 23, 2007
    #18
  19. ste7ens

    Guest

    On Mar 22, 11:22 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <> wrote:
    > [...]
    > Just a bit of historical perspective.


    And let's not forget many (older) movies are simply unrated. That
    doesn't mean they're porn or anything, just never submitted for a
    rating.

    One that comes to mind is 1964's "FATHER GOOSE" starring Cary
    Grant and Leslie Caron. Unrated in the USA though it carries a "G"
    in Australia.
     
    , Mar 23, 2007
    #19
  20. ste7ens

    Nick Xylas Guest

    On Mar 22, 5:32 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <> wrote:
    >
    > If Bond had been R-rated when I was a kid, I wouldn't have seen the movies
    > in theaters.
    >


    I'm talking about now, not when you were a kid. Back in the day, Bond
    films were considered fun for all the family, now they're mostly
    watched by adults. Could you imagine a PG-rated Bond (as opposed to
    PG-13) nowadays?
     
    Nick Xylas, Mar 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ant
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    612
  2. Mike Rahl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,440
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 12, 2006
  3. Douglas C. Neidermeyer

    Installing older version of WIN XP over newer version

    Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sep 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    596
    Douglas C. Neidermeyer
    Sep 6, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?TXVua2VkYWw=?=

    Installing full version over existing trial version

    =?Utf-8?B?TXVua2VkYWw=?=, Sep 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    456
    Larry
    Sep 12, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
Loading...

Share This Page