Image Credit: Laurie SparhamThe MPAA announced today that The King’s Speech will be re-released by the Weinstein Company with a PG-13 rating. The film had famously received an R rating for a scene in which Geoffrey Rush’s character encourages Colin Firth’s King George VI to curse like a commoner in order to help him get over his stutter. “Given The Weinstein Company’s commitment to advertise and promote the new version of The King’s Speech as a differently rated movie and to remove all prints of the earlier version,” says National Association of Theater Owners president and CEO John Fithian, “and given the high-profile of the movie, we believe there is little liklihood of confusion among our patrons [between the R rated and PG-13 rated versions].” Nothing in the release hints at what words were removed to get the new PG-13 rating — the Weinstein Company has yet to release that information — but we have some guesses about that, too. It’s probably the roughly 14 times King George says the word s—, or maybe the dozen or so times he uses the word f—, or else maybe the one time he uses the word t–s. We’ll have to wait for the re-release to know for sure.
Read more:
Tom Hooper on PG-13 ‘King’s Speech’: ‘I wouldn’t support cutting the film in any way’ — EXCLUSIVE
‘The King’s Speech’ to clean up its language for a PG-13 rating? Bulls—.
‘The King’s Speech’ to get PG-13 re-release?
‘The King’s Speech’: Geoffrey Rush and Tom Hooper answer the critics
All censorship is wrong, but aelf-censorship is unforgiveable. I will never watch any version of “The King’s Speech” as my own form of protest.
Don’t watch the PG-13 version, fine. But you’re really doing yourself a disservice if you don’t see the R version. This IS the best film of 2010.
It’s a good film, not the best. Though I think teenagers interested in learning about speech disability should be able to see it. I’m pretty sure a thirteen year old has heard those curse words before anyways.
agreed, Jay and Dave. I detest censorship, and there really isn’t a legitimate reason here. i don’t even know why it got an R rating in the first place–it was just that one scene, and all the swearing was said casually in a way that made a lot of sense to the storyline. It’s not like people don’t know those words, and not to generalize but anyone too young to have heard of them is not within the target audience.
In Canada the current is rate PG. We have health care too.
The best movie of 2010? You must be a on drugs! “The King’s Speech” would be at home on the Lifetime Movie Network! Are we supposed to feel empathy and compassion for this man? He was ROYALTY! Are we actually going to sit around and sob for a wealth, powerful man that was king of a good chunk of the world at one point? Looking around at the world in which we live, with all of the suffering, poverty and hopelessness, are we actually going to consider a king with a lisp as our new benchmark for compassion? I’d wager there are many people who would trade their current lives in a heartbeat if they could be a king with a speech defect.
IMO, THE KING’S SPEECH is NOT the best film of the year. It’ll be quickly forgotten by next year. It was hardly innovative or profound. Big deal. It was a story about a king who is trying to get over his speech impediment. What’s so great about that? To me, it was just another version of THE MIRACLE WORKER. There were so many films that were better than that one, such as THE SOCIAL NETWORK, TRUE GRIT, THE WINTER’S BONE, CARLOS, BLUE VALENTINE, etc. Heck–I even liked ANOTHER YEAR more than THE KING’S SPEECH….and they’re BOTH British!!!
Yes, Maggie, you have health care in Canada. Very POOR health care, which is why so many Canadians who require critical procedures come to the US.
As an American who’s EXPERIENCED Canadian health care, I’d say that it’s actually quite good. I waited less time in an Ontario clinic than I often have here.
Re-releasing this movie as pg13 is a joke. The targed audience for this movie is adults not teenagers. It grossed $240 million world-wide, on a $15 million budget!! That is just down right greed. I bet they are kicking themselves for not releasing it in 3D to get the extra bucks on ticket price.
GozieBoy: you show your ignorance. In Canada, not ONE person has lost to their home so they can pay their medical bills and the system is excellent. I pay a very small fee for year round coverage and NEVER have paid a hospital any money for any of my many breaks, births and operations. Those who go to the US for treatment just don’t want to wait their turn. I personally know 4 Americans who live in Canada because they cant afford health care in the US.
@ Joe It’s the weinstein brothers and they are jew. I rest my case
I disagree. The Phillies are 2nd in the NL in run prveontien. Along with the Braves and Giants they are clearly among the cream of the crop in the league. They won World Series with Greg Luzinski and Pat Burrell in left field. Yet his defense is the downfall of the Phillies? I know his defense is subpar though I think the metrics are overstating the case. But swap him for Mayberry and you’re just switching one problem for another.
My initial feelings are the same as yours in terms of censorship being wrong. But there are two editions one containing possibly offensive language and the other not. While the film maker does not approve or want the film to be cut I can see the benefit it terms of the film reaching a wider and more importantly a younger audience. This of this not in terms of censorship but perhaps like how there are different release versions of many films…this being he reverse of an ‘unrated’ version i guess. They would have done this anyway if it was ever broadcast on television and I’m not offended by the owners of the film (not that same ppl as those who made it) deciding to offer two versions. I implore you to reconsider your statement about not watching either version at all for it would be only to your detriment. This film rekindled the hope I have for artistry in popular cinema and I found every level of production to be wonderful. The story too was moving and it was the first film in a long time where I left raving about the acting talent, their performances were masterful. But this of course is only my opinion… I hope that you will watch the film and tell me yours.
~Marina
But the problem is that the R rated version will no longer be in theaters once the PG-13 version arrives.
I don’t think any children who want to see The King’s Speech will have a problem with it being rated R. I’m 18, but I came from a family that went to see movies all the time. When Slumdog Millionaire came out, I had no problem getting my parents to take me. There’s a huge difference between getting to see The King’s Speech and Saw 7. If those under 17 are genuinely interested in seeing quality film-making, they’ll find a way.
I think this whole thing about the Weinstein Company rereleasing a PG-13 version of THE KING’S SPEECH is just a ploy for them to make more money.
Yep, it already grossed 100x the original budget.
No, it WAS the best film of the year, AS IS! Leave it alone.
nah
Yah
They were not forced to make a pg-13 version. They wanted to. If they can make more money, why do you care? Why not think “hey there are people out there that do not want to hear bad language if they do not have to”? I guess you have never watched public television either, since they censor their shows.
like
i see a point in maybe for showing it in a classroom. for underage kids.
@Jay: “… but self-censorship is unforgivable” ???? The picture company voluntarily decided to release a different version to encourage more viewership. How is that worse than someone forcing them to make changes??
Refusing to see the original R version is, in no way, a protest. The best you could do is to give your money to the original film, showing your support for the original version. If people continue to see the original and few see the PG-13 version, that sends a very clear message.
Did they really use the f-word back in the day? I don’t think so. So everybody’s “No Censorship” crap goes right out the window doesn’t it. I will defiantly see the “censored” version. Yay capitalism! Go Weinstein’s!
Absolutely right. Ask anyone that lived in that era and they will tell you the chances of King George being told to use, or using, the f-word are nil. In fact to hear him say it in the movie immediately feels totally anachronistic.
So I guess nobody watches network TV or cable when movies are edited for content. That must be censorship too?
How about history? Is it really true that King George said those words? It must be yes because it was in a movie, right? What did the author whose book became the movie say? That was how HE overcame HIS stuttering problem so he didn’t see a problem transplanting his story onto King Goerge. Some historians have said given what is known of the time and the people involved, it is highly UNlikely that the scene ever happened. So maybe the PG-13 version is closer to history?
Frankly, I don’t care if your children use this language or you condone it by taking them to hear it. Although my children may hear it from other kids’ mouths, they don’t use it and don’t have parents who send confusing messages like “it’s no big deal, everyones doing it” (where have we heard that one?). There is a large community of us who are grateful for this, whatever the motivations.
And cheers to James Cameron for the “family friendly” version of Avatar on the Bluray release !!
That would be “self-censorship”. See how mad I am? I’m misspelling stuff!!!
No, you spelled “stuff” correctly
But that was the best scene in the movie! I hate when people give in to censorship and make a “clean” version of their work. It’s ridiculous that it got an R in the first place, but cutting your movie to appease the screwed up ratings system is just as bad.
It’s amazing – King’s Speech gets an R rating for a few f-bombs. True Grit (an excellent film) gets a PG-13, even though it shows a guy getting his fingers chopped off. Where’s the sense in that?
The MPAA automatically gives a rating of “R” to a movie if someone says the F word more than once. A movie is allowed to say it once and still get a “pg-13″. As for violence, the MPAA allows high levels of violence if it is integral to the stroyline. In Short, the MPAA is f’ing retarded.
Also amusing that we are discussing censorship on a forum that forces us to self censor.
Why do they need to change any of it to change the rating? The swearing wasn’t gratuitous at all and was used for comedic affect. Honestly I think it should have a PG-13 rating as it is, the R is ridiculous.
Pretty ridiculous. First of all those are now words that every kid uses all day long(just ask any grade school teacher). Second -and probably most important- I can’t imagine ANY CHILD or TEENAGER having any interest in seeing this movie. It’s just not a subject they would be interested in.
I am a teenager, and I loved The King’s Speech! Just because some are helpless, please don’t underestimate my entire age group!
Same here! This movie was great and I think that the movie would not be the same without the curse words.
My 16 year old LOVED this movie…and the language should be left alone. It’s part of the story, and not offensive. Stupid Weinsteins.
I’m fourthing this!
My 13 year old loved this film. Honestly these are not words she hasn’t heard on the school bus at least 100 times.
I’m 17 and the moment The King’s Speech came to our theater, I was there. Loved it.
Just for the record, while those kids may have heard those words, they do not use them that often. I taught fourth grade for years and am now in kindergarten. I had a few kids from other countries who were learning English, and they used them. But for the most part they know what is and is not appropriate. Which is why I’m fine with the language. My son is 4 and he saw every best picture nominee not rated R (I do have SOME standards)and the only reason he didn’t see The King’s Speech was that he would’ve been bored by it and misbehaved. I think kids can handle more than most people give them credit for. I think the movie is probably ok for kids 10+.
Sweet; bowdlerizing The King’s Speech seems like both a reckless cash-grab AND crap censorship. Though, to be honest, I don’t know that the scenes in question really affected the overall movie, other than to provide some comic relief.
It’s not censorship. (I do wish everyone would haul out a dictionary and look up that word.) Writers, actors, directors, etc create hundreds or thousands of subtly different versions of pretty much any creation — it’s called write, revise, revise, revise, ad infinitum. If the CREATORS decide to release a slightly different version, it’s neither censorship nor horrific.
Revise is a change to improve. This is not revise.
It’s censorship, Cara.
It’s subjective. Cara, however is correct. When one changes, even censors, one’s own work, it is a revision.
What for?! This movie was wonderful and uplifting for those who have a deep fear of making speeches or just speaking in front of people period, f-bombs and all! Stupid censorship!
I hate this decision so much. I liked the movie, didn’t love it, but I can’t believe this is actually happening. this is a period British movie about speech therapy that has made 250 million dollars and counting world wide and they are claiming they aren’t getting enough of an audience?! I hope they see that no one wants this and it doesn’t happen. What happens if it wins best picture? The movie that won wouldn’t be the movie in theatres people would be paying to see. This move is BS and I hope they come to their sense and realize this and don’t do it. I really want to hear some kind of remark from the filmmakers on this because I honestly don’t see how anyone can say yes this is a good idea. Were there groups of 13 year olds who started a petition? Was this a movie that appealed to kids anyway? UGH I just can’t express how much I am bothered by this whole thing.
Remember that reedit of Passion of the Christ? No? Because no body saw it. F Weinstein.
Very interesting this whole announcement came right after the Oscar ballots got turned in. Yeah.
Very true. I hope it loses now, even though it was a great movie with superb acting. I just don’t want them to reward the greedy producers who are selling out a wonderful film.
Pretty much the worst idea EVER. Idiots.
Here in Ontario the film is rated PG with all the words in. What is wrong with America? Under 17, you can go see Big Momma’s House 3 but not the King’s Speech?
Rated 12 in Brazil. And with all the curse words in the subtitles. What’s wrong with the MPAA?
Terrible sacrilege. The MPAA is a demon organization. Same goes for the Weinstein sisters.
Adults can or at least should be able to ditrfeentiafe between real and fantasy. Children don’t have that.And yes, there IS a social impact associated with music, but more often that’s about degrading women and glorifying materialism than horrific violence.
The F-word scene is the funniest in the entire movie. I’ve seen it twice and audience is in hysterics. I hope it remains in the DVD.
I totally agree! I took my eleven year old to see it too. The message of the film is far too important to avoid because of a few curse words. I just hope it is released on dvd in the original form.
“Do you know the F-word”
“…..Fornication!”
It seems like this is the year of censorship, between a PG-13 rated version of King’s Speech and Cee-Lo Green’s Forget you.
The MPAA has a rating system that does no favors to anybody. Remember it’s been 12 years since Parker and Stone released the South Park movie which was meant to be a big fat “Forget You” to the MPAA. Kyle’s Mom’s speech at the end said it all: “Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don’t say any naughty woids! That’s what this war is all about!”
Its abusrd this movie got a “R” rating to begin with even with the language. PG-13 movies are full of violence these days of which there is none in “The King’s Speech” yet due to some explitives that seriously normal kids have heard already by age 13, it the R rating. Totally absurd….messed up values of the ratings system to say the least…