Actually it would be great if Raimi & Co. would stop tinkering and testing as they try to follow the money. How about just trying to make the best film they can and putting it out to find its audience?

I agree with pike do what daren did for SAW 3 make it for the people, fuck the MPAA. They ruin everything. Thats the soul reason I never watch movies that were r and trimmed down.

i hope this ends up R RATED.

Raimi's kinda pissing me off. His first horror film in forever better be rated R. But no, he's testing the PG-13 crowd to see if that makes more money. We should of had Evil Dead 4 over a PG-13 film. He's different after directing the Spiderman movies.

I don't even waste my time with PG-13 horror movies.(If you can call them horror movies) I like my horror with sex, blood and gore!!!!

Right there with you Twistedbitch!! Can't believe Raimi is doing this.

I fucking knew that they were gonna do this. They are probably waiting to see how much friday the 13th makes. This is exactly why I hate PG-13 horror. They are not releasing the best version, they are releasing the most commercially viable.

...then 4 months later we will get "the too extreme for theatres" unrated cut on dvd.

I agree with all of the above. I am not sure if Sam has any balls left. Why test in the first place if he really cares about the integrity of the movie? Fuck this testing bullshit. He should cut the movie as he wants and that it.

Raimi needs to follow his instincts, that's what makes him such a strong filmmaker in the first place. The best horror is not made for the masses, it's crafted from one unique vision, and it finds it's audience. Test audiences will only confuse and dumb down Raimi's original take on the film. ...and seriously? Fuck a PG-13 version!

If is a movie is well made people will go watch it. Gran Torino is a rated R film and it has made a Shite load of money. Bloody valentine did good in the box office. Raimi needs to quit being a p-ssy and make the damn movie rated R and he needs to stop betraying his fan base. If he's insecure about the R-rating, why don't just make it 3-D; that would be cool. lol....

ps. if bloody valentine would've been pg 13 it would've been unwatchable. Also, another example: The Punisher (latest version) would have been god awful, but the r rated violence made it kick ass. See.... Simple.

Gimme an R rating please. PG-13 = Burn In Hell

Pg-13 or R rating doesn't really mean a lot to me. The DVD will have the R version and most likly be Unrated. What bothers me is that people like Raimi care more about which one will make more money instead of releasing what they really believe in. Which begs the question. Is Raimi really making a so-called "big return to horror"????

And as for the MPAA [of which I'm no fan]. They are more lenient that ever so let's put the blame where it lies. I believe it is the film distributors that are the bad guys. Will never see the full version in the theatre because they have to save something to help DVD sales. You know the drill "With scenes to terrifying for the theatres" which in MOST cases is nothing more intense than what was in the theatres.

totally right shattered68. We'll have a shitty PG-13 rated flick, then the "Unrated version XTREME 2 THE MAXXX!!!" that has 15 seconds of additional dialogue...and that's all, with any "gory" scenes either non-existent or in the deleted scenes. At least, that's how this usually works out. I dunno, maybe the original version of the movie really IS "XTREME 2 THE MAXXX" and we'll actually get a good flick on the Unrated DVD, assuming that they don't release it as an "R" rated movie (c'mon Raimi, don't fuck us on this one!)

I'm so sick of this watering down movies to get a wider audience shit! It betetr end up being rated R.

After watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated", I can no longer blame the filmmakers for such R vs. PG-13 situations. If you haven't seen that documentary film, I recommend watching it. Even if this film gets an R rating from the MPAA (which is a mysterious association with no clear definition of rating standards), it's up to the distributor to decide if they want to risk distributing the film with an R rating, which is seen as a potential multi-million dollar difference in box office sales. If you watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated", one of the most interesting points is how a PG-13 film was given an R rating by the MPAA because of Liv Tyler's character discussing how she likes to masturbate at least 2 times a day with Ben Affleck's character in a diner. One of the heads of the MPAA found this conversation to be offensive and said she would be disturbed if her teenage daughter were watching a film where this was discussed. This was all conversation - it wasn't like Liv was actually doing the act on screen 2 times a day. So, that's why we get unrated versions on DVD that don't seem to add that much graphic content. What was cut out was typically not truly graphic but just some material that some jerk on her cycle has decided is not appropriate for the screen and that material can be as simple as downright conversation without any cuss words at all.

Interesting point, phoenison. We don't even know who these people are or how they attained these positions of power. Another weapon they wield is the dreaded NC-17, wich is the kiss of death with all chain theatres. Try to bypass these people and you wind up unrated, which means NC-17 to mall chain theatres. Who are these people and what are they protecting us from? Ourselves? But don't doubt the distributors want to play along. PG-13 maximizes profit, R will decrease possible profit but can still do business, NC-17 equals out of business. Let's see which way Raimi jumps.

More reflections on the MPAA. When the Wild Bunch, generally considered one of the finest westerns ever made, was released in '69, it carried an R for violence. When they were re-realising it a dozen or so years ago, somebody at the studio goofed and thought they had to resubmit it to the ratings board, which they weren't required to do. This time out MPAA gave it an NC-17! Warners appealed and had the NC-17 removed because it already had a rating. 25 yrs after it was made, it still was too strong for those creeps. When Clockwork Orange was first released, it carried an X, which limited its capacity to play. Same with Midnight Cowboy. They both carried the same rating as Deep Throat! Who are these people?

PG-13 can be done right, but not by current industry standards. Poltergeist was one of the most terrifying movies ever made, and is still pretty tense compared to the shit Hollywood is labelling horror nowadays, and was rated PG. The companies are destroying the filmmakers' vision in most cases, along with the MPAA, and I for one am glad as fuck for the current run of old school badassed horror. Raimi hasn't been the same since Army of Darkness, IMO, and he'd damn well better show some balls and show this new generation why he was a horror master back in the day. R rating, bish!!!

Pheonisin is right. If you haven't seen "This Film not yet Rated", netflix it. It will open your eyes. And I quote, "I had to fight for my pubic hair!"

HOLLYWOOD CAN KISS MY FUCKING ASS. HORROR SHOULD ALWAYS BE R!!!! pussies

It seems like Sam Raimi could no longer really give a shit about the fan base that got him to where is is today, the horror community! Going all Hollywood and directing rubbish like those Spiderman movies has turned him into a pussy who would rather concern himself with opening weekend box office figures. If he truly wants to make a return to horror give us something rated 'R'. If this film doesn't deliver i'm giving up on Raimi for good.

I am going to a test screening thursday night. The PG-13 version screens at 7pm for 13 to 24 year olds and the R version screens at 8pm for 17 to 34. I had no desire to see this flick because I feel Sam Raimi lost any edge he had, but based on (Mr. D's? someone on this site's) recommendation, I will see the R version.