Is this really a PG -13?

At the recent Q&A someone asked Scott if we will see anything like the chestburster in Prometheus. Scott replied, 'oh yes'. So I'm not sure a PG-13 would be suitable even in today's Worlds of visceral entertainment!

db73 - I hope so, but can see Fox using it to make money and get younger audiences in by rating it PG 13..

[quote]By July 2009, Scott was attached to direct the film. Screenwriter Jon Spaihts had pitched to Fox his approach to the prequel. The studio and Scott liked the pitch and hired Spaihts to write the screenplay. Lindelof was later hired to revise Spaihts's screenplay. In October 2010, Lindelof submitted the revised screenplay to 20th Century Fox. The studio was pleased because it had contested Scott's proposed budget of $150–160 million and found Lindelof's screenplay to be more budget-conscious; Scott had initially requested a $250 million budget along with an R rating, but 20th Century Fox was reluctant to invest so much money in a film that was not PG-13.[/quote] [quote]Scott stated that he will edit both PG-13 and R-rated cuts of the film to be submitted to Fox for review when the film is finalized.[/quote] I guess this is all we know right now.

[quote][b]db73 - I hope so, but can see Fox using it to make money and get younger audiences in by rating it PG 13..[/b][/quote] 'The Hunger Games' recently had some scenes cut to remove a bit of blood/gore. This was done to achieve a lower rating in order to open it up to a wider audience. Very sad, very worrying but you can understand why it would happen. My only hope here is that Ridley would be very unhappy about such cuts being made I'm sure. Especially if it means certain scenes loose some of their impact. Imagine if the chest burster scene in Alien had suffered such cuts? It's notorious, shocking & quite disturbing even by today's standards. People still talk about this scene now for this reason. Cutting it would take most of this away.

........... or saying that, maybe it's just the way things are these days?! It's harder to get bums on seats in the cinemas. So perhaps we just have to accept this? Maybe we'll have to wait for the inevitable DVD Directors Cut for Ridley's true vision, as we did with Blade Runner.

I never understood why they don't run the R or even X-Rated films later in the day, and the PG cuts in the afternoon. That would leave both the younger and older audiences satisfied.

db73 - very true, the powers that be are more intrested in Profit then being a cult hit and being R rated...shame though as it loses its appeal ive read it will be shocking etc but i cant see that with a PG 13...even if Ridley says it is Unlimited Power - Yeap should do late night showings of the real X / R rated version...would appeal more to us "folk"

First post here guys, loving the site. Good call 'Unlimited Power', makes no sense to arbitrarily piss off the more mature audience when such an easy solution is available. I think here in the UK a harder cut will get an easier ride as the BBFC tend to be a bit more reasonable. Also, as I understand it, an '18' certificate in the UK/Europe isn't the box office kiss of death that an 'R' is in the US. Perhaps there might be two different cuts depending on territory. Any of you guys in the States know if there have been any high grossing 'R' rated films in recent years?

Here in Denmark you only get a rating if you ask for one. So ratings are usually only requested by Horror dvd labels in hope of getting as a high a rating as possible (18). That helps them sell more dvds. We don't really rate films when they're in the cinema as far as I know. It's up to the parents to decide wether their children should see something or not.

F**king MPAA...seriously I DREAM of the day when they are dead and gone. They are a cancer of the American film industry.