Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,223
I still have nightmares about Bambi's mother ... :blink:
I found that part of Bambi more tear-jerking than traumatizing - or at least I do as an adult. I'm not sure I ever saw "Bambi" as a kid - probably, given the 7-year-rerelease pattern that meant it was back in 1975 when I was 8, but I don't remember it.

"Pinocchio", on the other hand, still spooks me now! Good God, that Lampwick scene is disturbing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-ROLL

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,764
Location
The basement of the FBI building
What I don't get is all the people here who claim it'd still qualify as an "R" right now!
The only way that I'd see Psycho as deserving of an R rating is if movies were rated as to the age range that might be interested in a particular picture. A 13 year old that has been watching modern day horror movies isn't going to watch Psycho whether it's rated G or NC-17 so its rating is nearly irrelevant.
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
2,785
Real Name
Bryan
The only way that I'd see Psycho as deserving of an R rating is if movies were rated as to the age range that might be interested in a particular picture. A 13 year old that has been watching modern day horror movies isn't going to watch Psycho whether it's rated G or NC-17.
Psycho particularly has a reputation for being extremely intense. So long as they don't advsertise it's not in color an R rating could bring the pre-teens in. I remember so of the kids in my 6th Grade class going to the see "The Exorcist" by paying for um an inebriate's admission to the theater (along with their admissions) to get in :cool:.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
18,892
Real Name
Malcolm
The two Conjuring films were rated "R" based largely on terror and scares, while there's little if any actual graphic violence, gore, nudity/sex, or language in either film. The producers expected the first film to be PG-13, but when it was rated R decided just to go with it. The sequel is arguably more deserving of the R, as the opening reenactment of the DeFeo murders at the Amityville house is rather graphic, as is Lorraine Warren's vision of Ed's death.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,223
The two Conjuring films were rated "R" based largely on terror and scares, while there's little if any actual graphic violence, gore, nudity/sex, or language in either film. The producers expected the first film to be PG-13, but when it was rated R decided just to go with it. The sequel is arguably more deserving of the R, as the opening reenactment of the DeFeo murders at the Amityville house is rather graphic, as is Lorraine Warren's vision of Ed's death.
No one claims the MPAA is consistent with their ratings! :D
 

KMR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
240
Real Name
Kevin
This is total speculation, but Psycho got its "R" rating in 1984, the same year "PG-13" was created. Not sure which one came first in the year, but there was a lot of discussion around that time about the level of violence in "PG" films, so maybe they erred on the side of caution, so-to-speak (it had gotten an "M" in the late 60s).

Still, despite what you see or don't see, the visceral impact of the shower scene is still pretty strong, so at that particular time, it might have seemed a little much for a PG.
When the ratings were G, M, R, and X, the G rating was applied to a LOT of movies that were aimed at adults but contained material that was not considered objectionable for juvenile audiences. Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet was G, The Andromeda Strain was G, etc. I think that maybe it was when M was changed to GP in 1970 that rating standards changed to where many movies that would have been G were now GP--and maybe also many that would have been M were instead given R. (Love Story made huge news for the fight to get its rating lowered from R to GP.) The whole ratings system only started in November 1968, so it stands to reason that they were learning as they went along how the public was responding to the ratings. The whole point of the system is to be a guide to parents and to avoid governmental censorship, so it's naturally going to be evolving as times and mores change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,223
The whole point of the system is to be a guide to parents and to avoid governmental censorship, so it's naturally going to be evolving as times and mores change.
Exactly, and it continues to evolve 50+ years later.

While we have a pretty good set of "rules", MPAA still isn't really consistent. It's eye of the beholder stuff a lot of the time.

The addition of "PG-13" was really the biggest game-changer over the last 50 years, IMO. There were so many movies that were "too adult" for "PG" at its core but "not adult enough" for "R".

Stuff like "Jaws" or "Temple of Doom" or even "Logan's Run", with all its nudity. (Though I kinda think that one would be "R" today!)

It'd be interesting to see what they'd do with "All the President's Men", as it managed a "PG" in 1976 despite "F-word" usage in double digits.

IIRC, it originally got an "R" but the producers managed to knock it down to a "PG" due to the film's social importance...
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
2,785
Real Name
Bryan
Exactly, and it continues to evolve 50+ years later.

While we have a pretty good set of "rules", MPAA still isn't really consistent. It's eye of the beholder stuff a lot of the time.

The addition of "PG-13" was really the biggest game-changer over the last 50 years, IMO. There were so many movies that were "too adult" for "PG" at its core but "not adult enough" for "R".

Stuff like "Jaws" or "Temple of Doom" or even "Logan's Run", with all its nudity. (Though I kinda think that one would be "R" today!)

It'd be interesting to see what they'd do with "All the President's Men", as it managed a "PG" in 1976 despite "F-word" usage in double digits.

IIRC, it originally got an "R" but the producers managed to knock it down to a "PG" due to the film's social importance...
Using the F-word doesn't get an R rating. Adding Mother and er to it IS an automatic R. :cool:
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,223
Using the F-word doesn't get an R rating. Adding Mother and er to it IS an automatic R. :cool:
One F-word doesn't get "R". Two usually does. Three almost always will.

"All the President's Men" has 11 F-words - in addition to plenty of other profanity.

In 2020, it might still get a "PG-13" due to its historical context - which seemed to be how it got a "PG" in 1976 - but you're gonna have a hard time finding any other movie with 11 F-words that's not rated "R"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osato

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
397
Real Name
David B.
As others have already reported, the much anticipated uncut, original theatrical release version of PSYCHO in thIs 60th Anniversary Edition blu-ray is introduced with an onscreen announcement that what you are about to see "has been modified from its original version by adding material that was not included in its original theatrical release."

*sigh*

And, as I worried would be the case, the included "Making of Psycho" documentary still has the wrong clip inserted over Peggy Robertson's mention that the censors "didn't like Janet Leigh's slip at the beginning, so Hitchcock tidied that up", incorrectly showing the bra removal section of the peephole scene and labeling it the "censored shot." Which thereby compounds the confusion and confirms the untrue announcement introducing the uncut, original theatrical release version of the movie. And totally contradicting what they correctly say about it on the packaging.

I don't suppose there is any chance those things will be rectified in a replacement disc right along with the mono sound issue.

Otherwise, I suppose as long as this blu-ray exists, future film buffs could use those two glitches in it to justify insisting upon watching the edited version in an effort to more accurately recreate the mood, tone and overall impact that impressed 1960s audiences so much and in exactly the way Hitchcock fully intended. Lol. Yes, I am happy the uncut original theatrical release version is available again, but...what a shame about those counterproductive mistakes.
 
Last edited:

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
3,664
Real Name
Wayne
My guess is that Psycho would receive a PG-13 if rated today. Being black and white helps it a lot as the viewer doesn't have to look at a ton of red blood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TravisR

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,813
Real Name
Bryan Tuck
As others have already reported, the much anticipated uncut, original theatrical release version of PSYCHO in thIs 60th Anniversary Edition blu-ray is introduced with an onscreen announcement that what you are about to see "has been modified from its original version by adding material that was not included in its original theatrical release."

*sigh*

And, as I worried would be the case, the included "Making of Psycho" documentary still has the wrong clip inserted over Peggy Robertson's mention that the censors "didn't like Janet Leigh's slip at the beginning, so Hitchcock tidied that up", incorrectly showing the bra removal section of the peephole scene and labeling it the "censored shot." Which thereby compounds the confusion and confirms the untrue announcement introducing the uncut, original theatrical release version of the movie. And totally contradicting what they correctly say about it on the packaging.

I don't suppose there is any chance those things will be rectified in a replacement disc right along with the mono sound issue.

Otherwise, I suppose as long as this blu-ray exists, future film buffs could use those two glitches in it to justify insisting upon watching the edited version in an effort to more accurately recreate the mood, tone and overall impact that impressed 1960s audiences so much and in exactly the way Hitchcock fully intended. Lol. Yes, I am happy the uncut original theatrical release version is available again, but...what a shame about those counterproductive mistakes.
I wasn't there, but I'm still skeptical that what we have now as the "uncut" version is actually what played in US theaters in 1960 (though it may very well have played in other countries). The AFI link I posted a while back suggests that the three small cuts were made at the insistence of the Catholic Legion of Decency. I just have a hard time believing Paramount would have ignored them in 1960, only for Universal to go back into the film several years later and make those three specific cuts. Also, Universal's marketing for the late-60s re-release (and the early video releases in the 80s) touted the film as being "Uncut."

I don't doubt Hitchcock wanted those bits in there, so it's good to have them back, but I'm just not sure they were part of the original theatrical release.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,774
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
I wasn't there, but I'm still skeptical that what we have now as the "uncut" version is actually what played in US theaters in 1960 (though it may very well have played in other countries). The AFI link I posted a while back suggests that the three small cuts were made at the insistence of the Catholic Legion of Decency. I just have a hard time believing Paramount would have ignored them in 1960, only for Universal to go back into the film several years later and make those three specific cuts. Also, Universal's marketing for the late-60s re-release (and the early video releases in the 80s) touted the film as being "Uncut."

I don't doubt Hitchcock wanted those bits in there, so it's good to have them back, but I'm just not sure they were part of the original theatrical release.
Well, if you keep posting the same thing, so will I :) The AFI is wrong. They were there. I and others who DID see it have said that repeatedly in this thread. You may remain unconvinced as is your wont. But they were there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahollis

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,813
Real Name
Bryan Tuck
Well, if you keep posting the same thing, so will I :) The AFI is wrong. They were there. I and others who DID see it have said that repeatedly in this thread. You may remain unconvinced as is your wont. But they were there.
They were there 60 years ago. I was there 32 years ago when Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out, yet I didn't remember Betty Boop's wardrobe malfunction, and was surprised to see how obvious it was when I saw it in another print years later. I know that's not quite the same thing, but the point is memories trick us sometimes.
But fair enough. :cheers: Whatever the history, both versions are now available, as it should be (as soon as they get that mono track corrected, anyway :)).
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,460
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Pleased to say a replacement programme for Psycho has been set up in the U.K. as well:

“Thank you for your e-mail. Our manufactures are currently making the new discs for Psycho with mono audio and as we have your postal details we will ensure you are sent a new discs within the next month.“
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robin9

titch

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
786
Real Name
Kevin Oppegaard
Pleased to say a replacement programme for Psycho has been set up in the U.K. as well:

“Thank you for your e-mail. Our manufactures are currently making the new discs for Psycho with mono audio and as we have your postal details we will ensure you are sent a new discs within the next month.“
Could you possibly provide a contact link? Thanks.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,144
Messages
4,731,941
Members
141,391
Latest member
smwe16