The Wolverine (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Sean Bryan]

Here is a detailed run down of the differences between the theatrical and extended cuts. http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=274643The author does a good job with this comparison, but I'd ignore his comments on his opinion of the movie.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Here is a detailed run down of the differences between the theatrical and extended cuts.http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=274643The author does a good job with this comparison, but I'd ignore his comments on his opinion of the movie.

I just don't see it, no way can it be considered a harder R rating and get a 12 certificate in the UK, over here we come down on violence and would have given it a 15 certificate at the very least if it was all that much more violent, i can think of only two films which had an R rating in the USA and got a 12 certificate over here, that would be Terminator 3 and Last Of The Mohicans and Terminator 3 wasn't that violent, nor was Mohicans although it was edited in a way to make you think it was.

I was thinking this extended cut would be some super violent edition that they couldn't show in cinemas, doesn't sound like it.

 

[Sean Bryan]

No, but it is clearly more violent and brutal. I saw it twice theatrically and the elevated brutality jumped out at me when watching the extended version, even though I wasn't sure exactly what was different at the time (except for the completely new scenes). Not sure how one can think it isn't unless you have some extreme notion of what qualifies as "more violent". Were you expecting crazy stuff like limbs being hacked off with the fake blood fountains like we see in lots of hyper-violent B-movies?There's a significant difference in the amount of blood shown. Scenes were zoomed in for the theatrical version to hide certain things, the claws are shown going through bodies and appendages that wasn't shown in the theatrical, arrows to the head instead of the chest, arrows shown piercing all the way through a torso instead of just being implied, and then of course there's the blood spraying snow plow. Three "F-bombs" plus all that blood and impailment would pretty likely get it an R rating. Not sure what you mean about something they "couldn't show in cinemas". They likely couldn't show this version theatrically if they wanted a PG-13 rating, because it likely would have been R.Actually, just going from one "F" to three may have been enough to change the rating to R considering the violence in the theatrical version. The MPAA's ratings can be weird that way.

 

[FoxyMulder]

No, but it is clearly more violent and brutal. I saw it twice theatrically and the elevated brutality jumped out at me when watching the extended version, even though I wasn't sure exactly what was different at the time (except for the completely new scenes).Not sure how one can think it isn't unless you have some extreme notion of what qualifies as "more violent". Were you expecting crazy stuff like limbs being hacked off with the fake blood fountains like we see in lots of hyper-violent B-movies?There's a significant difference in the amount of blood shown. Scenes were zoomed in for the theatrical version to hide certain things, the claws are shown going through bodies and appendages that wasn't shown in the theatrical, arrows to the head instead of the chest, arrows shown piercing all the way through a torso instead of just being implied, and then of course there's the blood spraying snow plow.Three "F-bombs" plus all that blood and impailment would pretty likely get it an R rating. Not sure what you mean about something they "couldn't show in cinemas". They likely couldn't show this version theatrically if they wanted a PG-13 rating, because it likely would have been R.Actually, just going from one "F" to three may have been enough to change the rating to R considering the violence in the theatrical version. The MPAA's ratings can be weird that way.

I'm referring to the UK 12 certificate, the theatrical cut got a 12 and the extended edition got the same 12 certificate despite the additional violence, usually if it was a lot more violent the BBFC here in the UK would give the film a 15 or an 18 certificate.

I haven't seen any version so can't really comment, i was just wondering how it could be that much more violent if our BBFC still rates it a 12 certificate, i'll take your word for it being a lot more brutal and will probably watch the extended 2D edition first and the 3D theatrical at a much later date.

I suppose one can never understand the minds of the censors, i guess they feel the 12 certificate is suitable for both cuts and they have their reasons, i just can't get my head around it, i'll have to view the film and then maybe i'll understand.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Didn't realize you hadn't seen it yet. Yes, the decisions about what combination of sexuality, language, and violence warrant what ratings has always been odd. There are plenty of interesting comments from films makers about this arbitrary process. I wish I could remember the specifics, but I recall one film maker once saying how the ratings people were giving them an issue with a certain scene. The director actually went and made it WORSE as joke, and then the ratings board said it was okay. Anyone remember where that anecdote was from?The extended version is unrated in the states. That doesn't mean it couldn't have still been PG-13 because they usually just don't submit extended hone video releases for additional ratings review, but I think 3 "F's" and the added blood, plus the general violence of the movie is likely to have made it an R over here. Ultimately, this stuff would have been in the theatrical version if they thought they could get a PG-13 with it. The added dialogue and character stuff wouldn't matter (except, of course, for the cursing), do those things were left out for running time concerns. But the intended violence was "sanitized" for the theatrical version to get that PG-13 rating.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I HATED X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Just an awful, often incoherent movie. As a result, I didn't catch The Wolverine in theaters. I finally gave it a spin on Blu-Ray via Redbox.I was very pleasantly surprised. Of the three comic book action tentpoles, it was easily the least flawed. The first two-thirds of the movie are brilliantly executed, with the characters front and center, and a good balance between story and action. Rila Fukushima and Tao Okamoto do a great job as Yukio Mariko respectively.Unfortunately, the last third falls into the trap of most comic book movies and devolves into a generic action set piece. I honestly didn't need the Silver Samurai, because I was much more interested in the characters.I've yet to not enjoy a James Mangold picture, and this one was no exception.

 

[Freddie Z]

I just finished watching The Wolverine Extended Cut. Loved it! The extra scenes (especially the fight with the Black Clan) make the movie so much better. I liked the theatrical cut but the extended cut is just... WOW!