Home Videos Photos

PG-13 Version Of The King's Speech Coming To Theaters Next Month

| Filed under: Film FlickersBusiness BlitzOscars

pg 13 version of the kings speech gets release date

Do we REALLY need to censor the film that won BEST PICTURE at the Oscars???

The Weinstein Company has announced that starting April 1, they'll pull the R-rated version of The King's Speech from movie theaters, and they'll be releasing a PG-13 version in its place.

Apparently, in order to secure a lower rating, they muted out several instances of the word "!@*&" and other times replaced it with the word "$#!*." LOLz.

The King's Censored Speech will be released on 1,000 screens.

Here's what TWC president of theatrical distribution and home entertainment Erik Lomis had to say about this move:

“We are thankful to the MPAA for their wisdom and swift action in approving the release of The King’s Speech PG-13 version."

It's certainly a great film, so on the one hand we're happy that younger audiences will get a chance to see it, but on the other hand, the film was fine as is - it won Best Picture.

They could have left it alone. Any parent who sees the film will most likely let their children watch it on DVD as long as they're not TOO young. The cursing was NOT a huge deal at all…AND it was mostly in good taste.

Do U think it was a good idea for them to release a PG-13 cut of The King's Speech? Or should they have left it alone?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Celebs Who've Shaved Their Heads For Roles
7 Most Memorable Movie French Kisses!
Movie Couples You'll Be Heartbroken To Learn Actually Hate Each Other!
Top 15 Deadliest Movies By Body Count
Highest Paid World Cup Coaches
The 13 Most Ridiculous Horror Movie Deaths Of All Time

19 comments to “PG-13 Version Of The King's Speech Coming To Theaters Next Month”



  1. 1

    MPAA and wisdom should never be in the same sentence, ever.



  2. 2

    The movie was fine the way it was.There was no reason to censor it at all.I doubt there is a kid out there who hasn't already heard the F word before and their ears haven't fallen off, this is just stupid.



  3. 3

    Americans are so repressed sexually. In Canada, this movie was G - For All. At least in Montreal.



  4. 4

    It was fine as-is. But it received an R rating. This will make an excellent film, which was about so much more than a few f-bombs, accessible to another audience. The f-bombs weren't the story line. This is fine.



  5. 5

    Re: JasonDiggy

    Gee, if you saw the movie, you'd realize your "repressed sexually" comment has nothing to do with it. Not an ounce of sex in the movie.



  6. 6

    Boo! It was rated R because of the 'F' word, right? That was a major plot point. Seriously, the PG-13 kids hear worse on the school bus. Stupid move.



  7. 7

    I think it's a good idea. I know my parents weren't keen on letting my ten year old sister see it in theaters once they found out it was rated R, but when I told them it was just because of language, they took her to see it. Not every set of parents has a college kid to tell them that a movie is rated just for language and not for nudity when they're not tech-savvy enough to look it up themselves on the good ol' interwebs. I don't think it'll detract from the quality of the film, and this way younger people will definitely get to see it. Thumbs up on this idea; they didn't censor it originally, and are only doing so now to make it accessible to a younger audience. Bravo.



  8. 8

    Not sure why this movie would be rated R! Who gives a shit about a few curses.



  9. 9

    perez, you idiot. thank God you aren't a parent!! The F bombs (which happen 20+ times, again and again and again) are enough and ya, for kids, they ARE a big deal. I wouldn't let my son/daughter see this movie as is, so I think it's great that they are taking out those words. (that don't really contribute to the plot, so it is still the same film, just without the excessive cussing). it's a great movie for kids, so I think it's great that they are able to see it now. the moral of the story is inspiring and it's awesome that they made it possible for kids to see it without hearing f*** a million times.



  10. 10

    the entire time i was watching this movie i was thinking "What in the world makes this film R-rated?!"
    no this was not needed. at all.



  11. 11

    Good for them. Why they didn't just do that to begin with is the problem. Why even make a movie that is R only because of the bad language? I vote to clean them all up, it's debasing and juvenile to use bad language just because they think that's what we want to hear. I don't want to hear it, ever.



  12. 12

    I will file this under "April Fool's" Joke. Not gonna happen!!



  13. 13

    I will try this again. I think this is only an April Fool's joke. I don't think will happen.



  14. 14

    Pure economics: An R rating decreases a films audience by about 40 percent. Thats 40 percent less money for the studio, and the ultimate goal is to get butts in the seats to see the film. Maybe the studio realizes, despite the critical acclaim, people the difference would be enough to impact the films final earnings.

    I say good for them.



  15. 15

    Re: pythia

    You are a stupid twat.



  16. 16

    this will ruin the movie. this is just a ploy for that big ego that is harvey weinstein to try to make more money…hopefully it wont work like when they tried to release a pg-13 the passion of the christ. i dont get if the director and star are so opposed to it, why would they want to go thru with this anyway…oh yeah…MONEY!!!



  17. 17

    this was absolutely not necessary, i live in england, my mum is really strict on swearing but even she came out of the cinema saying "I don't see any harm in it, it wasn't aimed at anyone in any malicious way". People are becoming too protective nowadays and just accept that by the time you're 11 you become exposed to swearing in secondary school



  18. 18

    Re: pythia – because it's a british film, and we allow more swear wordsin our films than America



  19. 19

    whats up with perez putting his site logo on random pictures that he doesn't own? I don't get it. can someone explain how and why?