Warner Bros. Butchering Sweeney Todd?
Summary
You would think any studio that greenlighted an adaptation of Sweeney Todd -- the classic musical about a homicidal barber -- would be prepared for plenty of blood and guts. And, as it turns out, you'd be wrong: The Sunday Mail is reporting that Warner Bros. has ordered significant, um, cuts to Tim Burton's grisly take on the story. Back to Article
You would think any studio that greenlighted an adaptation of Sweeney Todd -- the classic musical about a homicidal barber -- would be prepared for plenty of blood and guts. And, as it turns out, you'd be wrong: The Sunday Mail is reporting that Warner Bros. has ordered significant, um, cuts to Tim Burton's grisly take on the story. Back to Article
(1-91 of 91 posts) | Reply
on Aug 27 2007 08:19 AM warner bros. sucks (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 08:29 AM In reply to this comment (#1075854) I agree! warners do suck! I will wait a few years and watch the DIRECTORS GORY CUT of the film instead! If they release one that is, I hope so. I will give this watered down patronizing moneymaking version a miss at cinemas. Thanks warners, for still consistantly sucking as you did in the batman and robin days! (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 08:45 AM oh come on! PG-13 Sweeney Todd??? It is because is Johnny Deep on it??? Pirates is not Sweeney Todd!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 08:46 AM Um, it's makeup people... it's not real... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:18 AM Johnny depp lost all R-rated appeal to studios once he did Pirates. the actor now has a loyal teenage following, the studio realizes that and doesn't want to lose cash just because of some old-fashioned blood. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:26 AM I cut my lip once, on a sharp Dorito. Blood all in my teeth. I got a little woozy, and I had to go outside to get some fresh air. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:34 AM I don't care much for Tim Burton at all, but what WB is doing is just wrong. A director should be allowed to express his vision. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:38 AM So does this mean that I Am Legend is gonna be PG13 too ? Cause that's the first thing that came to my mind reading this news. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 09:42 AM It's supposed to be, what was the word? "Sordid". It's ****ing Sweeney Todd. It's about a guy who kills people and bakes them into pies, and they want to make it some watered down pansy pg-13 flick? I was never much of a fan of Sondheim or this musical, but still... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:43 AM In reply to this comment (#1075903) this is so stupid, and yes typhoon I am legend is definetly going to be PG-13, its being marketed as a blockbuster, and blockbusters are not R(usually) (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 09:49 AM An episode of CSI (or any cop show these days for that matter) would be equally, if not more graphic than this film. However, I think the mixing of a musical with graphic violence (blood, guts, etc) would seem to be targeting two conflicting audiences. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who'll be into this mish-mash, but Warner Bros. might struggle to find a profitable number of musical/showtune loving patrons who'll dig the whole violent part; and on the flip side, enough people who like twisted macabre stuff who'll get into the musical side. Honestly, find me a large bunch of guys who really get into musicals these days, ones who haven't been dragged along by their Fu (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 09:54 AM This makes me a sad boy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:57 AM Is this movie even a Warner Bros. movie? I thought it was Dreamworks... (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 10:05 AM In reply to this comment (#1075946) You are correct, Zodkin -- DreamWorks and Paramount are handling distribution in the US. This article is from a British paper, however, and it looks like the European rights are being handled by Warners... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 10:10 AM The same thing probably happened when Burtan made "Sleepy Hollow", but that definitly retained its gore and much deserved R-rating (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 10:14 AM I just recently read a story about how movies these days are being made to appeal to as many audiences as possible rather than just aiming for one target audience. The toning down of this movie is just about the perfect example of that complaint, I'd say. Most people going to see this movie will be Sweeney Todd fans anyway; does a million dollars or so of extra profit really make that much of a difference to you, Warner Bros? Can't we just have a good, faithful adaptation rather than a watered down and mostly likely subpar version of the story? (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 10:28 AM Johnny Dep and Tim Burton created a bloody movie? No, not the two men behind Sleepy Hollow. I guess this can not be helped though due to the fact that it all comes down to the money. If mroe people (teens fans from the Pirates) will pay more money to see Depp the studios will hack a film to due so. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 10:39 AM warner brothers.go to hell (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 10:40 AM yaaaay! who cares about creativity or entertainment?!!? lets just make money!! woo hoo (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 10:44 AM This is crap, they shouldn't mess with Burton's vision. I'm sure the R rated version would be better. What happend to just making a good movie and having faith that people would come. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 11:08 AM Does Warner Bros. actually think people are gonna pay more for a calculated and studio backed "watering down" of a project to better make sure his teeny-bopper fans are allowed in than an honest picture representing the heart of a project that originaly lured the actors and the director and the talent? Sounds like Depp's legions of female fans are finally coming back to bite him in the *** just like when he was in 21 Jump Street. Hopes he bucks it like usual and continues to make dark goth projects with Tim in the future. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 11:28 AM When has a movie ever been better because it's been trimmed back to a PG-13 rating? Seriously? Especially horror/gore movies. This is incredibly idiotic. Hollywood movie execs need to be repeatedly smashed in the head with splintery bits of wood. Then maybe they'd understand how they make the rest of us feel. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 11:43 AM What idiots... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 11:46 AM compromising the artists vision in order to make money is hollywood at its rotten core. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 11:47 AM Gah! What the heck? I hate it when studios completely mess up the whole vision of a director...especially Tim Burton, who's one of my favorites. I just hope they didn't "edit" too much. It's Sweeny Todd, jeez! (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 12:03 PM The crew had to go outside to get some fresh air because the prosthetics were so lifelike? Yeah, sure they did. If that%u2019s true, where did this crew come from, kindergarten? (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 12:09 PM warner bros. you are stupid! >:C (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:11 PM While I probably won't see it, being the squeamish sort I am (unless it's gloriously fake violence, like Kill Bill...good times), I say keep it at R. I've always seen Tim Burton's style as being perfect for this kind of blood and gore, so why suppress it? You'd think there's a strong enough market for that kind of thing, though the overload of lousy gorefests and the potential market of young Depp and Burton fans may be keeping them on their toes. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:13 PM I don't know how much stock I'd place in this story. There isn't a single named source in it and it appears to be from a British Tabloid gossip page. Plus, they're talking about the British rating of the film, not the American rating. The list of American movies banned in England due to violent content is long and distinguished so it's not surprising they may be getting a different edit. When Tim Burton himself comes out and says creative control of the movie has been taken away from him, perhaps I'll grab my torch and pitchfork. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:20 PM In reply to this comment (#1075854) I just looked it up and I think Dreamworks is in charge of this film, so they would be pursuing the rating. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:23 PM In reply to this comment (#1075957) I see. But they have a different ratings system over there. Euros are more sensitized to violence than sex, whereas it is the opposite here. Check out "This Film is Not Yet Rated." (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:26 PM I saw this movie on jersy girl (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 12:57 PM This is bad news. Sweeney Todd must be rated R. It will be completely lame otherwise. Well, at least there will be a really cool director's cut version then. Screw you WB. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 01:22 PM Come on WB! or Dreamworks! or whoever is doing this! It's Sweeney Todd! the point is to be bloody! and those who were going to see Sweeney Todd in the first place most likely won't now! Get it right! (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 01:31 PM warner brothers are acting like they have never done a gory r- rated movie before (which i know they have)...... they do suck...... didn't they screw him over for the batman movies as well........ either way Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors and in my opinion one of the best directors of our time..... Sleepy Hollow was pretty gory but it all worked out to be a very good movie and it was very creative...... i don't even know where i am going with this anymore to tell you the truth, but a PG-13 would not work out for sweeny todd....... i don't even think i've wanted to see a musical before, but sweeny todd i have been waiting for, for a while...... i have also noticed that things kind of get screwed up when Burton's vision gets disposed of (example: batman series). (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 01:33 PM plus, this kind of goes against freedom of speech. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 01:35 PM AND WARNER BROTHERS...... YOU GUYS SUCK! (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 01:39 PM okay i know this is like my fourth comment....... but a PG-13 probably wouldn't even work because a lot of teenagers probably wouldn't see this anyway. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 01:41 PM it's okay to make an r-rated adult film sometimes warner brothers.... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 02:20 PM Sweeney Todd has, is, and always will be a gory story. A PG-13 Sweeney Todd is counter-intuitive. Warner Bros should be ashamed. I understand the motivation to make money, but this is the wrong film to be cutting up. This could easily be Burton's prestige piece, and some artfully directed violence (which is the essence of Sweeney Todd) could really make this film. I bet the studio is wary of making another "Sleepy Hollow," which was Rated R and wasn't exactly the blockbuster that they wanted. The problem is that studios only want Blockbusters now. You either win big or you flop big. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 02:36 PM *****ing lame. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 02:48 PM If this is the case they might as well make Sweeney Todd into a cartoon with Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 03:08 PM this is what i was scared of, i wanted this to be R it would really show the demon of sweeney, i mean a theatre show can only do so much, but a movie would be amazing. ****ING WARNERS BROS!!!! Damn you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:09 PM Why don't they change the title to 'Sweetey Todd'.**** Warner Bros with theire Mickey Mouse approach. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:20 PM Tim Burton is the Beck of the movie business. Take that for what you will... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:23 PM i don't understand how Warner Bros. can release a movie about a homicidal barber in PG-13 with no blood? its idiotic. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:35 PM As disappointed as I am with the studio stepping in, I can't help but be equally saddened by the fact that Burton felt it necessary to throw in blood and gore into the show. Yes, I know it's a story about a homicidal barber and the baker who bakes them into pies. But last time I checked, the story was more about character and less about visual shock value. It would be completely unnecessary to actually show a throat being slip open in full view of the camera, blood spurting and flesh slithering out on itself. It's just gratuitous violence that doesn't cater to anything out of necessity. Still mad at WB though. Director's should have final say; I'm just saying I'm disappointed in his lack of originality in portraying the violence. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:45 PM That movie , in my oppinion is going to be cool ! Jhonny Depp , Timothy Spall and Alan Rickman all in one movie? . In my oppinion , awesome!!!!! Go Warner Bros. !!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 03:56 PM THIS IS NOT CONFIRMED NEWS, CALM DOWN EVERYBODY sheesh (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 04:02 PM a pg 13 sweeny todd? WTF!!!! ****! dammit warner brothers effin sucks. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 04:15 PM Does anyone know if any of the cast can sing? It's pretty complex music. I hope Johnny doesn't suck as much as Travolta in HAIRSPRAY. What a drag. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 04:27 PM Hopefully Burton does the cutting himself and then they release a Director's Cut, that will clearly be much better. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 04:38 PM I have a great idea! Let's ***-rape the artist! **** you, theatrical release! Hello, Director's Cut! (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 04:55 PM Sadly, movies have become about nothing but money. Of course film companies need to make money from their films. But, there was a time when writers and directors were trusted with wandering into new and/or shaky lands. Didn't "Star Wars" get shuffled around before finally finding a distributor? Imagine what happened to the guys who turned down putting up the funds for distributing Star Wars. I bet they've been flipping burgers ever since. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 05:05 PM I have seen the broadway show and revival. The story does not rely on blood and guts to succeed, it is a musical for the love of God. It will be interesting to see what kind of crowd it will draw. Do a lot of people understand it is a musical? (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 05:06 PM another prime example why movies should NOT be a business. lets get more Billy Walsh's out there to stick it to the studios. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 05:20 PM Hello all...I'm new here in the forum. Hopefully, this article is exaggerated, or completely inaccurate concerning Sweeney Todd. I've always been a fan of most of director Burton's work, and I'm really looking forward to this film, unless Warner Bros. messes it all up. I guess, like others have suggested, Burton could release a more graphic directors cut, on DVD. I find in most cases, I usually prefer the directors cut (or extended edition)of a film, to the theatrical version, anyway. Remember when they were making the first PIRATES film, and studio "cronies" were all bagging on how they thought Depp's performance was going to spoil the whole picture?? LOL!! Studios need to have faith in the talent they hire (on both sides of the camera), and they need to learn to respect the movie going public. Let the audience see the film as the director intended, and let them be the judge if it's too "gruesome" or not. Instead, studios treat their audiences like immature children, rather then mature adults. It's not like Sweeney Todd is specifically aimed at the younger audience anyway. Every movie doesn't have to be something the whole family can see together. This film could genuinely be a BEST PICTURE contender, if Burton's complete vision is allowed to remain intact. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 05:43 PM In reply to this comment (#1075888) Is it really going to be PG-13? Screw the teen girls who liked him in Pirates (or Bonham Carter in Potter, for that matter) I would expect that these same girls have lined up with their boyfriends to see Saw, which had a huge young audience in the theatres. In addition, wasn't "Chicago" rated R? To have a movie like "Sweeney Todd," which should appeal to theatre and horror junkies alike, be rated a measly PG-13 is doing a such disservice. F*** Warner Bros. for not sticking their necks out for something of quality. BTW: If Angela Landsbury herself (yes people, the woman from "Murder, She Wrote" and the voice of Mrs. Potts from "Beauty and the Beast") could have ORIGINATED the role Bonham Carter is now playing in the film, one would think that anyone can escape convention and make this thing proper. But I guess that would require acting or risk-taking of some sort... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 06:04 PM In reply to this comment (#1076964) Chicago was rated PG-13. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 06:33 PM Worst news I've heard in months, Sweeney Todd PG-13? I'm indignated, yuck. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 07:02 PM This is exactly what i am talking about, PG-13 movies are taking over hollywood. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 08:26 PM In reply to this comment (#1077135) PG-13 is that safety net that allows films to be violent, profane and risque without forfeiting younger audiences. Sure, an R-rated film isn't going to stop kids who really want to see it, but it will certainly take more haggling with mom n' dad. But of course, it also depends on what MAKES it R-rated, not just the fact that it is. Is blood and gore a solid draw during the Christmas season, regardless of the content? Seems like a better bet for Halloween (though don't most Burton films seem that way). (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 08:59 PM So what happens if this is released as an R-rated film, and then flops just as "Grindhouse" did?? Yes, I agree a director's vision shouldn't be compromised, but for **** sake, when big studios back these projects - they want them to be successful in theatres! There's a lot of money at stake. "Everything shouldn't be about money" you say? Well fine, let's just have a endless supply of independent/arthouse films with shoestring budgets. People like Mr. Burton won't get the funding they're after for projects like this, and then we'll end up with something far less visual striking (but Tim Burton films are meant to be visual striking!). OK, I guess this all depends on what floats your boat, but if you want the lavish, expensive sets and special FX - sometimes you're going to have to make compromises. Those of you who consider yourselves purists and movie fanatics, upholding the sanctity of cinema; who are all for people living the life of starving artists just so their unprofitable visions remain unaltered%u2026. well, I think in cases like this (Sweeny Todd, Grindhouse), you%u2019ll just have to wait for the unrated Director's Cut to see the version you after. The only other way I see around this is if 2 versions of the film are released in cinemas, but this isn't financially feasible I would think. I know I sound like such a hard-arse here, but seriously, unless you can convince thousands of your friends to come along, or change the public%u2019s perception on violence, or their willingness to support horror/musicals%u2026 then why are people so surprise WB are acting this way? Don%u2019t forget, it's a friggin' musical! Musical just aren't THAT popular, and considering it's mish-mashed with horror/gore etc... Well that to me raises a massive hurdle to get over. Tim Burton's great, but Sweeney Todd is not Sleepy Hollow, it is not a horror movie (How can you honestly get creeped when people are singing and dancing??), it's a musical first and foremost. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 27 2007 09:26 PM WTF????!!!! I can't believe it, man!! PG13???? Jesus Christ, that's sucks! Poor Tim Burton... (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 10:45 PM This IS TOTAL BULL****!THis is Tim Burton, you have to let the ARTIST MAKE HIS MASTERPIECE!!!NO ONE WANTS TO SEE SUM ****Y WANABE ADAPTATION OF SONDHIEM's Classic! Pg 13, WAT BULL****! DO YOU HONESTLY Think Gore and it bein Rated R will STop Teenagers from watching a Tim Burton FILM! ITS TIM BURTON!!!HIS FILMS Are MAINSTREAM ENOUGH Y U GOTTA *** IT UP FOR **** YOU!!!YOU HAVE RUINED MY EXCITEMENT OF SEEING THIS FILM!!!GUESS WAT WARNER BROTHERS< YOU JUST LOST A CUSTOMER! SO consider you making more money out of this a complete FUKING LOSS! (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 10:51 PM The story also includes gang rape. It's not pg-13 stuff, even without blood and gore, which was absent in the musical production I saw. There is a duet between an innkeeper's wife and the barber that will make everybody laugh till they puke their guts out, so you could argue the kids in attendance will get a graphic experience anyways. Isn't this the guy who made Evil Dead II? He's probably in disbelief at the studio's position. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 27 2007 11:33 PM WHAT? Tim Burton had nothing to do with Evil Dead II. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 03:27 AM Weak (Reply to this) |
on Aug 28 2007 04:33 AM In reply to this comment (#1075990) Need I say more? Agree 100% with you Gimy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 04:37 AM I am a huge fan of both Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, and I thought this movie looked fantastic. But if this movie ends up being a PG-13 (or a 12A, in the UK where I am), I'll know it's been watered down, and therefore not Burton's complete vision, and for that I reason, I won't be paying good money to see it at the cinema. Does Warner Bros. really think that forcing the movie to edit down to a lower rating will really help with sales? I would have thought that a musical about cannibalism would be the last thing parents would want to take their kids to, even if it HAS got Johnny Depp in it, and to me, the premise alone should make it merit at least an R (or 15, in the UK) rating. All they're going to do is alienate younger audiences by making it seem like these sorts of adult themes in movies make family viewing, whilst losing the respect of lifelong Burton/Depp fans such as I. So, you lost another ticket there Warner. Way to go, idiots. Here's hoping the complete Director's Cut will be released on DVD. Maybe I'll see it then. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 04:39 AM Get out of your ivory tower, jeremy. People starving in the streets, eh? Well I hardly think the extra $2 million is going to be going to the homeless folk around the world. And you said it yourself; this sort of movie has a very specific audience and isn't likely to make a lot of money anyhow. If this is the case (and it is), wouldn't it be better to just put out a movie that people will actually like and remember for years to come, rather than just alienating the fans and converting no new ones? To me this seems just like a giant lose-lose situation when they could just keep it Rated R and at least do something right with the project. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 06:10 AM In reply to this comment (#1077675) but there's such a great view from up here... OK, maybe I went a little over-the-top with the "starving artists" bit, but I can't help thinking we have another "Grindhouse" on our hands here. I think the majority of people are stupid, they fear new and possibly exciting ideas... Throw in a harsh R-rating and a film like this is even more screwed. So no, Tim Burton won't end up on the street, but it's the principle of the thing - I don't blame WB for being concerned about the money they invest in projects. Either way, we all know there'll be an Unrated Director's Cut.... Just as we know there will be one for Grindhouse. So that more movies like this get made, with studios still willing to back them... perhaps some compromises have to be made on their cinematical debuts? Either that, or we should riot at any censorship organisations. I'm being realistic here... if this movie flops, studios will stop taking risks, and we'll have another 5 Fantastic Four/Cheaper By the Dozen movies next year instead. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 07:09 AM In reply to this comment (#1076783) You're partially right. Sweeney Todd, like any good story, is really all about character. However, historically it's always belonged to a specific genre - and that's horror / macabre. This dates back to the 1800's, when the first stories of Sweeney Todd were published. What made them stand out was not only their sharp criticism of Victorian ideals, but also the startling violence. Similarly, the stage musical included several instances of spurting blood and gore. It's not a pretty story. It's grungy and dirty - a musical horror film. Think of it this way: Sweeney Todd is probably the first great slasher villain. Why Warner Bros would want to water it down is beyond me. It's dramaturgically unwarannted. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 07:37 AM I mean, what part of Grand Guignol do they not understand!? Seriously! Look it up! Grand Guignol! That's what this is! That's its reason for being! (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 08:49 AM WHAT!?!?!?! I am a fan of this musical.... A BIG FAN! and you know why? Because of how different and Gory it is. The show is Gory! People are going to suspect the movie to be too. Damn it! Stop messing up films! Its Burton....let him do his thing! And I'm sorry.... I happen to remember when movies like American Pie made a CRAP TON of money from teens because they were R rated....what happened that that?!? (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 10:02 AM You would think an R rating would broaden a musicals audience. Putting the damned thing out at Christmas isn't so good for business either. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 10:42 AM Mmm-kay, seriously, if you read the ORIGINAL ARTICLE and not just the summation of the article that appears on RT, you might notice that PG-13 isn't mentioned in it ANYWHERE! It is talking about the British rating system, not the U.S. rating system. It is extremely common for alternate cuts of movies to be made for international distribution due to various censorship laws and cultural standards around the world. Since Warners is only handling International distribution, not domestic, there is really nothing earth-shattering or shocking about this news. When we start to hear reports that Dreamworks (the U.S. distributer) is demanding cuts for the U.S. version, then a riot might be more appropriate. (Unless all the people flaming Warners on this thread happen to live in the UK.) Also, directors are typically required by contract to meet a specific rating when they sign on to make a movie. If Burton is required to meet a PG-13 rating, it's highly unlikely he didn't know that going in. Between Burton and Johnny Depp, there is enough clout to where the studio isn't going to risk pissing them off. The last thing the studio wants is for a big star like Johnny Depp or a major director like Tim Burton giving interviews saying their artistic vision was destroyed and urging potential audiences not to spend their money seeing a movie. Until there's some official confirmation that any of this is true, I say: Calm the !@#$ down. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 12:06 PM To be honest, it doesn't need to be an absolute gorefest. Film is different from literature, and what is often more psychological in film is what you DON'T see... Looks like Tim might just have to get a bit more creative in conveying suspense. I think it'll be better for it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 28 2007 12:38 PM It's their money. Let Burton use his own money. (Reply to this) |
on Aug 31 2007 07:28 PM I'm not surprised by this news. If the movie wasn't made as an R rated movie, I'd be alright, but since it was, I'm both upset and happy. I'm upset because the version we're seeing won't be the way the movie was orignally supposed to be. But I'm happy that I'll be able to see it. But maybe it'll end up being like Live Free or Die Hard. People were made about the PG-13, but it was a pretty intense PG-13. I'd love to see a world where a movie like Sweeney Todd (a movie that was originally going to be R but was changec by the studio) to be released twice: an R rated version and a PG-13 rated version. I'm probably alone, but I can dream, can't I? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 01 2007 08:19 AM Wasn't this story proven false days ago? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 01 2007 12:22 PM It kinda was, it's going to be pg-13 in Europe but still R here in the U.S. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 02 2007 07:19 AM In reply to this comment (#1075933) re: "find me a bunch of guys who are into musicals that haven't been dragged there by their girlfriends/wives" Easy!!! Two words: gay bar Being gay, I can say that without any hint whatsoever of it being derogatory or insulting, so don't even go there with the "I'm so offended" posts, ok? This whole thing has been kind of a rollercoaster ride for me. [1] Sweeney Todd is going to be a movie -- damn, that sucks [2] Tim Burton is going to do it -- WOO HOO! [3] Johnny Depp is going to be Sweeney -- no way. That sucks. He's too young. [4] It will still be a musical -- OK, then it might be decent [5] Johnny Depp will sing -- oh dear God, no. [6] It will be gory as hell -- That will take my mind off Johnny singing! WOO HOO! [7] WB is going to edit it down to PG13 -- I'll wait for the unrated DVD version (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2007 07:30 AM In reply to this comment (#1090106) At least in the UK there's no such thing as PG-13. Here they have rated All Audiences, PG, 12, 15, or 18 which really when you think about it is a lot easier to understand than our system. Shockingly one of the few examples of Europeans using better common sense than Americans, until they start putting butter on their popcorn though the American cinematic experience will still rule supreme.. Do you know which of these it's going to be? I would think 15 since 12 and below is like for movies about elves and munchkins and ****, but who knows. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2007 09:49 AM Argh! WTF, Sweeney Todd is my favorite musical ever. Stupid idiots at WB just got to try and ruin it. Like making a movie R would stop teenagers from seeing it anyways. You think this many years after the South Park movie, film studios would realize that R is fine. Douches. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2007 02:10 PM I am so sick of stereotypes. I couldn't count how many people I know, male and female, that love musicals. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 04 2007 07:35 AM "A director should be allowed to express his vision." Ah, but remember that basically, in simple terms, the director is an EMPLOYEE of the studio. In technical, legal, and marketplace terms, this film is the product of the studio, so if they want to increase profit, that's their prerogative. Just like when my boss at Dairy Queen would instruct me to change how I was doing something on the grill, Warner Bros. has instructed Burton to make changes to THEIR movie. Frustrating? Even infuriating? Quite possibly. But if a director REALLY wants it to be HIS film, then he needs to dump his OWN millions of dollars into it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 05 2007 12:42 PM i actually am praying they dont make it R because its not suppose to be gorey its suppose to be scary. from someone who is a huge sweeny todd fan the scare factor is gone when im too busy throwing up and if a director can make a movie scary without dismembering someone then they're better off. I am already not looking forward to this movie and i just have to say Alan Rickman is the only redeeming thing about it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 08 2007 06:36 AM This can't be true! Why hire and pay for genius like Burton and Depp just to water down their result? If you want a pg 13 holiday movie, why start with the story of Sweeney Todd? It just doesn't make sense. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 12 2007 11:12 AM This is kind of ridiculous, one of the resons Sweeny Todd was so amazing on Broadway was because it was such a new thing, people weren't used to being terrified when they went to the theater. Not allowing Burton to release his true vision under an R rating would not only be an insult to him and all those that worked so hard on the project, it would also be an insult to Stephen Sondheim himself who originally wrote the musical. (Reply to this) |
on Nov 20 2007 03:40 PM I dont think that blood and guts makes a movie creative or entetaining. What a bunch of you followers you are,evey one I know thinks this way and I dont understand. You have to have sex, swearing, blood and gore to say that a move is creative, its no diffent that putting poop in brownies. Would you eat those also? Whats would be really interesting is if this movie is creative and entertaining and even scary with out all of the other nonsence. Im tired of of beind directed to watered down dumb movies becasue I refuse to polute my famlies mind and its people like you thats at fault. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Articles
- Exclusive: Inside Pinewood/Shepperton - A Photo Tour (2)
- 2008 MTV Movie Awards Winners (39)
- 2008 MTV Movie Award Nominations Announced (39)
- RT on DVD: Oscar-Winning Sweeney Todd Slashes Away The Competition (18)
- And the Golden Globes Winners Are... (83)
- RT Presents...2007: The Year in Photos (4)
- Sacha Baron Cohen Announces "Deaths" of Borat, Ali G (19)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: National Treasure Uncovers Holiday Gold at #1 Spot (37)
- Critical Consensus: Sweeney Todd, Walk Hard, and Charlie Wilson All Certified Fresh! (7)
- Box Office Guru Preview: Five New Films Fight For Holiday Cheer (9)
Most Discussed
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (96)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (90)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (90)
- Critics Consensus: Flee From Ninja Assassin (47)
- RT's Blu-ray Picks from WB (34)
- WB offers DVD to Blu-ray Trade-In Program (33)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Vampires and Football Break Thanksgiving Records (33)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (28)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (24)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Terminator Salvation and a Smithsonian Battle (17)
Latest News
- Total Recall: Natalie Portman's Best Movies (5)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Terminator Salvation and a Smithsonian Battle (17)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Vampires and Football Break Thanksgiving Records (33)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (28)
- Duncan Jones Reteams With Kevin Spacey (5)
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (96)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (90)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (90)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (24)
- WB offers DVD to Blu-ray Trade-In Program (33)
Latest Interviews
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (11)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (22)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
- Duncan Jones talks Moon, Sam Rockwell, and Mute (14)
Latest Features
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (90)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (90)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (24)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (35)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (36)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (39)
- 12 Facts About 2012 (135)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (22)
IGN RSS Feeds