… aaaaaaaaand having to pay the editor for all the extra time it would take him/her to edit a second version, the added cost of renting the editing equipment for that time… you get the idea. 
Don’t know what makes you think this is such a big expense that it would prevent filmmakers from doing alternate takes for TV. Alternate versions of a film happen all the time, and it’s no big deal. A big part of a director’s job is to shoot enough “coverage” so that a scene can be put together in the editing room. As part of that coverage, it’s not that hard to shoot a few extra takes of an actor saying a different version of a line, or to shoot reaction shots so that the editor can cut away from the person speaking and make it easier to dub in a PG version of a line.
Now, as far as releasing two versions of a film with different ratings, that’s not going to happen, at least not simultaneously, because the MPAA (who rates the movies) won’t allow it. So you won’t find a PG-13 playing in one theatre and an R in another.
But PG-13 films show up on DVD as R films, and R films show up on DVd as NC-17 films. And, obviously, they show up on TV recut and redubbed. In many cases, filmmakers do provide alternate takes for this, but they can’t know ahead of time exactly what will or won’t pass the network’s standards and practises, so they can’t always have an alternate version of every potentially objectionable moment. So in many cases, alterations are made by the network – these are usually the bad ones that are obviously noticable.
Of course, not every alternate take was made just to get on TV. Sometimes, actors just like to improvise and ad lib. In one take for GHOSTBUSTERS, Dan Akroyd called William Atherton’s character “Wee Willie Winkie” instead of “Dickless,” which is what was written in the script. The scripted version made it into the theatrical release, but the ad lib was used on TV, instead of trying to dub something over Akroyd’s mouth forming the word “Dickless.”
steve biodrowski
www.thescriptanalyst.com
Having directed a feature film makes me think that. Yes, I know what coverage is. And I know, each time you do a new set-up (or extra takes in a set-up), it takes extra time. Extra time = more days. More days = more money. Not to mention, extra takes = extra film. Extra film = more money. It adds up very quickly.
Very true. But I can guarantee you, in almost every case, the filmmaker was not on set going, “Hey, I should shoot this another way so I can get a PG-13 film out of it as well…”. He/she was shooting the script. Most directors don’t have final cut, so the studio can re-edit it into a PG-13 rating or whatever, to try and increase their audience. Then, when it’s released on DVD, it will sometimes be restored to the harder rating to try and get another market.
Despite your inference, I am not puritanical - I use those words too. And because of my job, I possibly hear more of them than you do.
When used in moderation and in context, I don’t have any problem with profanity. It’s a natural reflex in times of stress. But it is easy to fall into the trap of overuse, where cuss words are used too often, and in inappropriate places. We all know people who have that bad habit, and they sound just as ridiculous as the poorly written scripts that I am bemoaning. One of my workmates is a classic example.
While you might believe that heavy use of such language is a normal occurence, most people in my part of the world (where we are heavily influenced by American culture) usually reserve it for when it is appropriate.
DVous Means - When you put it that way, I do believe we’re on the same wave length. The inference I got from your last post was “bad words = automatically a bad script”. I apologize if that wasn’t what you meant. Moderation, I’m fine with, and I even agree with.
BTW, what is it you do, that hear more profanity than I do? 3rd grade teacher? 
Roadfood said:
“It is as stupid as the bad guy attacking the good guy by throwing a stuffed rabbit at him.”
You could get lint in your eye and trip and fall and become quite injured!
Anamorphic- I scratch out a living as a paramedic. Much of my job is spent being intimately involved in someone else’s crisis. Quite often, that also necessitates telling them things they don’t want to hear, so you tend to get used to copping a verbal spray. It comes with the territory…
Many years ago, CBS inexplicably decided to run Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing.” Mother F*cker became “Mickey Fickey.” Swear to God…
It adds up, but not necessarily that quickly (obviously, it really depends on the budget and the schedule). And your having directed a feature film does not alter the fact that many filmmakers do shoot alternate takes, whether to negotiate with ratings or to use on TV.
ScriptAnalyst - Alternate takes are done, yes, but usually for things like nudity and other things that can’t easilly be changed in post. Your average director just simply does not care about television versions. It’s the furthest thing from his mind when he’s on set. Whether you’re talking about a 6 million dollar film with a 30 day shoot, or a 60 million dollar film with a 4 month shoot, he’s worried about getting what’s on the page in the limited time he has. I know this from personal experience, and talking to directors who have worked on much bigger projects. The producer, who might have certain television-delivery or ratings demands to meet, might want alternates.
But, it doesn’t make sense for the producer to do it on the set, either. The producer sees a big money clock ticking when the crew is on set. You’re in the business, so I’m sure you’ve spent time on set. Then you know nothing is ever simple and quick. Every set up takes time, with makeup and wardrobe running in and making last minute touches and fixes; the DP tweaking lights; the 1st AC double checking his measurements; mags needing to be changed; actors screwing up lines, etc. If you cover a scene for television, meaning you’re doing at least two extra takes of every setup, figuring a minimum of 3 - 5 setups per scene, that means you’re adding probably a good 30 to 45 minutes to each scene. And you know how expensive every hour is on set. Paying the crew, the actors, paying rental for camera equipment, the dolly, the lights, the crane, etc. Every hour on set is supremely expensive. Not to mention you’re talking about adding a lot of film cost between the film itself and developing. Why would a producer want a director to do this on set, when it would be much, much, much, much cheaper to dub the lines in looping? Where you’re not paying a full crew? Where you’re not paying massive amounts for equipment rental?
I’m not saying it never happens. But think about it. If it really were as easy and commonplace as you seem to think, this thread probably wouldn’t even exist. Instead of hearing “Let’s get the freak out of here!”, were they to do alternate takes on set often, they would just film it as “Let’s get out of here!”. Unless people had the film memorized, they wouldn’t even notice.