I was looking to purchase fearless and Riddick and wondering what the differences were since the hd versions are unrated. Now I know a lot of the time this is just a ploy by the studios and I'm wandering if these are any different. Are they at all harder? I'm also asking because I wanted to watch this with my younger cousins and I'm wandering if these versions would still warrant a pg-13 rating or not. Thanks.

I was looking to purchase fearless and Riddick and wondering what the differences were since the hd versions are unrated. Now I know a lot of the time this is just a ploy by the studios and I'm wandering if these are any different. Are they at all harder? I'm also asking because I wanted to watch this with my younger cousins and I'm wandering if these versions would still warrant a pg-13 rating or not. Thanks.

Haven't had the chance to watch Fearless, But I would say that Riddick is no worse most extras are Dialog or Riddick having a dream sequence which is just a chick talking to walking through a world of graves (millions of crosses in the ground). Fearless is probably the same as well since it's target audience wouldn't require R-Rated version (I don't think they would have to cut things for ratings sake is what I am pretty much saying). Keep in mind Fearless includes both versions on the DVD along with the Unrated on the HD side, so you can always give it a pre-run and still let them watch the DVD if you think it is too violent.

Are they at all harder? I'm also asking because I wanted to watch this with my younger cousins and I'm wandering if these versions would still warrant a pg-13 rating or not.

Isn't even the theatrical Ridick rated R?

Anyway, Ridick is not really that violent, but it has one or two instances of some pretty bad language.

never mind, the theaterical version of Riddick was rated pg 13

Well, "unrated" is essentially a ploy to sell more copies when talking about mainstream films with the unrated footage still being tamer than a stuffed animal or nothing to warrant alarm. Major studios know they'll have to deal with the MPAA for a rating and anything over an R-rating will pretty much kill wide theatrical screenings. So they shoot only what they assume will be acceptable to them for a "safe" theatrical rating.

The real differences in terms of "rated vs. unrated" tend to mostly be in independent Horror films. I'm not talking about the Saw series, their unrated versions are an enormous joke. The indie crowd tend not to care about the MPAA, so they shoot whatever they like. Take Murder-Set-Pieces (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422779/) for example. It was screened at 105 minutes initially, re-edited to 90 minutes for its unrated director's cut (released via an idependent DVD), and when Lions Gate picked it up for distribution they submitted it to the MPAA which reduced it down to an 83 minute R-Rated version.

well yeah i did watch fearless by myself first.....spoiler: I think the part where the guy cuts his own throat would have been a little too much lol....was that in the pg-13 theatrical version?