Scott716

Just saw this today, if so I have to cancel my order and get the region 2, I never heard this before..anyone???

http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/news/news.asp?Section=3

Decker

Apparently so. This is all they have at IMDB:
Alternate Versions for
The Cooler (2003)
The Unrated Director's Cut Version is available only Pay Per View and Video on Demand on Cable and Satellite in the US. The US DVD version is Cut.

MrE

The DVD is the theatrical version. Even if alternate versions exist, that does not make the current version "Cut" or "Censored".

TomOpus

If they cut more William H Macy nakedness, it might not be such a bad thing.

IMO, that is

MrE

BTW according to dvdcompare.net all releases to date have have been the "R-rated theatrical version."

ThatGuamGuy

I believe they actually cut a brief bit of nudity from Maria Bello. It was definitely something (small) in the sex scene.

Before Mr E points it out, yes, they had to cut it from the *theatrical* version, in order to get an R-rating. So it's the original version, but it's not the director's intended version.

basaro

I never saw it in the theatre, but I have the R1 release. There are some scenes in there that I can imagine had additional material in the director's cut, but probably not too much. Maybe a little more nakedness, possibly Mr. Macy as previosuly mentioned,which I probably wouldn't miss. I thought those scenes worked pretty well, but I would be interested in seeing what is missing too

basaro

Yeah, I could see that too. She wasn't exactly "shy" in those scenes.

Scott716

The way I see it, it was censored..it's not what the director wanted, and it was cut after it was finished.

From what I gather it's a couple seconds showing her pubic hair..

Scott716

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlf...20sex%20scenes

Ok had to post this, the comment at the end by Macy is priceless..lol

basaro

TomOpus

Hmmmm maybe he's bragging....

Jackskeleton

The way I see it, sometimes the sky is actually green. Doesn't make it right or any more true. Just the way I see things.

Same shit with this. Just because the Director wanted more nudity doesn't mean that the final version WASN'T what is intended. You also have to factor in that a Movie is not just the directors intent. A director is a tool of the movie studio. It is their movie also. So if they come to a creative choice of making it R-rated then they give those directions to the directors and that is what the director has to work with. It's not censorship, it's a compromise. Not censorhsip at all. The creative owners of the product wanted it a certain way.

Groucho

Is there some obligation for people whose name ends in 16 to continually misuse "that word"?

ThatGuamGuy

Actually, the MPAA wanted it a "certain" way. The studio didn't care one way or another about the content, only the rating. The MPAA controls the rating, and, thus, what *they* wanted becomes what's seen.

In fact, there's pretty basic evidence that the studio agreed with the director. If the studio had not wanted Maria Bello's pubic hair to be shown, it never would've been shot. Things like that don't happen accidentally, it has to be negotiated into the contracts *exactly* how much nudity the actress will perform, so I tend to doubt that the studio suddenly decided they didn't want what they'd paid for. Adding to that, if the studio had wanted the shot cut out, they would've submitted it to the MPAA with that shot cut out. It seems unlikely that they would want the shot cut but decide to just wait until the MPAA rated it, risking the MPAA giving it an R-rating *before* the studio had forced the cut you're claiming it wanted [which would've neccessitated re-submitting the film once they cut it out]. Instead, they submitted it, got an NC-17, went back, cut the pubic area out, and then re-submitted it. Why would they go to all that trouble to get a shot cut out if they actually wanted it cut? I wouldn't think Wayne Kramer has final cut.

As to the technical definition of "censorship" ... not gonna touch that one. I don't think it probably should be called "censored", but that doesn't automatically mean that the film, as released, is the "intended" version. There were certain realities of the marketplace which precluded releasing the intended version. [I feel the same, in that respect, as I do about Kubrick; if Kubrick wanted his films shown in 1.66 or 1.33, I'll accept that, even though the realities of the marketplace at the time of their theatrical exhibitions was such that they couldn't be seen that way at that time.]

Scott716

Are you sure it's Groucho and not Grouchy??..lol.

Sure the MPAA didn't hold a knife at their throat and force them to chop film but they might as well have, it's either NC-17 or R..you have a choice but you don't, not if you want to be in theaters. To me this is just as bad as OAR or Foolscreen..it forces the creative sides to show something other then intended or wanted.

Jackskeleton

And the studio had the very simple CHOICE that they can release it that way without the MPAA rating or they could mold it to what was kosher for a specific rating. The key word here is CHOICE. As it stands the studio had the choice on the matter to release it as unrated, NC-17 or release it with the R rating. When the studio doesn't have the choice to do something then we can start talking about Censorship. This is not censorship.

No movie has to go through MPAA rating. It's a voluntary choice to submit it by the studio. In the end, there is always a choice on the matter. Censorship is not here. I always hate it when they toss that word around without thinking about the situation.

Ah, I assume the 16 is indeed your age. Lets put it this way, The film industry is a business. The idea that the Director has the final say is as silly as saying that I want a second unit PA edition of a certain movie. The Studio has just as much reason to add and remove scenes because it is their product as well. The fact that the MPAA didn't hold a knife to their heads was reason enough to NOT call this censorship. Let me ask you this, Was THE COOLER released that wide? In the majority of those chains that did carry this film, they normally show NC-17 films anyways. Giving this film an NC-17 wouldn't have hurt it any worse. But it was a CHOICE made by the studio to cut a scene here and there to make it fit an R rating based on the feedback that MPAA gave them. That is not censorship. MPAA stated their problems and the choice was made. Not the same as censorship were they are forced or faced with a possible chance of getting it banned. It's not forcing the studio to do anything they aren't willing to do to fit the idea of a rating they wanted originally. Just as if they wanted a certain aspect ratio on the film and they later find out that they shot it in a different aspect ratio. Would correcting the aspect ratio to what they intended it to be considered censorship because they are cutting some of the shot?

Why not start calling any edited film censored? Because we would be naming them all. I know plenty of movies that run to long by a scene or have one to many jokes in them that were cut out in test screenings. Garden State for example had a few shots that were cut when they test screened it. So in that sense EVERY FILM THAT HAS HAD A TEST SCREENING AND CHANGED HAS BEEN CENSORED. See why that kind of thinking is rather silly? Everything gets tweaked. In the end it was still the director and studio's verson of the film minus 2 frames of beaver shots. Was that really all that important to a story? That's what matters to the director in the story telling process.

This is not censorship. Please stop using the word if you don't know how to use it.

Scott716

You can shape it any way you want but it's not really a choice now is it..typical of this country now to not name something for what it is..they just do it in a nicer way that's all. All a means to and end..to police what is right and wrong , what should be seen and not seen..just make them think they have choices and we'll take little by little away until there is nothing left. The word was used correctly don't be fooled by technicalities.

Groucho

Well you got to take the good with the bad. The great thing about this country is that aluminum foil is cheap and widely available, so you'll never have a hat shortage.

Scott716

I bet that joke plays well in utah...

Jackskeleton

No, it wasn't. Don't let the tin foil hat start messing with your head. It's not censorship. Censorship would be a Government man telling you that if you do it that way then you can't release it at all. MPAA tells you that if you are going to do it that way you have it graded differently. Much like in a meat factory. If you produce it a certain way the USDA can grade it differently. Will it effect how buyers see the product? I'm sure they will, but they still have access to that certain kind of graded meat.

MPAA is a suggested rating. Meaning that it's all done by choice. Studios don't have to go through that if they really didn't want to and had faith their movie would do well in those markets that don't care about showing unrated films. Also, Big Government man has to cut it himself. MPAA doesn't cut the films theymselves. They suggest what is questionable and the studio does it by a choice. "Should we cut it? Should we just release it like this?" Big difference there. Don'tcha think?

Lets put it this way. Blade Trinity was test marketed and their was some jokes cut out because of pacing of the film. Now because of those cuts, is the film any different or "censored". The director saw the reaction and made changes to make a cleaner film based on that feedback. Same shit with the MPAA, they submit it and then they get a reaction on what is kosher and what isn't in getting a specific rating. They then work around it to make it their film, but that would fit a determind demograph and a specific type of rating. Some people still don't realize that this is a Buisness and that any of these changes fucks with the artistic intgerity of the piece. That is not the case. It still got the message across, but it removed a bush shot in the process to make it fit a certain rating. It's not censorship.

You keep fighting that man, scott. Play RATM and keep wearing that che shirt and pretty soon you will fight those evil oppressors who are slowly taking away our rights as people. FIGHT THE POWER, MAN!

BigDan

So the studio/filmmaker should have a choice of what to include or not include unfettered by the voluntary rating system, but the theater chains should then not have a choice to not show NC-17 films if they don't want to?

The studios cut films to achieve certain ratings because of commercial considerations. There's no government restriction that says a movie has to be rated. And there's no government restriction that theaters can't show NC17 movies. Yes, studios are, in a way, forced into a choice because going with an NC17 rating usually means several theaters will choose to not show the movie. But the same kind of commercial choices are made all the time in any number of industries in order to get a product into the "stores" (theaters in the case of movies).

I wouldn't call it censorship, for example, if Albertson's makes me put bar codes on my product box (messing with my artistic freedom to present the box the way I want to present it) in order to stock my product in their stores.

ThatGuamGuy

It's highly debatable how much "choice" there is in the MPAA because the "choice" is not just between releasing it rated or NC-17, it's a "choice" between being able to advertise a movie sufficiently or not, whether a movie has a chance to play in certain chains or not, video release, etc. etc. (I'm not going to get pedantic, as I'm sure you know of these various choices since, if nothing else, it seems as if you've had this conversation before.)

Beyond that, you're speaking of the studio as if it's a person, which is bizarre. It doesn't happen that the studio "chooses" to release movies with or without the MPAA; certain studios are signatories (it's an association of them and for them, after all). Their releases must have the MPAA rating. Thus, in actuality, the "choice" to release a film with a rating was made long before anybody currently at any studio (other than Harvey Weinstein, who has had subsequent ratings impositions from Disney) was around to "choose". So, it's a representative of the studio who must accept the choice to use the MPAA (as opposed to unrated releases).

EDIT: I'll correct myself, inasmuch as 'The Cooler' was released by Lion's Gate, which is not an MPAA signatory. The above paragraph still applies to the conversation in a general way, but would not apply specifically to 'The Cooler'.

So the actual choice, even if you want to say it's the "studio"'s choice, is between R and NC-17. But this decision is made before a single frame of film is shot. It's built into contracts. So, again, it's false to say that the "studio" is choosing one version of the film over another. It has nothing to do with the film.

I grant you that the studio had the technical right to waive those contractual guarantees (as often happens with the length of a movie), but it's a right which never gets used, because *every* studio calculation (dating back to well before a single frame was shot) for budget and marketing is based on the film being R-rated. If they set out to shoot an NC-17, they adjust (lower) the budget accordingly, accepting that they won't be able to spend as much on marketing, will lose some money from video release, etc., and thus need to spend less on the movie to make their money back. Once they've set it up as an R-rated movie, they need it to still be an R-rated movie.

It's pretty naive to suggest that it was the "choice" of anybody involved in the film to release the shortened version. As I already pointed out, the studio's representatives approved all the nudity when it was shot and approved the cut which was submitted to the MPAA. *They* were fine with the movie as it was. The only reason the cut was made was the MPAA, not the desire of any person or entity involved in the movie.

On this, I agree with you. Censorship *would* be worse. The stated reason they formed the MPAA (along with the comics code) was to avoid active censorship by the government. That said, there should be a word which means "de facto censorship", because that is what this is. (And, yes, I'd also agree that it doesn't amount to much in this case, but there are certainly other cases where the same thing has led to much bigger cuts. There's not *much* difference between 1.66 and 1.85, except that one is correct [as in "intended"] and the other isn't.)

ChrisHicks

so are there scenes missing from this?

ThatGuamGuy

You're not speaking of an informed "choice" by the theater chains, you're talking about the fact that the MPAA has not bothered to educate the consumers on the fact that NC-17 does not equal pornography. It was intended, in fact, to be the opposite. The MPAA used to have "X" as an official rating, but pornographic films began using it, and variations on it, unofficially, at which point, the rating became associated with pornography. When the MPAA replaced "X" with "NC-17", they made a big deal that they were doing that, but neglected to point out that their motive was not to create a new rating for pornography, but rather to introduce a rating for films which were specifically adult-oriented for one reason or another. This neglect by the MPAA to fully inform people led theater owners and newspaper chains to use the same bans on NC-17 that they used on X.

The theater chains can make whatever choices they want, but it should be a choice based on facts, not perceptions.

Your analogy doesn't work; you're talking about the stores modifying your advertising (which is also true; the MPAA approves/disapproves trailers). Here's a better example. I'm granting in advance that it isn't censorship, but I bet you'll agree with me that, whatever the proper word would be, there's something wrong about it:
You have discovered the perfect way of making a really good chicken which can be, whatever, microwaved so it's done in five minutes and it tastes like it was properly cooked. You sell it to a distributor who is all set to mass market it. But, oh wait, Key Food and Pathmark won't carry anything with nutmeg in it, because nutmeg is not family friendly. So you have to take the nutmeg out. Come on, what are you worried about? Nobody's buying it for the nutmeg, they want the chicken. Sure, it'd be nice to have the nutmeg, it's a nice little bit of flavor, but do you really feel like you need it? Wouldn't you rather that people were able to eat your recipe which you took the time to perfect and which everybody involved with agrees is perfect but which has this one tiny little element which will bother them? Sure, you can take out the nutmeg, right? I mean, we don't want to do this, but we signed an agreement with Key Food that we wouldn't sell anything without their approval, even if the customers know what they're buying and don't care.

Isn't that giving a wee bit too much power to Key Food?

Also, I find it baffling that people keep calling the ratings process a "choice". No major studio is allowed to release a film unrated, because they are signatories of the MPAA. They have no choice in the matter, they *must* submit their film to the MPAA. Because of this, the theaters are able to mandate ratings, and most do (for various reasons), which for all intents and purposes forces the non-signatories to submit as well. (and, as everybody knows, the MPAA goes much, much easier on signatories than non-signatories.)