DVD Talk
Bad Santa : Director's Cut ----> 10/10/06 [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Bad Santa : Director's Cut ----> 10/10/06


dx23
05-14-06, 10:50 PM
Davisdvd.com is reporting that Buena Vista is going to release the director's cut of Bad Santa on October 10th. More info here:

http://davisdvd.com/news/news.html

Drexl
05-14-06, 10:52 PM
So, the "unrated" edition wasn't the "director's cut." Classic.

paulringodaman
05-14-06, 10:57 PM
So, the "unrated" edition wasn't the "director's cut." Classic.

I was thinking the same exact thing...

Dean Kousoulas
05-14-06, 11:15 PM
What a crock of shit. At least it'll be cheap on release week.

TomOpus
05-14-06, 11:20 PM
WTF, over?

Joe Molotov
05-14-06, 11:47 PM
And the 1st Annual 2006 George Lucas Award goes to...Terry Zwigoff!

historyavenger
05-14-06, 11:49 PM
for once i am glad i did not buy it yet

dsa_shea
05-14-06, 11:56 PM
Glad I never dipped or double dipped on the first two. Will this madness ever stop?

tofferman
05-15-06, 12:02 AM
Am I the only one that looks at almost every rerelease announcement nowadays with skepticism? Drexl summed it up perfectly, and barring something really profund with this director's cut, I'll pass. There are so many worthy titles already released that are simply deserving an anamorphic enhancement that it's exasperating.

Matt925
05-15-06, 01:01 AM
And the 1st Annual 2006 George Lucas Award goes to...Terry Zwigoff!

I read an interview with him where he said the studio forced a lot of changes to the movie, and he was pushing to have a director's cut released for awhile now. IIRC it's going to be showed at Ebert's overlooked film fest. I'll definately rent the dvd.

calhoun07
05-15-06, 01:25 AM
Now if Zwigoff could get the cut out of Ghost World he intended (including all the deleted scenes Thora Birch's familiy wanted too much money for), we'd be talking. However, I will have to pass on this one

Josh-da-man
05-15-06, 01:32 AM
Am I the only one that looks at almost every rerelease announcement nowadays with skepticism?

No, you're not.

I very rarely buy anything when it's released. I think "Serenity" was the last one I bought when it came out.

Now I either wait for the re-rerelease or a significant price cut.

Fok
05-15-06, 01:53 AM
I'm happy with the Bader release, no point in picking this one up.....they fucking should of got it right the first time

Cinemaddiction
05-15-06, 01:59 AM
Badderer Santa, eh?

Wannabe
05-15-06, 02:18 AM
This is one of my favorite movies. If there's an even better version, then I'm all for it. Apparently, the studio had him tone down the movie and now, years later, he gets to show his version. What's the problem?

Here's some info from: http://killthesnark.blogspot.com/2006/05/day-4-roger-eberts-2006-overlooked.html

"Ebert introduced the Saturday night screening of Bad Santa as the "Really, Really Bad Santa" cut (the DVD had the "Badder Santa" cut). Then Terry Zwigoff, sitting in an aisle seat in the VIP section, shouted out "Better Santa!" with a grin. So maybe you can call this the Better Santa Cut. One way or another, it had its world premiere at Ebertfest this year, to be rolled out on DVD (with possibly a short theatrical release) later on...

Zwigoff said that he was asked by the studio to shoot extra material to soften some of the film's hard edges... What you get, in this raw form, is a very cold-hearted comedy in which the main character's moral arc is almost microscopic...which is all part of the fun."

dolphinboy
05-15-06, 02:57 AM
Another double dip? What a pisser.

Cinemaddiction
05-15-06, 03:31 AM
Apparently, the studio had him tone down the movie and now, years later, he gets to show his version.

Why couldn't it have been done in "Bad-der Santa" is the question. Seriously. 3 DVD releases in the span of 2 1/2 years of one movie? Ridiculous.

Living Dead
05-15-06, 04:34 AM
Now if Zwigoff could get the cut out of Ghost World he intended (including all the deleted scenes Thora Birch's familiy wanted too much money for), we'd be talking.

I hadn't heard of this. What exactly are you talking about?

grim_tales
05-15-06, 04:43 AM
If this is the "DC" what was "Badder Santa: Unrated" all about??? :confused:

Cinemaddiction
05-15-06, 04:48 AM
It's Zwigoff's submission to the George Lucas School of Marketing.

Josh Z
05-15-06, 07:51 AM
Hey, if they can retransfer the movie without so much damned edge enhancement I'll be all for another dip.

ThatGuamGuy
05-15-06, 10:23 AM
Um, everybody...?

When has the phrase "unrated edition" *not* been just a marketing tool? At least subsequent to theatrical release, I can't think of any...

Ever since I read that the unrated wasn't the director's cut, I've hoped to be able to see the full cut somehow ... now I can. Now everybody can. Seems like good news to me.

Hopefully, the spine will say "Bad Santa", and not some stupid new title.

Dean Kousoulas
05-15-06, 10:39 AM
Um, everybody...?

When has the phrase "unrated edition" *not* been just a marketing tool? At least subsequent to theatrical release, I can't think of any...

Sadly, there was a time when "unrated edition" meant something. Robocop is the first title that pops into mind.

Nowadays (i'm looking at you Colombia Tri-Star, Buena Vista) they will re-release any old catalog title with a couple minutes of deleted scenes (which should have stayed deleted) and call it the "extended unrated edition"

These days, "Unrated" does not mean footage taken to avoid an R or an NC-17 rating. It simply means that they did not ask for a rating from the MPAA.

GIjon213
05-15-06, 10:46 AM
Good thing I haven't bought this yet.... You know, I really wonder if the studios understand now that a lot of collectors of DVDs don't buy the original release because they know another one will be coming out in a year or so. I am still waiting for:
Fantastic 4
Spiderman 2.5
MI trilogy ( I have the first two from the original releases, ain't buying no "special edition" with the MI III DVD coming out before Christmas.

And I am sure there are others I passed on because I know they are going to be re-releasing it shortly.

AJAX
05-15-06, 10:51 AM
If this will be such a change in the movie that it would change the whole tone of the movie, they should at least have both versions (Unrated/Rated AND DC) on the new release.

calhoun07
05-15-06, 10:58 AM
I hadn't heard of this. What exactly are you talking about?

I forget the details right now, but there are a lot of deleted scenes from Ghost World that were never included in the DVD, and my understanding is that Thora Birch's father was asking too much money for the footage to be included on the DVD. A screen shot of one of the deleted scenes is actually on the back of the Ghost World DVD (where the girls are with the old woman). Her father is her manager, so he has say so in this stuff. There is an hour and a half of material that could have been included in the DVD, perhaps not as a directors cut but perhaps as bonus material.

I first read of this on IMDB.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162346/board/thread/37151999?d=37151999#37151999

I just found that interview
http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=interviews&Id=202
and Zwigoff did say he wanted to include a lot more deleted scenes as extras on a DVD, but wasn't allowed to. Thora's manager (her father) objected...

DarthMarino
05-15-06, 11:06 AM
I'm assuming that he dies at the end. I remember reading that was Zwigoff's original ending but he had to change it.

OwlAtHome
05-15-06, 01:19 PM
I really like this movie and I'm happey with my Badder DVD. Depending on what kind of reviews this gets I may be inclined to pick it up.

TheNightFlier
05-15-06, 01:30 PM
I got the unrated dvd used at Blockbuster for 5 bucks, i'll stick with that.

ThatGuamGuy
05-15-06, 01:39 PM
Sadly, there was a time when "unrated edition" meant something. Robocop is the first title that pops into mind.

Fair point; I figured I was forgetting a few. I thought that was generally the "unrated Director's Cut" or "unrated International cut", because those tended to more specifically describe it.

With 'Robocop', it seems as if Verhoeven was pretty open about the fact that he was forced to make cuts, and the international version was his preferred cut. I admit, I assumed, when 'Badder Santa' came out, that Zwigoff was taking advantage of the "unrated" trend to get his cut out there, which I believed until I read the Ebert article somebody already linked. At that point, I figured we'd see that cut sooner or later.

Nowadays (i'm looking at you Colombia Tri-Star, Buena Vista) they will re-release any old catalog title with a couple minutes of deleted scenes (which should have stayed deleted) and call it the "extended unrated edition"

These days, "Unrated" does not mean footage taken to avoid an R or an NC-17 rating. It simply means that they did not ask for a rating from the MPAA.

Has anybody ever figured out what the minimum change is? Could you literally add/remove one single frame and claim it is a different cut than what the MPAA rated?

calhoun07
05-15-06, 01:45 PM
I got the unrated dvd used at Blockbuster for 5 bucks, i'll stick with that.

I will probably rent the new version for less than that and be satisfied with watching it once or twice, actually.

PixyJunket
05-15-06, 02:07 PM
Has anybody ever figured out what the minimum change is? Could you literally add/remove one single frame and claim it is a different cut than what the MPAA rated?Pretty much. Don't forget it could be EXXXTREME UNRATED as well!

ThatGuamGuy
05-15-06, 04:21 PM
I just found that interview
http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=interviews&Id=202
and Zwigoff did say he wanted to include a lot more deleted scenes as extras on a DVD, but wasn't allowed to. Thora's manager (her father) objected...

It actually says that Thora Birch objected, but that Zwigoff was going to attempt to talk her father/manager into it.

I'm quite surprised the studios *don't* own all the rights to those deleted scenes.

sb5
05-15-06, 04:26 PM
A couple of weeks ago, Terry Zwigoff did an interview with (ahem) Suicide Girls and he talked a little bit about the director's cut of Bad Santa:

DRE: How was it having such a big mainstream hit with Bad Santa?

TZ: I liked the film but I liked my version better. I thought my film was much more moving and just as funny if not funnier. When I got that script, I could see it was going to be a big hit if it was marketed in a certain way. First thing you need to have a chance of making a successful commercial film is a concept you can get across in a ten second TV ad. With Bad Santa you can do that. With Art School Confidential or Ghost World, it's sort of tough. I do remember one of the Weinsteins telling me that if Miramax had released Ghost World, they could have cut a trailer for that thing and made 50 million dollars. I don't doubt it.

DRE: How long ago did you do your directors cut of Bad Santa?

TZ: I did it when it became clear that they were going to go with a different cut for the theatrical version. I asked Bob Weinstein if he would preserve my cut, and at least put it on DVD and he agreed to do it. In fact they put up a lot of money to do it right. But then they sold their company to Disney, so Disney owns it now. I went to them and asked if they would put it out and they kindly agreed to do so.

DRE: Did you see Badder Santa?

TZ: I did. It's uneven. All the scenes in there didn't quite work out for me. It works on a certain level where there are scenes in there I like and other scenes I don't like. The whole thing doesn't quite have this consistency to it. My cut is a character study of Billy's character. It generally makes his character arc and his relationship with that boy much more truthful and ultimately much more human. The audiences in the test screening wanted Santa to be nicer to the little boy. But that wouldn't make any sense. I always thought of Billy's character as a W.C. Fields character. He has to put up with this pest. Eventually when Billy has affection for him, it is earned. Therefore it just seems more truthful and more emotional to me.

djtoell
05-15-06, 04:31 PM
To everyone that thinks Terry Zwigoff has any control over these releases: :lol:

To blame Zwigoff for any of this is a joke.

DJ

Big Worms
05-15-06, 04:33 PM
Well I never got around to picking up the badder version so this works out. But I do have to agree that this is BS since supposedly the badder version was unrated.

JOE29
05-15-06, 04:50 PM
I'm happy with the unrated release that I have now unless there's something extra special on it i'm staying put with what I have.

historyavenger
05-15-06, 04:51 PM
A couple of weeks ago, Terry Zwigoff did an interview with (ahem) Suicide Girls and he talked a little bit about the director's cut of Bad Santa:

well it sounds worthy

PixyJunket
05-15-06, 04:52 PM
But I do have to agree that this is BS since supposedly the badder version was unrated.How is that BS? The Badder Santa version WAS unrated. Unrated does not equal Director's Cut.

Julie Walker
05-15-06, 05:03 PM
Actually the 'unrated' version was really rated R if you look it up on filmratings.com:D

The studio just put 'unrated' on the cover to market it as a naughtier version of the film(which it is,since abit more profanity and stuff is in it).

But yes,unrated does not always mean 'directors cut'. Just look at all the 'unrated extended versions' Sony puts out. 99% of them are not 'director's cuts' and just deleted for good reason scenes tacked back into the film.

djtoell
05-15-06, 05:33 PM
Actually the 'unrated' version was really rated R if you look it up on filmratings.com:D

Well, that's what I had thought originally, too. The ratings database lists an R rating for a "Director's Cut" of Bad Santa. We had assumed that this was the "Badder" version. However, if it was actually Zwigoff's true director's cut, the "Badder" version may really have been unrated.

DJ

ThatGuamGuy
05-15-06, 07:05 PM
The ratings database lists an R rating for a "Director's Cut" of Bad Santa. We had assumed that this was the "Badder" version. However, if it was actually Zwigoff's true director's cut, the "Badder" version may really have been unrated.

Interesting; I wonder if they'll try to release it as "unrated" somehow, since that's apparently such a strong marketing hook and all...

I tend to think that, since Miramax/Dimension is an MPAA signatory, they would be more likely to accidentally release an unrated cut in place of an R-rated one [like 'Trainspotting'] than to release something which was given an R-rating with no MPAA rating anywhere on it, in fact specifically claiming it was unrated. The MPAA would fine them, for starters. They don't take kindly to that sorta thing.

djtoell
05-15-06, 10:47 PM
I tend to think that, since Miramax/Dimension is an MPAA signatory, they would be more likely to accidentally release an unrated cut in place of an R-rated one [like 'Trainspotting']

FWIW, Trainspotting was no accident; Disney had it re-rated to an R.

DJ

Josh Z
05-15-06, 10:47 PM
I tend to think that, since Miramax/Dimension is an MPAA signatory, they would be more likely to accidentally release an unrated cut in place of an R-rated one [like 'Trainspotting'] than to release something which was given an R-rating with no MPAA rating anywhere on it, in fact specifically claiming it was unrated. The MPAA would fine them, for starters. They don't take kindly to that sorta thing.

I think you have it backwards. If the MPAA rated a movie R and the studio released a different cut of the movie using that same R certificate without having the footage re-rated, a fine would be pretty much certain. However, if the movie was rated the studio is under no obligation to use that certificate. They can choose to release the film "unrated" (meaning no official MPAA rating) if they want. This is what many studios do when their films are given an NC-17; they reject the rating and release the movie Unrated, because many theater chains have policies against screening NC-17 movies.

The MPAA is the film industry's self-regulatory body. They have no legal authority to force a movie to be rated if the studio doesn't want it. However, they do own the trademarks of all their rating certificates, so once a certificate is handed out the studio can't change it. They can only accept or reject it. "Unrated" is not an MPAA designation.

Now, if a movie was rated R and the studio advertised it as a "New NC-17 Cut" without getting that official rating, then they'd have a problem.

djtoell
05-15-06, 10:51 PM
I think you have it backwards. If the MPAA rated a movie R and the studio released a different cut of the movie using that same R certificate without having the footage re-rated, a fine would be pretty much certain. However, if the movie was rated the studio is under no obligation to use that certificate. They can choose to release the film "unrated" (meaning no official MPAA rating) if they want. This is what many studios do when their films are given an NC-17; they reject the rating and release the movie Unrated, because many theater chains have policies against screening NC-17 movies.

The MPAA is the film industry's self-regulatory body. They have no legal authority to force a movie to be rated if the studio doesn't want it. However, they do own the trademarks of all their rating certificates, so once a certificate is handed out the studio can't change it. They can only accept or reject it.

I believe that MPAA board members (Paramount, Disney, Sony, Fox, Universal, Warners, MGM) agree to accept the ratings their films receive. Non-signatory studios can reject/surrender their ratings.

DJ

IDrinkMolson
05-15-06, 11:11 PM
I have the Badder version and saw the Bad version in the theater. I'll probably pick this up when the price drops. I really thought it was a very funny movie, and at the bare minimum it will give me a reason to watch it again.

Julie Walker
05-16-06, 02:05 AM
FWIW, Trainspotting was no accident; Disney had it re-rated to an R.

DJ

Actually the first release of Trainspotting used Criterions uncut master of the film...and was released as R rated on the package...despite not being offically rerated at the time.

For the rerelease years later,the uncut version was rerated and officially received an R:)

Giles
05-16-06, 09:42 AM
Actually the first release of Trainspotting used Criterions uncut master of the film...and was released as R rated on the package...despite not being offically rerated at the time.

For the rerelease years later,the uncut version was rerated and officially received an R:)

As Josh Z noted in his post (#44) the MPAA frowns down on this type of practise, mis-stating a film is R when there is footage of stronger content - is blatant missue of the MPAA's rating.

ThatGuamGuy
05-16-06, 09:58 AM
the MPAA frowns down on this type of practise, mis-stating a film is R when there is footage of stronger content - is blatant missue of the MPAA's rating.

That is true, they frown on it; that's why I used it as an example, because I knew Disney/Miramax had gotten away with it. I didn't know the new disc was re-rated, I just thought it was "unrated", but I'm not surprised; by getting that cut rated R, even though it had initially been NC-17 and, thus, forced cuts, made it appear so they did less wrong when they put that cut out and claimed it was an R. I bet there was a little pressure there, especially given Disney's stated policy (which may no longer be in effect, I'm not sure) of not released "unrated" or NC-17.

If the MPAA rated a movie R and the studio released a different cut of the movie using that same R certificate without having the footage re-rated, a fine would be pretty much certain.

I'm just saying, Miramax did it with no problem at all. Whoever releases 'Swamp Thing' [MGM?] would've gotten away with it too if not for that mother in Blockbuster. I'd bet there are other examples, even ignoring examples where they accidentally released a non-theatrical cut and, thus, it technically probably wasn't rated.

This is what many studios do when their films are given an NC-17; they reject the rating and release the movie Unrated, because many theater chains have policies against screening NC-17 movies.

Can you give some examples? I ask because, from what I understand, most theatres will reject "unrated" unless given a reason as well (there's definitely more leeway, although most theatres I've been to treat "unrated" as "nobody under 18", which is actually stricter than NC-17); I've personally never heard of a studio movie receiving an NC-17 and going out "unrated" without any cuts, but I have heard plenty of "It got an NC-17, so we had to cut some stuff out".

I believe that MPAA board members (Paramount, Disney, Sony, Fox, Universal, Warners, MGM) agree to accept the ratings their films receive. Non-signatory studios can reject/surrender their ratings.

I believe you're right, because the MPAA didn't like *all* the power being in the studio's court, since they were supposed to have power over the studios. Non-signatory studios can reject/surrender ratings, but I can't be the only who expects that it's not as easy in actuality as it is in theory, because the MPAA really frowns upon that sort of thing.

Giles
05-16-06, 10:09 AM
Can you give some examples? I ask because, from what I understand, most theatres will reject "unrated" unless given a reason as well (there's definitely more leeway, although most theatres I've been to treat "unrated" as "nobody under 18", which is actually stricter than NC-17); I've personally never heard of a studio movie receiving an NC-17 and going out "unrated" without any cuts, but I have heard plenty of "It got an NC-17, so we had to cut some stuff out".




several smaller distributors go this route, there is no law or official US censor board, as most of the world has, that states a film has to have a rating. It costs to submit a film to the MPAA CARA film board, to go unrated is sometimes a cost effective move, that's why an innocent film like Mrs. Palfry at the Claremont has no rating.

and in a similiar way, if a studio knows it's going to have a rating's battle or has no chance of appealing a MPAA rating it just doesn't bother submitting the film in the first place:

the theatrical cut of Lilya Says (the dvd is ironicly censored and carries an R-rating)
Nine Songs
Gracon Stupide
Battle in Heaven

and dozens more.

Adam Tyner
05-16-06, 10:54 AM
I've personally never heard of a studio movie receiving an NC-17 and going out "unrated" without any cutsI believe this is what happened with Requiem for a Dream. As far as I know, the cut that landed the NC-17 rating and the unrated theatrical cut are the same.

Giles
05-16-06, 10:57 AM
I believe this is what happened with Requiem for a Dream. As far as I know, the cut that landed the NC-17 rating and the unrated theatrical cut are the same.

Atom Egoyan's 'Where the Truth Lies' also comes to mind.

djtoell
05-16-06, 11:37 AM
I believe this is what happened with Requiem for a Dream. As far as I know, the cut that landed the NC-17 rating and the unrated theatrical cut are the same.

It is. Artisan rejected the NC-17 rating and released it unrated (although they later got an R rating for an edited video version). CARA's database lists the NC-17 as having been "surrendered."

DJ

ThatGuamGuy
05-16-06, 01:42 PM
and in a similiar way, if a studio knows it's going to have a rating's battle or has no chance of appealing a MPAA rating it just doesn't bother submitting the film in the first place:


This was what I thought 'Requiem' had done, and generally understood to be the more common practice (the original 'Dawn of the Dead' comes to mind, or 'Re-Animator' from what the director says on the DVD).

I think it's worth pointing out that, according to stories at the time [which, admittedly, being publicity-based are not neccessarily reliable], WB wanted to release the cut of 'The Dreamers' which got an NC-17 as "unrated" after they announced they wouldn't force him to re-cut it, and they weren't allowed, because they're an MPAA signatory, and that cut was, in fact, rated by the MPAA.

Has anybody ever pinned down actual stated on-the-books reasons why theaters won't show NC-17/unrated stuff, or newspapers won't advertise it? I know it is related to the implication that it's pornographic, and I believe the theaters feel compelled to more actively keep children out of the theater and, thus, might have to have an extra person or two watching those doors ... but does anybody know how stuff like that is explained? It seems to me like it's a policy which is going to get re-considered in the next few years, as "unrated" seems to be such a hot marketing thing.

djtoell
05-16-06, 02:21 PM
Has anybody ever pinned down actual stated on-the-books reasons why theaters won't show NC-17/unrated stuff, or newspapers won't advertise it? I know it is related to the implication that it's pornographic, and I believe the theaters feel compelled to more actively keep children out of the theater and, thus, might have to have an extra person or two watching those doors ... but does anybody know how stuff like that is explained? It seems to me like it's a policy which is going to get re-considered in the next few years, as "unrated" seems to be such a hot marketing thing.

The leases that theatres have often restrict them from showing X/NC-17 or unrated films, as many theatres are in shopping centers, etc. And despite all of the hyped unrated DVD releases, they are still a definite rarity for theatrical release.

DJ

Giles
05-16-06, 02:35 PM
The leases that theatres have often restrict them from showing X/NC-17 or unrated films, as many theatres are in shopping centers, etc. And despite all of the hyped unrated DVD releases, they are still a definite rarity for theatrical release.

DJ


and unfortunately as I see it, the eventual release of the unrated DVD kind of hurts the overrall BO performance, I basically didn't see 'The Hills Have Eyes' remake just because I knew that the DVD edition would be the unrated cut.

Giles
05-16-06, 02:37 PM
I think it's worth pointing out that, according to stories at the time [which, admittedly, being publicity-based are not neccessarily reliable], WB wanted to release the cut of 'The Dreamers' which got an NC-17 as "unrated" after they announced they wouldn't force him to re-cut it, and they weren't allowed, because they're an MPAA signatory, and that cut was, in fact, rated by the MPAA.



not to be nitpicky here, but 'The Dreamers' was a Fox Searchlight release.

ThatGuamGuy
05-16-06, 03:28 PM
not to be nitpicky here, but 'The Dreamers' was a Fox Searchlight release.

That's what I get for deleting the parenthetical "I think it was WB, but whoever the distrib was" ... Of course you're right.

And I agree with you about box office. I think at some point, they will try to release unrated directly into theaters, as an experiment, with a big enough release (but still quite small, as those horror movies are cheap) ... but it might be that they're entirely satisfied with the arrangement as is: theatrical release as basically an advertisement for the SUPER-EXTREME DVD WITH FOOTAGE TOO INTENSE ["hot" if there's nudity] FOR THEATERS!

as many theatres are in shopping centers, etc

Is that still true? I thought those were much less prevalent with the rise of the huge multi-plex...

but, yeah, okay, if the multi-plex is anywhere near anything, people will complain if it's showing "adult" stuff, which I still think is stupid, but is the kind of stupid that doesn't get overruled often.

dx23
05-16-06, 10:18 PM
From dvdactive.com:

Title: Bad Santa
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton
Released: 10th October 2006
SRP: $19.99

Further Details:
Dimension Home Video has announced a 88 minute director's cut of Bad Santa which stars Billy Bob Thornton, Tony Cox, Lauren Graham, and the late John Ritter. The disc will be available to own from the 10th October, and should retail at around $19.99. The film will be presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include a new audio commentary With Director Terry Zwigoff And Editor Robert Hoffman, deleted and alternate scenes, a Behind the Scenes Special: Not Your Typical Christmas Movie featurette, and lastly, a Badder Santa Gag Reel.
http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/bad-santa7.html

JoeyOhhhh
05-16-06, 10:46 PM
So the director's cut is a couple minutes less, and the extras are pretty much the same as the Unrated version. The film would have to be drastically different for me to double dip on it.

Wannabe
05-17-06, 12:30 AM
Okay, here's an interesting story I heard from Patton Oswald tonight. Apparently he had a scene in the Bad Santa where he played Billy Bob's Alcoholic Anonymous sponsor. The studio made Zwiegoff cut the scene because it acknowledged that the main character is an alcoholic and the would be morally unacceptable.

dvd_luver
05-17-06, 01:05 PM
I own the UR Badder Santa dvd, I love the film, but I'd rather go out and buy a roll of toilet paper or something than waste my time on a cut that is just 10 minutes less. Give me a break.

ThatGuamGuy
05-17-06, 02:26 PM
I own the UR Badder Santa dvd, I love the film, but I'd rather go out and buy a roll of toilet paper or something than waste my time on a cut that is just 10 minutes less. Give me a break.

"just"? The fact that the studio took the film away from the director and re-cut it [with the sort of director's approval which sounds prompted by "We're doing this whether you approve or not, but if you approve, we might let you release your version someday. Do you approve?"] making it more mainstream friendly doesn't factor in at *all*? You just go by length, eh? So the best version of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead' is the German one that just cobbles together the most footage, right?

From everything the director, and people who have seen it, says, it's a vastly different cut. But I guess the "Love Conquers All" version of 'Brazil' isn't really an edit that completely changes everything, is it? It's "just" an hour shorter.

Enjoy the most cobbled-together, least coherent of the three 'Bad Santa's.

ShallowHal
05-18-06, 07:10 PM
So does this mean there will be a longer "F me Santa!" scene? rotfl

Julie Walker
05-18-06, 07:32 PM
The reason the running time may be alittle shorter than the 'unrated' version is because scenes the director was forced to shoot to 'lighten' the tone are deleted. These include the subplot with that calender the kid has as he tries to 'connect' with Billys charecter. Also the 'happy' ending appears to be gone as well. And since the film originally appeared to be heading for a darker ending,only to then cut to a sappy cliched happy epilogue. I'm sure it won't end on a 'upbeat' note this time around. But we'll see,since I only got this info from the ebert overlooked fest article linked many posts ago.

MEJHarrison
05-18-06, 07:54 PM
It sure would be nice if they would just release a set that has all three versions.

Matthew Chmiel
05-18-06, 09:19 PM
The reason the running time may be alittle shorter than the 'unrated' version is because scenes the director was forced to shoot to 'lighten' the tone are deleted. These include the subplot with that calender the kid has as he tries to 'connect' with Billys charecter. Also the 'happy' ending appears to be gone as well. And since the film originally appeared to be heading for a darker ending,only to then cut to a sappy cliched happy epilogue. I'm sure it won't end on a 'upbeat' note this time around. But we'll see,since I only got this info from the ebert overlooked fest article linked many posts ago.
Eff that. I want to see the "Shit Happens When You Party Naked" shirt in it's full glory.

Snowmaker
08-12-06, 10:38 AM
Cover art is up now:

http://www.davisdvd.com/images/covers_big/badsanta.jpg

Big Worms
08-12-06, 10:50 AM
That by far has to be the worst cover art I have ever seen. :down:

gryffinmaster
08-12-06, 10:58 AM
That by far has to be the worst cover art I have ever seen. :down:
I doubt the text is completey finalized (which might make it look more concrete), but I really do not like the choice of colors and layout - period. :down:

J-Dubya
08-12-06, 07:25 PM
yuck

Wannabe
10-13-06, 12:17 AM
Reviews? Comments? Anything?

Graystone
10-13-06, 04:38 AM
Why couldn't it have been done in "Bad-der Santa" is the question. Seriously. 3 DVD releases in the span of 2 1/2 years of one movie? Ridiculous.

You mean 3 releases in 2 and 1/2 years of a movie that was not even good. IMO it was between alright- sorta good.

So we get 3 releases of this movie. But I had to wait 6 years for an Apoclypse now release.

JoeyOhhhh
10-13-06, 10:40 AM
I bought it, while its an interesting cut, I don't know if its warrants an additional release. Most of the scenes with Thorton and the kid are excised, some profanity is added, and the ending is slightly different.

wergo
10-13-06, 10:53 AM
I think it's worth pointing out that, according to stories at the time [which, admittedly, being publicity-based are not neccessarily reliable], WB wanted to release the cut of 'The Dreamers' which got an NC-17 as "unrated" after they announced they wouldn't force him to re-cut it, and they weren't allowed, because they're an MPAA signatory, and that cut was, in fact, rated by the MPAA.


We got a similar weird problem here with 'Eyes Wide Shut.' The Ontario Censor Board approved the uncut version for general release, but WB wouldn't allow it to be shown in theatres. Reasons offered ranged from "the censored version is the one Kubrick aproved" to "we aren't allowed to show different versions in diffeent territories." None of which made even a lick of sense. (plus, I could never figure out why WB sent an uncensored version to the censor board in the first place) So we ended up with the censored version in the theatres, despite the Ontario Censor Board publicly announcing that they had nothing to do with it. It was a big deal in the local papers at the time.

Oddly, even though we can't see the uncensored version in theatres or on DVD (in both cases; due to WB, not the censor board), CityTV regularly shows the UNCENSORED version on television at the 8PM timeslot. Quite often, actually. AFAIK, they've never received complaints.

Wannabe
10-13-06, 04:09 PM
You mean 3 releases in 2 and 1/2 years of a movie that was not even good. IMO it was between alright- sorta good.



Are you serious? This was one of the funniest movies ever made.

fryinpan1
10-16-06, 06:03 PM
Reviews? Comments? Anything?

Review:
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5690&Itemid=3

Temujen
10-18-06, 11:58 AM
On the IMDB messageboard there's a good list of all the scenes that were in the unrated version but not in the DC:

1) Scene with John Ritter confronting Willie and Marcus about the big and tall incident.
2) Boxing scene with willie training Thurman and Marcus helps out.
3) I just caught this one, the whole advent calendar thing is missing, where Willie tears it up and all that stuff is gone.
4) Florida robbery scene, but it's still in the bonus section with the deleted scenes.
5) Motel room scene where Willie told the stripper she smells like a bum's nutsack (GROSS) again must be exclusive to unrated cut.
6) The scene of Marcus and his g/f waiting for Bernie Mac. The dialouge is kinda cut short and/or altered.
7)Checkers scene b/w Willie and Thurman is missing lot of dialouge. For instance when Willie says he is like seabiscut and goes all off on him.
8)Dialogue as the movie opens, Willie's voice over is missing.

plus a list of all the scenes added/changed for the DC:

1)Shot of a singing boy band, VERY funny stuff. Not sure if it was in theactrical cut or not
2) Ending shot is different. It shows Thurman wiping Willie's blood from the sidewalk and we never see the bully get the kick to the nuts.
3) Ritter's dialouge with Mac is different when he's explaining the noises he heard from Willie.
4) Bernie Mac's death scene is even longer than the unrated cut. It shows them run over his head. I think this was in the outtakes for badder santa.
5) When willie calls Marcus after he sees that Bernie Mac is searching his room. It takes Marcus longer to answer the phone and we see him painting his gf's toenails. Again this was included in the badder santa outtakes.
6) Dialouge is different when Marcus has to wake Willie up to go be "Santa" he tells Marcus he doesn't like that guy, referring to the Ritter character and there is a little more dialouge in that scene.

Sometimes the studio's cut is better than the director's cut.

dolphinboy
10-18-06, 05:55 PM
Review:
http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5690&Itemid=3

another review:

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/badsantadirector'scut/19287/4006/

Snowmaker
10-18-06, 08:44 PM
Looks like I'll go with Badder Santa.

DarthMarino
10-19-06, 12:47 AM
Looks like I'll go with Badder Santa.

Ditto that. The more I read about this director's cut, the less I want it.

metaridley
10-19-06, 03:19 AM
I liked the director's cut more than the other two versions. I preferred the darker, more introspective take on the Billy Bob Thornton character. But I also disliked most of the added footage to begin with, so I guess I'm in the minority on this...

Wannabe
10-19-06, 08:34 AM
I liked the director's cut more than the other two versions. I preferred the darker, more introspective take on the Billy Bob Thornton character. But I also disliked most of the added footage to begin with, so I guess I'm in the minority on this...


You're not really in the minority. A couple of people are making their decisions based upon a review or two. You, on the other hand, have actually seen the Director's Cut and decided for yourself. Big Difference.

pilot
10-19-06, 11:49 AM
I've seen all three, and I prefer the DC. The whole advent calendar thing annoyed me. But all in all, I think the DC is my favorite.

joliom
10-29-06, 01:38 AM
Are all the extras from the Badder Santa version carried over? Anything missing?