Fok

Does anyone know if this is the uncut version?

Solid Snake

we've had the dc (aka the uncut version I presume) since the 2004 DVD. Seems like this one is that version JUST by running time (w/ an extra 8 seconds I'm assuming cuz of LG adding their credit?)..seems to be it.

manicsounds

There are people on BD.com saying the Lionsgate is the US cut, (with 2 scenes slightly altered) but with the original Scottish English track.

Fok

Oh well, I'll pick the Blu-ray up and keep the 2 set DVD

jrsl76

Well, sounds like I might be returning this if that's the case.

Giles

the needle injection scene is included but the brief moment when Kelly MacDonald ehem, touches herself is cut. So it's a psuedo uncut version - why Lionsgate can release unrated 'NC-17' films like 'High Tension' the 'Saw' films, yet not a full uncut version of 'Trainspotting' is beyond me.

BuckNaked2k

Apparently, all of the Special Features from the 2-disc SE have been left off as well.

Oh yea, really happy I sold my DVD now.

Matthew Chmiel

Based upon DVD Beaver's review of the Lionsgate BD, most of bonus material is in tact.

due to the film being the censored R-rated cut. Too bad. I was going to purchase it, but I'll have to hold off or find a copy of the Alliance BD.

jrsl76

Thanks for the info. Looks like I have to eat the shipping back to Amazon now.

I have to say, this really pisses me off.

Fok

Is that case I will stick to my 2 DVD set and won't be picking this up

BuckNaked2k

Thanks. I had read two reviews on Amazon which must have been talking about the Alliance Blu-ray.

Here is a comparison of the differences in case anyone is curious: Trainspotting

badlieut

Glad I kept my Japanese disc...unreal.

Drexl

It's a shame because the Lionsgate version clearly looks better, lacking the edge enhancement in the Alliance release.

BuckNaked2k

Apparently, they were bothered enough by the shot of the needle in Ewan's arm to remove it from the film, but not so bothered that it couldn't be used on the menu!:


Credit: Beaver

Julie Walker

It is amusing how the uncut version was NC-17 in 1996 and had to be edited, and the same uncut version was R rated in 2003. So both versions carry the same rating description.

Based on that and the changes being so small. I'm sure it was an honest mistake when they made the new transfer. So while I was planning to get the new release of the film, since I was trying to find the earlier dvd release originally. Depending on which edition I find and the price, I may still pick it up.

jrsl76

My question is has Lionsgate been notified of this screwup? Maybe, maybe just maybe, we can get a fix.

Matthew Chmiel

Miramax would have to provide them with the correct materials and it's obvious that Miramax doesn't give a shit.

wahlers

I love this movie a lot and have had multiple copies on Laserdisc and DVD over the years.

However, principles aside, does the loss of a couple of seconds at the most that does not affect any plot or dialogue really warrant a boycott?

Granted, I preordered it on amazon and got it for around $10 before I heard about this. But, regardless, I really don't think it would stop me from paying the $10 for a better copy of the film over watching an inferior picture to get an extra second of footage.

Is the footage really that important to people, or is it only about the principle of the matter?

Matthew Chmiel

Yes.

How does Boyle's original cut make it to DVD unedited? Twice. Both in a movie-only and special edition cut? Yet, on Blu-ray, goes right back to the original censored version?

As someone who doesn't support censorship, that's why I won't be purchasing the release.

Julie Walker

I think the changes are so small, that a boycott is a bit much. The scenes still work either way and most likely most people won't even notice them unless looking for them. If the changes were more severe and obvious and did wreck the scenes, then I could understand being upset. But that's not the case here in my opinion.

If for example the entire sex scene were cut, then that's a big change. But just removing/replacing 1-2 seconds from it doesn't make a huge difference in my opinion.

The rest of the film is pretty explicit as well and remains the same in both versions. So it's not like this version is completely destroyed and cleaned up. So I'd be OK with owning either version of the film depending on which edition I find for the best price.

TheBang

^^ What she said

Drexl

Yeah, it's not like it's Star Wars or something.

Although, in this case there is a possibility that they mistakenly used the wrong version of the film. It may be worth waiting to see if that's really what happened and if they intend to reissue it. Again, not like Star Wars where it will be several years before the next version (with more changes!).

BuckNaked2k

The problem is, this is kind of a niche film with limited appeal to begin with. Add to that, the fact that nobody is buying catalog Blu-ray, and you can see why no studio is going to reissue it for a few seconds difference.

Sucks, I know, but I've seen way too much apathy from the studios on screwed-up and/or sub-standard releases since the advent of Blu-ray to think otherwise.

Fok

It's a real shame that the uncut version didn't make it to BD. I'll keep my DVDs and if the BD ever goes on sale then I'll pick it up (and keep both versions).........hey just like Star Wars

BuckNaked2k

^ It's $9 now....what are you waiting for?