"Ring Two" - Fullscreen only for Theatrical Cut
 

From DvdAnswers;

Digital bits confirmed this report but adds that the unrated version will get both a fullscreen and widescreen edition. To which I say - WTF?!

Someone on the HTF suggested that the theatrical, fool-screen edition is for Wal-Mart, but after thinking about it, I don't think so.

To Dreamworks and Universal: Release the theatrical cut in widescreen, for cryin' out loud! :mad:

WTF is with these studios insisting on releasing foolscreen only DVD's lately?

Dreamworks has been doing this with a number of titles lately- Personally I want to see whichever version showed in the theaters, though ideally they should always include BOTH cuts on the same disc if they're going to do an 'unrated' version- that was one of the main features of DVD when the format came out! I wanted to get "Eurotrip" but my only choices for that is the theatrical cut in foolscreen, or the 'unrated' version in widescreen (which I've heard has a lot of stuff changed, not just ratings-wise).
I went to see "American Wedding" at the theater just because I thought that would only be available in altered versions on DVD, but to my surprise they actually did the DVD of that right- it has both the theatrical and "Unrated Extended Party Edition" versions on the SAME disc- I've watched both and still prefer the theatrical version though neither are exactly great works of cinema. (The bachelor party scene is a welcome addition, but some other stuff is thrown in too- the dog shit eating gag goes on far too long in the new version.)

Maybe when people act like grown-ups and stop using terms like "foolscreen" the studios will give more credit to your opinions.

Better yet, they wont get my money. :)

Maybe if you spend less time thread-crapping and post something on-topic, and that adds to the thread, I'll care about what you think.

Next time you have a problem with my choice of words, and just that, either PM me or start a thread about it instead of shifting the focus of the topic at hand.

BITCH BITCH MOAN MOAN.

Seriously, who cares? When it comes to DreamWorks titles...

> Old School's unrated cut was better than the theatrical cut (which was released full screen only). We got a few extended gags with Mr. Ferrell and Andy Dick and some extra female nudity during the KY wrestling match. :thumbsup:

> Eurotrip's unrated cut was better than the theatrical cut (which was released full screen only). While we did get a few more schlongs, we also got a lot more female nudity. :thumbsup:

> Anchorman's unrated cut was on par with the theatrical cut (which was released full screen only), but I like a few of the "PG-13" gags compared to their "Unrated" counterparts. I could've done without Ron's dream sequence and Ron eating cat shit, but I do like Ron using the word "fuck" over and over again. For the purpose of the thread, I'll give it a :thmbsdwn:

The only other Unrated release DreamWorks has put out was Road Trip, but both versions of that are widescreen only (and that Unrated version was better as well). Except Anchorman, the other titles were all edited down from "NC-17" to "R."

So in a nutshell, DreamWorks' has only "botched up" (if you can even call you that) one unrated release. In all honesty, I'm for DreamWorks releasing The Ring Two's theatrical cut in pan and scan only. Hopefully the Unrated version actually includes some footage worth adding in, because the theatrical cut was a piece of shit. Instead of buying The Ring Two, how about those bitching and moaning put the money towards the Ringu boxset they're putting out instead? While Ring 2, Ring 0, and Rasen aren't the best of films; they're a lot better than the dreck The Ring Two was.

Bingo! If this doesn't turn out to be a case of early or false info, I'm not going to buy either edition, as the so-called "unrated edition" was just icing on the cake for me.

As a film buff, being able to watch the theatrical cut in the proper ratio is top priority. If the R1 theatrical cut stays fullscreen, I'll wait and see what editions will come from either the UK or Asia.

Jesus Christ. Could you get more obnoxious? No, don't tell me...

I do. That's why I started this thread. And apparently if people (I orginally said "masses", but that's an unfair assumption) think a film is bad, it's okay for studio to ***** up a release.

I'm not talking about "Road Trip", "Anchorman" or any other Dreamworks title, and while your opinions about those release are valid, they have nada to do with "Ring Two".

Interesting. I thought you were pro-OAR.

That's a valid opinion. I don't agree, but that's cool.

I never said I wasn't going to buy the anthology. In fact, I'm very excited about that release.

So what was your point again? -ohbfrank-

Well, color me confused...

I didn't know people bought the 'theatrical releases' anymore when there was an unrated/directors cut available.

Oh well. Not that I care, I won't be getting either one.

= J

That's why this isn't bothering me as much. Don't unrated/uncut versions outsell rated by a VERY LARGE margin?

Still, it IS a different movie regardless, and some times the unrated/uncut version isn't always better.

First, is the Unrated cut also the directors preferred cut? Nakata may have preferred what was released theatrically.

Second, I like to buy both versions if it is a movie I am interested in. I like to see both versions of the movie. I am not even that excited about Ring Two since I really hated the first one, but I am such a fan of the original Japanese series (and Hideo Nakata directed this sequel) that I am willing to give this a chance. And I would very much prefer to buy thsi release in it's intended aspect ratio.

Some people don't like the unrated/director's cuts of films. Look at Battle Royale. More people prefer the theatrical release of that film over the later released director's cut. Personally I like them both.

And who cares if people say "foolscreen" or "fullscreen", if you are going to complain about that (not referring to you Tarantino) than you have a lot of threads and a lot of posts you better start going through. Between Foolscreen and Pan & Scam and the amount of times they are used on this site it could take you months to get your complaining in.

They need to release this in Widescreen. Otherwise I will definitely not be buying it and I will just record it to DVD off of cable or PPV.

Don't bring Battle Royale into this. The "Special Version" (as it's titled) of Battle Royale was initially created to get younger viewers into the theaters to see the film (which never happened as it was rated R-15 in Japan as well). It is not, in any way shape or form, a "director's cut." It is more of an "extension" to the original cut with additional footage that was shot after it's initial theatrical release plus some CGI clean-up (and extentions) in a few selected scenes. While I love the theatrical cut (as it's a better film), the "Special Version" is a must see for any fan of the film.

Color me confused as well, but for the opposite reason. ;)

I thought people wanted the films they saw in the theater. You know, the whole "No OAR = No Sale!" point of view? Has the DVD community shifted it's tastes so much that everyone is willing to pass up the initial release for what has become the inevitable re-release, even if the "special edition" isn't the same film?

Sorry. It's just bizarre to me.

Regardless of directors cut or whatever... it is still an extended version of a movie. And a lot of people prefer the original theatrical release... which is all that I was trying to say.

Imagine if the theatrical cut of BR wasn't available in Widescreen...

Any word on what the releases of the theatrical version of Ring Two will be outside of the US? I'll just get a Korean or Japanese release if need be.

I'm not surprised.

Some films are edited versions of what was seen in theaters. Take the films Cursed and Darkness for example. They were R rated films that the studios decided to edit to a PG-13 rating for the theaters. Now if I was going to buy those films, I sure as hell wouldn't want the PG-13 versions.

Another example is High Tension. It is rated R in theaters and dubbed. When it is released on DVD, it is suppose to have the full NC-17 and subtitled version (wither it will at first is another topic). That isn't the one I saw in theaters last night, but the NC-17 version is the only one I would think about owning.

Battle Royal was a different case. Those extra scenes were filmed after the movie had been out and CGI was used for more blood. As with the case of the Ring 2, it is either stuff that was cut to get a PG-13 rating, or just a few deleted scenes added to market the film as unrated.

Movies like Hellboy, American Pie, and Old School are better films in their unrated versions.

Okay, I see where you are coming from cerial442, and I agree to some extent. I think the bottom line in my argument or point of view is that I prefer to at least be able to see the theatrical cut in OAR, regardless if it is lousy compared to any future or comparable release (like an unrated or special edition).

Why not release both cuts in widescreen? The Grudge had two editions both in widescreen, Hellboy was as well. There seems to be a market for folks who will buy them. I just don't see the justification other than penny-pinching by the studio.

I'm still hoping that this info will change. :)

Even if the theatrical cut doesn't turn out to be what the director intended, it's still a testament to the time it was originally released. Some movies end up being cut down to PG, while others just say "Fuck it, let's release this NC-17". So while I do like having the alternate versions available when politics and marketing and what have you mess up what could have been a good movie, I still want the theatrical version on hand as a record of what played in theaters- with nothing cut and nothing added. (I'm VERY anal about this too- for example I didn't buy "Scary Movie" because the "Brad Pitt's ex-girlfriend is a real freak" line was changed for the DVD.)

You no longer are living in a world where it's all about what you saw in theaters. The majority of the time a film isn't even done till about a month or so after it's release and you get the final product on dvd. Directors and studios have seen that unrated films out sell the standard theater version and they really stopped caring about it. They want to market the unrated and super special unreleased versions and that's the sad truth.

Though if folks keep buying only the unedited versions, then you will continue to get this wave of non-theater editions.

Unrated version doesn't always mean it would have been rated NC-17. They can add in a scene of someone walking down the street and call it an unrated version because the version with that scene was never seen and rated by the ratings board.

You're right it doesn't. But in cases like High Tension and Seed of Chucky it does.

I'm not trying to put down anyone, but why buy the theatrical cut when it isn't the directors intended cut. Do you buy edited CDs because those are the first ones you heard on the radio? When you read all of these pro OAR threads, someone always says fullscreen compromises the directors vision (which it does). That is exactly what a lot of these rated DVD versions are doing.

Going back to Darkness. The film came out in other countries years before it was released in North America. Everywhere it played, the version shown was the one on the unrated DVD. The unrated DVD is the R rated version of the film. Dimension Films decided to edit the film to PG-13 in order to get more money from the movie, since kids aren’t suppose to be able to get into R rated films. The real version, the one the director wanted us to see, is available on the unrated DVD. When you buy the theatrical cut, you are not seeing the directors vision, but one made by a studio committee and the MPAA.

Look at the Grudge. It was shot as an R rated film. The R rated version shows up on the unrated DVD. Because of the success of the Ring, Sony wanted to edit the film from R to PG-13, to get that teen dollar. The directors intended version is on the unrated DVD. The studio version is on the theatrical version.

Is it always like this? No not always, but a majority of the time it is.

I am willing to wager with the Ring Two, Dreamworks intended on it to be a PG-13 film from the beginning. For all we know, the one that was shot, could be an R rated version of the film or one with three lines about cars added. Either way, I'm picking up the unrated version.

Well see, that logic doesn't work, because Battle Royale has had a release everywhere else but America. And for the fact that other countries are more "advanced" than ours, I would've just imported a widescreen release from somewhere else. ;)

And just looking at some of the "Unrated" releases on DVD Empire...

Girl Next Door = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Dodgeball = Originally rated R, edited down to PG-13.
Team America = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Seed of Chucky = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Cursed = Originally rated R, edited down to PG-13.
Original Sin = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Darkness = Originally rated R, edited down to PG-13.
King Arthur = Originally rated R, edited down to PG-13.
American Pie = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
American Pie 2 = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Road Trip = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Swimming Pool = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Chronicles of Riddick = Originally rated R, edited down to PG-13.
Dawn of the Dead = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Eurotrip = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
Old School = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.
American Psycho = Originally rated NC-17, edited down to R.

Now most are just "brief" additions that got them their more "explicit" rating. Like with Dodgeball, only two lines are changed (to add in the words "fuck" and "cock") whereas some include substantial changes (Dawn of the Dead and King Arthur come to mind).

But then of course, you have "Unrated" releases where it only includes footage simply for the fact it's a "new release." Like...

American Wedding
Anchorman
Broken Lizard's Club Dread
National Lampoon's Van Wilder
xXx

And then of coruse, you have "director's cuts" which have not been rated by the MPAA like Hellboy and True Romance. They're not "Unrated" for a marketing gimmick, they're "Unrated" as they're the director's preferred cut of the film and the studio in hand wanted to release it as is without MPAA interference.

And who the hell knows if The Ring Two will include more violence/gore or just include a shot of Naomi Watts singing up and down the street for two minutes? How about we wait to bitch and moan until early reviews start popping up explaining the differences?

Sometimes I like the theatrical cut better. For example, The Last of the Mohicans Director's Cut has a bunch of bit scenes that don't add much but time to the movie, and they took out Clannad's song in one scene and replaced it with the main theme song. I actually sold my DVD and decided to keep my VHS tape of it.

Again though, it's all about trends. Right now there seem to be more films cut down to get a PG-13- hopefully this is just a fad that will end someday, but we must be able to look back at this time and remember it as such. Obviously content was a lot more restrictive before the ratings system came out, and that's something I keep in mind when watching older films. (If home video had existed when "Gone With The Wind" came out, what if they decided to change the famous line to "Frankly my dear, I don't give a fuck!" for the video release?) Maybe 10 years from now, they'll decide to add enough naughty stuff to films to bump the rating from PG-13 to NC-17!
I agree that the DVD market has changed the way a lot of movies are made, but as long as they still get theatrical releases I want the experience at home to equal that of getting ahold of a theatrical print. Again, I'm glad to have alternate versions available along WITH the theatrical cut, but those should not be the ONLY versions available. It's all about history!