Anchorman Unrated Commentary
 

Is it just me, or does it annoy everyone else that the directors commentary on the UNRATED version of anchorman is edited all to hell for the first twenty-thirty min. of the movie. I mean I understand why it would be edited, but if I am going to slap down my money for the unrated version then the whole disc should be unrated. Not just bits and pieces.

Once again.

Unrated means "Not rated". It does not mean "porn, violence and swearing". If you want porn, violence and/or swearing, get something with these already in it.

What governing board rates commentaries?

Preach it!

I also have no idea why the studio bleaped so much of the commentary. The bleeping is very random as well. There should really be no editing of commentaries other than names that might get you sued. The bleeping was a strange choice as though they counted the number of bad words used and decided to take out a random number of them. There is no ratings system on these DVDs and already a warning about language. I see no reason for the bleeps.

"Unrated" does not mean "unedited." A film (or anything, for that matter) can be unrated by any applicable ratings board, yet contain edited out portions.

DJ

I guess i'll just mirror other points and say is that i dont think ANY commentary is ever rated. Its the movie thats "unrated"

From what I can tell, Anchorman is not actually edited. I think it's done for humor, since the words that are bleeped are completely at random, and it's during a conversation about what can and can't be said on a commentary. It sounds to me like they did it as a joke. Many of the words that are bleeped are repeated later without bleeping, so I'm thinking that it's not studio interference in this case.

edit - noticed that there was one response earlier.

In some countries, they are. In Britain, for example, the BBFC rates all content on a DVD, including supplements such as commentaries.

DJ

Even if the bleeping is done as a joke, it stills counts as being edited.

DJ

Wow. Just, wow.

Huh? :scratch2:

If the participants are the ones randomly "bleeping" things for comedic effect, it's not edited. That's like saying this **********ing post has been edited.

Yeah, it may have been done as a joke by them. Didn't think of that. They certainly let quite a bit of really bad stuff go for it to have really been an editing choice. Probably just them screwing around with the commentary.

Yes, it is. Do you know what it means to "edit"? Try any one of these definitions from Webster's:

Any one of those can be done on purpose for comic effect and it's still "editing". There is no "...unless it is done for comic effect" exception. Deletion of any sort (say, by bleeping over) is an edit.

I can't believe anyone would even argue about that. -eek-

DJ

Not if they PLANNED to have the bleeps in there for comic effect - in that instance, <i>removing</i> the bleeps and replacing them with actual words would be "editing".

Don't get so hung up on "editing". In case you haven't noticed, all movies are "edited"; as a matter of fact, they actually give out Academy Awards to whose who do it real well. -wink-

Oh, got ya. So when the OP asked "does it annoy everyone else that the directors commentary on the UNRATED version of anchorman is edited all to hell for the first twenty-thirty min. of the movie"?, you took that to mean he was upset by the fact that the first twenty-thirty minutes of the movie was prepared for publication, or cut and rearranged, or altered, adapted, and refined, as opposed to them just releasing four hours of unprocessed raw footage.

Hey, does that Webster's book have any entries for the word "context"?

Cool, something we agree on. I can't believe anyone would argue such a ridiculous point, either.

I offered you the various definitions. I didn't state that any one of those was used by me in reading the OP's post, did I? What I did do, however, was, after offering you the various definitions, then choose one to pick as an example of what might apply. Which one did I pick? Oh, of course, one you left out: delete.

Figure out one word first before you move on to a second.

Of course, you didn't even argue my point. You invented one of your own and acted as if I had said anything about it; a classic straw man deflection.

So cut to the chase: is a deletion done for comic effect an edit, or not? Yes or no?

DJ

This is censorship!

I actually find it annoy that they don't even talk about the movie. All they do is find everyway possible to say dirty things. Which I don't care about the dirty things but why spend 90+ minutes just doing that for no reason?

I've noticed that everyone of my DVDs is edited! In fact, that person even gets special credit after and sometimes even BEFORE the film. I've got 400 angry letters to write.

Just keep digging, DJ. You'll be out of that hole in no time.

Uh...no. Where in the world are you people getting this from? Find me a single source outside of another DVDTalker or a person otherwise making things up as they go along that puts "except when it's planned" at the end of the definition of "edit."

Deleting is deleting, planned or not. A planned deletion is still...a deletion. And a deletion is a type of edit. A deletion doesn't have to be unitended and/or after the fact in order for it to count as an edit. And, indeed, an edit need not be unitended and/or after the fact, either. An edit can be planned. As you point out below, edits are extensively planned on a regular basis in filmmaking.

Did I wake up in an alternate linguistic universe this morning? Whatever, folks. Invent previously nonexistent definitions of words out of thin air. Make it up as you go along. Have fun.

So, first it's not editing, now everything is editing. Got it.

DJ