I don't mind if its part of a movies first-run release. I hate it when it's like a year and a half after a dvd has been out since then they release a unrated or Special Edition dvd. They have to offer me something good in order for me to double dip on an unrated or special ed. But I have no problems on a first day release of an unrated or special ed.

The extended editions that I don't like are the ones that seemingly have no director input at all. For example, A Knight's Tale Extended and Coyote Ugly Extended. Also the upcoming Crimson Tide Extended Unrated Edition.

i love uncut DVDs beecause, for the most part, they are the films you were SUPPOSED to see if the MPAA didnt suck so much. ive been saying it for years now, the theatrical release is just a watered down preview of the real movie that will be on the DVD.

of course there are instances where a scene or two is added just so they can make a buck, but alot of times its just because the MPAA wouldnt pass the film the way it was meant to be seen, and thats why DVD and uncut DVDs rule.

Incorrect.

[lumburg]Ummm, yeeeaaah. I'm Gonna have to go ahead and disagree on that one.[/lumburg]

9 times out of 10 when you watch the deleted scenes on a disc with commentaries, the director owns up to them being unnecessary padding, slowing the pace and or re-iterating something that has already transpired.

Only on occasion is something cut for a rating. Case in point would be Mr. & Mrs. Smith, cutting the nudity to go from an R to a PG-13. And even in that case it was the studio's decision, not the MPAA.

at least director's like peter jackson seem to have thier hands on the films they make when dvd's are released. the theatrical versions are available for those that prefer them to having to ONLY view the extended cuts.

taling about PJ, I wonder how long it will be until Norh America gets a legitmate 'unrated' complete 104min version of 'Brain Dead' (aka Dead/Alive)- until then I'll just continue to watch my German import.

But the content of the actual DVD's is the same which was what I was trying to say.

I totally agree, "Unrated" is the biggest marketing scam. And for instance, I rented "40-Year-Old Virgin" unrated this week, and I don't think it's quite as good as the original cut (which of course is a lot harder to find). In the name of marketing, they throw in scenes that might've just been better on the cutting room floor and compromise the movie somewhat.

Speaking of all these nonsense releases, how about that King Kong (2005) Gift Set with no film(for obvious reasons)?

SCARREDGOD,

An Unrated, Extended cut is not always the same as a Director's cut. If anything it is the movie company's cut - so they are just adding, most of the time, crappy deleted scenes which throw off the whole flow of the movie.
"Unrated" is only good for movies that are famous for being controversial or x-rated (9 Songs, Irreversable, Team America, Larry Clark films, Showgirls, Brown Bunny). There is not really such a thing as an R-rated movie becoming a controversial Unrated X-rated movie. Only an originally rated "Unrated (NC-17 or X-rated)" movie can be downgraded to an "R-rating". But a movie created as an R-Rated movie cannot usually be upgraded to a controversial "Unrated" status. It's all just marketing bullshit...don't fall for it. I can't believe anyone who reads DVD forums fall for it and consume all these annoying re-releases or marketing schemes.

The 40-Year old Virgin was my favorite movie of the year, and eventhough the Unrated additional DVD scenes are funny, they throw off the pace of the movie...

Even a Director's cut of a movie is annoying too. The director is always saying "this is how i originally wanted it, but it was cut by the evil movie producers and evil movie companies." These are the same evil people that are releasing this "director's cut", so you shouldn't fall for that crap as well...

What I do look out for though is if a movie is cut differently in Europe than in the USA. Then, if possible, I try to find the European DVD version of that movie, because most likely, movies are not tampered with in Europe...

I think PJ is one of only a handful of directors who know how to use the DVD format effectively.

I understand your point, but I don't think this is really a marketing scam per se.

The reason we're getting all these "unrated"/"uncut" titles is because we asked for it. The studios are just responding by giving us what we want. What most people really want is non-MPAA cuts -- real cuts that had to be made to the movie to even get an R rating. Or perhaps footage that was forced on the director to achieve a more friendly "PG-13" (to make more $$). So what happens if the movie wasn't cut to achieve the R/PG-13? How can they put out the demanded "uncut and unrated" version? They have to add in filler and call it "unrated". If they didn't do this, you'd have people bitching and complaining, "I'm waiting for the eventual unrated version".

Overall, though, I like the trend of getting the unrated/uncut versions (especially of horror/comedies since they get cut the most I would guess to achieve an R) but it would be nice to have a choice. I don't like this crap about only releasing the theatrical cut in FF, while releasing the other in WS. Ideally, it would be cool to be able to seamlessly branch between the different cuts on one disc, but it seems that that solution won't work well in all cases and on all players.

I only found unrated vhs rentals to be worthwhile about 15 years ago. Back then it meant something.

It's all very fake now. Put it out in theaters as PG13, then add a few seconds of nudity and call it 'uncut, what you couldn't see in theaters". Oh, you're not allowed to see boobs in US movie theaters? I wasn't aware of that. This is not to be confused with the MPAA giving a movie an x-rating, and the uncut film eventually making it to home video uncut. Also misleading is how they will imply that someone famous is naked in the new "sexy edition", when it's really random extras. Eurotrip is a good example, with a popular TV actress on the cover taking off her bikini with the word "unrated" across her chest. Not as blatant was Dukes of Hazard but I think the advertising there was also trying to imply Jessica Simpson would be showing some skin.

Actresses(Actors for that matter) with no nudity clauses should not star in raunchy films or films that require nudity

And studios shouldn't attempt to tease consumers with the possiblitity of that actress getting naked..since it's not going to happen. I know the drill by now..and yet others keep saying "Well maybe so in so shows some stuff? I'm buying it!" then "Ohhhhh what a ripoff....she showed nothing!".

I've been getting tired of this for a long long long time. It made sense back in the day when movies were released "unrated" because they had real unrated scenes added back in or whatever, but now they add like 2 seconds into a movie and release it "unrated" and it's getting ridiculous!

Now for the "______________" editions, it's fine if the movie was released before with no features, but stuff like Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Clueless it's getting really sad and stupid. These movies are being released with like 3 really super stupid special features and it's not worth it!

The Oscars helped spawn this marketing gimmick with one of the first offenders being American Beauty: The Awards Edition

I really notice small things in movies I like, especially the dialogue between Ron Burgundy's boss and his kid's teacher. I actually stopped watching the HBO HD showing because I wanted to see all the funny moments I loved from the DVD.

I just watched 40YOV today, and while I thought the 17 extra minutes sounded like alot, I didn't think the movie was long at all. The only scene I would pull is when Andy (Steve) is talking to Jay in the back of the store, he's crying because his gf broke up with him. Other than that, I liked it.

What's sad is that some films which should be released in unrated editions aren't, such as Eyes Wide Shut (region 1) and Lila Says.

And all you mentioned had their "Extended Editions" releases done after years the regular edition release.

Unrated cuts are so overdone now, they have lost their unique quality. Like slip covers. Used to think they set a DVD apart, made it more special or something. Then they grew more ubiquitous, showing up on both bare bones and feature-rich releases, while the insert, a preferable supplement, disappeared. Used to think the slip cover was a nice touch; now I wish they could be scrapped entirely and the insert brought back for all releases.

But I digress. Less is more. Unrated cuts are fine, but would be better used sparingly. Unless additions to a film actually enhance it, and are approved by the director, I want the original theatrical version.

I would venture to say that the unrated versions are the ones studios are trying to push harder on consumers. If you're an OAR purist, you're not going near the theatrical version with its MAR. And since that is the only format in which theatrical versions are being presented on DVD, makes sense that that is the one either the studio or the filmmaker prefers you to have. Why else would the theatrical be limited to MAR? Any other theories on that?

As for the silly edition names, I don't particularly care either way. As long as the transfer is solid and the bonus material is substantive, I'll dig it.

--THX

About that... see... most "normal" members of the DVD buying public wouldn't care about a re-release of those films. Not because they aren't good, mind you, but they require careful consideration, patience, as well as, in the case of Lila Says, the ability to read subtitles while following the action onscreen.

They can't easily be solid to the mass, and max profit is the name of the game. If Miramax could put out a three-disk version of Delicatessen and have it sell like Batman Begins, it would have been out years ago. All the deleted scenes would be reinserted with an introduction by Jean-Pierre Jeunet telling us how it wasn't his idea and that the original film was a Director's Cut.

LMAO, that is what there like too.

Agree with everything being said here in this thread. Unrated cuts seem cheesy and tacky these days rather than something special for the movie lover to look forward to. Not to ruffle any feathers, but people held off on buying Sin City for months because they knew this new uber-edition was on the way......and when it finally gets here, there's 4 minutes of actual extra footage. I'll hang on to my 1 disc.

I'm all for cuts that are international versions, such as the longer cut of Leon or the no-black and white cut of Kill Bill. With VERY few exceptions I see little reason to keep churning out multiple editions of movies we have in proper OAR with excellent sound and video already. If they want to package additional extras and sell 2 and 3 disc sets along with the 1 disc versions at release, that's not such a crime, because both sets have the theatrical version and both look and sound great, but there isn't any need for unrated editions that in actuality have a minute or two of extra footage.