Agreed. I think a few others do as well but none like Jackson. He actually films all the scenes he wants, knowing that what doesn't make the theatrical cut can make the DVD edition and tell a story in a broader scope. I'll be curious to see if this is the case with King Kong.

I must disagree with this comment! Since the majority of 'real' unrated versions of films that contain the original graphic cut of a film before being cut for an R rating. Are normally 1-2 minutes longer at best.

Kill Bill Vol 1 for example is only 1-2 minutes longer in it's uncut with color extended finale,and more graphic violence scattered throughout the film all adding a few seconds here and there.

Yet it makes a big difference and is quite worth viewing/releasing.


Basic Instinct,Robocop,Jason Goes To Hell, Natural Born Killers and True Romance also suffered heavy violence/disturbing/sexual content cutting to get R ratings. Both of the uncut versions are 2-3 minutes longer at best...but still make a huge difference in impact from the R rated versions.


And many many other films cut for ratings reasons are similar. Only in the rare case that a film is so extremely over the top,that the MPAA comes down hard on them resulting in massive amounts(in terms of minutes) of footage being cut. Is for films like Dead Alive(12 minutes of graphic gore cut to get an R rating!). But this is an extremely rare example and most films while drastically cut for ratings reasons only adds up to a couple minutes normally.


I know todays unrated versions for comedies and what not are usually the 'fake' unrated versions. Where they toss in a few extra lines of dialogue and just don't bother getting it rerated. Then they try to make the version sound more 'naughty' than the rated version. They are usually a minute or two longer(or sometimes more with pointless filler added) and in this case are pointless and worthless releases.

But that does not mean all unrated versions of films should never be released if it only adds up to 1-2 minutes of footage. Since in the case of the films I used. You'll be missing out if only the R rated heavily cut versions were released.


I agree with this and noticed it myself. What really pisses me off though is,the studios 99% of the time make the unrated version available in both widescreen and pan & scan. Meanwhile the rated version is only released in pan & scan(Dukes of Hazzard, Land of the Dead,upcoming Cry Wolf, Great Raid etc etc).

If they spend money on an P&S unrated/extended version. Then why not on the theatrical version as well?

I guess I'm in a different boat than most people, but I look at it this way:

If they don't put out the DVD you want or put some stupid name on it which gives you hesitation, don't buy it. Everyone needs to stop their damn bitching. It is a business, and obviously people still buy these "stupid named" DVDs in excess so there is absolutely ZERO reason for the studios to start doing what you are all complaining about. If you really want things to change write to the studios and just don't buy the product. I guarantee if people stopped buying the studios product, they'd be the first one to suggest change. Obviously less "devout" DVD fans, who are the minority here, don't care what edition it is or what features it has. They buy the movie only for the movie or as gifts for their kids ect. People don't all have lavish $2000 Widescreen TV sets to watch. Basically what I am saying, WE are in the minority and most "regular" people give the studios there money, therefore the studios aren't going to change what they do. This was a long rambling post that I just wanted to get one point across: Calling people who buy fullscreen DVDs or DVDs with "less" editions or "strange" names morons, because they aren't buying the "perfect" edition you want really makes you look like a prick.

My main beef with unrated cuts is that many of them add in toilet humor that does nothing but deter from the film's original qualities. I understand it for movies that have that sort of humor to begin with, but when they're added in for comedies that are above that, it's annoying.

What's also annoying is when one of these gags replaces a line from the theatrical version that you liked. Anchorman had quite a few of these moments that I noticed were missing and were replaced with inferior lines.

In reference to the silly names, I don't much mind them. I like to think of them as the dvd makers poking fun at themselves for having turned almost every movie release into a "special edition."

And also, we need the silly names to keep track of which dip we purchased.

You guys basically covered my complaints. I'm fine with the unrated cuts in general but the studios have started to make the fake unrated versions and then make the theatrical cut in pan and scan only so we have no choice but to go with the unrated version which may be filled with garbage that was cut for a good reason.

Exactly. I just wanted to quote that because it is worth saying again. These are the types of "unrated" DVDs that should be released.

I'm still waiting on a remastered theatrical version of Apocalypse Now! Don't like the long drawn out 'Redux'....

Me too. I just rewatched the theatrical cut on LD last week and like it a whole lot more than Redux.

My latest gripe has to do with the Warriors rerelease. I love that movie and wish they wouldn't have added those new cartoon intertitles or whatever you call them. Seriously, why mess with perfection. The improved image quality and anamorphic transfer would be enough to get me to rebuy this.

I also recently watched the new Rumble Fish disc. I was happy to double dip on this for the improved anamorphic transfer and the Coppola commentary track. That is worth it.

Total agreement. In most horror movies that were cut down because of violence it's a matter of shaving 5 or so seconds off each "kill" to get the R. Doesn't sound like much, but when you edit a scene of Jason slicing someone in half, to a scene of Jason about to slice someone in half but cutting away right before it happens... it makes a big difference. It's a short cut, timewise, but in film a few extra seconds can "make" the scene. Frankly I would RATHER have these types of unrated editions than ones where they shoved in ten minutes of extra scenes that disturb the flow of the movie.

I agree and thus I think studios should not release everything 'unrated' when it's not needed.

As for Jason Goes To Hell. I saw the R version first on video and found the film fun,but not that graphic surprisngly. Then I found the unrated version and watched that. I thought their wouldn't be a big difference based on the 2 minute addition, and boy was I wrong!

The biggest 'holy shit!' moments for me where the infamous campfire split sequence(that shocked me..I was totally disturbed and took awhile to overcome that reaction)...and the dinner massacre near the end. And also a sick laugh at the 'hell spawn' thing being shown going up the womans dress and into her vagina.

The R rated version by comparison feels edited for tv since everything is chopped up fully! And it is only 2 minutes worth of cuts..but boy what a 2 minutes they are!

It's all about greed. With the technology today, you'd think they'd get it all right the first time

I don't mind these editions a small portion of the time. I do like when the unrated or director's cuts add in a lot of footage that was taken out to get an R-rating (speaking of horror movies). I was happy to get my hands on that unrated version of The Devil's Rejects, and it is one of my favorite DVD releases this year.

But as many have stated, a good 90%+ of these editions are just marketing, and don't add much.

Though I have not bought it yet, the new "recut" Sin City DVD, from the reviews I read sound disappointing. Isn't most of the footage some 80% of it only credits?

Now here is one example where I fully support an unrated version of a movie on DVD.

From DavisDVD:

--THX

I am looking forward to an uncut Hills Have Eyes as myself

Oh and High Tension is another worthy unrated release. Less than a minute was added,but what a minute it was. Wow...very disturbing stuff in that film, it was great!

One of my personal favorite movies is 1492: Conquest Of Paradise, and that as of this writing has yet to hit dvd in any kind of way in America. Yet, Paramount is focusing their efforts on releases like Clueless: Whatever Edition, and Ferris Buellers Day Of: Bueller, Bueller edition. With titles like that, can't they just release a 1492: Conquest Of Paradise: Columbus, Columbus edition. LOL!

I did like their The Truman Show: Special Edition released last August. At least they didn't come up with some corny name for that one. It's a very nice dvd.

As for all the Unrated and all the beefed up sort-of pointless corny dvd releases that studio's put most of their efforts into. I hope they are making some serious money off of them all, otherwise they are wasting their efforts when they could focus on movies that haven't been released on dvd yet or other movies that haven't been released twice on dvd yet.

I don't fall for the whole Unrated tag, that is for an erotic adult film IMO, it's just so silly. It grabs attention though, and makes the release seem to a consumer, more hip.

Just call it the uncut version!

Clueless and Bueller were hit films and are still fairly popular. Thus they will sell more copies than 1492 which was not a hit or that popular.

Now yes 1492 should get a dvd release even if it is bare bones. But you can see why they have'nt been so quick to put it out.

In addition, with 1492 they have to do a whole new transfer, and that costs money. With a re-release they just take the same transfer, add a few new supplements, and they have another version to sell. So it doesn't cost as much to produce as a whole new release would.

Good point. 1492 is indeed not a very popular title like Clueless and Ferris Bueller, and was a dud at the box office, but it still should be released on dvd by them eventually.

So I guess Paramount is cheap than.

Yeah, another good point. I think the transfer may be done though, it has been on high def cable.

I agree. The market is just being flooded with so many pointless releases. It make the studios look silly.

Okay Julie I stand corrected .

Like many others I simply get tired of seeing the stupid title editions that seem to be cranked out at an alarming rate. There are certainly movies worthy of unrated editions, Kill Bill being a sterling example as I made it a point to pick up the Japanese version.

'Real' unrated editions of a movie a director wanted to release in a different version have definite merit. I suppose my other beef is, release 'em as such the first time around, not wait for 6 months to a few years and slap a new cover on 'em to get the consumer to bite. I don't mind soending the $20 for a 2 hour unrated cut, it's that second $20 for the additional minute of footage that I grump about!

I just find it annoying when the same movie gets tons of rereleases... usually the latest release with the 'effing money grubbing edition' banner. I usually just wait 'til the DVD comes out elsewhere. Case in point: Man on Fire, AvP, I Robot, The Day After Tomomorrow (all Fox titles, now that I think of it) all had 2 releases in the US, but only one just about everywhere else in the world. Nobody in the world had the quickie 1-disc edition except the US.

If the director's cut is really worth it, I don't mind the unrated cut. Even if Sin City: SE only has 4 minutes of extra footage when they promise an extra hour, the extras, which is what I'm interested in, are so much better than the barebones DVD. I personally think all directors should have control over their own DVDs, but that's just me. If the studios think they'll get more money, then that's when the consumer suffers...

What I really hate is when the studios rerelease a crappier DVD of a movie, but discontinue the origional (Fast and the Furious, anyone?).

If the studios respected their fans, I wouldn't mind, but this is Hollywood...

for the people that were saying they like it for horror films that were cut to keep an R... why can't studios just use a branching feature or make it a flipper instead of putting out seperate editions. that's what sucks... it wasn't like that in the beginning.

WTF?!!