Speaking of pointless re-releases....



... someone PLEASE explain to me why we NEED another edition of this piece of crap? And that cover... my god it hurts my eyes.

I found these covers hillarious:

http://www.collegehumor.com/update:1707370

I'm just annoyed how "Unrated" has become a marketing gimmick and has lost all real meaning. Unrated used to mean that an R rated film has had put back into it the content that would make it NC-17. Now Unrated means "Now with two boring and unecessary deleted scenes added back in." And technically, it has to be released unrated if even the most mundane scene is added.

Well, as I always say, the studios don't necessarily "owe" us anything. I don't really care about the "making of" stuff for a lot of films, but I have to pay a higher price because it's there. On the other hand, I'd buy whole DVDs of nothing but documentaries on films I do care about, so to me it's worth paying a few extra bucks to cast my vote in favor of bonus features.

I do agree that this "Super-Deluxe Really Unrated Balls-Out Edition" stuff can be tiresome, and in many cases has truly gone too far. Of course for those who are truly into these films, no added extra is too small. I bought the "Extraordinarily Deluxe Edition" of Monty Python and the Holy Grail even though I'd bought all the previous versions, and the only improvement that made it worth buying again was that they fixed the missing subtitle at the opening of the film. Sadly, they apparently screwed up the aspect ratio so that it essentially became "full screen for widescreen TVs", but I can live with that until a newer (HD?) edition comes out that goes back to the original aspect ratio.

I really liked the mock covers linked to earlier in the thread, and I'll definitely have to incorporate a parody like that into the cover of a future PDTV project.