The release seems to be really flying under the radar. Amazon has a listing up for it, but no real info on it, not even a picture:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000E6V07M/

DVDpricesearch doesn't have it listed at all, and neither do Best Buy or Circuit City. I'm guessing this might not make it to many stores.

[edit: Circuit City does have a listing:
http://entertainment.circuitcity.com...?v_id=V+++3182 ]

As an aside, this is only the second time I know of a studio going back an re-releasong a DVD in OAR because of consumer demand. The other film was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which Warner released a WS SE of after complaints of the FF only release. Can anyone else think of any? Note that double-dipping SEs that come out years later don't count.

Interesting- the retailer I work for (not at liberty to say who) doesn't have it listed. If it's really coming out I will get it though.

Not listed at Best Buy or Deep Discount DVD.

not to hi-jack (delete this post if necessary), but...

is there any indication that Univeral will now go back and release the theatrical cuts of other films that they only released in fullscreen? Most notably, for me, Land of the Dead?

Man, I hope this comes out. The unrated cut of 40 year old virgin sucked.

Why the hell would you want a rated version of Land of the Dead in OAR? The unrated version actually expands some of the plot (and there should've been a lot more than just a few minutes) and includes a lot more blood and guts.

Because right or wrong, that's the way it appeared in theaters. If they had any balls they would've released it with an NC-17 to begin with.

There's really no excuse for not having BOTH versions on DVD when this happens, anyways. That was one of the most hyped features of it way back when.

I agree with everything you said (except maybe the "had any balls" part.)

Back when the Director's Cut of Blade Runner came out, I used to think that anyone who wanted the theatrical cut was nuts. Why would they want an obviously inferior version? Then the Special Editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy came out, and I saw their point. Some people like the changes made, but those films are no longer the films that I grew to love. People should be able to see on video what they saw in theaters.

Changes made to a film can be either good or bad, subjectively speaking. However, objectively speaking, they are changes, and the original version of a film should always be available. How many times have people defended 4:3 abominations of films saying that they prefer the way it looks in 4:3? That argument doesn't hold for altering aspect ratio, and it shouldn't hold for altered cuts of the film.

Now, I actually like most altered cuts of films. I own the director's cuts of Army of Darkness, Brazil, Blade Runner, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, and Robocop. I have the extended versions of The Lord of the Rings films. I even like the Unrated version of 40-Year-Old Virgin. However, I completely understand the desire to have the original theatrical version available in the correct aspect ratio, and applaud Universal's decision to correct this mistake.

Finally, I agree that this shouldn't have even been an issue, since the rated version of the film could've been available on the Unrated DVD through seamless branching.

Exactly. These unrated releases should be done with seamless branching for the extended version. Its happened on a few, but there is no reason not to do it on all of them.

Kinda of a noob....OAR?

OAR: Original Aspect Ratio

So which version do you feel is the better version in this case? I have not seen the film yet,but want to.

Are any jokes ruined in the unrated version since they overextend their welcome? Exactly how much nudity is added to the unrated version? Is the extra nudity worth seeing or easily skippable? Is the pacing thrown off that it makes the film drag severely?

So tell me the pro and cons of the unrated version versus the R version.

At nearly 2 hours,I suspect the R version would be long enough(too long in many ways) for myself. And thus the even longer almost 2 hours 20 minute unrated version seems like overkill. Since it is a simple comedy afterall and doesn't need to be epic length!

But if it is still entertaining and keeps moving along. I wouldn't mind seeing that version. But I am not a fan of padded unrated versions which toss in aton of footage that was cut for good reason.

If I like the R version and do not want to sit through the unrated version in its entirity. Is there any indicator in the chapter section on which scenes are added..or extended?

In away I wouldn't mind owning both versions if I enjoy the film enough that is.

JULIE,
I've seen both versions of the film and the better version is the R-Rated film. The problem has nothing to do with the length of the film. The R-Rated version is allready pretty long for a comedy, so it doesn't matter if it's longer. The main reason the R-Rated version is better is because the Unrated version has added scenes in the film, which are funny, but totally throw off the pace of the movie. These added scenes don't feel like a director's cut - it feels like deleted scenes thrown in. It's basically overkill and totally unneccessary. These scenes would have just been better as deleted scenes, because the deleted scenes included on the extras are actually really funny and entertaining.

I actually like the Unrated Version, but the R-rated version might be a better first viewing. That said, I watched the Unrated with some friends who hadn't seen it before, and they still liked the film.

In the other thread, some mentioned that one joke is ruined with the inclusion of additional material before the punchline. Otherwise, the extra material is mostly all new jokes and scenes, so no other jokes from the R-rated version are ruined.

As for extra nudity, it's a total of 4 more breasts, although one pair is shown fairly briefly. The other pair is part of the extended ruin-the-joke bit, and might be problimatic to skip.

As the extra scenes are mostly new jokes and almost skits seperate from the advancement of the plot, they do affect the pacing a bit. However, unlike toddly, I actually liked quite a few of these scenes and thought they were funny. One of them had one of the funniest lines in the film, and I thought it was a travesty it was cut from the theatrical.

As for the DVD, I don't recall any indicators of the extra scenes, excepting for them being mentioned in the commentary. I also don't have it on hand, so I can't check the chapter stops, although that might be a reasonable assumption. However, if you're going to skip scenes, you might as well make you own "cut" of the film and skip whatever scenes you don't care for, and not get too concerned with replicating the theatrical cut.

Personally, I don't think the changes are that drastic. If you're going to like the film at all, you'll probably still enjoy the Unrated cut, although if you feel it's a bit long, the R-rated may be better paced.

You don't?

I've only viewed the unrated cut (via Netflix) and I fast forwarded through the end because I thought it overstayed its welcome. It makes me re-think my entire philosophy behind picking up theatrical and director cuts.

Technically he's correct, nobody was tricked into picking up the Unrated WS DVD, or any other version of this release. They all clearly marked as to what they are.

However, those desiring the original theatrical version of the film were stuck with a "lesser of two evils" choice; either they could get the original theatrical cut in a modified aspect ratio, or they could get an alternate cut in OAR. There really should have been an "original cut in OAR" choice from the get-go.

My guess is that Universal looked at their past releases where they released 4 different versions of the film, such as the American Pie films, and saw that the WS theatrical sold the less. Heck, even one of DVDTalk reviews of American Pie 2 Unrated says "An additional R-rated version exists, but somehow I don't think there's quite as much interest in that one." So Universal thought they could save some money by releasing one less edition of the DVD, figuring that most WS advocates would want the Unrated version anyway.

The difference is that of the American Pie films, none of them clocked in at 2 hours, and the extra scenes added to the Unrated versions were around half that added to 40 Year Old Virgin. With this movie, pacing is of much larger concern, and it's the most talkback I've seen of an Unrated DVD of a comedy yet.

Having never seen the theatrical version, I hesitated before I picked up the widescreen because I felt an extra 17 minutes would be way too much for a comedy. However, there was no way I was going to watch it in fullscreen so I reluctantly bought the unrated.

Much to my surprise, I really enjoyed it and felt like I had seen one of the best movies of the year. I'll agree it was long, but I was unable to think of any particular scene I would consider "filler." Every scene was relevant and seemed to flow into the next. There was another thread detailing all the new parts, and I felt most of them were pretty funny bits that I'm glad I got to see.

Slight spoiler here...

I've read some complaints about how the punchline to Andy's viewing of the "big box of porn" is ruined because of the pacing. Maybe it's a case of liking whichever one you see first. I still found the unrated version funny, and think it makes more sense. If the scene just went from him watching porn to Everybody Loves Raymond, I would begin to suspect he was asexual. The unrated version includes the fantasy scene which explains why he decided to watch Everybody Loves Raymond. If I were to now see the R-rated version, I would feel like I was watching a broadcast on TBS with all the naughty stuff cut out.

Just my opinion, of course.

That was probably my post here:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....19#post6665519

I've just revised it based on what's mentioned in the commentary.

Thank you, Universal.

Based on all the reviews I had read, many people seemed to prefer the shorter R-Rated cut. As such, I had not purchased the Unrated. I had been trying to borrow or rent the Foolscreen R-Rated cut, but nobody I know was dumb enough to buy it and none of the rental stores I checked carry it (including Netflix and Blockbuster.com). I refuse to buy a FS movie on purpose (unless 4:3 is OAR), so I was just biding my time for now.

Finally, waiting has paid off. I will definitely pick this one up now.

I'm sure the studio that has such a track record of releasing defective discs, only to tell the consumer, "tough," would be game to giving refunds to consumers because of a double-dip.

The whole point of this release is to get people to buy the title twice. Don't get me wrong, props to them for releasing the theatrical version in its OAR, but this is something that should've been done to begin with. Now it just comes off as milking the cow for all its worth.

And to be honest, I didn't think the extended cut slowed the film down that much. The original version was already hurting from time issues, but a few more minutes didn't do it further damage.

I've never seen the Theatrical version, but I really didn't think the unrated version was too long.

Yeah, but there are some people out there who were big fans of this film and intended to buy it (naturally). While they'd have preferred the theatrical version, they were forced to settle for the unrated version in order to get the film in the aspect ratio they preferred. Then, a few weeks later, the unannounced, widescreen theatrical version is released...and they're forced to either double-dip, or live with what they were led to believe was going to be the only widescreen version released (the unrated version). No blatant trickery, but trickery nonetheless.

I'd say it's comparable to the Fox re-releases of Man on Fire, Day After Tomorrow...and so forth. Everything was clearly marked, and people knew what they were getting, but in a sense they were tricked into buying the inital releases because they didn't know that the other edition (in this case, the WS theatrical cut) was on it's way. Had people known that special editions of those films, or the WS theatrical cut of this one, were on their way...they likely would've held out. Now they're either stuck with what they deem to be an inferior version, or they're forced to double-dip.

-JP

I don't think it's trickery at all. I think it's pretty obvious from the store listings and such that this R-Rated WS DVD was a last minute addition to the schedule, and it seems like it's a direct response to consumer demand. I don't see how anyone could rationally conclude that this was part of some masterplan by Universal to trick people into double dipping.

It's also nothing like the Fox special editions, which were obviously planned but not announced until after the initial releases (although there were rumors). In this case, this DVD wasn't announced or planned, but put together at the beyond last minute.

It's almost like some people think Universal can do no right. Universal doesn't release the R-Rated version in WS, and people slam the company for "forcing" them to buy the unrated version. Universal relents and actually release the R-Rated WS DVD, and people slam them for double-dipping!

And, for the record, I like the Unrated cut. I knew what I was getting into when I bought it, and nobody forced me to buy anything. With the recent Lord of War DVD, it's only available in an altered aspect ratio, and I really wanted the film on DVD. However, Lions Gate isn't "forcing" me to buy Lord of War on DVD despite the altered aspect ratio. In this case, I'm willing to not buy it and push for a better release. After all, what kind of message are you sending a studio if you buy a release you don't want anyway?

Then my suggestion to them would be that they start getting their shit together the first time around. Perhaps that would cut down on the constant complaints.

Semantics, semantics. I'm well aware that nobody is literally "forced" to walk into a store and pay money for a given DVD. However, those who did purchase this film on DVD (and there were many) were initially "forced" to choose between the theatrical cut or the OAR. A lot of people settled, and now they're being "forced" to either settle for owning what they deem to be an inferior DVD, or to double-dip. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, a lot of people were tricked into believing that the only way they could own the film on DVD in the OAR was to buy the unrated cut.

-JP