I agree, this shouldn't have even been a issue.

If you have to constantly put the word forced in quotations, maybe you should be looking for a better word to use. Again, even as a fan of a film, you are not required to purchase it on DVD as soon as it comes out. Obviously, some people decided not to purchase it and instead complain to Universal, which prompted this release. At the least, they could've waited until DVD releases in other regions came out, if they desired the original cut in OAR that badly.

And I'm still not sure what you're complaining about. Are you saying you'd rather Universal had not decided to release this R-rated OAR DVD, since it is now "forcing" people to have the option of buying it if they want to?

Trickery requires intention. If it's not intentional, it wasn't a trick.

They probably would have gotten a lot more re-buys if they had put out the unrated version later, rather than before. I have plenty of other movies to watch so with this one not giving me the choice of the theatrical cut in the proper aspect ratio, I chose none of the other versions that were out. Since they're correcting the mistake now, I'll buy it when it comes out and hopefully that'll make them think about releasing other titles in the same manner.

New Line provides both unrated and rated versions of movies on the same disc. Examples are Wedding Crashers, Blade Trinity, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, etc.

Why couldn't Universal have done this the first time?

I think that's the argument some are making here.

Nope, I'm complaining about the fact that for two weeks, many people who wanted to buy this film in it's OAR picked up the unrated cut, and now numerous people are either stuck with that cut of the film, or are going to have to double-dip. I'm complaining about the fact that Universal didn't get their shit straight the first time around.

There doesn't have to be intent for there to be deception. If you deceive somebody, you're giving a false impression...whether that be on purpose or not. Go to Merriam Webster and look up the definition for "deceive." It says nothing about intent (to be false to; to fail to fulfill; to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid). Take a look at the various United States penal codes regarding fraud for further confirmation of this. Intent and deception don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Universal caused many of us to accept as true the fact that the only version of this film that we could expect in OAR was the unrated cut. Two weeks later, out of nowhere, came an unannounced release that proved this to be false. Hence, deception. Whether it was intentional or accidental, I don't know...but it was deception nonetheless.

-JP

thanks for the info. i'm taking back this and the Dark Water Unrated.

What bothered me was that when I usually watch an unrated version of a movie they've just inserted extra scenes, but when I watched this movie I noticed that sometimes they had removed a few words here & there & replaced them & kind of rearranged a couple of scenes. I agree that they should have put out both on one disc.

I wouldn't bother taking back the Dark Water Unrated. It is almost identical. I have seen both versions and couldn't say what is different (nor have I seen anyone else do so).

Best Buy has it up. $25.

Yeah, the extended cut was worse in my opinion and felt like it was an epic or something like that. Almost felt like Peter Jackson was making it.

That's a given though, and has been known for 5 weeks now. You seem to be taking the position that this correction on Universal's part as a bad thing though.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition says "Deceive involves the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth." I think most people do think of deception as being intentional.

No thanks. I did look up Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defintion of the word though, which is:

"1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby"

Do you seriously think Universal would intentionally announce a title so late that most stores don't even list it, let alone will carry it? And so soon after the other releases? If Universal really wanted to scam people out of money, wouldn't it make sense to wait until later, after even more people have bought the current releases, and will be "forced" to repurchase?

I'm not mad at Universal about this because after doing this with several titles it looks like they may have learned their lesson about theatrical releases and how important they are. Also the point may be getting across that we don't want that pan and scan crap forced on us either.

I'm hopefull that Universal will finally get their stuff together and make an effort to improve the quality of their releases. They are about the worst quality wise of all the major studios.

That's funny, because this is the definition that I found on an online dictionary whose credited source is American Heritage Dictionary. Or you can check Dictionary.com, as American Heritage is their source for the definition also (and it reads the same, verbatim). So apparently American Heritage (as well as Merriam Webster, Oxford, and every other noteworthy dictionary) does indeed have a definition agreeing with me: there doesn't necessarily need to be intent for there to be deception. As long as the scholarly definitions of the words are in line with my own, I couldn't care less what "most people" think. "Most people" think Truffaut is a type of candy.

Studios do it all the time. I didn't hear a big hoorah when WB released Private Parts a few months ago. Not every DVD that hits the shelves gets some big marketing push. Not to mention, the DVD for this film...both theatrical and unrated cuts, got it's advertising push two weeks prior. I doubt they'd make an entire new advertising campaign (or that Best Buy, Circuit City, et.al would even waste ad space) simply to announce that a 1.85:1 version of the theatrical cut of "The 40 Year Old Virgin" is hitting shelves two weeks after the highly-advertised initial release of the film. And how do you know that most stores won't be carrying it? The release date won't even be here for another couple of days.

None of this is to say that they necessarily intended to make this late release...but I wouldn't say there's sufficient evidence to the contrary. Certainly not enough to jump to as cemented of a conclusion as you seemingly have.

-JP

is the movie REALLY that bad to watch the unrated version? so far, i have not heard a single praise.

There are still laughs and it's still a good movie, but the pacing really gets killed and the movie seems to drag in places it shouldn't. Not to mention some bits getting ruined in the longer version.

So its not a bad watch unrated, but the theatrical cut is much, much better.

I've praised it several times in this thread. I can see how people feel it hurts the pacing, but personally I enjoyed most of the added scenes and am planning on keeping the Unrated version.

You didn't look that closely at those definitions, did you? What I quoted is there, and appears at both places.

I wasn't talking about marketing, I was talking about scheduling. Private Parts wasn't heavily promoted, but it existed on Universal's schedule for months ahead of time. Stores knew it was coming so that they could order and plan for its release accordingly. This release didn't exist on Universal's schedule until a week ago.

Well, the fact that a store isn't listing it is a good indicator that it won't carry it. Walmart.com still doesn't have it listed. Blockbuster.com doesn't have it listed, nor does Hollywood Video. DDD doesn't list it, neither does Suncoast. I work for a major retailer, and I know we're not getting it on Tue. Granted, a lot of online retailers have managed to add it to their inventory in a relatively short time. However, they don't have to worry about shelf space, which is often planned weeks or months in advance. I may be jumping the gun a bit, but I'm guessing this DVD will be hard to find in B&M stores come Tuesday.

American Heritage definition for deceive: "To cause to believe what is not true."

Oxford definition for deceive: "(of a thing) give a mistaken impression."

Merriam Webster definition for deceive: "To cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid."

There are other definitions for the word in each dictionary, some dealing with intent, some not. That's irrelevant. The fact is that all three of those definitions are from three leading dictionaries...and all directly apply to what happened with this release. By definition, as spelled out clearly above, consumers were deceived by Universal. There is no debating that. The definitions for "deceive" are there, they translate directly, the word is applicible and anybody who said that Universal deceived consumers would be correct in doing so. Now that that's cleared up, maybe we can move on.

Odd, because it's a Warner Brothers title.

Yeah, that's kinda the entire issue we've been discussing for the last two days: that it was unannounced at the time of the initial release, and that people were tricked into thinking that it wasn't coming.

Yup.

-JP

And it later says "Deceive involves the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth."

That's the second definition, the first definition it has is "[to] deliberately mislead into believing something false."

It also says "DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness."

I don't see why the alternate definitions for the word are irrelevant. They clearly point that a common interpretation of the word involves intent. In the way that you have used the word, as well as the words "trick," "fraud," and "force," you clearly are implying intent on the part of Universal.

I'm just saying that using words like trick and deceive to describe a corrective action on Universal's part is unfair. Let's just take the initial 3 releases as a given. How would you best have liked Universal to have responded to their error? You definitely don't seem in favor of this new release.

I didn't look the title up, I assumed you would at least be referring to the same studio when comparing releases. Regardless, all of Universal's releases appear on their schedule well in advance of their release, no matter how much marketing the title receives.

By all accounts, it wasn't coming. It wasn't until Universal received consumer responses to the lack of the product that they decided to release it.

The closest example is Warner's response to the Full-Frame only DVD release of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which was to release a WS DVD as well a little while later. People weren't complaining about being "tricked" or "forced" to buy the new release then, because they understood that before the consumer backlash, the WS DVD didn't exist. To yell at a studio for making the right decision and release the WS DVD is to give them less incentive to make corrections later. Better to just stick to the initial releases and avoid people complaining about being deceived and "forced" to buy what they were asking for.

What's your point? Are you attempting to convince me that those definitions negate the ability to use the word in other ways? That simply because one of the multiple definitions for the word specifies premeditation, that the only time there is deception is when there is intent? If that's what you're trying to say, then I really don't know how to respond to that. It's that absurd.

Even in the last alternate definition you quoted, it says "usually by underhandedness." In some cases, deception takes place due to the party's intent to mislead (see: the definitions you quoted). In other cases, deception takes place regardless of the fact that there was no intent to mislead (see: the definitions I quoted). Two separate definitions for two separate uses of the word...neither of which negates the other. If deception only existed with intent, we wouldn't need the alternate definitions for the word that I quoted in my last response. If you don't understand that basic, fundamental concept of discourse and the English language...then I really don't see any reason to continue discussing this with you.

For the umpteenth time, my problem doesn't lie with the new release. It lies with the fact that the new release wasn't announced, and that buyers were deceived (be it purposely or not) into thinking that the only way to own the film in it's OAR was to buy the unrated edition. This is the third and last time that I'll explain to you where it is that I feel Universal dropped the ball in this situation. If you don't grasp where I'm coming from this time around, you probably never will. Either way, there's no sense in constantly repeating myself.

-JP

How could it be announced before it existed? It appears to have been announced as soon as it was planned to be released.

You seem hell-bent on sticking up for Universal in this situation, but the fact remains...they fucked up. Scenario one: Universal never intended to release the theatrical cut in it's OAR, stiffing fans of the film by sticking them with either no OAR copy of the film in their collection, or an OAR version that the vast majority finds inferior to the theatrical cut. Their bad. Or, scenario two: they intended to release the theatrical cut in it's OAR at a later date, so fans could have the version they wanted, but failed to announce it and ended up sticking a lot of consumers with the bill for the unrated version. Also their bad. Unlike you, I'm not leaping to any conclusions regarding which of the two scenarios actually took place, but either way...it was their bad.

Sure, a few weeks after the fact, Universal managed to get the theatrical cut out in it's OAR...but I don't think this equivilent to Universal saying "oops!" in any way excuses their initial fuck-up. It's just one more case of their ass-backwards business practices hurting their product and their customers.

-JP

Can you girls take the slap-fight to e-mail please? This shit is boring, repetetive, juvenile, pointless and dragging down the discussion at hand.

We're talking about the discussion at hand. Nobody is forcing you to read our posts.

-JP

Wow, 3 pages of childish arguing. I was deceived into thinking there would be worthwhile information in this thread...

I agree, their bad. I agreed with this sentiment several posts back. What I don't agree with is your sentiment that issuing a corrective release several weeks later is a bad thing.

I still fail to see how you think this second scenerio is even remotely possible. It doesn't make sense from a business perspective, there's no past precedent for this scenerio, and all indications are that it's not true.

You actually have. In your first real post about the subject, you compared it to Fox's SE releases, and implied you thought this release was deliberately delayed to enhance sales of the Unrated WS DVD

It doesn't excuse their initial mistake in not releasing it, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. It's a great deal better than what's happened to films like Dark Water, Darkness, Land Of The Dead, or The Devil's Rejects, all of which have yet to see an OAR Theatrical Cut R1 DVD.