This may have been discussed before but I am finding that the terms seem to have gotten overblown.

continued from 'Seed of Chucky - Unrated recalled"

Back in the 80's the term 'unrated' was exclusively denoted to films where they were either rated X for violence and/or sex that got clipped for an R-rating. Many horror films fell under the unrated term including high gloss Hollywood films like 'Basic Instinct' 'Jade' 'Sliver'. Now a days it seems like these multi terms applies to previousily rated NC-17 films, expanded TV edits, un-time restrained video versions, to random abandonement to the point where they seem interchangeable, when they are or should not be.
Anyway, just a small rant.

Marketing purposes

$$$

well sure, it's the money, but I feel that multi versions of the films sometimes doesn't always apply to a generic term or phrase like the one's I mentioned... everytime.

Blame VAN WILDER.

It doesn't always mean that it's a marketing gimmick. But now a days you can rest assure that 90% of the "Unrated" dvds would have easily still passed with their original rating if they had been resubmitted to the MPAA. That is the problem. the only thing that makes them unrated is that the studio didn't bother sending it in again knowing full well that shoppers will pick up an unrated version of a film because of that potential nude scene, extra blood and gore, etc.

Extended edition falls under that aswell. I tend to believe that Directors Cuts are often just that. The directors full version. Most times they cut off a bit here and there simply because of pacing and other reasons non-censorshiped. This doesn't mean that the film is any better. Just that it's a different cut of the film.

In the end, it really does come down to being marketing gimmicks to get buyers to buy a dvd. Often they release the regular version and a way to double dip they will release a unrated/extended/directors cut of the film to squeeze a few more bucks out of it.

it's also a guarentee that certain video chains will stock them, they are less likely to rent out a NC-17 film than one without a MPAA rating of equal content (i.e, Evil Dead, Zombie et al).

even though, evil dead 1 is technically NC-17 for substantial graphic horror violence and gore (imdb) my blockbuster still carries it (as well as most unrated dvds) with the exception of In the Cut, and the Dreamers.

Oh wait, you're serious?

New Line was the first studio to do "Unrated" releases on DVD to reside next to the "Rated" releases, however their DVDs included both versions (e.g. the Poision Ivy trilogy, Embrace of the Vampire, Body Shots, and so on and so on). HOWEVER, the FIRST studio to embrace the seperate Rated and Unrated releases was Universal with American Pie in December 1999. This followed suit a year later when they released Road Trip in a similar fashion.

Van Wilder didn't come to DVD until August 2002 (by the now defunct Artisan), almost three years after the practice was broke in.

The implication is obviously that a lackluster box office presumably leads to, perhaps, average at best sales, but can be rectified with increased sales from an "unrated" marketing plan. A poorman's box office analysis (box office mojo's worldwide gross - (est. production budget + est. marketing cost)) shows Van Wilder with $18 million net, Road Trip with $72 million, and American Pie with > $150 million. Add to this relative performance the apparent fact that Van Wilder closed after about six weeks, and it clearly can be qualified as a poor theatrical performer.

I tend to agree with you, but there are even exceptions where "director's cut" is just a marketing term. For instance, Ridley Scott's "Alien"...

Also, there are gray areas; Oliver Stone and Michael Mann both re-edit many of their movies for video release, and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to the changes they make (with a few exceptions, at least with Stone; I know 'Natural Born Killers' was cut for ratings, for instance). Which cut of 'Any Given Sunday' or 'Ali' is preferable? Can anybody really tell the difference without comparing them side by side?

Bottom line, if you're obsessive, buy 'em all; but if you're only interested in alternate cuts which exist for a reason (studio interference like 'Brazil', directors who feel that audiences can handle longer movies at home than in theaters like Peter Jackson and James Cameron, scenes cut because of potential libel lawsuits like 'Nixon', etc.), you'll have to do a bit more research. Most of them are just putting deleted scenes back into the movie because marketing believes (probably with reason) that more people will buy an alternate cut of a movie than a disc packed with deleted scenes of the same movie. Especially if it's "unrated".

That's right, and plus, if they resubmit it to the MPAA, they would have to pay the viewing fee again, but this way they save that money. So it's a win-win situation for the studios.

i have the digital press kit and it shows a scene with a neck breaking,ill add pictures when my dvd rom begins working again,so maybe that can be added to pump up the rating to r?

Well, you should be pleased about this this:
http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=3501

Exactly.

Besides the American Pie trilogy, Road Trip, and Old School; most of the Rated/Unrated releases for films were for those that (at best) underpreformed at the box office as the studio is trying to make more money for it's "flop."

Some examples:

The Girl Next Door made less than $15 million during it's theatrical release. Came out four months later in seperate rated and unrated versions. Unrated contains alternate takes of scenes with more nudity (or explicit footage of porno footage) and some dialog additions.

Harold and Kumar made less than $20 million during it's theatrical release. Came out five months later in seperate rated and unrated versions. Unrated contains less than a minute of additional footage containing more nudity.

Eurotrip made less than $30 million during it's theatrical release. Came out four months later in seperate rated and unrated versions. Unrated contains a minute of additional footage with more nudity.

Nobody saw Soul Plane, but it was on DVD a few months later in seperate rated and unrated versions. Since nobody saw it, nobody can tell you what's the difference.

And so on and so on. Same applies to all the "sex" comedies, such as Club Dread, Boat Trip, and etc. Nothing "really" to make the film NC-17 material.

With some mainstream "Unrated" releases, like the remake of Dawn of the Dead, The Chronicles of Riddick, True Romance, etc. are actual director's cuts and aren't just a gimmick.

Then there are films that are actually "Unrated" because they skipped the MPAA.

So, how is it wrong to "blame VAN WILDER"? According to Video Business, it was one of the 50 best selling and most rented dvds of 2002, but not even one of the top 100 films in terms of domestic box office gross. The unrated version sold on the order of 3-6 times the rated, indicating that the unrated release likely contributed to its overperformance.

American Pie, American Pie 2, and Road Trip were all released prior to Van Wilder's release. If SOMEONE is going to BLAME anything for this whole unrated "gimmick," it would be with Universal. American Pie was already a $100 million plus franchise prior to it's initial DVD release. The moment it hit DVD, the thing sold huge, especially the unrated version. AND that was before video stores and stores like Wal-Mart and Target wouldn't even carry unrated releases of mainstream films.

Road Trip sold huge as did American Pie 2.

Artisan saw that Van Wilder didn't do well in theaters (despite making a profit since the film only cost $5 million to make) and saw that Universal did wonders by releasing their teen sex comedies on DVD in unrated form, so why not follow suit?

Van Wilder was just recreating a gimmick to get more people to buy the DVD.

You can't exactly say that Van Wilder made a profit, since it also seemingly cost something like $15 million to market. Given that studios don't see 100% of the gross revenues, there's quite a lack of certainty.

Regardless, the overhype can be more closely related to the success of poor box office performers (Van Wilder), than relative blockbusters. Simply tracing the genesis of the gimmick fails to consider context, so much that I could just as well point to the apparent success of different Highlander cuts on vhs as the impetus behind this overhype. With good box office performers, the alternate cut brings the addition of a new experience to the built in consumer audience.

Van Wilder made $25 million in the box office.
It cost $5 million to make.
It cost $15 million to advertise.

That's $5 million profit. It's not a huge profit, but it's a profit nevertheless.

You have no idea how studios (and theaters) make their money, do you?

for the most part, i see these "directors cut" versions as being the original versions you were supposed to see if A- the MPAA werent bitches and B- the studios werent *******. for awhile now, theatrical versions have just been watered down previews for the DVD. a movie like the grudge for example, its pretty obvious you can see the trimmings that were made to get the PG-13 and gain a larger audience, therefore more money. but the dvd version, if released uncut, i believe is the real version. maybe some studios should try a "THE REAL MOVIE THAT WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU BUT FOR VARIOUS REASONS COULDNT, I HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE PREVIEW IN THE THEATER, NOW HERE IS THE REAL ONE"

of course there are instances where any crap deleted scenes are thrown in just so they can add that unrated version banner on it, but i definitely think the true versions are the ones generally released on DVD, and theatrical versions are the previews, tainted by test audiences, and other outside forces that make films the watered down crap they are today.

So... You think Extended Editions of LOTR are the "One and only true movie" ?

In general, it's a marketing gimmick. Some films include actual useful additions to the film, or extra content that actual warrants a higher rating. LoTR being the best example, but something like Riddick was a welcome improvement in my opinion.

This trend would bother me, but fortunately I take the time (like 2 minutes) to read about a dvd before I buy it. That way, I know what I'm getting. That and 98% of DVDs out there don't do this anyway. I guess I'd be bothered by such marketing tactics, but it's not like it's something new. Marketing people have been using such tactics since marketing came into existance. If one just takes the time to know what they're buying, then all this jazz isn't really a problem.