Latest Entertainment News Headlines

C'mon Hollywood #140

11.29.2007

... Stop with the Director’s/Extended/Unrated cuts of films!
by Sturdy

Virtually every big DVD release these days has an alternate cut of the film available. Sometimes they label these “Director’s cuts” which implies this was the version of the film the director would have liked to release in the theaters, but couldn’t for whatever reason. Other times they call it an “Extended cut” which implies we’re getting additional, exclusive footage put back in the film for whatever reason. Then there’s the “Unrated edition” which simply means it hasn’t been rated by the MPAA, despite what the advertisements try to make you believe.

There are many annoying things about these alternate cuts of the film, but the biggest question I have is; why didn’t we get this version to begin with? If this is the “Director’s cut”, then why didn’t the director do it right the first time? If studios are pushing for a certain rating, as in the case with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, then the studios need to back off that demand. I can’t imagine a movie like DIE HARD is going to benefit that much from a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R rating. Granted the fourth one was more successful than the other sequels, but that probably had more to do with the fact it was a better film, not because of the rating. The studios need to let the directors have their creative freedom. If they’re cut gets an R rating, then let it be.


Bruce should have yelled “motherfu****” the first time. Period.

The extended and unrated cuts are also very annoying. Usually, the only thing being extended is the audience’s patience. It’s clear with films like THE BOURNE IDENTITY that these “extended” cuts are merely a ploy to get customers to buy the same film twice. The “unrated” cuts are just as bad. Let’s review what “unrated” actually means. It means the film wasn’t submitted to the MPAA for rating. That means that you could take a five second clip of leaves blowing in the wind, splice it in the middle of I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY and call it “unrated”. Of course, you’d sell the “unrated” label hard by showing a big picture of Jessica Biel with the word “unrated” across her chest. How many films have done crap like this? How many of us bought the “unrated” version of MR. AND MRS. SMITH hoping to see more of Brad Pitt…err…Angelina jolie?


Ahh…what could have been.

The guys whose films have received the biggest shaft out of this whole “extended/unrated cut” deal, are the films of Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow. I’m not going to question their comedic genius because every movie they’ve touched recently has been hilarious, but the extended/unrated cuts of all of their films have actually hindered the film. I can’t believe the extended/unrated version is what they really wanted. I get frustrated with them because I see a movie like KNOCKED UP at the theater and laugh my ass off. Then I show it to my friends on DVD and they give me a big “it was funny, but way too long”. I thought it was a little long originally and there was no need for even more footage to be put in.


It was still funny, just a little too long.

So c’mon Hollywood, drop the extended/unrated/director’s cut versions of films. If the director wants a certain cut of the film, let them have it. Don’t sell us lame extended/unrated versions just to milk a little more money out of us. If you have additional footage, show it in deleted scenes, not cut back into the movie. Finally, if you absolutely HAVE to give us an extended/unrated cut of a film, at least give us the original cut on the same disc.

Tags: Hollywood

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

3:35PM on 01/08/2008

i agree

i like watching all the extended scenes and cuts sometimes. but they should stick with leaving them out of the movie and putting them as extras.
that same thing happened to me with Knocked Up and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. I told my roommates how great they were and then when we watched them on DVD it was different then what I saw in the theatre (and in Lock Stock's case, what I'd seen on the VHS recording I had before I got it on DVD) and it ruined it. I'd much rather of had the
i like watching all the extended scenes and cuts sometimes. but they should stick with leaving them out of the movie and putting them as extras.
that same thing happened to me with Knocked Up and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. I told my roommates how great they were and then when we watched them on DVD it was different then what I saw in the theatre (and in Lock Stock's case, what I'd seen on the VHS recording I had before I got it on DVD) and it ruined it. I'd much rather of had the theatrical version play and then be able to choose to wach the extended scenes or what have you, later. Most of the time the extended scenes all suck. They're usually taken out of the film for a reason.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
4:50AM on 12/10/2007

Lame part 2

Yes, that's what every movie fan hates. More footage or alternate takes on films them enjoy. The originals are always released at the same time. Generally I prefer the originals (like Miami Vice, but not 40 Year Old Virgin where I actually loved the new stuff), but the original is canon. Yes, it is a ploy to get more money from us. It is the movie BUSINESS. When I don't want something, I simply don't buy it. There! Problem solved!
Yes, that's what every movie fan hates. More footage or alternate takes on films them enjoy. The originals are always released at the same time. Generally I prefer the originals (like Miami Vice, but not 40 Year Old Virgin where I actually loved the new stuff), but the original is canon. Yes, it is a ploy to get more money from us. It is the movie BUSINESS. When I don't want something, I simply don't buy it. There! Problem solved!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
8:17AM on 12/07/2007

Dumb article

Explain to me how you can even use these two statements in the same article; make up your mind!

1: "There are many annoying things about these alternate cuts of the film, but the biggest question I have is; why didn’t we get this version to begin with?"

2: "The extended and unrated cuts are also very annoying. Usually, the only thing being extended is the audience’s patience."

Dude, if you just want to buy the theatrical release, then that's all you have to do. Don't go whining about
Explain to me how you can even use these two statements in the same article; make up your mind!

1: "There are many annoying things about these alternate cuts of the film, but the biggest question I have is; why didn’t we get this version to begin with?"

2: "The extended and unrated cuts are also very annoying. Usually, the only thing being extended is the audience’s patience."

Dude, if you just want to buy the theatrical release, then that's all you have to do. Don't go whining about there being too many options, and you don't think other people should have the RIGHT to pick which version they want to get.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
12:14PM on 12/02/2007

Sturdy

I hear you, but your point is flawed for two reasons. 1) because you said the latest Die Hard is a better film than the others....and that is not true. Especially the first one. and 2) infation. Take inflation into account, and then tell us which Die Hard movie made more money. My guess is Die Hard 2 or 3. Pure profit - that would have to be Die Hard 1. If memory serves, it cost like $30 million and made like $85 million
I hear you, but your point is flawed for two reasons. 1) because you said the latest Die Hard is a better film than the others....and that is not true. Especially the first one. and 2) infation. Take inflation into account, and then tell us which Die Hard movie made more money. My guess is Die Hard 2 or 3. Pure profit - that would have to be Die Hard 1. If memory serves, it cost like $30 million and made like $85 million
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
12:13PM on 12/02/2007

Sturdy

I hear you, but your point is flawed for two reasons. 1) because you said the latest Die Hard is a better film than the others....and that is not true. Especially the first one. and 2) infation. Take inflation into account, and then tell us which Die Hard movie made more money. My guess is Die Hard 2 or 3. Pure profit - that would have to be Die Hard 1. If memory serves, it cost like $30 million and made like $85 million
I hear you, but your point is flawed for two reasons. 1) because you said the latest Die Hard is a better film than the others....and that is not true. Especially the first one. and 2) infation. Take inflation into account, and then tell us which Die Hard movie made more money. My guess is Die Hard 2 or 3. Pure profit - that would have to be Die Hard 1. If memory serves, it cost like $30 million and made like $85 million
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:18PM on 11/29/2007

cool

it's rare that a film will actually benefit from an uncut version . lotd was an example of a film that was pretty much a whole other experience in it's unrated form , and it wasn't just marketing hype to get you too buy , the thing was way brutal unrated .


i blame the whole mpaa and the relationship they have with the theaters . most theater owners will not carry an unrated or nc 17 film , so a director will cut like a madman in order to get at least an r rating . there is some politics
it's rare that a film will actually benefit from an uncut version . lotd was an example of a film that was pretty much a whole other experience in it's unrated form , and it wasn't just marketing hype to get you too buy , the thing was way brutal unrated .


i blame the whole mpaa and the relationship they have with the theaters . most theater owners will not carry an unrated or nc 17 film , so a director will cut like a madman in order to get at least an r rating . there is some politics at play here also , it seems , there are some films that i feel should have received a higher rating , but they didn't , and then there were some films that i felt should have received the family friendly pg 13 but received an r . the way the mpaa rates films is inconsistent , who the hell are these people anyway , it's like some secret society or something , in my opinion , there time , and signifigance has passed , but it's somewhat akin to a tradition , and people just accept their shadowy existence . there is too much potential for bribery and extortion when it comes to this organization , they wield way too much power with regards to the distribution of film in theaters .


just do away with this nonsensical , out of date , executive arm of the motion picture industry , films would come out to market faster , director's would have more freedom , and one leg of the bribery and corruption chain would be rendered moot .


let the theater owners see the films and let Them make the decision what films they want to carry . and let them place warnings about a particular film's content , so as to avoid any surprises , this would place the decision in the parent's and people's hands what films they choose to see , not the mpaa . people can make informed decisions if given the proper amount of information . you know a film called the care bears take manhattan will most likely be all age appropriate but a film such as zombie hookers take over the world prob wouldn't be something little jimmy should be watching . a content description would be in place to " warn " people anyway .

at the very least , i always wondered why theaters won't carry unrated films , i want to see the freakin film unrated in all it's glory , i'm sick of watching a film in the theater knowing full well , in the back of my mind , that an uncut dvd will be out 3 or so months from that time , i feel ripped off , just give me the freakin proper version in the theaters , that's where i want to see it . why can't the studios offer multiple versions in the theaters , an r and unrated or nc 17 version , or why can't they grow some balls and carry the films they want . they can have midnite showings if they feel kids might sneak in to an unrated offering , this would cut down on that . at least try it and see what happens . this nonsense goes back to the 70s , when porn was big in the cinema , theater operators are afraid they may attract the " wrong " crowd , if they start carrying unrated or nc 17 films . well , i'm not saying carry porn , but again , why don't the individual theater owners make the decision about what to carry without the mpaa bias involved in the equation .


freak it , the whole thing is a joke , the most daring work is now being done by independents and posted on the internet , the ones who are free from the mpaa's influence . the theater experience has become a family friendly disney ride without the thrills . yes , there are some exceptions , but for the most part , studio films have been emasculated to the point of frustration , where the hell can adults enjoy themselves a good unrated flick these days , only in a handful of low rent theaters with bad sound , like the days when times square was a cesspit . i want to be able to go to the local theater and get my fix dammit , but no , they might offend the family crowd .

oh right , and most director's and extended cuts of films aren't worth the " plastic " they are burned on , just a bunch of inconsequential scenes that add nothing except more money to the dvd in question .
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:37PM on 11/29/2007
I agree with most of what you say, the Unrated Editions particularly annoy me, but I like the extended editions a lot if they are done right. I absolutely love the extended LOTRs and King Kong. But it does suck with all of teh Director's cuts and different versions being marketed, like Star Wars and Blade Runner.
I agree with most of what you say, the Unrated Editions particularly annoy me, but I like the extended editions a lot if they are done right. I absolutely love the extended LOTRs and King Kong. But it does suck with all of teh Director's cuts and different versions being marketed, like Star Wars and Blade Runner.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:18PM on 11/29/2007

BRAVO

Yeah, this whole 'unrated DVD' thing is just a marketing scheme.
Yeah, this whole 'unrated DVD' thing is just a marketing scheme.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:35PM on 11/29/2007
*applause*

Couldn't have said it better myself.
*applause*

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:35AM on 11/29/2007
Agreed. Sometimes rental companies (Blockbuster, Netflix, etc.) ONLY offer the unrated version of movies, as I found out when I rented "Talladega Nights." I really preferred the theatrical cut, which was a tad too long to begin with, but the "unrated" DVD was waaaay too long. Worst of all, they completely replaced one of my favorite lines of the movie, when Jean Girard (in the theatrical cut) says "My husband Gregory and I only want that which every other couple wants... to retire to Stockholm
Agreed. Sometimes rental companies (Blockbuster, Netflix, etc.) ONLY offer the unrated version of movies, as I found out when I rented "Talladega Nights." I really preferred the theatrical cut, which was a tad too long to begin with, but the "unrated" DVD was waaaay too long. Worst of all, they completely replaced one of my favorite lines of the movie, when Jean Girard (in the theatrical cut) says "My husband Gregory and I only want that which every other couple wants... to retire to Stockholm and create a currency for dogs and cats to use" with some other line that just wasn't quite as funny.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:18AM on 11/29/2007
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
10:02AM on 11/29/2007
I would have to agree with you on this for just about all the movies out there. Yet, you have to give credit to how much better the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was than the original cut.
I would have to agree with you on this for just about all the movies out there. Yet, you have to give credit to how much better the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was than the original cut.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:43AM on 11/29/2007
Nice and very true article. But there are 2 obvious reasons for alternate versions: money from DVD release and opportunity for directors to release their version unrated or as it should be. Anyway, I'm for releasing two versions in same edition, or on same dvd.
Nice and very true article. But there are 2 obvious reasons for alternate versions: money from DVD release and opportunity for directors to release their version unrated or as it should be. Anyway, I'm for releasing two versions in same edition, or on same dvd.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
8:08AM on 11/29/2007
It is very true and annoying. But I just wanted to point out when they release comedies with the unrated version...they do release the theatrical version as well.
It is very true and annoying. But I just wanted to point out when they release comedies with the unrated version...they do release the theatrical version as well.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting

Movie Hottie Of The Week

More