Movies are Raunchier and more Violent on DVD than at the Cinema - Official!

Steve Christou · 08-14-2003, 02:11 PM

This is an interesting report from USA Today...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...today/11589553

"In the new film American Wedding, for example, two strippers at a bachelor party one dressed skimpily as a maid, another as a police officer with a whip tie up one young man and persuade another to cover his body with chocolate syrup, supposedly to lick it off him. Though there's some frontal nudity, the scene is interrupted when the intended groom arrives with in-laws in tow.
On the set, however, the filming continued, long enough to add 10 minutes of racier action to the DVD."

"This year for the first time, movie fans will spend more on DVDs than on tickets at the box office."

PaulP · 08-14-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

"This year for the first time, movie fans will spend more on DVDs than on tickets at the box office."

I've been doing that since 1999.

Mark Bendiksen · 08-14-2003, 02:41 PM

Well, in the case of American Wedding, I can honestly say that I'm not avoiding seeing it during its theatrical run because of the extra DVD footage. I'm avoiding seeing it because it's crap, IMHO.

Nevertheless, the article does make a valid point. If a film with artistic merit gets stifled by the MPAA and the director is forced to compromise his vision for the theatrical release then I'm very inclined to wait for the "Unrated" DVD to see what the filmmaker originally intended. An example would be Storytelling, one of the most interesting movies I ever truly disliked. However, I did respect director Todd Solondz for doing the best he could given the situation with the MPAA. I would not, however, place into this category movies that add extra salacious crap after the fact for the sole reason of boosting DVD sales. Most of the films mentioned in that USA Today article fall into this category, in my opinion.

Jesse Skeen · 08-14-2003, 04:41 PM

And again, they ignore the capabilities of DVD to put MULTIPLE versions of a movie on ONE disc- I bought the rated version of American Pie because that's the version that was released in theaters (if they REALLY wanted the unrated cut, they could have released it unrated or with an NC-17 rating and said to hell with whoever doesn't like it- Universal released the first-ever NC-17 rated movie after all, and "Showgirls" got a fairly wide theatrical release with that rating), but I did borrow a friend's unrated version just to see what was changed (differences are very minor except for the 'pie scene'.) They could have put BOTH versions on one disc, then put out a stripped-down disc for the Blockbusters of the world who still wouldn't carry it.
Whichever version was released in theaters should stand as the 'official' version, but they should still exploit the capabilities of DVD to show alternate versions as well, so we can see what might have been.

Adam Lenhardt · 08-15-2003, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Well, in the case of American Wedding, I can honestly say that I'm not avoiding seeing it during its theatrical run because of the extra DVD footage. I'm avoiding seeing it because it's crap, IMHO.

Out of curiosity, speaking as someone who saw the film and thought it was quite decent, my favorite of the series even: If you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know it's crap?

**HTF Ads**

Malcolm R · 08-15-2003, 12:15 AM

Nevertheless, the article does make a valid point. If a film with artistic merit gets stifled by the MPAA and the director is forced to compromise his vision for the theatrical release then I'm very inclined to wait for the "Unrated" DVD to see what the filmmaker originally intended.

But how are we to know if it's truly "the Director's vision" or if they're merely adding extra titillating footage to pump sales of the DVD?

If you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know it's crap?

Perhaps he's psychic!

I enjoyed it, as well.

Though I was hoping for an extension of the final scene...

Spoiler:

.

Jon Robertson · 08-15-2003, 04:37 AM

Quote:

...if they REALLY wanted the unrated cut, they could have released it unrated or with an NC-17 rating and said to hell with whoever doesn't like it...Whichever version was released in theaters should stand as the 'official' version

Your idealism is admirable, but unfeasible for a whole host of reasons.

Mainstream audiences stay away in droves from anything with an NC-17 rating - it has a cultural stigma attached, meaning for most people they're the kind of movies that lone gentlemen in long overcoats attend. Of course, this is absurd, but try telling that to the vast majority of movie-going America. Knowing the instant recoil factor attached to NC-17 material, would you honestly want to slap that rating on a raunchy if rather sweet-natured movie like American Pie?

Among its countless virtues, DVD is a godsend to the film lover because it gives filmmakers, for whatever reason - politics, ratings, length issues, etc. - the chance to get their preferred version of the film out there for all time, long after it's faded from the local multiplexes.

Mark Bendiksen · 08-15-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

If you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know it's crap?

Okay; I figured someone would call me on that. I don't know it's crap. I'm simply making an educated guess based on some independent research. Perhaps I'll rent it when it's released on DVD to find out if the outcome of my research was correct.

Quote:

But how are we to know if it's truly "the Director's vision" or if they're merely adding extra titillating footage to pump sales of the DVD?

Well, that has to be done by finding out the history of the movie. Take my example of Storytelling. From articles I've read, I know that Todd Solondz had to change his original vision of the film to get an R rating. Therefore, I know that the unrated version is what he ORIGINALLY wanted audiences to see. For some films, it's more difficult to tell, I admit, but quite often you can do a few searches on the web and get a pretty good idea of who was behind the unrated version of the DVD, the studio or the director.

Russell G · 08-15-2003, 11:29 AM

I'd recommend anyone wanting to see a director flip off the MPAA to check out "Storytelling", as rather than cut the film differently, he stuck giant orange censor boxes on any offending footage. I don't know about the USA, but in Canada you can watch both versions on the one disk, selecting the preferred version at the start.

I would not recommend the film though, as an enjoyable thrill ride. It is the only purchase that I have pawned (other than double dips). It's not necessarily bad per say, just not good enough that I would want to watch it again. I did however like Happiness, which I would consider to be a more difficult film by the same director.

I'm all for racier cuts if they are the directors wishes , but allot of these comedies seem to be unrated just for the boobie factors (not that I'm totally complaining!)

TommyT · 08-15-2003, 12:35 PM

Mainstream audiences stay away in droves from anything with an NC-17 rating - it has a cultural stigma attached, meaning for most people they're the kind of movies that lone gentlemen in long overcoats attend. Of course, this is absurd, but try telling that to the vast majority of movie-going America.

[rant]VERY TRUE!![/rant]

The general moviegoing public (GMP) has NO problem attending an R or PG13 film that has some (or many) disgusting moments (coprophagy in Austin Powers 2, semen drinking in Am Pie) BUT when the general public, moral majority groups, self-serving politicians, religious groups, etc, see that there's an NC17 attached to a film they go berserk & start protesting, picketing & greedily seeking their 15 mins of fame on the local news, all in an attempt to prevent what might be a great film from being shown. Doesn't only happen with the NC rating; films that are Unrated (not submitted to the Ratings Board) also get the shaft. This is one of many reasons why the ratings syst DOES NOT WORK. It's become a major deciding factor in the earnings potential of a film.

If you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know it's crap?

You know, I HATE it when people tell me this, it just seems like such a cop out, more so than saying myself that I won't see a film because I think it's crap. These days, with studios frivolously spending money on garbage like Lizzy MacGuire films, From Justin to Kelly, Glitter, Enough, AND spending millions on ad campaigns splashed everywhere, it's not hard to figure out what I know I'll like, what I know I won't like, & what I think will give me leprosy if I see it. There is no hard n' fast or general rule for intuiting what's good vs. what's bad but after critiquing films for several years now & reading what reputable critics have to say, I feel I've developed a pretty good radar for this. Last year I was really looking forward to Spiderman. I read Ebert's negative review but went anyway & I thought the film was boring.

Universal released the first-ever NC-17 rated movie after all, and "Showgirls" got a fairly wide theatrical release with that rating

Yep, Showgirls did get a fairly wide release, but it tanked! Also, Paul Verhoeven stated he'd never work with Joe Eszterhas again. Of course, Verhoeven also said it was because of Eszterhas' rampant misogyny, and by that time the film was already done!

The film that Universal released was Henry & June & it was an excellent film. I last saw it almost 10 yrs ago & I couldn't see one moment that would qualify it for an NC rating. Of course, if I had kids I probably wouldn't want them to see it, mostly because they wouldn't have the maturity to understand the sexual content.