Blu-ray Review HTF Blu-ray Review: SCREAM (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by cafink

Didn't Lionsgate's Saw Blu-ray list the R-rated version on the packaging but actually contain the unrated cut?

I didn't review Saw and have never seen the Blu-ray. But I confirmed which cut of Scream was on the disc even before writing the review (see the link above).

 

[cafink]

Yeah, but that thread hasn't seen a post in over a week and is no longer on the front page. In your review, you mention that it's the R-rated cut, but make no special note of how you ascertained that. Lots of DVDs and Blu-rays have incorrect specs listed on the case, and Lionsgate has made the "advertised-as-R-rated-but-really-unrated" error specifically before, so I think a reader could be forgiven for thinking there's a chance the same might have happened here.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by cafink

Yeah, but that thread hasn't seen a post in over a week and is no longer on the front page. In your review, you mention that it's the R-rated cut, but make no special note of how you ascertained that. Lots of DVDs and Blu-rays have incorrect specs listed on the case, and Lionsgate has made the "advertised-as-R-rated-but-really-unrated" error specifically before, so I think a reader could be forgiven for thinking there's a chance the same might have happened here.

I don't think Michael has stated anything in which a reader has to be forgiven for asking a simple question.








Crawdaddy

 

[cafink]

By "forgiven," I mean, "it's understandable that one would think that, even though he is wrong to do so."

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by cafink

In your review, you mention that it's the R-rated cut, but make no special note of how you ascertained that.

I didn't? Would it help if the review carried the following descriptor:

Statements made herein, and not otherwise attributed to outside sources or ascribable to general knowledge, have been ascertained by watching the disc.

Originally Posted by cafink

By "forgiven," I mean, "it's understandable that one would think that, even though he is wrong to do so."

It would be "understandable" if this discussion were based on "specs listed on the case" or if there were other sources indicating that the disc contained the unrated cut. But this is a review, based on actual viewing, not specs, and I'm not aware of anyone out there who's watched the disc and claimed that it contains a director's or unrated cut (which hasn't been seen on U.S. home video since LD).

Have you seen the disc? Any thoughts about the movie?

 

[cafink]

HTF reviews have had incorrect specs listed before, the result of a copy-and-paste errors and the like. So I really don't think it's unreasonable to think that an error listed on the packaging might have found its way into the specs of an HTF review. Especially in a case like this, when simply watching the disc would not have provided the information necessary to correct such an error. Unlike running time, aspect ratio, or sound format, there's nothing intrinsic to the movie that would tell the viewer he's watching the R-rated cut instead of the unrated one. If the reviewer wasn't familiar with the title already, he'd have no way of knowing, and he'd likely just copy the "R-rated" descriptor from the back of the case without realizing it was in error. Surely this is not an outlandish possibility?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Don't let me jump in and ruin all the fun here, but FWIW, IIRC, judging by Michael's wording (and my impressions/understanding of how he does things), I assumed Michael knew what to look for and did the needed check to determine that this is the (slightly) cut version. OTOH, I can certainly also see what Carl is saying and don't think that perspective is unreasonable either.


Communications on the net can easily be misunderstood/mishandled/etc. -- and it's not necessarily any one particular person's fault in very many cases. Probably best to approach it w/ understanding and acceptance of that...


_Man_

 

[Jason_V]

On a completely different note, Biography ran a two hour special on Scream all night last night. I had the first 90 minutes on and it really made me want to watch the movie again. I didn't realize Kevin Williamson was around 25 when he wrote the script or that Wes Craven declined to direct a few times. Fun stuff.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

What??? How come we didn't get that 2-hour special included on this release???


_Man_

 

[Michael Reuben]

Carl, I know how much you enjoy speculation, but I prefer to deal with the real and specific:

Originally Posted by cafink

Assuming there isn't a rights issue, I wouldn't be surprised to see it included with a future box set, after the release of Scream 4.

 

[cafink]

It airs several times next week: http://www.biography.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=17164414


This is the first I've heard of if, but I will definitely check it out when it re-airs next week. Scream was the second DVD I ever got, so I ended up watching it a lot when DVD in general was still new to me, and I have lots of fond memories of doing so. I look forward to learning more about it.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

If one actually reads this review, it indicates the reviewer's familiarity not only with prior versions, but also Craven's director's cut. So, here, yes, it is an outlandish possibility.

"The director's cut has even more blood" hardly indicates an intimate familiarity with the differences between the two versions, especially in the case of Scream, where those differences are quite minimal. It having been several years since I've sat down and watched the movie, I'm not even sure I would have been able to pick out which version I was watching. Maybe you're more familiar with Scream than I am. But I don't understand why you seem to have taken such great offense at the mere suggestion that an innocent error could have found its way into your review. No one has even suggested that you actually made an error.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by cafink


Please excuse me now, but I'm going to go watch a disc, then write about it.


[COLOR= #d3d3d3]Edited to answer question asked in post 37.[/COLOR]

 

[cafink]

Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Reuben


Please excuse me now, but I'm going to go watch a disc, then write about it.



Please forgive me for being interested in different aspects of movies and DVDs than you. You're right: I do happen to think that alternate versions, aspect ratios, and the like are interesting. That's why I love sites like [url=http://movie-censorship.com/]Movie-Censorship.com, DVDBeaver, and Rewind. I think it's fun to make note of such things and discuss them. I guess that sort of thing could be considered "minutia," but so what? I would expect that on the HTF, of all places, one would be able to discuss movie minutia with other like-minded fans.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Are we really discussing the movie or just arguing about getting the last word in?






Crawdaddy

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

My copy of Scream arrived from Amazon today - I am looking forward to retiring my DVD copy from waaaaaaay back when. I think it was the first or second DVD I ever bought. I still had a 32 inch CRT at the time and was uninformed about the need to be enhanced for widescreen TVs.


But here we are, over a decade since I picked it up on DVD, with a spanking new HD version to enjoy. One day I hope they will release a newer transfer with the DC, but this is the version I enjoyed so much 15 years ago so I am happy to enjoy it again.


Thanks again for the review, Michael!

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

Are we really discussing the movie or just arguing about getting the last word in?


Crawdaddy

Sorry. I admit I find it difficult to keep quiet when I'm told that my posts don't contribute anything to the conversation, and am accused of consistently making worthless posts. I honestly thought that "Lionsgate has previously released DVDs labeled as R-rated but containing the unrated version, but didn't do so in this case" (which is all I said in my first few posts) was a worthwhile contribution. I was responding to a specific question posed by another forum-goer. I don't understand what I did to raise Michael's ire so. I get that he doesn't enjoy my contributions (or lack thereof) to the HTF. I feel the same way about several others whose posts I consistently find annoying, but I generally prefer to simply ignore them.


Please, someone tell me specifically what I did wrong so I can avoid it in the future. I clearly lack the proper perspective, because I just re-read everything I've said in this thread, and it all still seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially prior to post #30 when Michael became especially defensive.