LAND OF THE DEAD dvd (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Obviously every man makes his own decision on what to buy or not to buy but as I (and Jesse) said it seems that the unrated version is the 'real' cut in mind of the artist so I'm not concerned what they do with a version that even the people behind the movie don't care about.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

That's just about the silliest thing I've ever heard. And that's ANOTHER person's opinion.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

So, is this what this threads going to be about now? Bitching at me? It's not silly to me, its very serious in fact, a major dvd release isn't getting an OAR edition...and your okay with that!?

I do care about the theatrical cut, even if the filmmaker's don't. No theatrical cut in it's OAR = No sale of either edition for me, please respect that.

Getting back on topic, Land of the Dead is coming out on dvd, let's talk about that for a while shall we?

 

[Drew Reiber]

George A. Romero, the creator/writer/director of the film, would disagree with you. In fact, he's been making a point about what the difference between the two cuts would be for months.

Unlike the ones found on the Dawn Ultimate edition from Anchor Bay, there is no real signifigance between the two cuts of Land. The only difference between the theatrical cut and the unrated cut is that he was forced to remove some scenes for pacing and the MPAA. It's not just 4 extra minutes of dialogue and violence, but the horrible CGI people have been removed from the gore sequences that are already there.

The disrespect to the film or the people involved is totally an invention on your part. I'm not disputing that you want a stripped down version of the movie for your own purposes, but financially and creatively it's common sense. Why put any emphasis on a product to your consumer base if, by your own admission, it's a flawed one. Even extended branching would prove useless, because of the visual obstacles that must be removed from the R cut. Printing an entire extra disc, or sacrificing data space for another cut is just senselessly foolish.

They've put plenty of thought into their fanbase, and as I'm definitely part of it myself, I can attest to a complete disinterest in spending $10 or more for that other version of the movie. And even though you've proved me wrong on this, I never guessed anyone would compare the experience of the two versions to the Dawn edits, which differ by 15-20 minutes at a time and contain completely alternate sequences, shots and music.

Now that we've established that you have your opinion, I want to point out that you shouldn't assume to know that of others. Wanting that version is not about being a horror fan, but being a completist. They are completely individual concerns that should hardly effect the transfer decisions made regarding mainstream DVD consumers. If some fans are truly so fickle as to completely reject their product because they can't get a censored version cut by an additional 4 minutes, then I truly doubt that they want to pander to them at all.

 

[Drew Reiber]

Me too. This passive aggressiveness towards the studio is only going to hurt the artists.

It's driving me nuts that they haven't announced the extras yet. I'm hoping for a commentary with Romero and Greg Nicotero (sfx & second unit), theatrical trailer, and that IFC featurette by Roy Frumkes. The movie didn't do great domestically, so my hopes are based on what I would assume to be bare minimum. Anything beyond that would be a wonderful bonus.

 

[Damin J Toell]

While I hope that the Frumkes piece from IFC is included, I hope that's only the tip of the iceberg. There's no way that Frumkes went to the set and only filmed 30 minutes of footage, most of it dedicated to Tom Savini's cameo. I'd be shocked if there isn't a much bigger documentary waiting for us (even if it's still unfinished; Frumkes is notoriously methodical).

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Drew,
i'm not boycotting the release based on particular edits of the film, that means nothing to me, i'm doing it purely for reasons of OAR.

So, the question becomes, and this is going to open up a whole pandora's box of debate I can see it coming already, which AR does Romero prefer for the film, 1.33:1 or it's theatrical one?

He couldn't have wanted 1.33:1 or else the director's cut would be in that AR also since it's supposed to be his definitive version. No, these two releases, with regard to the AR's and NOT the edits, are a contradiction, and they don't make any sense.

As simply as I can put it, the theatrical version isn't going to be presented on dvd correctly, and so I will do what countless others have been doing for a long time here at HTF, I will refuse to buy it, and because this release is a rather significant one, i'm angry at the studio for doing this, thus I won't buy either.

The best way to get a point across with a studio is to hit them in the pocket. In fact, if a moderator put's the word's 'LAND OF THE DEAD' Theatrical cut to be FULL SCREEN ONLY!' in the topic header of this thread, watch how many OAR and film purists here come to aid me in this endeavor.

 

[GuruAskew]

I'm not boycotting any release, I'll gladly buy the unrated edition, I just think it would be better if the theatrical cut of the film was available in it's original aspect ratio. If both the uncut and theatrical versions were available on the same disc I would undoubtedly watch them both, but I have to be honest and say that I would probably go with only the unrated edition even if the theatrical OAR edition was available seperately. Since it's only available in MAR it's a non-issue, but Universal is only limiting the audience of the film by not releasing the theatrical cut in it's OAR, I know some people would buy both.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Don't kid yourself. Studios have been doing MAR theatrical DVDs and OAR unrated DVDs for quite a while now (e.g., Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, Anchorman, The Ring 2, Old School), and though the reaction has been negative by some, it has been extremely mild. Do you remember any mass boycotts of the any the discs I listed? Didn't happen.

The fullscreen rated version of Land of the Dead (as with the other titles I mentioned) is designed solely for rental and retail chains that won't carry unrated material. It is not the main release. It is a supplemental release for markets that the main release cannot reach.

DJ

 

[John C]

Personally, I only want the director's cuts of any film I like on DVD. By director's cuts I mean the director's ORIGINAL vision of the film. If they want to take out or alter footage the studio mandated they change, fine. The exception to that is when director's want to make their movies more PC 20 years later and make changes to reflect their new sensibilities (E.T. - walkie talkie shotguns - and Star Wars - Greedo shoots first).
With Land of the Dead I can appreciate someone wanting to see both the theatrical and director's cuts to note the differences in each. But the idea of not buying the director's real cut of the movie because you can't see a compromised "watered down" version of the film seems odd to me. Maybe we need multi disk sets of each film now? Workprint version with all footage, director's cut, theatrical cut, Dove Family approved version. Maybe Land of the Dead should become an ultimate Anchor Bay edition with 4 disks and cost $40 to buy?

 

[cafink]

I agree with John Williamson. While I am always happy to see a director's preferred version of a film get the proper treatment, I don't like the idea of being unable to purchase a movie as I saw it in theaters and first came to love it.

I didn't like it with Charlie's Angels, I didn't like it with Taking Lives, and I don't like it with Land of the Dead.

One of the great things about the DVD format is that it offers plenty of room for choice. Lots of DVDs include multiple versions of the film. It's unfortunate that the producers of this particular DVD didn't see fit to give us the choice of watching Land of the Dead as its fans first saw it.

I think I will be getting the Japanese version.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Hi, Carl, haven't seen you here in a while. And thank's for the support.

Damin,
perhaps your right and this is a waste of time, however I recall some victories as well, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Goonies and Cat's and Dog's were all turned around after proposed full screen-only dvd's were announced, by this forum and others like it because we spoke up.

I always have hope when it comes to this because I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age studios are still acting as if it's 1995 instead of 2005. What's even more shocking is that more people aren't posting here against this.

I realize that there will be a DC in it's OAR and that the other edition may seem inconsequential, but people, a major theatrical film is getting a full screen transfer, are we going to do nothing!?

 

[Damin J Toell]

The theatrical versions of many of these films are compromised, even with framing aside. For many avid fans, the theatrical cuts are not worthy of a purchase, OAR or not. The accuracy of the framing is irrelevant when the content is wrong. If you care about OAR because you care about preserving the intent of the directors, then releasing an OAR disc of the cut version of such a film only fixes part of the problem, anyway. Going for the director's cut is the best of both worlds.

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Alright, then if the theatrical cut is so inconsequential, than by the same token where's the harm in an OAR release for it?

I see what your saying, Damin, but I believe in maintaining the OAR of any film as it was presented in theaters, that's what i'm here for, whether it's the director's cut or not.

A fullscreen only transfer of this film's theatrical representaion is not okay with me and it never will be. The Lord of the Rings trilogies theatrical cuts are in their OAR's, even though the EE's may be more to what Peter Jackson wanted, they don't, however, negate the importance of preserving the theatrical one's as they were presented.

If George Romero feels that the theatrical cut of this film isn't important enough to warrent an OAR release, fine, but there are people out there that would have bought it for historical/archival purposes but can't or won't now because of this decision.

 

[cafink]

You're right, Damin: "For many avid fans, the theatrical cuts are not worthy of a purchase, OAR or not." For many other avid fans, however, the theatrical cuts represent the movie that they first came to know and for which they have developed a deep affinity, flaws and all. Are these fans less deserving of their favorite version of the film?

 

[Vincent_P]

Carl:

What if you "came to know and love" DAWN OF THE DEAD during its heavily-edited R-rated theatrical run as a double-bill with CREEPSHOW? That's how I first saw DAWN OF THE DEAD, I for one have no problem with the fact that Anchor Bay left that cut off of their "Ultimate Edition" DVD set.

Most American fans came to know and love Dario Argento's DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA via the heavily edited U.S. theatrical prints. Should Anchor Bay's releases of these be boycotted because they didn't include the U.S. theatrical edits?

This whole argument is so silly. The theatrical version of LAND OF THE DEAD was a COMPROMISED release- Romero had to cut some scenes and digitally alter others a la EYES WIDE SHUT* in order to get an R-rating. It is NOT his prefered version of the film, so why get worked up over that compromised edit being full-frame when the correct version will be anamorphic widescreen?

Vincent

* Speaking of EYES WIDE SHUT, if WB announced tomorrow that they'd finally be releasing the unaltered version in anamorphic widescreen, but would NOT be reissuing the R-rated U.S. theatrical cut in widescreen, would you boycott that, too?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Personally, I don't care what fans want. Fans didn't make the film. Someone else did. I care about what he wants. Everyone else's desires are, indeed, less deserving of being fulfilled.

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Nope, to want the theatrical version in it's OAR is NOT silly, no matter if it's flawed or not.

Tell me, what film released theatrically really IS the director's cut now days? Almost any film released in theaters today has had changes done to it in some way or another, and when that film hits dvd, that's the one we get with no complaints...as long as it's in it's OAR.

Except this time we're getting the director's version, but that doesn't change a thing in my eye's...give us the theatrical presentation in it's OAR as well!

 

[Vincent_P]

Yes, I did read your posts, John, and I stand by my opinion that your argument is silly. You haven't responded to any of my examples, I might point out.

Vincent

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Vincent,
my response is contained in the fabric of my position, you didn't give me anything to really respond to.

Damin,
yep, that's what we all want I believe, to maintain the director's vision of course, but I see no harm in giving us his other, albeit flawed, version in it's OAR too, that's all i'm saying here.