Don't look ugly to me, just a little on the small side.
One thing, Universal has a hitstory of actually admitting errors, or at least the truth, and taking steps to make consumers happy, unlike some companies.
Here's a thought. Could it be the extra blood that makes this version more "unrated" than the R3 release? I mean a woman's naked breasts is one thing - naked breasts with blood in the same shot... sure that's more controversial right?
If indeed the blood was added to "censor" the shot, then this sucks. Looks like I'm going to have to go after the R3 (NTSC) disc.
I've read elsewhere that the extra scenes actually look better on the R3 disc than the R1 version. Can anybody confirm this?
Went to Blockbuster yesterday and traded in some older dvd's for this one and VanHelsing. Along with another couple , we all watched DotD last night and kind of regreat buying this one now :frowning: Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it and thought it was good for what it was, but now that I've seen it, I don't know how many times I will pull this one from shelf and view it. I thought the Fx were awesome, but there was no creep factor or scariness to the picture. Just an all out splatter mess. They definately have the FX kills down pat now.
So I'm thinking of returning this one and trading for another dvd. Here's hoping that I enjoy VH a whole lot more!
Just some thoughts, on the subject of the R1 DC being cut...meh. I don't really care if they censor some woman's breasts. But on the subject of the MPAA being retarded for giving more weight to nudity and sexuality and violence, I think the MPAA is on the right track with that. We are all brought up(hopefully) being told what's wrong and right, and most definately one of those wrongs is to hurt someone else. So it's pretty much drilled into you that this is wrong, so you have to be pretty mest up go kill people or do something bad after seeing one of these movies. Now on the topic of nudity and sexuality how many times are you talk to about that? It has much more subtler effect.
But the MPAA says contrary to fact that violence is good and breasts are bad. That's not the way to reinforce what was supposed to be drilled in at home.
That might make sense except they're both marked as "unrated director's cut" aren't they? Maybe one could argue one is more unrated than the other (though I doubt it), but I would think there would be only ond "director's cut" of the movie.
Nudity and blood in the same shot has raised flags in the past (the beginning of Basic Instinct) comes to mind, but I have to wonder if non-visible nudity as on the R1 release would count as un-rated material. Maybe if the girl was naked and covered with blood, clearly visible through the windshield. Still, R-rated movies have gotten away with that before, but the MPAA is a fickle bitch.
I've read the R3 version doesn't have the black dirt in the print the R1 version has. That alone, should be enough to raise a lot of complaints...and questions. People should be pushing for the R3 transfer.
This is one of the reasons Europeans scratch their heads about Americans. Why Amercians view nudity as evil I'll never know. I guess the Puritans left their mark on our culture.
Personally, I think I'd be much less likely to hack people up if I could enjoy more nudity on a daily basis, like on TV commercials.