Movies are Raunchier and more Violent on DVD than at the Cinema - Official! (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Malcolm R]

.

 

[Jon Robertson]

...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]

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.

 

[Ruz-El]

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]

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.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

"Yep, Showgirls did get a fairly wide release, but it tanked!"

I think that was more from it being a bad movie than the rating it received. Where I worked when it played it did fairly well the first week but died after that. I never heard a single protest or complaint about the movie either.

 

[Steve Christou]

When children have already seen the R-rated version of a movie like American Pie, "you are up at the edge of NC-17 anyway," Minow says. "What you need to be more concerned about is the 13-year-old who hasn't seen the movie in the theater and now wants to watch it on DVD.

Oh dear, and whats the worst that can happen to a 13 year old who watches an American Pie DVD? Will his mind be damaged or perverted in some way? My 12 year old cousin has watched both previous American Pie films many times, with no adverse affect on him, and he has Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back on dvd. His dad lets him watch anything. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd be worried if he wasn't interested in seeing those films.

 

[Matt Pelham]

It seems like more often than cut films to avoid the NC-17, they are just censoring them. The rated versions of (Porn Star) The Legend of Ron Jeremy, Storytelling, and Spun and all exactly the same running time wise as their unrated counterparts, the only difference is blurred out parts of giant orange squares.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

And again, they ignore the capabilities of DVD to put MULTIPLE versions of a movie on ONE disc-

Half the reason behind this is because many Blockbuster and WalMarts, and chains in conservative areas refuse to carry unrated titles. So if it's on there, they won't buy

 

[Magnus T]

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?

I think you're on to something. The first 2 American Pie movies, well, at least the second one, could've easily gotten an R - rating. The unrated version was definitely released only to "pump sales of the DVD" as you put it.

 

[Eugene Esterly]

Very good article. Last year, I purchased the R rated version of Saving Silverman & the unrated version of Road Trip (I brought them because of add material to the movies).

DVD movies are raunchier & violent than the Cinema because, IMO, the MPAA doesn't have control over the home video market. For example, NC-17 movies are edited down to get an R rating. I totally agree with Jon Robertson, mainstream america won't watch NC-17 movies because they think they are bad. Most people who complain about NC-17 believe that NC-17 movies have explicit nudity/sex (NC-17 used to be called X rated at one time. Mention X rated to a good amount of people & they will think pornography).

The best part of DVD is that studios can release the NC-17 versions of movies without the MPAA getting in the way. The Friday the 13TH movies had to be edited to get an R rating. When it comes to movies on DVD, I'd rather have the full unedited movie on DVD instead of the theatrical version. I own unrated movies on DVD such as Fritz The Cat, Last House On The Left, et al.

Movies which rated NC-17 must be released on DVD in their original NC-17 versions.

 

[WillKTaylor]

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.
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.
---------------------------

I fully agree with this follow up and am curious myself, especially when considering the fact that there are many out there that will only buy the theatrical release of Lord Of the Rings: The Twin Towers because they believe this version to be of the director's sole intent. I beg to differ. It is known that Jackson preferred the extended cut, but due to restraints set by the financiers, the time needed to be kept at a minimum and thus, we get the theatrical release. Same egg, different shell.

Don't get me wrong, I can relate to the purist mentality, especially when considering correct aspect ratios and so on. However, what I don't seem to understand is whether those purists out there only regard the theatrical release as the only director's intent without doing the homework?

This isn't meant to offend, just to learn ....

Regards,
Will