Uncut Releases becoming gimmicks now a days?

[Eric Emma]

I'm sorry if this topic has been made before, I did a search under uncut and nothing came up. So anyway I see the Sony epecially shamelessly whores out dvd titles what ever chance it gets to put extra footage in and call it uncut. Now I know the old principle is, "If you don't like it don't buy it" but I think this might affect uncut/director/extended/special w/e releases in general since this is generally the trend with all gimmicks that once there worn out so much that the public stops buying into them and hence no more uncut editions. I doubt this will happen but it's certanily a possiblitly.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Eric,

Uncut/Directors Cut/whatever should be reguarded as something special and giving you something more.

Some of what these studios are doing like Sony, is just dumb and a 100% excuse for money. Plus they are intentional from the get go. It was all planned even before the first DVD was released.

Like Charlie Angels: Full Throttle uncut. I mean come on. It screams a juice job for more cash.

 

[Damin J Toell]

But if this was a film you loved, and it wasn't released uncut, you'd go on for pages and pages complaining about it. Films you happen to like aren't the only ones that deserve to be presented in the manner the filmmakers prefer.

DJ

 

[Eric Emma]

I agree on this but my point is maybe uncut releases will fade all together becuz it becoming so gimmicky

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Damin,

There was no reason they couldnt release it the first time.

Both DVD's were planned at the same exact time.

It's a double dip only months apart from each other. Money, Money, Money.

Give me one good reason why they couldnt release this the first time if not for money?

Did, I say fans shouldnt have it? Nope, I did not.

All I said is that it was a juice job. And it was.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Huh? The unrated Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle came out on the same day as the PG-13 cut: October 21, 2003. There was no prior DVD release.

DJ

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Damin,

Mind fart. Your right. I was thinking of another movie.

So, just forget that. I was wrong.

I cant remember release dates of every single movie made. But, your right. I was wrong.

Unfortunately, I dont keep track of exact dates.

 

[JonZ]

IMHO added footage theyve been putting on DVDs has been a mixed bag. Enter The Dragon and The Good The Bad & The Ugly are examples where I havent liked some of the stuff theyve put back in.

Theres cases where a Unrated or Dir Cut is better(True Romance,Blade Runner,Robocop,Nixon)and others where is its not, so it varies.

I usually prefer a Dir Cut

 

[Ryan Wishton]

*cough*StarWars*cough*

Please give back the Theatrical Version.

I agree with you JonZ.

This is sort of a 2 way street.

 

[Matt Harrison]

But thats a different story because F13 has LOADS cut out compared to Charlie's Angels.

 

[Ryan Wishton]

To be fair to Damin, I was wrong.

And at least they did release both on release date. This at least lets you choose which one you want without having to double dip.

Although, I dont know why anyone would take a cut DVD over an uncut DVD anyways if you had both to choose from at the same time.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I'm getting really sick of these "Unrated" releases- they're fine as an extra but the main version should be whichever version was shown in theaters. You can only get the theatrical version of Charlie's Angels in foolscreen, and apparently the same is happening with Eurotrip so I won't be getting that one. They did it perfectly with American Wedding putting BOTH the theatrical and "unrated" versions on the same disc (I watched both, the unrated version was entertaining but definitely different from the theatrical version.)
Using the term "Uncut" for a version with added footage is a bit confusing also- they should call it the "Extended, Unrated" or "Director's Cut" or along those lines. Nobody forced them to release the versions that were out in theaters.

 

[Ravi K]

Were the masses really clamoring for an uncut Animal?

I hear that most of these "footage too sexy for theaters!" releases just include a little bit of nudity or something like that, and not anything spectacular. Erm, not that I'm into that sort of thing...

 

[Adam Portrais]

I just don't like how they say "Unrated" like their is so much more violence or sex or what have you. The only reason it's unrated is because they didn't submit it to the MPAA again for a rating. I saw American Pie 2 Unrated (didn't see it in the theater)and thought to myself: "Damn, if that's unrated I'd hate to see what was cut out, that was pretty tame" (Same thing goes for Old School and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

 

[JonZ]

"but the main version should be whichever version was shown in theaters"

Cant agree with that. The examples I gave above are all better as Dir Cuts IMHO.I would prefer the directors vision.Thats the great thing about DVD - is to give us choices. New Lines Embrace Of The Vampire DVD has 4 version on it - R and Unrated,FS and WW.Its a shitty movie, but a good example. Even the Terminator 2 UE had a hidden cut of the film with a alt ending as a easter egg.

"Nobody forced them to release the versions that were out in theaters"

If the cuts were required for R rating, then they were forced to release that version. Consider Requiem for a Dream or Eyes Wide Shut.Oliver Stone was forced to make lots of cuts to Natural Born Killers. While the Dir Cut is pretty much just more gore, I prefer it considering the over the top/parody theme of the film.

 

[Eric Emma]

Here my point of view if companies start seeing extended cuts of movies as just selling gimmicks what happens when they stop selling will they stop releasing them all together including the uber cool director's cuts of movies that are better like the ones you have mentioned Jon?

 

[Herschel]

The point here, though, which I agree with, is that these aren't really director's cuts. They just add in an extra scene or two, or even just a few more seconds of some scenes, just so they can call it "unrated." Half the unrated releases these days seem to be marketing gimmicks to me, where they're trying to get people to go, "Ooh, unrated, sounds hot."

 

[Joon Hartzell]

In my opinion, when movies are released on DVD or home video, they should all be new, unrated versions. Who wants to just see the same thing they saw in theaters, when the director can use that same time to improve upon what he did and release a better version? Almost every time director's are given a chance to tinker with their original cut, they end up improving it. We the audience deserve unrated versions of every movie, while the theatricle release can fade into obscurity.

 

[John*C]

Sure it's gimmic because they are restoring a cut piece of film, that was deleted on the first version of the DVD!

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

I would venture to say that a lot of people would.