Uncut Releases becoming gimmicks now a days? (1 Viewer)

[MarcusUdeh]

Requiem for a Dream was released theatrically unrated

 

[Rob Gardiner]

"More" is not always "better". I've seen the Uncut PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (on the OOP Japanese laserdisc) and the extra sequence is unnecessary and detracts from the film.

There are longer versions of TOUCH OF EVIL than what is currently available on DVD, but I have no interest in any other version. (The current disc was not edited by Welles himself, but was cut according to his specifications.)

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As noted, this isn't a great example, since both versions came out simultaneously. Better examples from Columbia: Ali and - especially - Underworld. Though I think they sat on the DC of Ali for quite some time, since Michael Mann's commentary - which was clearly done for the longer cut - mentions "2002" a lot as being his frame of reference. One could also count the full-length Das Boot as an example, but I wouldn't; it's a totally different beast than the theatrical version.

One of the worst examples, along with Underworld: Nutty Professor 2. It's very annoying when a DVD comes out and the alternate version follows it by only a few months but the studio didn't mention this until AFTER the first one hit the streets. At least Ali can be considered a revisit down the road - clearly they knew the longer versions of Underworld and NP2 would come out soon when the originals appeared. Greedy!

 

[Jefferson Morris]

This is certainly open to debate. Recent tinkerings with the Star Wars trilogy, Apocalypse Now, Alien (though Ridley Scott admitted the "director's cut" was just a gimmick to get it back in the theaters), E.T. and The Exorcist did nothing whatsoever to improve those films, IMO. In most cases, I say leave well enough alone, particularly if the film is an established classic.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I'll just add my pocket change and say "Often times films are cut for very good reasons and when the cut footage is put back into the original film it can often turn a good film into a very poor one. That said, the opposite is also true especially when films are cut due to length and not because the quality or pace of the originally intended film."

In general I prefer a Director's Cuts, but even then there are exceptions where I ended up feeling the director was out of his/her mind and that the original cut was a far better presentation.

So if anything, this would lead me to believe that having the studios and distributors release multiple versions of a film is actually a great thing as it then leaves it up to the individual to choose which version they would prefer to see rather than be subjected to only one version.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I agree, but they should be available together whenever possible. I have a real problem with the recent releases only having the theatrical versions in foolscreen, and needless to say I won't be getting Star Wars.

 

[Dave H]

I didn't know it was wrong for a business to make money.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's not, but there should be some respect for the consumer. Columbia's methods smack of soaking - release upon release with no early notification. They're on their third version of Black Hawk Down, for Bubba's sake! If you only wanted the Superbit version, wouldn't it have been nice to know about it when the original DVD hit the shelves?

 

[Dave H]

Anyone who is even a mild "DVD fan" and reads these kind of forums would have to be a fool not to have not known that a Superbit Black Hawk Down was inevitable or any other big Columbia release for that matter. For the average consumer, that maybe different. Though I doubt many average consumers buy Superbits anyway.

For that matter, any DVD of any kind -- no matter how "Ultimate" --- is subject to re-release (or re-re-release....or re-re-re-re...)

 

[Joon Hartzell]

What do you mean by 'foolscreen'? Is that some sort of swipe at 'fullscreen?' If so, I think it's unfair and disrespectful. I am NOT a fool, but I have watched movies in fullscreen. What do you say about THAT?

 

[Ryan Wishton]

Dave H,

It's not wrong for a business to make money.

They just wont be making mine. It will be a cold day before I give some studio money multiple times for the same movie.

Why? So I can go broker and they can become richer? Forget that.

I would rather have my house and car paid off. Not paying off others.

I will just buy what is given a reasonable release the first time.

If something is not, I will wait until it is. Same with reasonable prices. Too high and/or what seems unreasonable. Aint paying it. Dont care what its for.

 

[Eric Emma]

That you're a fool in denial:p) But seriously, do what makes you happy but be careful what you say on this forum unless your ready to back up why you like it, since there are very few full-screen enthusiests around here...

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I'm not sure if Joon was referring to MAR full screen or not, but considering that there are countless classics that are OAR full screen count me as one "full screen enthusiast".

Frankly I wish folks would stop referring to "full screen" this, and "widescreen" that. Both are extremely misleading. The important thing is Original Aspect Ratio vs Modified Aspect Ratio.

I've said this before, but now that JSP are beginning to buy 16x9 displays they are going to begin to demand all films be shown in widescreen and more specifically 1.78:1 ratio. So please, all you self proclaimed Widescreen Advocates, if you want to do some good, stop using the terms 'widescreen' and 'full screen' and only refer to OAR and MAR - at least before we see a widescreen version of Casablanca and a cropped 1.78:1 version of Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Exactly. I raised this with Babylon 5's MAR releases -- regardless of what JMS said, Season One wasn't shot 16:9 protected, and looks really cramped after tilt-and-scan. It appears we may have a similar "fiasco" with WW S2. Maybe I'll hang onto my R2 set after all...

 

[Scott Weinberg]

On one end of the spectrum of the issue we have something like The Animal - Uncut.

On the other we have The Fellowship of the Ring - Extended Edition.

In between we have stuff like Underworld - Director's Cut, which reinstates some 'plot stuff' for those who enjoyed the movie in the first place.

And we also have stuff like Almost Famous - Untitled, which takes an excellent movie and makes it even excellenterer.

The main thing is that it's pretty obvious to spot the difference between the legitimate "director's cuts" and the "bare-tittie menu-screen" unrated editions.

I judge these 'alternate' DVD releases the same way I'd judge an entirely new movie; if the thing works, and it comes from a sincere place then I'll dig it. If the thing reeks of commercialism and mindless corporate greed, I'll take a pass.

Thing is, multiple DVD versions of one movie are pretty much a sure moneymaker for a studio. Logically, we'll get both ends of the equation: the chintzy cash-grab garbage and the "extended" versions that actually offer something substantial.

If I gotta deal with The Sweetest Thing - Uncut in order to get something like Almost Famous - Untitled, then I'm OK with that.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I don't think you're a "fool" for not "knowing" it was coming. Suspect an eventual Superbit? Sure. KNOW it? That's different, and some actual info from CTS would have altered buying patterns. If I KNOW that something's coming because it's been officially announced, that's totally different than SUSPECTING it. I'm willing to wait for the former but probably not the latter.

I think it's silly to defend Columbia's double and triple dipping by calling anyone who doesn't plan accordingly - without actual information from the studio - a "fool"...

 

[Mark Zimmer]

It is sometimes just a marketing ploy, since "Unrated" implies more sex more violence more stuff that you can't show on television etc. But sometimes it's just inserting dull expositiion and then not bothering to resubmit to the MPAA. That's an entire world altogether from the special items like the extended LOTR and Good, Bad & Ugly.

 

[JonZ]

"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."

ITs true this happens but I was referring to true Directors cuts, where the director can finally have the film seen the way he intended becuase he couldnt during its theatrical run, becuase o fhte MPAA or time restictions.

I agree with u guys about the American Pie Unrated type stuff. Sicne I dont have anything like that in my collection I cant comment on that, but I agree with those who say its to sell DVDs.


"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?"

I dont think so. Dir Cut was a big bonus with LD for me too. There will always be a deire to see Extended or Dir Cuts.

I just wish the studios would give us more options about it - seamless branching,more than one version to pick from and so on.

Instead of seeing P&S version on the shelf, Id rather see "Theatrical Version" or "Directors Cut" on the top of the case.

 

[Dave H]

Do we really need factual information from the company to make a logical assumption that a near reference A/V quality transfer wasn't coming as a Superbit? Of course I didn't know this for a fact. However, I knew it was 95% likely as should have anyone else based on experience. Columbia has a pattern of these things. Experience tells you that this would happen. It's simple logic, Colin. If someone is not a fool for not knowing this would happen, then incredibly "naive" might be a better word.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Except that consumers shouldn't have to follow the DVD market that closely to avoid being burned.