Why do companies feel the need to keep Director's Cuts and Theatrical Cuts seperate? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Emma]

This really bugs me, because you have to double dip to get both versions of the film. Or you might like one version of the film more yet all the good special features are on the other disc. Does this bug anyone else? This is in relation to the new Dawn of the Dead coming out in october along with DareDevil.

 

[greg_t]

That's what their banking on. It's all about producing more sales. The studios are a business like any other. They have to find ways to make revenue, and finding ways to get the consumer to double dip is a way. It personally doesn't bug me too much as I'm a theatrical purist kind of guy and I'm happy as long as I get the theatrical version, and I also understand that as a business they must be profitable.

 

[JohnTRU]

With Daredevil, wouldn't the decision to release a DC be based on how the initial DVD went sales-wise? There's no point releasing a DC to a non-existant audience.

 

[Dick]

There might also be a matter of viewing age. Some parents might think it okay for their kids to watch an R-rated cut, but not an uncensored, unrated version, and so would prefer not to let them have access to a disc containing both. Kind of splitting hairs when you consider that most unrated versions are often no more offensive than their R counterparts.

 

[Kwang Suh]

Marketing, marketing, marketing.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

With the parental lock control (which I have to wonder if anyone actually uses to lock out discs) you can lock out just one title on a disc but not another if you want, so you could set it to lock out the unrated version but allow the rated version to play.
It's annoying to have separate releases when one of the most-hyped features of DVD when it came out was the ability to have multiple versions of a movie on the same disc. Very few discs have actually done this.

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Let's take Dawn of the Dead for example. There are quite a few video stores that will not carry "unrated" or "NC-17" titles. The Unrated Director's Cut of Dawn of the Dead falls into this example. The DVD inserts ten new minutes of footage back into the film with a few of those minutes being nice, new gore shots. So the "theatrical" version is put on it's own DVD to please say Blockbuster and the "unrated" version is put out on it's own DVD to please the fans. Usually, most "unrated" and "rated" DVDs will contain the same amount of extras, but in Dawn of the Dead's case, the unrated edition contains more extras. This trend has been shown by the releases of The Girl Next Door, Soul Plane, and American Wedding.

Then again, American Wedding's Unrated DVD had both the theatrical and unrated cut of the film (whereas the rated version is a much stronger film than the unrated).

But in the case of Dawn of the Dead, the "unrated director's cut" is a much stronger film. Not by the additional gore, but by the additional character development and back story placed throughout the film. I should know as I have seen the unrated version and have a copy in my hands.



In the case of unrated and rated DVDs, I'll usually choose the unrated DVD all the time. But with theatrical and true director's cuts, I wish more studios would look at the special edition release of Almost Famous for an example. Have one disc in the set contain the director's cut, and the other contain the theatrical cut. Or Anchor Bay with their release of the original Dawn of the Dead. Heck, even New Line with The Butterfly Effect. Hell, there's always seemless branching (as FOX has used numerous times in the past).

Unless it's in the case of that the "director's cut" will not be available (due to the fact that they're still editing it, ex: Daredevil) for quite a while, most DVDs that have more than two cuts available, those cuts should be on the disc.