Difference between "unrated" and "director's cut"

[statikcat]

Just curious what is the difference between these two? I would imagine they both contain scenes not shown in the theater. I know these terms are often marketing ploys yada yada but is there a technical or usual difference?

[Blu-Style]

I´m not sure either, hope someone can explain clearly.

but...
i would say...

"Director´s Cut" is how the director wants the movie.

&

"Unrated" is how the original movie should be...

[skubrick]

I think 'unrated' is just a gimmick to get more teens or immature people to rent the movie. They'll throw in more blood or boobs or whatever. It's amazing how many movies come out now with UNRATED in huge bold letters on the front. It's ridiculous...shameless.

Director's cut is when a director wasn't able to cut it the way he/she wanted because the studio wanted a shorter version so it makes more money or whatever, and they recut it for the fans.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by Blu-Style

I´m not sure either, hope someone can explain clearly.

but...

i would say...

"Director´s Cut" is how the director wants the movie.

&

"Unrated" is how the original movie should be...

you got the director's cut part right as for the unrated it just basically means a version that couldnt be shown in movie theaters

[statikcat]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

you got the director's cut part right as for the unrated it just basically means a version that couldnt be shown in movie theaters

Because of gore or adult content? Because many director's cut movies have these kind of scenes that the theatrical does not as well.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by statikcat

Because of gore or adult content? Because many director's cut movies have these kind of scenes that the theatrical does not as well.

usually with the unrated there will be like nudity or some other kind of adult content and also like with 40 Year Old Virgin it has the unrated thats like 17 minutes longer and Underworld Unrated that comes out today is 23 minutes longer then the theatrical version even though i could never spot what it was when i saw the unrated version on dvd

[ptweezy]

Unrated just means that it hasn't been through the MPAA system.

[ScoBro828]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all directors cuts ipso facto are unrated, unless of course in following years the DC was shown in theaters.

[statikcat]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

usually with the unrated there will be like nudity or some other kind of adult content and also like with 40 Year Old Virgin it has the unrated thats like 17 minutes longer and Underworld Unrated that comes out today is 23 minutes longer then the theatrical version even though i could never spot what it was when i saw the unrated version on dvd

So.. because Underworld is unrated and contains 23 extra minutes does this mean the studio decided to add this and not the director? Because otherwise it would be a directors cut?

Originally Posted by ptweezy

Unrated just means that it hasn't been through the MPAA system.

So could un-rated still mean the director was involved it just did not get an official rating? Are some movies not called "unrated directors cut" getting both titles in one?

Sorry .. these two things just confused me for awhile.

[ptweezy]

To my knowledge, Director's Cut is how the director originally intended the movie to be seen. Basically it is the director's edit since the studio generally makes the decision on the final cut. Director's Cut can still have a rating.

Unrated means that some of the content in the movie has not been rated by the MPAA, nothing more.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by statikcat

So.. because Underworld is unrated and contains 23 extra minutes does this mean the studio decided to add this and not the director? Because otherwise it would be a directors cut?

it was the studio i believe since it never mentioned about the director

[Xerious]

Director's Cut = the artists true vision for the movie (without studio intervention for time/content/etc.). Akin to Extended Cuts

Unrated Cut = like said before, the version that has not gone through th MPAA for review and rating (hence, unrated)

[95pgtproject]

What about the unrated directors extended cut .5 verson?



LOL j/k

[WickyWoo]

Oh those versions often went through the MPAA. It's just whatever they had to cut for a PG-13

I think 'unrated' is just a gimmick to get more teens or immature people to rent the movie. They'll throw in more blood or boobs or whatever. It's amazing how many movies come out now with UNRATED in huge bold letters on the front. It's ridiculous...shameless.

Bingo

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by 95pgtproject

What about the unrated directors extended cut .5 verson?

You mean like "Alexander (maybe the third time is the charm, hopefully it doesn't suck as bad, nope it's still crap, but really long crap edition) Revisited"?

[Xerious]

Originally Posted by caliminius

You mean like "Alexander (maybe the third time is the charm, hopefully it doesn't suck as bad, nope it's still crap, but really long crap edition) Revisited"?

They should have just called it Alexander: Regurgitated - Almost Better Than Vomit

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by caliminius

You mean like "Alexander (maybe the third time is the charm, hopefully it doesn't suck as bad, nope it's still crap, but really long crap edition) Revisited"?

Actually I believe the technical name is "Alexander: The Final Director's Cut of The Director's Cut of the Theatrical Cut of the Original Cut Mastered in Lossy 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound To Make The Battle Scenes And Speeches Suck Even More... Poop." Now I like Oliver Stone, but man! What in the crap?

Anyway, to me, a Director's Cut is just how the director waned it. Sometimes it'll be rate, sometimes it wont. Most of the time it's longer, sometimes it's not (speaking of Alexander...). Unrated cuts are probably what went through the MPAA and gave the movie an R-Rating when it should've been PG-13 or an NC-17 rating when it should've been R. These scenes just get cut to drop the rating and then added back in later on to try to sell more copies (hello Mr. Live Free or Die Hard). Ussually, Unrated cuts don't serve much purpose. There are some that make a difference story wise, but most of the time it's just a gimmick to get people to buy more movies. Same goes for the director's cuts, but these actually serve some purpose to the film normally.

[Amon37]

Originally Posted by skubrick

I think 'unrated' is just a gimmick to get more teens or immature people to rent the movie. They'll throw in more blood or boobs or whatever. It's amazing how many movies come out now with UNRATED in huge bold letters on the front. It's ridiculous...shameless.

Well I'm not a teen so I guess I'm immature according to you. I prefer an unrated version with more boobs,swearing, or blood.

The unrated Dukes of Hazzard has way more breasts than the theatrical version and they didn't cut the scene out when they are smoking weed through a apple.