Why doesnt Fox include more versions of a film on their Blu-ray releases?

[DTBlack]

I'm extremely annoyed with Fox's refusal to take advantage of seamless branching so that multiple versions of a film can be included on one disk. First instance I noticed was with Live Free or Die Hard, where only the rated version was released. I didn't see the movie theatrically because the PG-13 rating turned me off, but it would have been a day one purchase regardless for me if the Blu-Ray included both the rated and unrated versions of the film. Another instance is with Daredevil, which I happen to be a big fan of despite the grief it gets. I seem to be in the minority that prefers the theatrical cut to the director's cut, but guess I'm shit out of luck of ever getting the theatrical Daredevil on Blu.

I'm sure there are other examples of Fox doing this, and there's really no reason why they couldn't and shouldn't included both versions of a film when applicable. Universal seems to have no problem doing this. Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Role Models are two examples of films that include both the rated and unrated cuts. Hell their release of Fearless had THREE different versions of the film! Funny how Universal who started out as the enemy over at HD-DVD is putting out better Blu's than Fox who's been here since the beginning.

[Sussudio]

i'm sure they have their reasons. i doubt Fox is doing this to intentionally piss their customers off

but i agree, it would be nice to see this addition.

[NoQuestion]

The unrated version of live free or die hard was not ready for release because the director could not finish it up in time for replication. From what I've heard, the "unrated" version only adds minor blood nothing major differences from the theatrical version so who cares.

[DTBlack]

Originally Posted by NoQuestion

The unrated version of live free or die hard was not ready for release because the director could not finish it up in time for replication. From what I've heard, the "unrated" version only adds minor blood nothing major differences from the theatrical version so who cares.

The unrated version actually has uses of the F word, and as juvenile as that may sound, after becoming accustomed to John McClane dropping the F bomb pretty generously throughout the first three Die Hard's I'd find it hard to watch a film where he suddenly doesn't anymore.

[WyldeMan45]

While it's not Fox, I really hate that Paramount only released Payback in the "Straight Up" version when I really preferred the theatrical cut much more. I did not like the directors cut at all, but this is what was released on HD and than Blu, some companies just don't care.

[neo_reloaded]

For Live Free Or Die Hard, there was actually a real reason for the lack of Unrated cut. The Unrated version was finished by the director relatively late, and there wasn't enough time for it to be encoded to Blu-ray specs and pressed onto BD discs - so their choice was delay the Blu-ray (not something they wanted to do since this was a big summer blockbuster and they wanted to hit the holiday season), or just put the theatrical cut on BD (what they went with). They were able to get the Unrated cut on DVD in time because there are so many DVD production resources available that it can be accomplished very quickly - BD resources were, and still are, maturing.

For other titles, yes it was just plain lazy. But thankfully, it seems Fox is turning around on this one and doing a lot of seamless branching lately. Just looking at my recent purchases, here are some titles where Fox has included both versions:

- Donnie Darko
- Vanishing Point
- Max Payne
- X-Files: Fight The Future
- X-Files: I Want To Believe

The most recently released BD I'm aware of that is lacking seamless branching when it should have had it is Dodgeball, which was released Dec. 9th, 2008. So I'm hopeful Fox has turned over a new leaf and will continue releasing seamlessly branched titles.

[jw]

Its a new format, Fox as well as other studios are still educating themselves on what the actual consumers want and at the same time padding their own wallets. Look for re-releases in the future, The same has happened with DVD so nothing will change. All studios do it as it secures future revenue and sales

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

Its a new format, Fox as well as other studios are still educating themselves on what the actual consumers want and at the same time padding their own wallets. Look for re-releases in the future, The same has happened with DVD so nothing will change. All studios do it as it secures future revenue and sales

I can understand re-releases for DVD, since it's been out for 12 years and there's 10,000 titles.

But BD is only in year 3 with over 1,000 titles. Re-releases should not be happening right now.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I can understand re-releases for DVD, since it's been out for 12 years and there's 10,000 titles.

But BD is only in year 3 with over 1,000 titles. Re-releases should not be happening right now.

they arn't lol YET, but this is a likely explanation for the lack of every version and all special features being on the same disc, just like dvd, they will eventually release more and more on better version to come for the double dip revenue, sucks for us, but is a standard in the home video business now

[#Darren]

Some of the studios are doing it so they can double dip later.

[Adam_ME]

Fox is actually not that bad when it comes to including multiple versions of films on their releases. Daredevil was an annoyance, although they did at least release the superior director's cut. And Die Soft 4's PG-13-only Blu-ray sucked.

But they offered both cuts of Donnie Darko, The X-Files 1 & 2, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle For the Planet of the Apes, and a few other titles.

Honestly, the studio that's bugging me in this area is WB. They only included the director's cut of Amadeus. Natural Born Killers was the rated version. Superman: The Movie only had the extended version. The Lester cut of Superman II was never released. At least they got Blade Runner right.

[neo_reloaded]

WB doesn't have the rights to the director's cut of Natural Born Killers, but I believe you're spot on on the other titles mentioned.

[bajor27]

Fox also missed extended cuts of

Mr and Mrs Smith
Fantastic Four
Independence Day


They've probably gotten better since than, but I've certainly avoided a couple of Fox titles because of lack of extended versions. I'm not a big fan of double dipping

Partially in their defence, other companies have done it too (Disney with Conair and Narnia for example). Also, Daredevil had separate dvd releases too. It could be tough to seamlessly branch maybe - they are quite different afterall

Payback - straight up edition (from paramount) would also be impossible to seamlessly branch. The 2 versions have different coloring

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

WB doesn't have the rights to the director's cut of Natural Born Killers, but I believe you're spot on on the other titles mentioned.

This is one of the few movies where I actually prefer the theatrical version. The extra footage in the Directors Cut adds absolutely nothing to the story and really just makes it drag a little.

[BWOzar]

I understand they have their reasons with Die Hard 4 it's still disappointing that I don't at least have the option at this point, 18 months after the quadrilogy was originally releaesd, to get the slightly improved director's cut. So many movies lack this very simple feature. How many comedies lack the option to branch the unrated and rated? How many DC's only (Daredevil? Dark City? etc)? It's even more frustrating because some of these probably won't get double-dipped - I mean are they really expecting people to buy a second copy of Daredevil in Blu?

I think my biggest pet peeve with studios has become all the times that studios will only release part of a series at a time. Why would you release Blade but not the other two then? Are Blade 2 and 3 really not going to sell better if they're all released at the same time? Why can't I buy Tomb Raider 2 to go with the first one? Is it so hard to release things in sets like Bourne, M:I, F&F, Starship Troopers or Austin Powers?

Off topic: I've got to imagine that soon enough, considering half of the content is already out, we'll get a Superman set like the sweet one that was released on DVD. Though Superman 3 and 4 are not exactly system sellers...

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by BWOzar

How many DC's only (Daredevil? Dark City? etc)?

Daredevil, yes, only the DC.

Dark City - no. Both the theatrical and the director's cut are included. They aren't done using seamless branching because the versions are so different and even most of the soundtrack is different on scenes that are shared between the two - but both cuts are there on the disc.

[DTBlack]

Originally Posted by BWOzar

It's even more frustrating because some of these probably won't get double-dipped - I mean are they really expecting people to buy a second copy of Daredevil in Blu?

That's what makes me angry, because I know the odds of the theatrical cut ever getting a Blu release are slim to none. The fact that they packed the director's cut Blu with all the special features from the theatrical release dvd seems to imply they have no desire to ever release that film. So basically this is the Daredevil Blu-Ray, and if you preferred the original theatrical version, the version that the majority of the world is familiar with, then you're just screwed.

I know lots of people preferred the DC, and I did like aspects of it, for instance the fights were all better on the DC. My major gripe however has always been that when Elektra asks Matt to "Stay" on the rooftop, he stays with her in the theatrical cut. I always liked that scene because you get so accustomed to heroes running off into the night, it was nice for once to see someone choose the girl over running off to fight. It also said a lot of about Matt and Elektra's connection, and not just because they had sex afterwards, but because of the fact that this is a guy who we find out at the beginning of the movie from the ex-girlfriend on his answering machine ALWAYS runs off into the night, who never has taken a girl back to his place, and who has to sleep in a soundproof thing of water to escape the sounds of the world. With Elektra he was at peace enough to sleep in his own bed, and to bring her there in the first place said a lot.

I can't watch the DC because I can't buy Matt and Elektra's connection in that version of the film. Aside from the time it took them to get from the street to the roof on that one night, we see every moment they spend together on screen, and there aren't a lot of moments. Even the playground fight, in the DC Elektra leaves right from the playground in her limo. In the theatrical it cuts away to Matt and Elektra taking a walk and talking. This kind of stuff is necessary to believe they didn't just form a bound from knowing each other for 10 minutes. If Matt and Elektra's stuff was left intact I might be able to accept the DC, though to be honest it would have still felt overly long and dragged out for my tastes.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by DTBlack

I'm extremely annoyed with Fox's refusal to take advantage of seamless branching so that multiple versions of a film can be included on one disk. First instance I noticed was with Live Free or Die Hard, where only the rated version was released. I didn't see the movie theatrically because the PG-13 rating turned me off, but it would have been a day one purchase regardless for me if the Blu-Ray included both the rated and unrated versions of the film. Another instance is with Daredevil, which I happen to be a big fan of despite the grief it gets. I seem to be in the minority that prefers the theatrical cut to the director's cut, but guess I'm shit out of luck of ever getting the theatrical Daredevil on Blu.

I'm sure there are other examples of Fox doing this, and there's really no reason why they couldn't and shouldn't included both versions of a film when applicable. Universal seems to have no problem doing this. Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Role Models are two examples of films that include both the rated and unrated cuts. Hell their release of Fearless had THREE different versions of the film! Funny how Universal who started out as the enemy over at HD-DVD is putting out better Blu's than Fox who's been here since the beginning.

Might want to take a look at this announcement:

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2558

[steve_dave]

Live Free or Die Hard has more than just digital blood and f bombs. There was another thread where I posted a detailed comparison of the two. Some of the resotred violence is from alternate shots. However, as stated before, this version could not be completed in time to be mastered on Blu-ray.

As for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, when Paramount was producing the director's edition, they wanted to keep it within a certain budget so two major things were done to achieve this:

1. Robert Wise wanted a newly remastered DTS 6.1 ES soundmix but Paramount could not afford to do such a track. It would require a lot of work and re-recording of the score. Thus, it was simply a Dolby Digital 5.1 track.

2. The completed special effects were not completed in high-definition video. To cut costs since this was a home video effort, the special effects team only completed the video in standard definitoon. The same thing happened to Fox's Firefly.

So essentailly, they could include the director's edition on Blu-ray but the new special effects would look horrible at 1080p. The decision was made to include the theatrical cut for now and possibly remaster the special effects for 1080p.

You also have to remember that Blu-ray Disc did not have a double layer disc from the get go. So BD producers had to choose what version would best be served on BD. And in a lot cases, seamles brancing will not work if the two versions are completely different. Like Blade Runner and Payback.