Do Director's Cuts / Unrated Editions Take Advantage Of Us?

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

When I first purchased the movies, no. I didn't know. I don't check the web for every movie (especially back then) to see if an extended version might be possible in the future. I still don't. Do you?

I do. That's why I read The Digital Bits. That's where I found out about LOTR editions.

If BHunt doesn't know about an extended cut later (months or years) and then the extended cut comes out, it usually means it is done not by the Director but by the studio execs milking the title. Live Free Or Die Hard is an interesting conundrum because both cuts exists under the director's supervision but only on DVD. I'm still waiting for the unrated Die Hard 4.0.

Does any of us know for sure if the movies we buy today on BD will have extended, Director's cuts or Unrated versions coming in the future?

That's a hard statement to make. Even if you're the President of the studio, you won't know for sure that an extended/director's cut will be released. If millions of fans demanded it and/or the director has the time and agree to recut, why shouldn't studios release it?

And I'm not even talking about Lionsgate. They are the whole enchilada on their own.


fuad

[Rabidhunter]

One movie that I would double dip on is Donnie Darko. I watched the theatrical version of the movie first. Then I watched the directors cut and it really filled in the gaps. I don't think a person watching it for the first time could appreciate the directors cut unless they watched the theatrical version first.

At any rate, I love what Spielberg did with Close Encounters, he put all three versions on one disc and has a comperative guide to show how each one differs. You have the choice to watch whatever version you want. More movies should be like that.

[Beta Man]

I have 7 copies of the Standard DVD of Reservoir Dogs

[DetroitSportsFan]

If there is an uncut/unrated/extended DVD, chances are I don't bother with the BD unless it is the same.

[WickyWoo]

You really didn't know? It was all over the web before the release, which is why I was so amused people ended up double dipping.

Yeah, PJ mentioned it in many interviews before the first DVD ever hit

Most of us who bought twice ddi so for 2 reasons

1- The extras weren't shared. Want Sean Astin's short film? Gotta buy the theatrical of TT and so on
2- Impatience

[hardcore_canadian]

You know, most of those "Unrated" cuts are completely Rated, I've only ever seen one or two truly unrated movies, like Requiem for a Dream

[HeavyHitter]

No one is being taken advtantage of. As a consumer, you exercise free choice whether or not to purchase a product.

I really hope no one is blind or naive enough to think an improved or alternative version of a movie will not be released one day on Blu-ray. I completely understand that every BD I own may be re-released some day in some new form. It's your choice whether or not to purchase it.

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

I learned my lesson with the LOTR movies. Double dipped as I had no idea that extended versions were waiting in the wings.

I won't be buying them on BD if they initially release only the theatrical cuttings.

yeah. Hopefully they'll release them like they did recently with the theatrical and extended cuts. It's funny though. I have all of the extended editions. I've probably watch maybe an hour all together of the extras. But if they came out with a special edition I would have to buy it. I would wait for it to come out if it didn't come out at the same time as the theatrical version. I'm crazy.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Yeah, PJ mentioned it in many interviews before the first DVD ever hit

Most of us who bought twice ddi so for 2 reasons

1- The extras weren't shared. Want Sean Astin's short film? Gotta buy the theatrical of TT and so on
2- Impatience

Exactly. I intentionallly bought both editions because I wanted all the features, and I wanted both cuts.

When it comes to BD, I'll want the extended only.

[ACD]

One of the reasons I bought LD was the director's cut of Aliens. Back in the day, that was the only way you could see it.

[rbd3000]

Being a person who went through film school, I always gravitate towards Director's cuts, just because if that is the version they wanted to make, that is the version I want to watch. Take The Abyss for example, I will never watch the theatrical version of that film because Cameron's Cut of it so different and better. Personally I don't think we are being taken advantage of when they release two versions because I'm sure their marketing departments tell them that the average consumer just wants the version they saw at the theater. I'm sure those sell more in the long run and the Special Edition Director's Cut is for the real fans of a particular movie. I know that if I love a movie, I will ultimately buy it over and over again to feel like I'm getting a complete experience. Like with LOTR, I knew before the theatrical cuts came out that extended versions would come later but I bought both versions and never regretted it.

[ranma]

Anyone will hold to buy transfermers vanilla version?
Since MB has already hinted that he has to cut a lot of scenes to meet PG-13 rating?

[zacko24]

Originally Posted by BirdManJr

Well one thing i think about is...Do you really buy that movie because it says directors cut...or unrated...I mean if you was already going to buy the movie...and saw the directors cut...Im sure you would just pick that one up over the normal version....But the thing is..I dont walk in a store...see a movie i had no intentions of buying....See it says directors cut...And that make me buy it......I feel like they put that just to add a lil to it...But not to sway your judgement...Your going to buy what you want....Well thats the way i go about it...

Agreed. If "Director's Cut" or "NR" can make someone buy a movie they wouldn't buy otherwise then that person is too impulsive, IMO.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by ranma

Anyone will hold to buy transfermers vanilla version?
Since MB has already hinted that he has to cut a lot of scenes to meet PG-13 rating?

Yeah, I know that Megan Fox nude scene had to go.

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Yeah, I know that Megan Fox nude scene had to go.

just kidding

[Chaka]

The studios will keep doing this because majority have no will power or just not informed so we just buy what is fed. Its really sad, however I do think that we wont see many of these until blu-ray excitement has peaked a bit to stir up the market. Blu-ray or HD-DVD had to happen because the sd-dvd market was very stagnant and the consumers needed something to get excited about again.

What I personally think is a genius idea is to have some super badass elite company that is personally hired to re-encode/remaster/menu-design/compile/work with the director etc to redo a movie for a double dip. Kind of in line with what Criterion is about but not a studio exclusive more of a hired gun and they put their stamp on it. I think that would get people excited about a double dip.

[Blinkman987]

I'm always intrigued by movies that I think are significantly better or worse in alternate cuts:

Terminator 2- I find the extended version to be completely unnecessary except for the humor when the Terminator learns how to smile. I think the extended version is actually a downgrade. However, I rewound the smiling part about 5 times. That should've been in the original!

Aliens - I actually find the "edited for TV" version to be one of the best. You don't see the colony before the Aliens hit, so the suspense is increased.

[GORT]

The Extended Cut Of Aliens and LOTRs Has Been the only ones for me that actually added to the movie and the story not just a bunch of junk scenes thrown into a movie like most are

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by Blinkman987

I think the new Harold and Kumar addressed it well- unrated, extended, and remastered. Yeah, they think the whole process is bullshit and therefore made a joke out of it.

When a movie is released and then does interviews years later- like Blade Runner- I can understand. When a movie is not properly released, like Back to the Future, and someone wants to do a remaster and re-release, I understand. When Superbad has 3+ skus at release, I call bullshit.

Superbad
-Theatrical
-single disk Unrated
-Two disk
-BD
-UMD

seems normal. Sing;e disks for those who dont like extras and the BD for us!

[obiwopkenobi62]

Quite awhile back I bought a special edition of Reservoir Dogs. When I got it home and opened it up it had an ad for another version coming out soon. I thought to myself, What balls they have advertising a better version in the one I just bought. needless to say, I didn't get the other one.

There are some true directors cuts that I think were much better than the theatrical versions.
The Abyss
Aliens
Kingdom of Heaven
LOTR trilogy
T2

I say these because they weren't like most where the add 2 minutes or less. The 3 movies had at least 30 minutes added to them, some more.
I remember when Live free or die hard came out. They had the unrated version only on reg DVD. I checked the running times and they were the same. Apparently the unrated one left in the "yippy ki yay mother $%#^%$er
That was lame to call it unrated when the running times were the same. Also we should have had the choice for BluRay.