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

[Clark Kent]

There are many many movies I feel where the unrated edition is simply inferior to the theatrical cut. It goes both ways of course but I always feel slighted when a studio only remasters and releases the newer cut over the original theatrical experience.

It's clearly good business though as some feel compelled to buy the new version with such minor alterations included.

[Bobby Henderson]

I think the discs have to be judged on a case by case basis.

But if I was going to paint the situation in broad brush strokes, yes, I would have to say many "unrated" DVDs are just a stupid come-on. Quite a few "extended edition" versions have also featured fluff that rightly fell on the cutting room floor during the making of the original theatrical cut.

I'm more put off by the "unrated" DVDs though. The current trend is watering down a movie enough for it to get a PG-13 rating so teens can see it in the theaters. Then they do an "unrated" version for DVD to deliver the R-rated cut likely intended in the first place, but without having to pay the MPAA twice to generate two official ratings for two different cuts of the movie. And besides, the "unrated" term just seems to have a rougher or more naughty connotation.

Years ago, when a movie carried an "unrated" label it usually did so for good reason. Often such movies were slammed with the NC-17 rating, which means absolute commercial death for any movie. Most theater chains won't carry NC-17 rated movies and most newspapers won't carry advertising for them either.

The NC-17 rating was originally designed as an alternative to the X-rating -something to differentiate serious adult's only movies from hardcore porn. But Jack Valenti and the MPAA did a quick about-face when they realized they could twist around the NC-17 as a means of keeping independent films mired in a commercial disadvantage against major studio releases.

The MPAA refused to draw a line between porn and other movies that weren't porn. Valenti said he couldn't make subjective decision about what was "art" and what was not. Freaking stupid. The difference between porn and other movies is a physical difference, not an artistic difference. In one movie they're acting like they're having sex. In the other movie they're really having sex.

Any movie that did receive a NC-17 rating had the choice of making cuts to get the show down to an R rating. The MPAA gives major studios very specific suggestions on what to trim. They make independent filmmakers read their minds and submit the show again and again. The independents do have the option to release the movie without a MPAA seal or rating. Lots of movies have gone out in limited release as "unrated" and even with guidelines that no one under 17 would be admitted to the show.

Certain DVD releases, such as the Criterion Collection version of Robocop featured "unrated" versions that truly had very brutal or frank material that justified the seemingly scary "unrated" label. I think Robocop built up that tradition by putting the original "X-rated" cut on the DVD. I remember being horribly jarred by the R-rated cut of that movie the first time I saw it. It's easy to see why the X-rated version of Robocop got the X-rating. The commentary track on that disc is very interesting for the insight it has about the ratings process and about the different contexts of violence in the movie.

And I guess that gets down to why I am pissed off about these PG-13 re-edited to "unrated" discs. They're totally ruining the impact of that "unrated" label. It's like the crying wolf fable. So many of these so called "unrated" discs are getting released that when something else comes along that really has some rough, NC-17 type material people are going to be wailing and throwing up their arms in despair about it because they were expecting something that was only mildly R rated in nature.

[jadedeath]

To an extent yes.

They take advantage of your fear that deep down inside we're {movie collectors anyway} all just like those geeky Star Trek fans that everyone makes fun of that has to have the extended deleted scenes restored version of Star Trek 1 just because Kirk's hair is parted in a different way from scene-to-scene.

That's just a joke example but it's true.

Those who go out and buy the movie again and again {without there being a new format like VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu-Ray} are just kinda silly especially since for most movies {like comedies} unless you're buying them new on Blu-Ray from this point on it's useless to rebuy them on Blu-Ray as Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible.

This is why I buy most of my movies previously viewed at the start especially if they have little to no special features, the movie still plays and you can {chances are} get them for around $8 if you know where and when to look.

Logan

[WickyWoo]

The NC-17 rating was originally designed as an alternative to the X-rating -something to differentiate serious adult's only movies from hardcore porn. But Jack Valenti and the MPAA did a quick about-face when they realized they could twist around the NC-17 as a means of keeping independent films mired in a commercial disadvantage against major studio releases.

Yes and no

Jack Valenti, first and foremost saw himself as a moral guardian, keeping America safe from all the kinds of films he and his right-wing co-conspirators don't like. That includes things like sex (especially gay sex or male nudity) and gore

That's why you can have some naked breasts and non-bloody violence up the wazoo and still get a PG-13. Show a penis whatsoever (no, I don't care if you want to see it or not), or have homosexual love sequences (even ones that don't show anything) and it's a one-way ticket to the R. Same thing with the F word.

While I'm fully convinced that the studios see this as an excellent weapon against independent film, a huge reason behind it is that they had no intellectual rights to the "X" rating, while they COULD file a patent on NC-17.

NC-17 is a tool the american right uses to lock away the things that they don't even want to exist, and those who benefit from the side benefits of people pursuing that agenda are more than happy to keep financing to achieve their other goals. For example, look at the case of Orgazmo, a film that is at best a light PG-13. It's NC-17 and not R in its unrated.

Guess how much the Mormon church greases the proper wheels? A good clue for you would be how so many operations like CleanFlicks catered to them

Jack Valenti and his successors are full willing participants and enablers in that. The studios more tolerate it because it mostly keeps said same off of their backs the rest of the time.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Certain DVD releases, such as the Criterion Collection version of Robocop featured "unrated" versions tht truly had very brutal or frank material that justified the seemingly scary "unrated" label. I think Robocop built up that tradition by putting the original "X-rated" cut on the DVD. I remember being horribly jarred by the R-rated cut of that movie the first time I saw it. It's easy to see why the X-rated version of Robocop

Really?

It had approximately 30 seconds of more blood, and was so over-the -top as to make it absurd, not objectionable (as Verhovan himself has noted). Robocop was slapped w/ an X because it was a movie by a no-name director, put out by a smaller studio (as evidenced by the amount of gore/sex/violence that made it into future R rated Verhoven productions such as Total Recall, Basic Instinct & Starship Troopers........amazing what being a box office success will do). Lets face it, had Tobe Hooper, George Romero, or Sam Raimi made Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom for Cannon Pictures, or New World, there's no way it would have gotten a PG rating without removing the "heart ripping" scene. Hell, the PG-13 rating was created specifically so major studios could get away with otherwise "objectionable" material w/o getting slapped w/ an R. The MPAA has been playing politics w/ film ratings since its inception.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

For example, look at the case of Orgazmo, a film that is at best a light PG-13. It's NC-17 and not R in its unrated.

I love Orgazmo, but to say that it was a light PG-13 is a bit of a strech. Otherwise I couldn't have agreed w/ your post more.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

I love Orgazmo, but to say that it was a light PG-13 is a bit of a strech. Otherwise I couldn't have agreed w/ your post more.

It was an R film, rating it NC-17 was going overboard.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

It was an R film, rating it NC-17 was going overboard.

Agreed.......

Still miss the good ole days when unrated really meant something. I remember when they released the unrated cut of A Nightmare on Elm St. pt. 5: The Dream Child on VHS (still have a copy). While it certainly wasn't a great movie, it was visually interesting, and the extra gore (especially Freddy feeding that one chick her own guts) was pretty sweet.