Poll: You like unrated or theatrical cuts better?

[iam1bearcat]

So, when I got Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I realized the BD came with 3 (3!) different versions of the film. I see alot of films advertising the whole "unrated cut!" as a way to get people to buy the product and I was wondering, which do you like better?

Theatrical?
Unrated?
Director's Cut?
Or do you not even notice a difference?

The other day I watched the 'unrated' cut of The Hangover and was not amused. It was about a whopping 8 minutes longer and the new material wasn't very good. And to be honest I only noticed the new material because I watched the theatrical cut a few days earlier, otherwise I barely notice this "unrated" editions.

Your thoughts?

[styl3s]

Depends because alot of "unrated/uncut" versions only have like seconds or 1-3 minutes of extra footage and i don't even notice the extra footage actually the last movie i actually noticed "uncut" wise was dawn of the dead remake

[ScarredLungs]

It really depends on the movie. I do own some Unrated/Directors cuts, but it it judged on a movie by movie basis. My answer is sometimes.

[WMAangel]

I'm going with choice #5 (AKA one not on your poll): It is entirely dependent on the film on a case by case basis.....

Some theatrical cuts are better than extended/unrated ones, some director's cuts are superior to theatrical ones, and sometimes I might even prefer an extended cut to a director's cut....

[42041]

I try to read up on what the consensus is on the value of the additional material. Generally I think brevity is a virtue and that many films are overlong, if something was cut it was probably for a reason.

[CinemaGod]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

So, when I got Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I realized the BD came with 3 (3!) different versions of the film. I see alot of films advertising the whole "unrated cut!" as a way to get people to buy the product and I was wondering, which do you like better?

Theatrical?
Unrated?
Director's Cut?
Or do you not even notice a difference?

The other day I watched the 'unrated' cut of The Hangover and was not amused. It was about a whopping 8 minutes longer and the new material wasn't very good. And to be honest I only noticed the new material because I watched the theatrical cut a few days earlier, otherwise I barely notice this "unrated" editions.

Your thoughts?

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is different than other movies because it was Released (1977) before Spielberg was done Editing it, because Columbia was going Bankrupt. After it made $288 million world wide.

Spielberg went back and shot more Scenes and Re-Released the Movie in theaters three years later in (1980) called it "The Special Edition"... But Columbia made him show the inside of the ship witch Spielberg didn't want to do.

So Spielberg cut out the inside of the ship scene in the 1998 "Collectors Edition"

[MarkJ801]

As long as the theatrical is there with it, then the other two are great to have and watch.

[HRC]

ALWAYS Unrated or Director cuts. I like my films uncensored and I like seeing the whole film.. not a shortened version.

[$plash]

majority of the time i like the directors cuts or unrated cut like "Troy" but one that clearly shows that theatrical is better than unrated is "Dumb & Dumber"

[sfmarine]

I enjoy Troy and Kingdom of Heaven DC's. If it improves the movie then I'm all for it. However sometimes it hurts the movie.

[progers13]

I agree with several other posts - it depends on the film, case by case basis. I notice a big difference in Troy and Chronicles of Riddick. Not so much in Terminator: Salvation. In Live Free or Die Hard, they took at least 1 scene out of the unrated version and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

[Show spoiler]When McClain and Ferrell are trying to escape the hitmen at Ferrell's apartment. McClain throws a fire extinguisher, shoots it, which explodes and knocks one of the hitmen out of a window. McClain comments: "That's going to wake the neighbors." Why on earth would this scene be removed from the unrated version?

In short, some movies I like the unrated / director's cuts versions. Some movies I don't.

[MaCruz]

It depends... mainly unrated version, but they better have the original one as well.

[fatediesel]

Most unrated versions are just marketing ploys and make little difference. For the most part I usually like the theatrical version over unrated/extended cuts. Some unrated versions that do add a lot of footage can make the movie much worse. I really like the movie Walk Hard, but the unrated version, which adds 24 minutes, was much worse in my opinion. The unrated version just seemed to drag on and last forever.

I'm usually a fan of director's cuts. I think the best director's cut is Untitled, which is what Cameron Crowe wanted to name Almost Famous. Untitled is far superior to Almost Famous in my opinion and has several fantastic scenes that weren't in the theatrical cut.

[wallendo]

I generally prefer the Theatrical Version, is this is the actually movie produced and released in theatres and is the version evaluated for awards.

Most "unrated" versions are simply the theatrical version with a few minutes (frequently a few seconds) of footage added in. Many of the versions include material which was intentionally cut for artistic reasons. Studios know that there are many people who will preferentially buy an "unrated" version. Most of these are not "uncensored" director-intended versions, but simply edits of the movie created by the marketing department.

[thePhoenix]

If there's the option to watch the unrated or theatrical version, i'd always pick the unrated but most of the time i can't tell the difference.

[My_Two_Cents]

Most of the time, I prefer to watch the extended or director's cuts, but not always. When the new cuts CHANGE the story for the worse because of PC crap, I prefer the original (ET with the guns changing to walkie talkies and Star Wars with Greedo "shooting" first are good examples).

[bhampton]

If I saw the movie in the "theater" then I may prefer the theatrical cut.

I'm not sure that all "director's cut" versions are truely the intended director's cut. I think some of them just threw back in some cut footage and went for the double dip.

I don't like how movies that are 3 hours already often get extended, it's just too much after a while for me anyways.

I very rarely go to "theater"s anymore though because my local theater is the worst I've ever experienced. Last time I had a free promotional ticket I gave it away to avoid going there.

If a "unrated" cut is simply a sexy scene that was too hot for the original cut tacked on ... that works for me.

=Brian

[BladeRunner2007]

Can't really tell. It's always different.

Halloween (2007) - DC had that stupid rape scene and that ruined it. The other scenes were nice but didn't really add to any more depth. Theatrical version is much better.

Halloween II (2009) - DC is much better. Much more character development, makes more sense, pacing is way better, more emotional and depressing, better ending, feels complete now and overall a much better viewing experience.

Halloween (1978) - Theatrical version is far superior. No stupid extra scenes which imply that Laurie is Michael's sister. Makes it much more terrifying when Michael has no motive or no reason to stalk/kill Laurie.

Watchmen - DC is better than the way too short theatrical cut. But the Ultimate Cut really delivers on ALL levels. Are 215 minutes too long? No, not for this movie!

Dawn of the Dead (1978) - The U.S. Theatrical Version is Romero's real DC and it is much better than the extended version (which feels like a workprint) or the european version, which is just too short.

Grindhouse - The 191 minute U.S. Theatrical Version is WAY better than both extended cuts of Planet Terror and Death Proof. It also has all the fake trailers. A much better viewing experience.

Blade Runner - My favorite movie of all time. I just don't like the theatrical ending. It is odd and doesn't fit the mood of the film at all. That's why I prefer the Final Cut all the way. It also eliminates some goofs.

Friday the 13th (2009) - The Killer Cut is more of a Sexy Cut. All the scenes are redundant and that's why I like the theatrical cut better.


...just to name a few

[koontz1973]

Rarely does a DC/EE warrant a double dip. The only 2 films that come to mind where this is the case are Star Trek TMP and Aliens (bound to be a lot more). Both extended cuts fill in plot holes, drive the action and make good/great films even better. Most unrated films now are horrors and teen sex comedies, of which I do not see in the theatre so I never see what has been added.

If I buy a film that has both versions out then I would normally get the DC/EE as I would feel cheated if I did not. But many of these cuts only add a boob or 2 or a bit of gore.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Rarely does a DC/EE warrant a double dip. The only 2 films that come to mind where this is the case are Star Trek TMP and Aliens (bound to be a lot more). Both extended cuts fill in plot holes, drive the action and make good/great films even better. Most unrated films now are horrors and teen sex comedies, of which I do not see in the theatre so I never see what has been added.

Surely LoTR EE's fall into the "warrants a double dip" category.

If I buy a film that has both versions out then I would normally get the DC/EE as I would feel cheated if I did not. But many of these cuts only add a boob or 2 or a bit of gore.

LOL. Terminator: Salvation anyone?