|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jan 5, 2006 15:32:07 GMT -5
I'm really getting tired of all these PG-13 horror flicks that are coming out on DVD with an altered, R-rated version "Too Scary to for Theaters" that isn't all that gory to begin with. I'm getting really sick of it, it's not like we haven't seen a guy set on fire or getting their throat slit before. We've gotten so many PG-13 movies released on DVD in an "uncut" form that isn't all that gory or bad. The Grudge, The Fog, AvP, and all those kinds of movies. That's what I'm getting at: cut movies showing up on DVD as uncut which aren't that terrible. Anyone else outu there hate this along with me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jan 5, 2006 15:43:17 GMT -5
Short answer: Yes. Yes I do.
(Long answer following:)
I've actually been complaining about this for about two years already. Not just about PG-13 horror films, either, but all PG-13 movies these days. Like Lords of Dogtown or the King Arthur movie aren't going to be massively incredible, escessively violent, curse-word-filled, nudity-laden improvements over the theatrical releases. Most of these movies are made with a specific rating and target audience already in mind when the script is done and filming begins.
And AVP will still suck a mean dick.
It's Hollywood trying to sell more DVD's. "Oh shit man, I totally gotta get the unrated version of Darkness! I heard that the chick in it totally masturbates spread-eagle in front of the camera!!" Not gonna happen! 95% of the time, it's just extra scenes of talking and plot cut from the film to make it short enough for the standard low-attention-span movie-goer's to follow.
And unfortunately, this trend will only intensify. I predict the following: They'll start taking older PG-13 movies--from 3-4 years old back to the beginning of PG-13 films--editing previously cut scenes back into the damn things and rereleasing them--in only that version. Mark my words.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jan 5, 2006 15:48:28 GMT -5
Thank god I'm not the only one. That really irritates me when I get a new DVD from a PG-13 horror flick in an "Unrated" version that isn't that terrible. It's annoying, and I do hope it stops soon. Let's hear what the others say.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Jan 5, 2006 16:09:55 GMT -5
It's dumb. They should just release them uncut in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jan 6, 2006 0:23:58 GMT -5
Yes, I agree.
I was looking through some DVDs at the store, and noticed the unrated version of Dark Water. Dark Water was a somewhat failed attempt at subtle horror. In order to make it "unrated", you'd have to add in cuss words, gore and a nude scene. And the plot doesn't leave much room for it.
Most times, I look at the scenes they edited back in, and say "Um... they cut that for a reason." This was especially evident in the unrated version of Bad Santa. There was one sequence added to the film that would probably be passable in a PG-rated film which really hurt the movie's pacing. And it wasn't necessary!
If the studio made you change your movie because it didn't have the balls to release your version, you add your sequence back in and call it a Director's cut. In fact, fuck all this unrated nonsense. If there's a scene you really want put back in, just do what they did in the old days and release a director's cut.
...Not that they'd listen to me anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jan 6, 2006 4:56:43 GMT -5
I'm with ya, guys - a very annoying habit and blatant cheating on the audience. Unfortunately, it may not stop anytime soon because, as Quorth said, it makes additional buck and I can't see a company that would refuse that.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Jan 6, 2006 6:19:30 GMT -5
Well, guys if anyone is to blame creative ad directors are.
They overuse the old, thrilling meaning of the word "uncut" which usually meant more gory, more indecent, more explicitely violent and so on...
Now the Uncut is going to mean just the old flick with the scenes which were cut before the realease irrevelant of the cause of the cut. Indeed each film production is always cut so each flick even for 5 years olds like a fairy tale can be later released in uncut version.
Conclusion:
Don't expect anything unusual under the label "director's cut" or "Uncut" or others which will be deviced when these words will become total cliches deprived any thrill in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jan 6, 2006 9:35:31 GMT -5
The unrated, uncut version of 40-Year Old Virgin actually had more nudity and swearing and stuff in it, but then again, it was an R-rated film packed to the brim with vile language from the start. All the new scenes do is make the movie longer and add in a few more gags and boobies. Not that I have a problem with more tits...
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Jan 6, 2006 10:15:28 GMT -5
Not that I have a problem with more tits... We all know it for sure ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Jan 6, 2006 11:25:04 GMT -5
The uncut version of Anchorman had a bunch of swearing in it, just a whole scene of Will Ferrell cursing.
So sometimes it helps.
I like the Sin City uncut edition, er recut, where the original theatirical version is there along with the longer, new one. Or who can forget Lord of the Rings and those extended editions that all run longer than Gone with the Wind?
Sometimes there's gems in the rough. But usually, I do agree, it is just annoying.
|
|
