Unrated Versions better than Theatrical Versions?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Tonight on HBO 2 HD they had Taken (2008), the liam Neeson film where he tears apart Paris looking for his kidnapped daughter who was sold into the sex trade. I had this movie via netflix Blu-Ray services, and only ever watched the UNRATED version, which hooked me fromt he get go, the HBO presentation was the Pg-13 version which doesn't seem to always have the best impact, usually for most films. However, there are times when I felt the theatrical edition of a film was better than the directors cut, unrated or extended version. Have you ever felt this way about any films? The only film I can think of that I preferred its theatrical to the extended edition was DAWN of the DEAD (1978). I do realize that is Romero's DIRECTOR'S CUT, but since it was the theatrical version I do prefer it over the extended and of course the Argento re-edit. In General, any other films you have come across where the theatrical cut was better than the extended version?

[Mr.G]

I think most theatrical versions are better. Usually there is a reason a cetain scene or shot didn't make the final cut. Unrated are for sick folks who like more T&A and swearing. (And yes, that includes me!)

[Wahsleety]

I much preferred the original version, The Blu-ray disk looks and sounds amazing, beyond beautiful. However, less was more, "Too many notes" I guess you could say.

[Mike70]

In General, any other films you have come across where the theatrical cut was better than the extended version? i don't know. don't you think the unrated version of land is far superior to the theatrical version?

[DjfunkmasterG]

i don't know. don't you think the unrated version of land is far superior to the theatrical version? No Version of LAND is superior.... Thanks for cheering me up though. Was in a bummed out mood the last 2 hours.

[MinionZombie]

Unrated Land is better. I also prefer the Extended Cut of Dawn of the Dead, but it was also the version I saw first. However, I do really like the additional information, and always miss it in the Theatrical Cut. Argento's version is a mess. Last night I watched the Director's Cut of Watchmen, and while I didn't immediately notice many additions (I saw it months and months ago at the cinema, and hadn't seen it since), it kept my attention for the full three hours and I dug it more this time around. I rather liked it when I first saw it, but I like it even more now. So I think the DC really does flesh a lot of things out and helps you grab on to the story a bit more. As a rule of thumb I prefer Unrated versions, because it just pisses me off you get a tamer version in the cinema and then you get the actual version on DVD. Many times you don't notice the changes, or they're not that big, but I want them there. Like a SAW movie - they should just be seen unrated, because otherwise it's like putting a nipple pasty on a nude woman covered in jizz. I also prefer the unrated/extended cut of Superbad. It was however the first version I saw, but again, when I saw the shorter theatrical version I missed loads of stuff not being there. However, I'm not sure an extended cut of Funny People will be at all necessary ... we'll see. I did think the movie was way too long theatrically. I also prefer the Directors Cut of Aliens, which I saw first, but prefer the theatrical cut of Terminator 2, which I saw first. So frequently which version you prefer comes down to which you saw first, as anything else doesn't feel like the same movie. Blade Runner for example - the 1992 Director's Cut is the one for me - the only other version I've seen is the Final Cut, and the changes in that are so piffling for the most part there's little point, although the new 'dove flying away' shot is a lot better than the side of some old warehouse or whatever it was before.

[bassman]

There are countless unrated releases, but only some of them are any good. The good are generally the ones in which the director had to cut out the scenes for ratings or time issues. The others are the ones the studio throw back in the deleted scenes and market it as a better film.

[krakenslayer]

In the UK we don't have "unrated" versions (all movies must be rated by the BBFC by law) but these editions are usually put out as "extended" versions or "too hot for cinema" versions. Nine times out of ten, though, these releases are given exactly the same BBFC rating as the theatrical release, which illustrates or at least strongly suggests that the "new" content was not, as they claim, removed due to censorship demands but instead was set aside in post-production specifically for the Unrated/Extended DVD as a cynical marketing strategy.

[Danny]

There are countless unrated releases, but only some of them are any good. The good are generally the ones in which the director had to cut out the scenes for ratings or time issues. The others are the ones the studio throw back in the deleted scenes and market it as a better film. aye well put, if that version wasnt rated then there was probably a reason for that, and its not always "shocking materials?!?!?!", im not a take all i can guy and a longer cut isnt always better, in fact many times ive seen a worse extended cut where theyve added another entirely useless plot line that makes no sense and makes the whole film boring. Though there not all bad. i got anchorman's extended version and its a hoot, and there is a whole supbplot about vince vaughn being his brother, not just his rival or something. There all different, but on the whole what the director ended up putting on the screen is how its meant to be watched so ill watch that. then the dvd will add a bunch of crap from the cutting room floor just to garner more blu-ray sales. to be honest the only time i really liked a film with added scenes on dvd was the lord of the rings, aside from that it mostly is just stuff cut out of the movie for a good reason. ---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ---------- In the UK we don't have "unrated" versions (all movies must be rated by the BBFC by law) but these editions are usually put out as "extended" versions or "too hot for cinema" versions. Nine times out of ten, though, these releases are given exactly the same BBFC rating as the theatrical release, which illustrates or at least strongly suggests that the "new" content was not, as they claim, removed due to censorship demands but instead was set aside in post-production specifically for the Unrated/Extended DVD as a cynical marketing strategy. ive seen unrated versions in england, hmv and the like stock them now and again, just yesterday when i was in nottingham i saw the unrated land with the sleeve of a chain link fence with a hand on it.

[bassman]

Another thing I hate about the "unrated" fad is that sometimes the issue of the non-rating is totally pointless. They could add 2 seconds to the end of a scene in which a character walks through a door and then call the entire film "unrated". Only because they didn't submit this version with the added 2 seconds to the ratings board. So then they slap "UNRATED OMG!?!11!" to the cover of the dvd and everyone swallows it up. Only to pop in the dvd at home to realize that the only new footage is someone exiting a room....

[Danny]

Another thing I hate about the "unrated" fad is that sometimes the issue of the non-rating is totally pointless. They could add 2 seconds to the end of a scene in which a character walks through a door and then call the entire film "unrated". Only because they didn't submit this version with the added 2 seconds to the ratings board. So then they slap "UNRATED OMG!?!11!" to the cover of the dvd and everyone swallows it up. Only to pop in the dvd at home to release that the only new footage is someone exiting a room.... i thought that was a given though?, or do people think theyve found some super secret stuff no one else has?

[bassman]

i thought that was a given though?, or do people think theyve found some super secret stuff no one else has? Maybe I didn't correctly say what I meant. What i'm trying to say is that sometimes you get "unrated" material that adds to the film and is actually worth the cost. Other times you get just a few seconds of film that adds absolutely NOTHING to the story. It's only tacked on so they can call it "unrated".

[krakenslayer]

ive seen unrated versions in england, hmv and the like stock them now and again, just yesterday when i was in nottingham i saw the unrated land with the sleeve of a chain link fence with a hand on it. Nah, I work in HMV and it is definitely 100% illegal to sell any video recording without a BBFC rating (unless it is classes as "Exempt" - i.e. some documentaries and music vids, etc.). They're so strict about it that we've had to send DVDs back to the distributor for featuring the certificate on the case but not on the disc itself. They're really quite draconian about it. What you might have seen is an HMV exclusive alternate artwork for Land which was the same style as the US Unrated DVD, iirc. Also, sometimes you do get DVDs released with identical artwork to the US unrated version, including the "unrated" text, despite the fact that they do have a UK rating.

[jded]

If I have not seen a movie in the theatre and eventually rent it and there is a choice between theatrical and unrated, I will watch the unrated first, and if it's at all good then the former. When it comes to Dawn of the Dead I've seen it so many times without the extras that when I finally saw the extended version it felt off. The flow felt interrupted. I'm sure I am biased towards the original and it has to do with seeing it first. The one film at the moment that I can think of that sort of benefited from the few extra scenes was The Exorcist version with the 11 minutes added. It was marketed with a phrase atop the cover that read "THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN." The contortionist scene is startling. I do feel that most times it is done on purpose to sell more product to us. I mean come on, I'm out another $15 for a few minutes that add nothing to the story, and your gonna tell me it was stripped by the MPAA for rating purposes?

[DjfunkmasterG]

I was just thinking of some other films that I prefer theatrical to extended/UNRATED Gladiator Lethal Weapon Lethal Weapon 2 Lethal Weapon 3 Crank King Kong (2005) There are a few other rattling around up there in the ole noggin' but since I am still in the just woke up phase (although I have been up for 3 hours) I am still thinking of some others.