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?:D

[DjfunkmasterG]

i don't know. don't you think the unrated version of land is far superior to the theatrical version?:D

:lol::lol::lol:

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.:rolleyes:

[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. :p

[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.:rolleyes:


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. :p

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?:lol:

[bassman]

i thought that was a given though?, or do people think theyve found some super secret stuff no one else has?:lol:

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.

[Mike70]

I was just thinking of some other films that I prefer theatrical to extended/UNRATED

Gladiator


i was unaware until this moment that there was an unrated version of gladiator. :stunned:

a bit of a factoid and i hope it isn't out of place: did you know that "gladiator" is a remake of a movie from the 60s called "the fall of the roman empire" with stephen boyd, sophia loren, christopher plummer, and alec guiness? it isn't a scene for scene remake by any means but the main story was defo used for "gladiator".

"the fall of the roman empire" features one of my fav movie quotes ever. after stephen boyd gets rid of christopher plummer's commodus he is offered the throne by a group of senators and machinators to which he utters this immortal line:


Livius: You would not find me very suitable, because my first official act would be to have you all crucified.

[DjfunkmasterG]

i was unaware until this moment that there was an unrated version of gladiator. :stunned:

a bit of a factoid and i hope it isn't out of place: did you know that "gladiator" is a remake of a movie from the 60s called "the fall of the roman empire" with stephen boyd, sophia loren, christopher plummer, and alec guiness? it isn't a scene for scene remake by any means but the main story was defo used for "gladiator".

"the fall of the roman empire" features one of my fav movie quotes ever. after stephen boyd gets rid of christopher plummer's commodus he is offered the throne by a group of senators and machinators to which he utters this immortal line:



Gladiator is an Extended Version, found on the Blu-Ray edition. Ridley Scott introduces the film, but notes the theatrical version is his directors cut. It seems the studio and some cable stations preferred a lot of the deleted scenes be added back into the movie, so they released an extended cut, but again, Ridely prefers and refers to the theatrical as his director's cut.


Side Note: Ridely Scott has final cut in the contract of all his films since Blade Runner

BTW: That quote would have been great coming from Russell Crowe as Maximus. I shall seek out The Fall of the Roman Empire.

[EvilNed]

Generally, yes, I prefer the unrated cut. I can't really think of a situation where I thought the unrated version was worse than the theatrical. But hey, there might be some version out there. Mostly I'm lucky because in Sweden, no film is ever cut anymore. There hasn't been a cut made to a film since the mid nineties or something like that, which is nice. Nowadays, all they do is slap a rating onto a film, and a rating of 15 years of age is the highest they go. So meh, I'm pretty safe.

[LouCipherr]

Dj - I think RZ's "work print" of Halloween was better than the theatrical release, does that count?

It sucks almost as bad as the theatrical cut, but still... :lol:

[MinionZombie]

I think the "director's unrated cut" ending of H2 is better than the original theatrical ending.

[LouCipherr]

I think the "director's unrated cut" ending of H2 is better than the original theatrical ending.

That would be interesting to see, 'cause the work print of RZ's H1 included a completely different ending than it's theatrical counterpart, and personally I liked the ending of the work print better.

Not to mention, when michael is beating that kid in the woods with a tree branch - that scene dragged on way longer in the work print - which made it all the more gruesome and uncomfortable to watch. I liked that, and the bastard cut it out (or had to cut it). Bummer. :(

[MinionZombie]

Is that scene shorter in the Unrated Director's Cut, do you know?

...

As for the ending of H2, you can easily find the Unrated Director's Cut ending on YouTube.

Basically it reframes it, and changes other parts. Laurie doesn't stab Myers in the chest and head a bunch of times after he gets forked on farm equipment in the shed.

Loomis doesn't get rinsed by Myers in the shed - instead Myers, maskless, fucks him up after they both crash through the shed wall and into the field - he even says "DIE!" before stabbing him in the gut/chest.

Then Myers gets blasted by a hail of gunfire, before Laurie exits all weird in the head and seeing the visions of the kid that's nowhere near as good as Daeg Faersch, and Sheri Moon Zombie.

She picks up the knife and goes to kill Loomis, but gets shot - with another example of excellent style and editing - but she's not killed, and then it dissolves to the insane asylum bit at the end (with that silly white horse thing) as in the theatrical cut.

So the DC ending makes more sense generally speaking for Laurie, I think. It's also just a better ending in general.

...

As for H1 - I dug both endings - they both had a real punch to them.

[rongravy]

It kind of pisses me off that nowadays you get to see the version onscreen with the balls cut off it so they can put out an unrated version on dvd later.
I like the R version of Spawn wayyyy better than what they put out in PG13 onscreen.
I can see putting out a later, better version of stuff that came out back in the day, but anything coming out onscreen now should be uncut or show both PG and R versions.
I like the Night of the Creeps dvd for adding stuff in that got cut out. I also wish they'd get on putting out Nightbreed the way it was supposed to be, the Star Wars of horror.
So yeah, unrated versions are better, unless they are just to add more sex scenes. I want more gore and blood, not poonanner.

[LouCipherr]

Is that scene shorter in the Unrated Director's Cut, do you know?

I have no clue, MZ. After the rash of shit I gave H1 and now H2, did you really think I was going to buy the DVDs?

Excuse me while I laugh myself out of my chair. :lol:


j/k man, but seriously, I have no idea. After seeing the work print of H1 twice, then the theatrical verison, that was more than enough of RZ's take on Halloween for me.

BTW: MZ, fix your spoiler tags, it's all visible. :D

[MinionZombie]

lol, whoops, sorry about that folks - tags fixed. :D

Damn, now I'll have to get off my arse and dig out my copy of the work print and compare it to the DC DVD myself! :p

[LouCipherr]

lol, whoops, sorry about that folks - tags fixed. :D

Damn, now I'll have to get off my arse and dig out my copy of the work print and compare it to the DC DVD myself! :p

I'm glad you didn't ask me to do it. :lol:

Actually, if you do, let us know. If the DC is similar or the same as the Work Print, that would be a good thing considering the work print is much better than the theatrical release. Hell, that might even make it worth my while to shoplift the DC from my local video store... :lol: j/k

[DjfunkmasterG]

Work print of H1 is a lot different, or are you fellers talking about H2


After what I viewed as a complete disaster that everyone knows as H1, I refused to even watch H2

[LouCipherr]

We're talking about comparing H1's Directors Cut to the H1 Work Print. ;)

[MinionZombie]

We're talking about comparing H1's Directors Cut to the H1 Work Print. ;)
I've seen both, but the work print only the one time, while I've seen the DC about 4 times now and own the 2-disc DVD (man was I ROYALLY pissed off when the 3-disc with the 4.5 hour making of doc got announced a short while later - hence why I'm holding off on, wait for it Lou, purchasing H2 on DVD :elol:).

... *waits for Lou to calm his consternation* :lol: ...

Specifically Deej, we were talking about the difference between the WP and the DC of H1 in the scene where young Michael kills that punk ass kid in the woods.

I might whip out the WP and have a gander sometime later...

[LouCipherr]

I've seen both, but the work print only the one time, while I've seen the DC about 4 times now and own the 2-disc DVD (man was I ROYALLY pissed off when the 3-disc with the 4.5 hour making of doc got announced a short while later - hence why I'm holding off on, wait for it Lou, purchasing H2 on DVD :elol:).


*urge to kill, rising*

[MinionZombie]

*urge to kill, rising*
:elol::elol::elol:

And I'm serious. Not even joking. :)

[LouCipherr]

That's what scares me, MZ. :lol: