more studios need to include BOTH versions- not just the UNRATED

[93xfan]

it's great when they offer you the unrated version, but why not allow you to the theatrical cut as as well. it's not like people will double dip to get the theatrical cut, and it doesn't take up much more space at all (with seamless branching). Universal has got it right with their upcoming releases, and this is something that DVDs have been offering for a while.

[ruckus81]

I'm with you on this one. I almost always prefer the DC, but it would be nice to have a choice.

[vooswing]

I also prefer the "cleaner" version over the unrated version most of the time.

For example... I saw part of the 40 year old virgin on TV and loved it so I bought the unrated HD DVD and thought the cleaner TV version was funnier. The unrated version just goes to far.

For movies like Die Hard where things like profanity actuallly fit it doesn't bother me but I think some movies just take it to far.

[view-it-purple]

Originally Posted by 93xfan

it's great when they offer you the unrated version, but why not allow you to the theatrical cut as as well. it's not like people will double dip to get the theatrical cut, and it doesn't take up much more space at all (with seamless branching). Universal has got it right with their upcoming releases, and this is something that DVDs have been offering for a while.

You are spot on. The only unrated version that I thought was better than the original was Scream, and all it has is a longer more gruesome murder scene at the beginning.

[Jimmy Macintosh]

I agree, I saw the unrated dodgeball, there seemed to be two bits that weren't in the original cut and it was just unneccesary (one comment and a slurping noise in one scene.) took away from the scene.

[Guns4Hire]

I agree 100%.

I hope when they release 'Last of the Mohicans' they put both the Theatrical and the DC on the same disc. Its funny really this is one of the few movies I prefer the Theatrical over the DC. And you cant get the Theatrical on DVD (it was never released). Only way to get Theatrical was VHS.

[livingproof73]

100% agree that studios need to offer BOTH versions of the film. I really don't understand why Sony released Ultraviolet unrated on DVD but only released the theatrical version on Blu Ray???

[nickherum]

What bothers me is that studios want to cut just enough out of a "R" rated movie to get the "PG-13" rating (i.e. Die Hard 4) and then release an unrated cut on DVD.

[GamerGuyX]

Originally Posted by vooswing

For example... I saw part of the 40 year old virgin on TV and loved it so I bought the unrated HD DVD and thought the cleaner TV version was funnier. The unrated version just goes to far.

Went to far? Thats a good one.

[JAC35]

Couldn't agree more! Seamless branching of both versions is the way to go! I like what was done with I AM Legend, hate what was done with Die Hard 4.

[HD Halo X]

I always buy the unrated version when I have a choice

[Guns4Hire]

Problem is the Studios is no friend to the consumer, this has been the case for a long time. And as long as they can screw you out of your money they will continue to do this. Its sad really.

[psickmusic]

The reason some of you, AND others, like the THEATRICAL VERSION better than the DIRECTORS CUT is because of this:

Alot of times a Director or studio will want to get a PG-13 Rating (its a wider audience), so, in order to do that, they PURPOSELLY put in a vulgar or extra gruesome scene so when they play it for the MPAA (who decide what a movie is rated) the MPAA says, "This is an "R" the way it is. You need to remove something" - Then the Director and/or Studio take out the extra gruesome or extra vulgar spot which they never intended to keep in there anyway and simply submit it again. Now the MPAA thinks its cleaner and give it the PG-13 rating the Studio/Director wanted.

Scorsese does it all the time. When doing Casino, he was told by the MPAA that they'd give it an NC-17 rating. So what Scorsese did was purposelly film a scene where Joe Pesci's character, Nicky, uses a vice to squeeze Tony Dogs' head until Tony's eyes pop out. Scorsese went out of the way to film the actual eyes popping out and of Tony's skull, with great make-up, shooting blood and all... everything!! It was sick!! When Scorsese submitted the film to the MPAA, they said, "Yup, this is going to get an NC-17". Scorsese said, "OK, I'll take out that eye popping scene" - Hahaha- Scorsese took it out and got the "R" rating he wanted, and all by removing a scene he never wanted to use in the first place.

What we're left with is exactly what he wanted to show in the first place.. the theatrical version. Just Pesci yelling at a guys' head in a vice. No visuals of an eye popping out:

Nicky Santoro: Charlie M? You made me pop your fuckin' eye out of your head to protect that piece of shit? For Charlie M? You dumb motherfucker!

Tony Dogs: Just kill me.

So, now the viewer - who see's Tony's head in a vice - can say to themselves, "Ooohhh, Nicky must have squeezed that vice to the point that Tony's eyes popped out" - and its left to your imagination, which is fine.

I'm sure Natural Born Killers' theatrical version vs Directors Cut is that reason, too.

[Guns4Hire]

Well that definitely isnt the reason I like the theatrical more than the directors or uncut.

[psickmusic]

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

Well that definitely isnt the reason I like the theatrical more than the directors or uncut.

Lots of peeps are probably intelligent enough to realize when something seems like it was forced - in other words, a scene gruesome just for the sake of being greusome. And after learning what I told ya, now ya know that there could be some DC's out there that simply contain a scene put BACK IN which was never meant to really be in there to begin with.. they were shot on purpose to trick the MPAA. Now they're back in and packaged in what's called a DC =)

But you have a different reason for liking the Theatrical version. Coooooool. lol. Wonder what the reason is?