A Question About Unseen, Extended, Recut, All-That-Crap Movies

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

If they bother releasing extended versions of movies, uncut movies which are "more hilarious" than their theatrical counterparts, all that stuff...why bother releasing theatrical cuts in the first place? It's just wasting people's time IMO I'm sick of seeing forty different versions of Lord of the Rings, Da Vinci Code, all the DVDs that have been recut because they were too tough for theatres...okay...I'm exaggerating on the "forty" bit...it's only three different versions

But still, is anyone else sick of these things going on? There's been some talk of extended Harry potters, and I don't like that coz I have all four currently release dmovies on DVD bought on the first day and...they're releasing extended versions...true or not, I'm getting sick of these...release one movie, and one movie only

 

[Movies205]

You need to realize that some things are just superflurious releases while others are justified.

Anchorman Uncut and the multitude of comedies that have uncut versions are for the most part worse than there counter-parts because the cut stuff wsa cut because it killed the pacing of the film or detracted from the film. All those "uncut/director cuts" simply take footage from the cutting room floor and insert them back in, they were cut for a reason, they shouldn't be reinserted.

Then there are the films where directors clashed with the studios, and ultimately the studio release there version, which most of the time sucks, these releases are completely justified. Noteable DC: Alien 3, Daredevil, Kingdom of Heaven, and Superman 2: Richard Donner Cut.

Then finally there is now a more unique catagory that has emerged due to Peter Jackson, producing content for the more hardcore fanbase through DVD, normal people do not want to sit through 4 hour long epics, hence why extended editions were created. It's a compromise so that both the mainstream and niche market could be satisfied. I only know of Lord of the Rings really doing this, though it's being explored for Watchmen.

Nothing is black and white

 

[Mister J]

They release the theatrical versions like that usually due to content or time restraints. Certain things that you can slap into a DVD might cause a different rating for a theatrical cut, thereby limiting some of the audience. To a similar end, footage that might make the film more 'complete' or scenes that are good, but not necessary, might push the running time out of some people's comfort zone and cause the movie to feel like it drags. You give people the option to watch that stuff at home and it's not as big of a problem. Like Movies said, it's catering to a niche market, which is a good thing. I appreciate the variety offered.

I don't have a problem with varying movie versions. I just stand the fact that they stagger the releases when all the footage is right there. Put the Director's Cut or Unrated version or whatever on release at the same time as the 'regular' DVD version. In the alternative, give consumers a heads up that another version is coming so they can make a choice on what they want. Then again, if studios stopped double dipping, it would cut into their pursuit of the almighty dollar. I usually don't bother with more than one version of a movie, especially when the new released comes only months after the initial. It'd have to offer something really unique and worthwhile to justify another purchase.

 

[KenK]

They release the theatrical versions like that usually due to content or time restraints. Certain things that you can slap into a DVD might cause a different rating for a theatrical cut, thereby limiting some of the audience. To a similar end, footage that might make the film more 'complete' or scenes that are good, but not necessary, might push the running time out of some people's comfort zone and cause the movie to feel like it drags. You give people the option to watch that stuff at home and it's not as big of a problem. Like Movies said, it's catering to a niche market, which is a good thing. I appreciate the variety offered.

I don't have a problem with varying movie versions. I just stand the fact that they stagger the releases when all the footage is right there. Put the Director's Cut or Unrated version or whatever on release at the same time as the 'regular' DVD version. In the alternative, give consumers a heads up that another version is coming so they can make a choice on what they want. Then again, if studios stopped double dipping, it would cut into their pursuit of the almighty dollar. I usually don't bother with more than one version of a movie, especially when the new released comes only months after the initial. It'd have to offer something really unique and worthwhile to justify another purchase.

That's what I'm talkin' about! I look at some of the movies that get released on DVD, and I KNOW there should be more than what they offer. 20th Century Fox has done this with several of their most high-profile releases in the last two or three years; Man On Fire, I Robot, Mr. & Mrs Smith, X-Men: The Last Stand, etc. These were all HUGE movies, but their intial DVD releases were all barebones! I knew better than to buy any of those films, 'cause I KNEW Fox would come with proper special editions later.

Thankfully, I rarely get burned on DVD releases now, 'cause more often than not, I just rent from Netflix. If I feel a purchase is justified, then I'll get it.

But yeah, the whole "Uncut, Uncensored, Unrated" game is a dirty one, 'cause it rarely changes anything.

 

[comicgirl]

DVD's labeled as "Director's cut" weren't selling. Hence, the mess we have now.

 

[Bat Attack]

The Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3 extended cuts were awesome. Same with Sin City.

 

[skorponok]

I noticed you didn't mention the Alien Ressurrection extended cut

 

[Addendum]

Even though Ridley Scott said that the Alien "director's cut" was nothing more than a marketing tool, and that the theatrical version is "pretty flawless"

 

[Tempest19]

It's mostly only Fox that uses Director's Cut releases as films that should have had first theater runs. Most other company films have director's cuts that added more information or were longer and for the more fanbase and those who loved the film rather than general audiences.- If that makes sense...?

 

[Bat Attack]

I don't care, I still like the deleted scene where ripley gets ***** slapped.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I only buy the director's cuts when I know there is a significant amount of footage and/or story added, most of the time that isn't the case.

Mentioning Lord of the Rings is not really fair since the studio was upfront that the extended editions would be coming within a few months of the "barebones" releases. I know they've recently released a new version, but all that's new is alternate behind the scenes footage and the studio advertised it as that.

 

[Max J Power]

It depends on the movie. Anchorman, for example, had a little bit of new stuff but nothing that changed the experience. While Sin City didn't have a lot of new footage, the added scenes made the experience a bit better. The new scenes of Daredevil really made the movie better than the theatrical version.

 

[JTStarkiller]

Yeah, Dardevil, Kingdom of Heaven, The Lord of the Rings, and Blade Runner are all great examples of what you can do on DVD.

I think one of the reasons this happens is because the movie-going public is much different than DVD collectors. I know tons of people who saw Kingdom of Heaven and Daredevil, but none of them even know about the new DVD cuts.

 

[Rez]

I'm all for multiple cuts. What I don't like is buying them multiple times.

The best case scenario is this:

Release 2 versions of the film at the same time:
A 1 disc, fairly bare bones theatrical version of the film- with the only extras being stuff that basically everyone watches like an outtakes reel and a trailer or two.

And then a multiple disc(However many it takes- 2, 3, 4) version which includes the Theatrical version, the Director's cut/extended version, any furthar deleted scenes, commentaries, making of features, etc.
Unfortunately very few films do this.
In fact, the only ones I can really think of are Brazil(Put out by Criterion) which comes in both 1 and 3 disc versions, and Sin City. Even then, Sin City came out months apart.

 

[Katsuro]

And then a multiple disc(However many it takes- 2, 3, 4) version which includes the Theatrical version, the Director's cut/extended version, any furthar deleted scenes, commentaries, making of features, etc.
Unfortunately very few films do this.
In fact, the only ones I can really think of are Brazil(Put out by Criterion) which comes in both 1 and 3 disc versions, and Sin City. Even then, Sin City came out months apart.

What do you mean very few films do this? Superman Returns came out like 2 weeks ago and they had two versions. The single-disc version with almost no special features, and the two disc version with deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes, etc.

and that's just to name one. I work at a video store, and see it all the time. I'm pretty sure Pirates of the Carribean 2 did it also. Yeah, they do it a lot.

 

[captainmarvel]

What I can't stand is why they would release two versions (a 1 disc barebones and 2 disc loaded) in the first place. Where I live, the local walmart rarely gets the 2 disc editions, so if I want it I have to go to the mall (which I hardly ever get to do since the closest mall is 60 miles away and I don't have a car). That's why I still don't have the most recent Harry Potter film in my collection yet.

 

[Rez]

What do you mean very few films do this? Superman Returns came out like 2 weeks ago and they had two versions. The single-disc version with almost no special features, and the two disc version with deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes, etc.

and that's just to name one. I work at a video store, and see it all the time. I'm pretty sure Pirates of the Carribean 2 did it also. Yeah, they do it a lot.

I was speaking in regarding to films with Recut/extended/DC versions... you know, the title of the thread?