|
Post by CT on Dec 7, 2009 20:44:52 GMT -5
Wow, it already got here today! They shipped it out quick. So should I watch the theatrical or unrated version? Probably get to it tommorrow.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 8, 2009 10:10:32 GMT -5
When it comes to deciding that I personally always go with the unrated version, seeing that its usually the version that the film maker intended to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 8, 2009 10:40:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I do the same thing if they both come on the same DVD. I have the Jason Goes to Hell and Leatherface: TCM 3 DVDs with the uncut and theatrical versions on the same disc for a combined total of about 8 years for both, and have never seen the theatrical versions of either film. It's not worth it: there's more blood and boobs in the uncut one so why should I censor my viewing when the filmmakers have made a decision for me to begin with?
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 8, 2009 18:46:10 GMT -5
It depends on the film. In this case, I don't think it matters much. These days, unrated versions on DVD don't mean much as they usually just have scenes (some of which aren't even graphic) that were never submitted to the MPAA for consideration. Most unrated DVD's are for films that would get an R or less if they had been submitted in that format. Most often, that footage was edited out for continuity or artistic reasons, and is only added in as a cash grab and to justify the unrated tag on the DVD (which is just as big a money maker in that context as releasing a film unrated is a money loser in the theatrical run).
In any case, the rated version is usually the final and most polished version of the film. Except when I have heard rumors of the film being edited to achieve a certain rating or recut without the director's consent and participation, I tend to think the theatrical version is the way to go.
Case in point, the so-called director's cut of DOTD '78 is actually not the version preferred by Romero (who still stands behind the theatrical cut). It was just released with that title by the studio for additional revenue on home video
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 9, 2009 12:06:39 GMT -5
Its not his preferred version but it is different, it is many minutes longer, but most of that is the time between them arriving at the mall and them leaving, not so much for gore. The Italian version is very different cut.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 10, 2009 10:41:51 GMT -5
But the unrated one has more blood and gore, so therefore it's the one I watch. I don't care what the filmmaker intended with which version, I go for the blood.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 10, 2009 10:45:12 GMT -5
Yes, the Italian version is very different. It contains less social commentary, a bit more action, and it relies more on Argento's Goblin soundtrack. I dig the Italian version sometimes, but I would still say that the theatrical version is the best overall presentation of the film in terms of shear quality.
My larger point, however, that unless you are aware that a film was subjected to studio cuts that the director did not approve of, the theatrical version tends to be the better film. Especially considering the scam that "unrated edition" DVD's have become in this world. Usually there is no more gore, violence, or nudity in the unrated DVD, but instead there is just some silly extra dialog scene that was cut because it sucks, but makes the film unrated when it is re-inserted because the film now contains material that was not evaluated by the MPAA.
MOre is not always better. Longer is not always preferable. Film editing is also an art form
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 10, 2009 11:12:55 GMT -5
I never found that to be particularly true, case in point the unrated version of Hellraiser 2, maybe with modern horror movies that is more true.
Well then GL you'll love the Italian version.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 10, 2009 11:18:13 GMT -5
Actually, I still like the original version of that one, the Italian version is good but I just can't get into it like the others.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Dec 10, 2009 18:44:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with HNTs point, which is why I asked which to watch. The theatrical version these days tends to be the best unless you know there'd extra gore or nudity which is what I was trying to peep out about this one. I doubt the unrated version of a pg13 like this one is that good, probably just extra dialogue like HNT said unless this was originally intended as an R.
And yes Abraxas, this is all much more true of recent films rather than older ones.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 10, 2009 19:34:33 GMT -5
And we are talking about Sam Raimi here so I'm sure their is some extra sick stuff in the unrated version.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Dec 10, 2009 21:17:42 GMT -5
Dammit! Now I still don't k ow which one to watch! Which one did you guys watch?
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 10, 2009 21:28:03 GMT -5
Well I only saw it in the theater, Id like to get it but I no longer have extra money to spend on DVDs.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Dec 11, 2009 13:14:49 GMT -5
SAw both. The theatrical cut is the way to go on this one. There is nothing significantly better about the unrated. Like you said, it was a PG-13 to begin with. This is not a gory film, nor was it meant to be
|
|
|
Post by CT on Dec 11, 2009 13:18:24 GMT -5
Ok, I'll be watching the theatrical version tonight or Saturday night.
|
|