My Bloody Valentine unrated DVD?

Discussion in 'Slashers' started by micrococcus, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    My Bloody Valentine is overrated. ;)
     
  2. Tuzotonic

    Tuzotonic Guest

    That deserves to be a post in the Unpopular opinions thread. :evil:
     
  3. RickB

    RickB New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A great movie indeed. Has always been one of my favorites. The fact it never had a sequel just adds to it's charm because it never became bad or over-done like the last several Jason,Michael,Leatherface and Freddy movies.
    I would love to see the deleted footage.
     
  4. The Doctor

    The Doctor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, it came close to having a sequel. According to the IMDB, George Mihalka approached Paramount in 2001 with a synopsis for a sequel, but due to poor box office records with the original film, they declined.

    I have not seen the film (and likely never will: my Blockbuster does not have a copy, TV showings are rare to non-existant, a used VHS is out of question due to dubious quality from being used a lot, and the DVD sure is exorbitantly priced for a bare-bones disc). Just telling you that it came close to having a sequel.

    And by the way, in the original one-sheet, what the hell is spraying blood on the miner?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2004
  5. TobalRox

    TobalRox Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 1999
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Suffield, CT
    Do yourself a favor and go to a real video store. Seriously, don't give Blockbuster your business. If you're one of the unfortunate souls that has had them take over all the other businesses in the area, get a NetFlix account. NetFlix is how i saw this movie, and to me, the cuts were blatant. It was poor editing, and the gore was needed, as I felt this was a very average slasher as it was.
     
  6. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,545
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    You can get the DVD new for around $10 most places. Hell, I often see it used at several stores for under $7.
     
  7. Reverenddave

    Reverenddave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2000
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can get it for $9.36 shipped at DeepDiscountDVD.com
     
  8. Tuzotonic

    Tuzotonic Guest

    That price is definetly worth paying for this movie. I may be biased in saying that since it's one of my top 10 slasher movies.
     
  9. Roger Ebert

    Roger Ebert Guest

    Have any one seen..!! -Jodi Lynn O'keefe..!! -Yet..!

    Have Any One Seen..!! -jodi Lyn O'keefe..? -yet..!!
     
  10. RickMoe

    RickMoe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tromaville
    Here are a couple pics from the uncut version of MY BLOODY VALENTINE. They are from a website that interviewed the director, and talked a lot about the censored footage. I forget the web address, but if I ever cross it again I'll post it here.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Tuzotonic

    Tuzotonic Guest

    That's the best Mabel and Hap ever looked.
     
  12. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    You aren't fooling anyone. I've crushed your little game.
     
  13. Luna

    Luna Guest

  14. betterdan

    betterdan Guest

    That website is Hysteria Lives! and here's the page http://www.hysteria-lives.co.uk/hysterialives/Hysteria/campaignindexmbvmain.htm
     
  15. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,640
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Wasn't the uncut print (or the deleted scenes) offered to Paramount by the director George Mihalka for the DVD release, but they refused? That's what I read...And if that's the case, Paramount can go suck a dick.

    But I think they ARE getting better with their DVD releases...slowly. They're re-releasing all the F13th movies in a boxset and Footloose is getting re-released in a SE from Paramount as well. So, maybe there IS hope for an uncut release.

    ~Matt
     
  16. dwatts

    dwatts New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    16,580
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Crashed
    Just a rehash of an old thread. I've had this DVD for a while, but didn't get to visit with it until last night. All the chat on this thread misses two important points: 1) The film is a lot of fun as it stands. 2) Paramount's DVD looks amazing for such a film, with a pristine transfers.

    Anyway, after the film started I realized I saw this at the cinema back in the day. I'd simply forgotten. It's not deep, it's a slasher :) Easily worth the money as it's quite entertaining.
     
  17. WesReviews

    WesReviews Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,582
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Pikeville, KY
    Exactly. Quite possibly the best early 80's slasher movie transfer on DVD. Terror Train's is good, but My Bloody Valentine just looks gorgeous. April Fool's Day does as well, but it's a little newer than My Bloody Valentine.
     
  18. walkingdude

    walkingdude Megatron

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Nova Scotia Canada
    There is talk of a remake of this film and they plan to add the cut items into this movie by flashbacks.
     
  19. Here are the possibilities regarding the cuts.

    The movie was released in 1981 which means the theatrical release prints were struck in Eastmancolor from a CRI (Color Reversal Internegative). They stopped making camera negative prints after 1968 with the exception of dye transfer Technicolor movies through 1974. After 68' all general release copies were made from duplicate negatives.


    Therefore, it's possible that they cut the CRI and left original negative intact. Releasing the movie uncut on DVD would merely mean making a camera negative print rather than a copy from the cut CRI (duplicate negative). However, if the original sound mix was cut too, then they have the problem of missing sound even if the camera negative was intact.


    On the other hand, there's the possibility that the
    camera negative was cut too which means the missing footage is probably from an original answer print prior to the re-editing. A 1981 Eastmancolor print would be quite faded by now (they didn't have low fade Eastmancolor until 1983) so they'll have to try to tweek the color
    from the print to match the rest of the film on video.


    Why is Paramount reluctant to release an unrated version even if they can restore the cuts and faded color?

    That brings up the Ratings Game. To understand how this works you have to go back to 1968. Prior to that year the film industry worked under a Production Code. All major studio films need a Production code seal to exhibit them in the large screen cinemas. Exploitation films did not need nor desire a Production code seal but were relegated to small screen independent cinemas, drive ins and grind houses. While many people objected to this system, it did work for exhibitors since the different types of product each had an appropriate venue to be shown in. It certainly kept the large screen cinemas financially solvent. In addition, the Production Code was not the monolithic entity that opponents claimed. It was constantly modified and reformed over the years. By 1966, virtually all subject matters were allowed including graphic sex and violence providing it was handled with restraint and
    not exploitative. For example, both "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Pawnbroker" received seals even though they contained blood and nudity and could play in any theater. Romero and Hershell Gordon Lewis made graphic exploitation films and released their pictures without a seal in the alternate venues.

    It's important to always consider the financial considerations of producers, distributors and exhibitors. Producers of Hollywood product tried to get away with as much as they good within code guidelines.
    Indeed, an arguement could be made that part of their artistry was
    in circumventing code restrictions as Hitchcock did in his "Psycho" shower scene. The seal was negotiable depending on budget and industry clout. Distributors had the same interests as the Producers in getting as much controversial material as they could without crossing the line. They needed the seal to get their product in the largest houses. Exhibitors had a somewhat different approach. They needed the broadest demographic to fill up their seats. Anything that alienated a large percentage of viewers whether it was too much sex, violence, language or overt political content was bad for their business.
    Excluding children or alienating older adults would not fill a 1000 seat movie theater. Since the grindhouses were smaller cinemas, they could risk booking the more graphic films and targeting one segment of the audience, namely the 'youth' demographic.

    I believe this system worked quite well for all concerned. It gave a broad range of movies to watch. Mainstream (PG or PG-14) type of product was the staple for the large screen theaters and exploitation was available in alternate venues. Add to the formula, a number of art house theaters that played counter-culture or foreign pictures and repertory cinemas that booked classics.


    All of this changed in 1968. Jack Valenti replaced Eric Johnson as head of the MPAA when the latter died. Johnson was the well respected president which acted as a mediator for the various factions of the industry. Valenti took a different stance and favored distributors over the others. He dumped the production code entirely and eliminated the requirement of the seal. He replaced it with the ratings system.


    Initially, all the factions thought this was a great idea. It gave complete screen freedom and allowed large screen cinemas to book more graphic movies including exploitation. It seemed like a win win
    situation until 1973 when the factions all had second thoughts on the matter.

    The first problem they faced was that Valenti's rating system wasn't
    consistently applied. Like the abandoned seal, ratings were negotiable depending on budget and clout. An extremelly graphic movie like "The Exorcist" received an R even though it was quite controversial for it's era. A low budget exploitation movie with similar content would receive an X. Curiously, the X rating was not originally intended for porn. It was first used for movies that the MPAA thought had content that no small child should see even with an accompanying parent. Thus movies like "Midnight Cowboy" and "The Damned" received X ratings even though they were in no way exploitative or even particularly graphic.
    What happened to the rating is that low budget distributors started releasing hardcore porn with a self applied X rating. By the time of "Deep Throat" in 1972, the X rating was associated solely with hardcore sexploitation. As a result, no distributor wanted to get stuck with that rating. That brings us up to 1981 when "My Bloody Valentine" was probably submitted and received the dreaded X from the MPAA which forced Paramount to re-cut it for the desired R. X was not only associated with porn. Some newspapers refused to allow advertising for any picture more restrictive than R. The fact that it was a low budget movie and the director had no industy clout was also a factor.


    Back to the original story, it turned out that booking exploitation or sexploitation in mainstream theaters was a bad idea. It worked better when they played the small indie theaters, drive ins and grindhouses.
    When a large screen theater booked an exploitation film, it alienated a large percentage of the traditional 'general audience' which included children and older adults. It wasn't just the movies. The graphic trailers angered them too which is why they started to rate them just like the movies. (Trailers were very graphic and unrated until 1970).
    The large screen cinemas saw attendence get cut in half because the principal product was either R or X by the early seventies. They couldn't fill up their seats by excluding so many people so they started twinning them or buiding small screen multiplexes to compensate for the targeted demographic and smaller numbers. As I've posted elsewhere, attendence dropped from 41 million a week down to 22 million a week. It also inspired producers to target most movies in the future for the limited 16-26 year old demographic. A lot took a rather cynical view of this age group and dumb downed the screenplays and stories emphasizing special effects and gore over character developement or plot logic.


    Returning back to the Ratings game (I hope you're following my narrative), some low budget film distributors decided to try to dodge the corrupt ratings system by creating their own classifications.
    For example, Hallmark released "Mark of the Devil" with a 'rated V for Violence' rating. "Dawn of the Dead" and "Maniac" were released with an 'un-rated' classification avoiding the X association with porn.


    Of course, Valenti was a lobbyist for distributor interests not producer or exhibitor so any complains on his ratings fiefdom fell on deaf ears.
    (Valenti finally retired from the MPAA recently at age 81). It wasn't until the major studios complained about classification that he made some modifications. He created the "PG-13" rating to accomodate movies that deserved an R rating but were too expensive to restrict minors. Films like "Titanic" received this classification even though it had topless nudity. An independent movie would've gotten an automatic R for the same content but Valenti didn't want the joint studios who financed the movie to go bust so it got the lesser rating.
    Some directors complained about the cuts they had to make to get an R on movies like "Fatal Attraction" so Valenti created the NC-17 rating.
    Unfortunately, this did not work. Most exhibitors and audiences saw NC-17 as "X" so distributors continue to avoid that classification.


    To make matters more confusing, an entirely different and bewildering classification was created for television broadcast that was different than the one used for theaters.


    I ran into problems with my first two movies with the MPAA. In both cases my gore was not as graphic as other studio product released around the same time but they made me cut scenes to get the R.
    I made the cuts on the prints themselves, not the negatives which remained intact. Both movies were released uncut on video.
    I got so frustrated dealing with them that I simply stopped rating my movies and release them without a classification in theaters and on video. Of course, I utilize independent distributors who don't care about the MPAA. If I was ever offered distribution by a major I would
    probably have to cut the films to get an R. I guess it's one of the reasons I like being independent. It gives me complete autonomy and I don't have to play the ratings game...
     
  20. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    It's all politics, and all bullshit. In the end the audience are the ones who suffer from a watered down product not true to the filmmakers intended vision.
    I read an article in USA Today within the last year or so about the ratings system, and how movies like Fast and the Furious can get away with blood and implied sex, still getting the golden PG-13 rating as long as the word "fuck" isn't used in a sexual sense, or more than 2 times. A lot of that has to do with who is behind the movie. The bigger the studio, the more they can get away with and still get their PG-13 (the most coveted of ratings).
    Then there was an indie film that had no nudity, no voilence, no nothing except 5 or 6 "fucks" and got slapped with an R. I wish I would've saved that article. It also mentioned NC-17 being the same as X, maybe worse by today's standards. The other alternative, to go Un-rated, is looked upon as an instant NC-17 no matter what the content of the movie is.
    God I hate the MPAA. They are technically a public service office right? We should get to vote on who becomes a member and get things at least partially on the right track. A bunch of old farts who don't know anything of real life in these times telling us what we can and can't show our kids based on their outdated beliefs is just poposterous.
     

Share This Page