Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'High Definition' started by fceurich39, Feb 27, 2013.
well now it is back 2 unrated in capital letters now someone needs to find out about this crap
Well at least we know it exists for real now. If they take it down again it just means they're being slack about getting it out. Still, why did they pull it down and delete all the comments in the first place.
That sounds logical. After all, next year (2014) is the 40th anniversary of the 1974 original. Most have been assuming Warner Bros./New Line will release a 40th anniversary Blu-ray/DVD of the 1974 film at that time. Maybe Lionsgate is holding off on the Unrated BD/DVD of Texas Chainsaw 3D until then too?
Well, until an unrated version shows up on disc, I´ll just download an torrent of the unrated cut. If I´m buying something, it has to be a physical copy, not a digital file, and I´m not paying for a censored version. This is a slap in the face for the fans.
AHMEN steel76 somebody taking sense for a change!!!
I actually went the iTunes/appletv route last year and got rid of my discs because moving all the time it was expensive hauling everything. I kind alike that I just take a little apple TV everywhere I go. I'm apparently the only one on here that was going to buy it on itunes anyway, so this was a big bonus for me. I really want digital downloads to get better and the extras to be carried over. I don't want discs to go away but this is nice for me lol
yep here it is https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/texas-chainsaw-unrated/id633790508
Maybe this is them trying to push consumers away from disc to digital so they won't have ANY manufacturing costs. Don't they usually put exclusive things on whatever they want the customer to get. For instance, a lot of exclusive things were put on blu-rays so people would buy the blu-ray instead of dvd, etc. I hope other companies don't try to pull this tactic.
exactly that's why we have to make a fuss, yes i'm sure some people like the digital downloads, but a lot don't, I hate them, I will not go that route, I would torrent first, i like blu ray, i like a physical copy, i like you can do what you want with it, give the people the choice, not restrict them, if we make a fuss now then they will think twice before doing it again.
There's nothing wrong with digital downloads AS A BACKUP.
Boy you guys are really gonna show them aren't you? A multi-million dollar company like Lionsgate is really going to feel the hurt of the wrath of maybe 1,000 or so people that refuse to buy or rent something via digital download. Yessiry-Bob, you guys are gonna put the hurtin' on them...
Okay - seriously, time to get off the soap box. LG doesn't give a flying f**k if the fans are pissed off because the unrated cut is being exclusively offered as a digital download and not on a physical disc, they REALLY don't. Even if fans make a fuss, do you honestly think they're going to press discs because of that??? Studios are trying to get away from physical media because that's the way the future is going. Every mainstream film you buy now comes with a digital copy, there's more than one reason for that.
To think you're entitled to what you believe is right is ludicrous. We're talking about major studios who are maybe releasing 10 horror films per year that 95% end up direct to DVD and not in theaters. You really think they give a shit about the community that's purchasing these films or the overall bottom line that's ultimately going to make them more money and appeal to mass audiences? Seriously, think about it.
Lionsgate has been around for more than a decade, they have hundreds of people working for them and a large marketing department that helps make these decisions.
Now let's say you own a store, let's be creative here, you own a video store and for the past ten years when you've wanted to really push a title, you've put up a display in the front of the store right where customers walk in. This method has worked, tried and true, selling out every title you showcase in this display. Now some cinemaphile walks in one day and says to you, "You need to put that display in the back of the store, being in the front doesn't work for me." What do you think your answer to that customer is going to be? For something that YOU know works, has worked, and continues to work just as it is.
It's the same principle. They know what mainstream audiences are going towards, they know physical media in 20 years will be a memory and everyone wants to be the first at the finish line. You can bark and growl all you want, download the movie illegally, go for it - you're not hurting them in the long run. You can get as many supporters as you want in your corner too, but unless you get every single horror fan in the good ol' US of A to back you up - you might as well try and appeal it to congress as well because that's exactly how far you get if you did.
I don't understand the mentality of a horror fan that thinks a studio owes them some kind of favor, they really don't. Their revenue isn't solely horror films, they release dozens of movies a year and a fraction of them are horror. They don't depend on us like smaller companies such as Synapse or Blue Underground so they could give a flying rat's ass if we're unhappy.
Buy the unrated cut, don't buy it, it's up to you - but stop acting like everyone here is going to cause some revolution that's going to cause multi-million dollar studios to re-evaluate their business ethics and practices. They way of the future is digital format, that's where everything's going and eventually that's all that there's going to be. Regular Joe Schmoe's could give a shit less, they just go with the flow and they outnumber us quite considerably. Just get over it and do what you need to do.
Incidentally, anyone notice the running time on Apple saying the unrated cut is 92 minutes? According to Blu-Ray.com the rated cut is 95 - I wonder why there's 3 minutes missing from the unrated version? Hrm. Interesting.
I agree with Chrismac.
I want to buy the blu-ray because I enjoyed the film I saw in theaters, I don't know what the extended cut would be like because I have not seen it. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of extended cuts that added little to nothing to the actual film, so why should I care.
The talk of it being censored is pretty bullshit as well, I mean they are not cutting anything from the widely released version right? It's kind of like that guy on amazon bitching that the Phantasm II blu-ray is the cut version...well, that's the only one ever released so why did he assume it would be different.
I'll be more than happy to buy the theatrical version, if I'm not satisfied with this at least the option is there for the digital copy unrated.
I thought this was a forum for people to air their views chrismac87, shall we all just shut the fuck up then and not say anything, maybe we should just have news items then and leave it at that, was it not for the words of many people on this site that got lionsgate to release my bloody valentine with the uncut footage put back in the movie?
Maybe downloads are big in the US, but this is not the case worldwide, sure we have them here in the UK but the majority of sales are physical media, Germany for example have a very healthy physical media scene.
and anthropophagus, you note 'the talk of it being censored is pretty bullshit as well, they are not cutting anything from the widely released version right?' the move had to be censored by the lovely MPAA to get an R rating, so it certainly was cut, to what level we will have to wait and see.
Actually no it wasn't, it was the demand of it for over 20 years. There was so much controversy surrounding the cuts made in the film, they knew if they had the chance to release it uncut - it'd be idiotic for them not to, and not just because of the horror fans. It also may have something to do with them releasing a remake into theaters around the same time as well - just a thought. If they really cared what the fans had to say on that one - they would have put more features in relation to the film and not just two documentaries about the slasher genre in general and the remake coming out later that year.
And of course people can express their views, it's a public forum - you're more than entitled. But it seems to me that you're handing out false hope and accusations against a company that for the most part has been very kind to the genre and is one of the few studios that hasn't turned its back on it.
I agree with everything Chris Mac has said.
BTW the theatrical cut is only 91 minutes. 95 is a misprint.
Thanks for clarifying that. Was awfully confusing unless the unrated cut is the director's cut and there's scenes missing, only thing that would make sense.
as I remember the uncut footage was only going to featured as deleted scenes on the disc, it was the fuss of the fans that got them to put the footage back in the film via seamless branching.
I'm curious to know the actual running time of the unrated version.
If it was delayed several months due to the MPAA than the unrated should be extremely gory.
Very curious. The theatrical version itself was pretty bloody.
It wasn't, here's an interview with the producer of the disc from 2008;
"'It was in surprisingly good condition because it's cold up in Canada and the film must keep well,' Ventrella laughs. 'But the 35mm film was an interpositive. It wasn't the original negative, it was a strike made from the negative, so it was pretty nice and close to the original. The picture itself was nice, it had a tiny bit of fading, but we color corrected it, so I think it's close to the final color corrected version of the release feature.'
With footage in hand, Dean and Ventrella say there was never a question of whether they should restore the film or relegate the cut scenes to the special features section of the DVD. The game plan was to release an uncut version all along. And to help in the restoration, they called in director Mihalka. Ventrella recalls, 'He was really glad we found the material and he was instrumental in viewing the elements put back into the feature and giving us some tweaks and suggestions on how it originally was. Having him there was the last piece of the puzzle. It was an early film for him and he remembered every detail - where everything went, the original audio mix, everything, so it was essential having him there.' In total, with the restored footage, the film now runs an estimated three minutes longer than its theatrical counterpart. The scenes now intact? The infamous 'shower head' kill, perhaps? You'll have to see for yourself."
Interview from Shock Till You Drop
There's nothing there saying "due to high fan demands" or "because fans complained it wasn't a part of the film". It was probably reported that the scenes would be included but whether or not they were going to be back in the film wasn't confirmed, and everyone got up on their soap boxes to complain - then it got reported that they would be in. There was even a question at one point if the footage would be usable. So it's understandable they might have not been able to include it back in the film - but make no mistake, it's not solely because fans complained that those scenes were inserted into the film.