Unrated my ass!

[Hellbilly]

Remember the good old days when unrated actually meant unrated as in more gore, violence, nudity & sex?

Unrated these days is all about new subplots, new characters, character development and extended or alternate takes/sequences. Latest examples are Club Dread, DareDevil and Underworld.
Watching the 'Extended and Unrated' cut of Underworld was like re-watching the original R-Rated version. I checked and compared running times twice to make sure my 'Extended and Unrated' edition wasn't a false pressing of the R-cut put out by Columbia by mistake.
There's really no need to label these harmless re-releases as 'unrated' or 'not rated' since they could easily have gotten their original ratings back :eek2:

[hatetank]

I fully agree - just a way to get into our pockets once more.

[dwatts]

Hm....

I think we've come to expect "uncut" films, or for that matter "unrated" films to sit squarely in the realm of "more controversy". Of course, this just isn't correct. Isn't that what is being criticized in this thread?

It's really nothing new - "Aliens", for me, is another example where a longer - more complete (I suppose) cut of the film added nothing at all. Argento's "Deep Red" is yet another, where the extra footage does nothing but kill the pace of the film making it needlessly long-winded.

But, on the other hand, uncut is uncut, and unrated then, is unrated. They can only back in what was indeed cut or missing. Sometimes that will be gore, other times it wil be subplots and the like. It just varies from film to film.

In recent times, I've actually begun to have a bit more respect for the editors who cut films. I mean, when they are able to succesfully cut out an entire subplot without ruining a movie, it's quite a feat if you think about it. Most of the time though, we complain about such things.

Anyway, I can't comment specifically on "Daredevil" or "Underworld", since I ran as far away from both films as I could based on reviews I read :D

I never confused "Unrated" with controversial material though - there are too many examples when it's not. I gues if you were expecting it to be, then it's a hard lesson to learn.

[ArrowBeach]

Yeah I remember awhile back many on another messageboard was begging for a unrated directors cut of DAREDEVIL, thinking Jennifer (overhyped) garner would be nude, and I kept saying I seriously doubt it, and they kept saying, no way, it has to exist, and I can see that the new version is nothing more than delteted scenes put into the original cut. It's just a way of the DVD companies making everyone double dipp.

[Fumi]

They know perfectly well that when they release an "unrated" version of a film, that eveyone expects more gore and T&A. That's why they call it that - to sucker people into buying it. "Re-edited" wouldn't be very good advertising, because it would be too honest. "Contains scenes previously not used because they slowed the pace of the film" - who would buy that?

Underworld is a perfect example. Wasn't that straight-to-video, and therefore unrated, in the first place?

[Deus Ex Machina]

well unrated is technically telling the truth...the version that's on the disc was not submitted to the MPAA for a rating. A film without a rating is 'unrated'...

...plus the MPAA has the authority to cut not just nudity and gore but subplots as well....mayhap a cut subplot was removed by the MPAA...

[Grim]

well unrated is technically telling the truth...the version that's on the disc was not submitted to the MPAA for a rating. A film without a rating is 'unrated'...

...plus the MPAA has the authority to cut not just nudity and gore but subplots as well....mayhap a cut subplot was removed by the MPAA...

The MPAA doesn't have the authority to cut anything out of a film. All they can do is watch it and give it a rating. It's the studios who ultimately decide what will be cut out.

Oh, by the way. I never saw the first version of Hellboy. Can anyone tell me if this is once again another case of them just adding more character development? One thing that struck me odd was that even though unrated is posted all over the case, before the film starts the PG-13 rating appears.

[bigdaddyhorse]

They know perfectly well that when they release an "unrated" version of a film, that eveyone expects more gore and T&A. That's why they call it that - to sucker people into buying it. "Re-edited" wouldn't be very good advertising, because it would be too honest. "Contains scenes previously not used because they slowed the pace of the film" - who would buy that?

Underworld is a perfect example. Wasn't that straight-to-video, and therefore unrated, in the first place?

Underworld did have a short life in theaters and was rated R. The un-rated cut would've been rated R had it been summited to the MPAA as well.
Remember, often times that what un-rated means, that the version of the film just wasn't summited to the MPAA cuz it would be a waste of time and money.
Maybe the next big phases will be NC-17 versions instead of un-rated, although I doubt it as you have to pay the MPAA to look at and rate a film. Un-rated is just misdirection into thinking gore/nudity, but all TV shows are un-rated!

[Dave]

Guys, how about - gasp - not buying them if you don't want them? Seems simple. Or better yet, rent them and then make up your mind if it's worth a purchase.

[wago70]

No - us gorehouds know what Uncut/unedited REALLY means. Remember staying up late to watch Friday the 13th on your local (soon-to-be Fox) station and they claimed the film was unedited? Good Times.

[zombiexfan]

yeah i hear you hellbilly , what the hell they talking about in dawn of the dead unrated

[Shannafey]

The worst example of this is Pitch Black. They added some dialog, thus changing the movie from what the MPAA rated, and had the audacity to release it unrated!!

[Tom Servo]

Guys, how about - gasp - not buying them if you don't want them? Seems simple. Or better yet, rent them and then make up your mind if it's worth a purchase.


That idea is just crazy enough to work. Seriously though, I have a bad habit of blind buying DVDs and I really should learn to rent a movie before buying it.

[bigwes15]

Certainly you have the option not to buy them, but most of these unrated releases clearly mismarket them with lines such as "the version they wouldn't dare show you in theatres!!" Bullshit.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Certainly you have the option not to buy them, but most of these unrated releases clearly mismarket them with lines such as "the version they wouldn't dare show you in theatres!!" Bullshit.

Thanks to marketing laws, they can say whatever they want now-a-days. I agree it's bullshit, but we as consumers just have to look into it and see it it's worth our $. If you can post here, you can find out if it's something you want to see by searcing the internet for answers.

[Damed]

Well, all I can say is that in some cases, the "unrated" or "uncut" editions end up being FAR better films.

Daredevil for instanace. The theatrical cut was garbage. Plain and simple. The director's cut, on the otherhand, was a surprisingly watchable and dare I say it .. acceptable comic book film. I really enjoyed it. THAT is the movie they should have released in the first place.

[KillerCannabis]

I'll admit that a good majority of the time uncut-unrated versions tend to be my preferred cut. The can add plenty of gore for us gorehounds and thats always a major plus in my book. The only time I feel a new cut of a film lags is when its nothing more than character expansion. Films like Underworld, Blade 3 and Club Dread all sucked major ass in their uncut forms and I prefer to watch the original cut over these new-fangled versions. Even though it is quite a trend among studios right now (kinda like slip covers) I'm glad they are willing to pony up and do them since we always get some diamonds out of the rough.

[Myron Breck]

I also, personally, favored the theatrical cut of ALMOST FAMOUS over the extended cut. It was cool to see the extra footage (edited back into the film rather than as a special feature) but I spin the theatrical version more often.