Unrated Edition: With Footage Too Sexy For Theatres!

Started by modage, November 18, 2003, 02:13:21 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4
User actions

modage

November 18, 2003, 02:13:21 PM






okay, i would like to talk about something.  and that something is the "UNRATED DVD" and its misuse with the titles above.  now how much footage was really so harsh that charlies angels 2 is now unrated?  seriously, the fucking thing was only PG-13 in the first place!  you're telling me there is so much ultraviolent footage they HAD to put back in they couldnt get an R rating?  cause i find that hard to believe.  its just some fucking marketing gimmick and i think it sucks.  and the first three movies, which now seem like showtime pornos thanks to the tasteless 'unrated' versions which i doubt the director was just dying to show the extra footage so much as they wanted to make a 'perverts edition' to actually make some people see the thing on dvd, since no one cared in the theatres.  i dunno, anybody have anything to add?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#1
November 18, 2003, 02:20:20 PM
Yeah, this is fucking stupid. Now I will be looking for the directors cut of the new Bertolucci movie, 'cause it's gonna get mangled for its US release. That, I believe is different.

In these cases, the only ones I have seen for comparison are the Road Trip theatre version and the dvd. What a useless waste of time, and a totally unfunny overextension of what was otherwise a cute scene. Definitely a waste of time, and it really fucking grinds the movie to a ahalt now. I wish they had just made a regular version of the dvd.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

coffeebeetle

#2
November 18, 2003, 02:23:21 PM
Ummm, call me a pervert, but I was greatly dissapointed when I accidentally bought the rated version of Y Tu Mama Tambien...I'm sorry, but that woman was hot and the first sex scene between what's his name and her is fucking HILARIOUS.  I hope you all know what I'm talking about.
more than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. the other, to total extinction. let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
woody allen (side effects - 1980)

modage

#3
November 18, 2003, 02:26:30 PM
that is a different issue.  that movie was released by the director not rated when it went to theatres in his country as well as here in america.  the R rated version is like the CENSORED FOR BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO version.  same with SPUN, and same with REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.  this is not what i'm talking about though.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

coffeebeetle

#4
November 18, 2003, 02:31:52 PM
Okay.... :?
more than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. the other, to total extinction. let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
woody allen (side effects - 1980)

Banky

#5
November 18, 2003, 02:39:15 PM
its just a marketing ploy but when it is used correctly i thikn there is nothing wrong with a movie being unrated.  FUCK CHARLIES ANGELS .  Leave it to them to put out and Unrated dvd hahah what a joke.

Finn

#6
November 18, 2003, 02:44:13 PM
Swimming Pool will be coming out with an unrated version on DVD
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

Weak2ndAct

#7
November 18, 2003, 02:51:35 PM
The Charlie's Angels 2 version is lame, but I generally don't mind unrated versions b/c well, the MPAA sucks balls.  They're always demanding (yet never 'officially' doing so) cuts in the most strange places.  Most stupifying: you can show someone being tortured, shot in the head, face, disembowled, etc., but if some dude's package makes it in the shot... NC-17!!!!

Raikus

#8
November 18, 2003, 02:52:23 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't "Unrated" material merely constitute scenes that were not submitted to the MPAA?

Doesn't an unrated version (like in the case of 'Full Throttle') just mean McG was too lazy to turn in the cut scenes?
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

coffeebeetle

#9
November 18, 2003, 02:57:53 PM
Was an unrated version of this ever released?

more than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. the other, to total extinction. let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
woody allen (side effects - 1980)

RegularKarate

#10
November 18, 2003, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: RaikusMaybe I'm wrong, but doesn't "Unrated" material merely constitute scenes that were not submitted to the MPAA?

Doesn't an unrated version (like in the case of 'Full Throttle') just mean McG was too lazy to turn in the cut scenes?

Yes, I believe you're right.

Just means they recut it (no matter how insignificantly) and didn't submit that cut to the MPAA.

Notice on the back of most DVDs, it says "special features have not been rated".

Fernando

#11
November 18, 2003, 05:04:29 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
In these cases, the only ones I have seen for comparison are the Road Trip theatre version and the dvd. What a useless waste of time, and a totally unfunny overextension of what was otherwise a cute scene. Definitely a waste of time, and it really fucking grinds the movie to a ahalt now. I wish they had just made a regular version of the dvd.

:shock:  Wait, let me get this straight, you're telling us that you went to the theater to see Road trip and then rented or bought the dvd?

Alethia

#12
November 18, 2003, 07:56:58 PM
why not?  that movie is fuckin funny

aclockworkjj

#13
November 18, 2003, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: coffeebeetleWas an unrated version of this (Henry and June) ever released?
if there is i haven't seen it, and I am a huge fan of this as well as Kaufman.

I don't see why there would be an unrrated version though.  It was the first film to recieve the NC-17 rating.  ANd I believe it recieved that cause phil kaufman refused to cut any of it.  I mean, if he was going to cut stuff...wouldn't it be to achieve a R rating?

SoNowThen

#14
November 18, 2003, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: Fernando
Quote from: SoNowThen
In these cases, the only ones I have seen for comparison are the Road Trip theatre version and the dvd. What a useless waste of time, and a totally unfunny overextension of what was otherwise a cute scene. Definitely a waste of time, and it really fucking grinds the movie to a ahalt now. I wish they had just made a regular version of the dvd.

:shock:  Wait, let me get this straight, you're telling us that you went to the theater to see Road trip and then rented or bought the dvd?

Hehehe, yep. One of the very few demographic-friendly movies I truly enjoyed in the last few years. Of course, Ivan Reitman was invloved, and he had a hand in most of the comedy stuff I loved in the 80's, so....

plus I think Tom Green is a genius.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4
User actions