Soon one of the summer's biggest movie smashes, Live Free or Die Hard, will be coming out on DVD. But there are two different editions that are being put out. The version shown in the theaters, and the unrated edition. It has become more and more common for movies to be released with an unrated edition so that people will have the option of buying the version shown in theaters, or buying a version that is more graphic and or intense. At one point in time this was called a director's cut, a cut that the director wanted that the studio's didn't approve. The best example of this is Daredevil. The original cut was rated R and the contract required that it be a PG-13 movie so some things were cut out. Later a Director's cut was released that was the rated R edition the director originally wanted and (according to most critics) the better of the two cuts.
This is a perfectly fine thing to do. Release a different cut of a movie in an attempt to make the original vision available to the audiences. (this may or may not be the studio's intent but that is what ends up happening) However durring the filming of Die Hard 4 there were certain scenes that were shot twice. Once a PG-13 version, and once an R version. Which version should people get? the one that was shown in the theater's as the "official cut" or the one that is closer to the first three in being a harsher movie?
Today the phrase Unrated is used to sell DVDs to an audience that is eager to see a more graphic cut of the film, even if that is not the cut that the makers of the movie think is the best. Movies, like Live Free or Die Hard shoot two editions with the intent of marketing two editions. Which edition is the better one? In the case of Team America, the creators intentionally put in to many graphic scenes so that they could scale it back to what they wanted but look like they were toning it down to the ratings board. However, Paramount still released an unrated edition that as a result was more graphic that the creators ever wanted their movie to be.
I know that this is a small grievance but it is something that has been bugging me for quite a while. movies shouldn't be unrated for the simple sake of being unrated. if you want to make an R rated movie thats fine and if it ends up being a director's cut then thats fine too. but don't make something more graphic than necessary just to be able to stamp an unrated on the cover, especially if it doesn't add to the movie. I watched the Unrated Dukes of Hazzard movie and then the original rated ending on the special features. I thought that the ending that was cut out of the unrated edition was the funniest part in the whole movie.
Intriguing
This is an excellent example of excess being produced for excess's sake. Yet, companies cannot really be blamed, for we as consumers have demanded more: more gore, more sex, more drugs, more swearing. Companies are merely acting as companies act, trying to maximize their profit in the capitalist system.
I've never seen writing on this specific topic before. Kudos to you!