Unrated vs. Rated??

[june]

Hello All,

Do anyone watch the rated versions of a DVD if there's a choice rated or unrated?

I think it's a waste of time giving us both versions of a film. I've never watched a rated version if the unrated is available.

My only wish is adding in all deleted scenes ;x(

[George Bellefontaine]

I really don't pay much attention. I just grab whatever Blockbuster has on the shelf. Rated or unrated ? Really doesn't matter to me.

[H.T.C]

I will view depending on film the Unrated cut without anything being deleted.

These movies would have gotten a (hard) R or X-RATING back 30 or forty years ago.

[David Meek]

Same here. I'll go for the unrated as opposed to the rated as ratings cause edits.

[littlesaint]

I will view depending on film the Unrated cut without anything being deleted.

These movies would have gotten a (hard) R or X-RATING back 30 or forty years ago.

Unrated doesn't necessarily mean uncut. It just means that cut of the film was not submitted for a rating. I would guess most unrated releases have been re-cut to add material removed for time, rather than content.

[joetama]

It depends on the movie I guess.

But, I usually go for the 'uncut' or 'unrated' films.

[june]

how about the theatrical version vs. the unrated or director's cut?

again i've never watch a theatrical version if an unrated or director's cut is available.

[Chris D]

In general, if two are sitting side-by-side, or clearly selectable in an online pool, I'll choose the unrated version, or the director's cut, because (1) there are less edits, and (2) the director's cut often gives you extra stuff that the director wanted to put in, but couldn't because the studio cut his budget, or they had to make the movie shorter or stupider for the mass public.

But otherwise, if I don't know any better, or it'd be too much digging/work, I'll just take whatever's available.

Now "full frame" vs. "widescreen"... NO QUESTION. I flatly refuse to rent, much less buy, anything that's "full frame" when it was filmed otherwise.

[Burke Strickland]

again i've never watch a theatrical version if an unrated or director's cut is available.

Then in some cases you are missing the better presentation, because that can be a hit or miss proposition.

I have watched both the theatrical release (TR) and the "director's cut" (DC) for a number of movies I particularly like, and have found that the "director's cut" is better in some cases, adding depth to the characters and helping explain what is going on, but not so in others, where the additional material unnecessarily bogs down the narrative without a compensating payoff.

A few examples:

"Amadeus" TR -- prefer theatrical release -- director's cut adds "exposition" but the filler material bogs down the narrative, doesn't really add to the understanding of the characters and in some cases comes off as more like a Saturday Night Live spoof of the rest of the movie than as an integral part of the proceedings. Thus despite the superior picture quality and sound of the DC release, I'd rather enjoy the original.
"Stripes" TR -- the added material in the director's cut is accompanied by on-screen "warnings" that take you right out of the movie. Theatrical release still holds its own dramatically and comically.
"Aliens" DC -- In this case, the "director's cut" adds significant depth to the character's motivations, and blends seamlessly into the narrative. the pace is still break-neck, even though the total running time is long.
"Apocalypse Now Redux" DC -- Although the theatrical cut of "Apocalypse Now" was full of memorable scenes, and in some ways may be regarded as a different movie entirely, the director's cut adds some masterful sequences that the original didn't even hint at, and the complexity of the characters is made more accessible. But it does require a long attention span, with over 45 minutes additional footage to sit through. Worth the effort. Created a new masterpiece out of the original one.
"Lord of the Rings -- Fellowship of the Ring" DC -- Hands down, the director's cut is a better movie than the original theatrical release> (And I have had the pleasure of seeing both in a very large screen commercial theater, since the director's cut was screened here in Houston a couple of weeks before the initial release of Return of the King.) Not only does it add meaningful insight into the characters and effectively helps bridge points in the narrative, I'll go so far as to say I think the DC would have had a better shot at the Best Picture Oscar than the TR had it been released as the theatrical cut. It is that much better.
"Lord of the Rings -- The Two Towers" TR/DC -- each are compelling movies in their own way. While the DC adds interesting detail to the narrative, the TR is a somewhat faster paced narrative, and either one is a satisfying viewing experience.
"Lord of the Rings -- Return of the King" TR -- This is a clear case of "less is more". The added sequences in the director's cut do little to further our understanding of what is going on (if you want the full back story, read the book) instead, they distract from the pace and flow and distend the already over-long narrative to an almost unwatchable length. In this case, from an awards perspective, it was a good thing that the theatrical release came first -- the 11 Oscars might have been one or none had the bloated director's cut been the theatrical release.
"Blade Runner" It doesn't matter. There are at least 7 versions to choose from (not all on DVD.) -- Pick your ending, pick your narrator (or none), the movie is complex and slow paced in the middle despite what else gets tacked on. (That is a good thing, for those who love the movie.)

[George Bellefontaine]

What Burke said. Same here, and I pretty much agree with the examples.