How many types of movie releases are there?

[John Morgan]

All the videos and DVD sales have created a "new" concept.  You have the "Directors Cut," the "Special Edition," the "Collectors Edition," the "Un-rated version," and probably others.  Now you've got movies "Re-imagined."  

WHEN WILL IT END?  (It's likely never to end as long as the movie studios can make money at it.) What I mean is, what is the next idea for a movie release type?  Are we going to see every movie ever made come out in some "new release?"

(And why call it a "Directors Cut?"  It the director made the cut of the first film.  Isn't it a "Directors Cut?"  Watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" the "Directors Cut."

[C. Hill]

How about "The Unrated Director's Cut of the Special Collector's Edition"?

[Chadzilla]

Oft times cuts are made in films by producers and/or release studio brass (both Corporate and Independant, no one is immune).   This is done for a variety of reasons.

1.) Test screenings went poorly (Lord of Illusions was cut for that reason, both Exorcist 2 and Jaws the Revenge were similiarly altered after poor screenings)

2.) The movie simply runs longer than necessary (Star Trek 5 was trimmed of ten or so minutes to quicken its pace, also Paramount evidently requires its Trek movies to be of a certain length - under two hours.)

3.) The director's 'vision' was not in line with the studio and is altered. (Alien 3 was mangled.  Almost an entire half hour was excised, thus gutting the movie of supporting character background and religious symbolism - i.e. The Alien was thought to be the Devil itself)

4.) The director did not deliver the movie the producer/studio wanted/paid for (many a Halloween sequel, especially part 6, has been recut, retooled, reshot, and then regurgitated - same fate befell Hellraiser: Inferno - this is a common fate for what is referred to as the 'franchise' picture)

5.) The movie is altered to meet censorship demands (i.e. to get an R rating or simply to be distributed in regions where certain kinds of images are banned).

6.)  Time and budget restraints kept the director from fulfilling his/her vision (Robert Wise finally got a second whack at Star Trek The Motion Picture, Speilberg has dramatically retooled Close Encounters of the Third Kind as well as E.T.)

7. The director has changed his/her mind about scenes that were deleted or included (the restored version of The Exorcist that no one saw, or the director's cut of Maniac which tightened scenes and excised the 'date' scene) or wishes to  change the movie  to conform to his/her vision today.  (Another example Friedkin's considerable altering of his serial killer film Rampage).

8.  Retooling an established franchise entry is a way easy way to separate fans from their hard earned cash without really doing anything new, and aheck of a lot cheaper (i.e. Lucas and his incessant Star Wars retooling).

There's more, but I think I touched on the major bases.

[Chadzilla]

I forgot to mention - very few directors get "Final Cut" (i.e. the one that is released), the studio reserves to right to alter the film in ways that will better the chances of the movie turning a profit (Dimension is a big believer in post production studio tampering).

[Jay O'Connor]

Jaws the Revenge [was] similiarly altered after poor screenings

It didn't seem to help.

[Nathan]

What kills me is the "unrated director's cut" of all of Charles Band's Surrender Cinema softcore stuff.  Are you trying to tell me that the unrated cut wasn't part of the producer's plan all along?  Pleez.

Nathan

[The Bard]

The worse of these are the movies that bombed at the box office years ago, that are on the 5 Buck or less shelf at places like Wal-Mart. Instead of it being the normal cover, its shrunken down and given room for a blue liner that has the WB Logo and "MovieTime"  at least my copy of Hackers has that, and so do a few others.

[Jeremy Lunt]

Jay O'Connor wrote:
>
> Jaws the Revenge [was] similiarly altered after
> poor screenings
>
> It didn't seem to help.

C.H.U.D. too