Bad or Bad(der) Santa?

[gallery1988]

I usually am pretty good at calling which version of a dvd I would want...but this has me baffled. I loved the theatrical cut of "Bad Santa" and wouldn't mind just having that. But, the studio really is pushing this unrated Badder cut. Can someone clue me in on what they plan to buy and why? I have heard the 8 or so minutes added to Badder Santa is actually playable on the Bad Santa disc, just not integrated into the film like Badder. That doesn't sound right. Please someone help me. I'm drowning.

[PolloDiablo]

There's a review over at DVD Talk of Badder Santa and it pretty much spells out scene by scene what has been added, according to the review the unrated cut is definitely the one to go for.

[Lex M]

Personally, I always prefer to have the version I saw in theatres, unless it's a notoriously butchered movie or one where a longer cut played in the rest of the globe. I'm a little tired of these bogus "director's cuts" of things like BAD SANTA, BUTTERFLY EFFECT, UNDERWORLD, CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2, and apparently now DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 and CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. While I liked many of these films, the versions seen in theatres seemed perfectly intact, and the subsequent director's cuts seem like merely a marketing ploy or needless tinkering to indulge their respective directors.

[Volcane]

Slightly off topic.... just WHAT did the unrated cut of Charlie's Angels : Full Throttle have that the theatrical version didn't?

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Volcane

Slightly off topic.... just WHAT did the unrated cut of Charlie's Angels : Full Throttle have that the theatrical version didn't?

A little bit more less-cartoony violence and blood. Nothing overly sensous, since I'm sure that was the hope.

[Avid]

Originally Posted by Lex M

the versions seen in theatres seemed perfectly intact, and the subsequent director's cuts seem like merely a marketing ploy or needless tinkering to indulge their respective directors.

I completely agree with Lex, most of these director's cuts exist purely for marketing. New animation is being created to insert into Disney classics just so they can advertise "new song included".

I'm afraid that some theatrical cuts are going to be lost to the public. It is now quite common for movies that need to have a new transfer because their DVD was created in 98/99 to be reissued with the director's cut only. If you want the theatrical you are then stuck with a so-so non-anamorphic transfer. Some movies on DVD have only been released as a director's cut, the theatrical cut is not available at all.

[Drag Princess]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Personally, I always prefer to have the version I saw in theatres, unless it's a notoriously butchered movie or one where a longer cut played in the rest of the globe. I'm a little tired of these bogus "director's cuts" of things like BAD SANTA, BUTTERFLY EFFECT, UNDERWORLD, CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2, and apparently now DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 and CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. While I liked many of these films, the versions seen in theatres seemed perfectly intact, and the subsequent director's cuts seem like merely a marketing ploy or needless tinkering to indulge their respective directors.

Wait a minute here!

At least two of the films mentioned were not 'fake' directors cuts!


The Butterfly Effect....filmmakers had to fight with the studio regarding the ending and other controversial scenes. They compromised by shooting a slightly 'happy'..but not so 'happy' ending(compared to most studio endings) & cut out a few other sequences,which were deemed too dark for theaters(at least according to the theaters,fearing audiences would not be able to handle it). The studio then allowed them to release their version of the film on dvd...which thankfully they kept their word. Good news as well,the theatrical version is also included!

Dawn of the Dead is in a somewhat similar light. Though instead of studio battles. They had to face the MPAA,which according to the director made them cut down a huge amount of the gore(or get an NC-17)..which seems obvious in the film..a few small bursts of gore,mostly blood..but an otherwise largely goreless film...and some charecterization was hacked out as well. All that will be included in the directors cut dvd release,which I can not wait to see.



As for Bad Santa, have'nt seen it yet..but the 'unrated' version(which is really rated R!) seems like the way to go..as it takes the already no holds barred offensive humor,even further. So basically it keeps its word in what to expect from the 'uncut' version. Most other 'uncut' releases which gimmicky advertise themselves as more daring and graphic than the rated versions,always turn out to be a tease(American Pie films,Old School etc). But there are some true unrated releases out there that are far more explicit than the rated releases. You just won't find the majority of them made from major studios;D

[SJarrett]

Originally Posted by Drag Princess

As for Bad Santa, have'nt seen it yet..but the 'unrated' version(which is really rated R!)

Why do you say that? There's no mention of a rating on my copy.

[Drag Princess]

Look the film up at filmratings.com and you will see it listed as reedited and given an R rating.

So Miramax is jumping on the 'unrated' bandwagon..by making a false unrated avertising on the packagingto appear 'hip' & 'with it'. But what a joke,since they are still caving into their pathetic anti-unrated policy enforced by Disney.

Then again,from what I have read. It seems like this version is actually more raunchy than the theatrical version..that I wonder if Miramax scammed Disney..by resubmitting a slightly different cut to the MPAA,got an R rating..then went and added more for the dvd release? This way they could tell Disney "See it's really R rated..we are not breaking the policy!".

But I somehow doubt that..and it may be a legit R rated raunchier version...and the unrated tag is a lie in this case.

[inaka]

Slightly off topic.... just WHAT did the unrated cut of Charlie's Angels : Full Throttle have that the theatrical version didn't?p

About 4 more minutes of agony.

I'd go with the Badder Santa version. I mean, why be bad, when you can be badder?

Here's another review of the "unrated" (badder) DVD version:
http://www.thedigitalreview.com/foru...read.php?t=826

[Meloosh]

Originally Posted by Lex M

I'm a little tired of these bogus "director's cuts" of things like BAD SANTA, BUTTERFLY EFFECT, UNDERWORLD, CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2, and apparently now DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 and CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. While I liked many of these films

Oh yeah? Which ones?

[bluemookie]

I picked up Badder Santa this weekend, and I don't recall any extended scenes, and certainly no new scenese, although I only saw the theatrical realease once. Seems like the "Badder" part is a gag real, which is just that. I doubt I'm going to find anyone out there that's done a review of both versions, but seriously, what IS the difference? If this is truely unrated, there should have been at least "some" nudity or more swearing in front of kids. Anyway, that's my bit.

[limacharliewhiskey]

Originally Posted by bluemookie

I picked up Badder Santa this weekend, and I don't recall any extended scenes, and certainly no new scenese, although I only saw the theatrical realease once. Seems like the "Badder" part is a gag real, which is just that. I doubt I'm going to find anyone out there that's done a review of both versions, but seriously, what IS the difference? If this is truely unrated, there should have been at least "some" nudity or more swearing in front of kids. Anyway, that's my bit.

I was able to rent Badder Santa over the weekend, and there was nudity (very briefly, in the strip bar, maybe 10 to 15 minutes into the movie, or did you not notice the topless strippers?).

I did not see the theatrical version, so I can't compare what this unrated version has that the other didn't. But I was rather surprised at the constant swearing in the movie, even in front of the kid actors in many scenes.

Just for fun, when I watched it a second time, I decided to keep track of how many times the F-word was used in the movie. I'm sure my tally isn't entirely correct, but it's probably pretty close. I don't know if it approaches Kevin Smith or Quentin Tarentino levels, but they said the word "f*ck" about 170 times throughout the film. If that's not a record, that's gotta be close.

[Marq]

The exact differences/ extensions between the two versions are as follows (taken from here).

Many SPOILERS within obviously (I haven't even really read them myself):

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

0:05—Alternate take of Willie leaving the department store in Milwaukee. This is 30 seconds of alternate footage that provides a dirtier exchange with the security guard. 0:12—Florida robbery and strip club. This is 4 minutes of new footage of Willie robbing a home and taking a stripper home. There's stripper nudity and hilariously offensive language. 0:25—Despite prerelease notification from Buena Vista, there is no extension to the "Fuck me Santa" scene in the car. 0:28—Extended Big & Tall dressing room scene. This is perhaps 5-10 extra seconds of grunting and thrusting as seen from John Ritter's perspective. 0:31—Extended arcade scene with Willie and underage girl. We get about 7 seconds worth of extra thrusts behind the girl playing pinball. 0:39—Extended food court scene. This amounts to about 45 seconds of extra berating and language. 0:42—Extended checkers scene. About 10 seconds more of Willie shouting at the kid after losing at checkers. 0:44—Extended Jacuzzi scene. About 5 seconds more of Willie and Sue going at it in the hot tub. 0:49—Parking lot encounter with security guard. About 10 seconds of new footage with Willie confronting a security guard outside the mall. 1:06—Extended granny death-scare scene. A tiny, 2-second extension of the granny scare. 1:11—Extended murder of Gin. A bug-eyed extension of the car death. 1:15—Extended final robbery. About 10 seconds more of preparing for the final robbery. 1:22—Extended final shootout at the mall. About a minute more of gunshots and explosions.

[Lex M]

Originally Posted by Meloosh

Oh yeah? Which ones?

Hey, it's called playing to the crowd. Anyway, two posts after mine, someone else launched into a defense of BUTTERFLY EFFECT as though it was THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, so cut me some slack if I liked BAD SANTA and the 2004 DAWN OF THE DEAD. And CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2 had the kind of colors every movie should have, so it gets a pass.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Lex M

And CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2 had the kind of colors every movie should have, so it gets a pass.

[Drag Princess]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Hey, it's called playing to the crowd. Anyway, two posts after mine, someone else launched into a defense of BUTTERFLY EFFECT as though it was THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, so cut me some slack

No I was just pointing out that not all 'unrated' or 'directors cuts' releases are 'gimmicks',which you stated they were using a film that does not fall into that category

In fact since you brought up Ambersons,I am sure had it been made today and ran into the same issues with the studio. They may have compromised with "You release our version in theaters..and your version on dvd!" which is what happened with Butterfly Effect.

But again,both versions are available on the same dvd(if you don't know,the theatrical cut is on the flip side). So the Butterfly release is hardly a 'gimmick' like other releases.

[Monterey Jack]

Shouldn't Badder Santa have been titled Worse Santa...?


No wonder this country is so friggin' illiterate...