Director's Cut or I'm not buying it. Period.
Hear me, you money grubbing sacks of *beep*
'Cause I ride like Kelly Bundy, Yo I keep that *beep* nasty~ (Spank Rock)
But releasing a director's cut would make them just that....money grubbing.
For my latest movie reviews and news: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com
Not really it would be respecting the Director's actual vision and wishes.
'Cause I ride like Kelly Bundy, Yo I keep that *beep* nasty~ (Spank Rock)
But this would require putting more money into a project that really didn't make any to begin with, so it would be kind of counterproductive and wouldn't ultimately be worth it. Also, I hate how everyone always assumes that there MUST be a director's cut of just about everything that's out there, even smaller niche films like this, or that the director is really that interested in going back and tinkering with it. He's probably happy to just move forward and away from this, with as much of a pain as it was for this thing to even get a release after sitting on the shelf for so long.
shareClearly you havent' done your research, the actual director ALREADY made his own cut before they went and *beep* around and made the *beep* major release version, so it does exist. Secondly, he's been very adamant about wanting his own vision to be shown, even with the lower budget SFX because he was really in love with the project and to this day still wants to see his cut released but he doesn't own the rights. It would cost literally nothing to make a straight-to-video DVD release of his version.
'Cause I ride like Kelly Bundy, Yo I keep that *beep* nasty~ (Spank Rock)
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Knights-of-Badassdom#tab=summary
Here's how the original release sold on DVD/Blu-Ray following a theatrical run that made dozens of thousands of dollars. It didn't do well. To put out a new edition, it would take money, money the film did not make, because you'd have to market it to people that didn't bother with it the first time around. Even if every single person that bought the first version, all 45-50 thousand of them or so, bought the new one, it's still not making any money. If this director's cut ever sees the light of day, it'll be a workprint on YouTube or something, because it's not worth sinking more money into a film that's going to spend the rest of it's afterlife in the bargain bin. I guess it did better than "Noobz" though...
It would cost literally nothing to make a straight-to-video DVD release of his version.
Wow, really?! It doesn't cost any money to re-edit a movie and then have DVDs manufactured, stored, and shipped all over the world?! I didn't know that! Hell, I'm going to make some movies now that I know they don't cost any money to make! share
Yeah dude, that's the easy part. 1-2 dudes can edit in a room, manufacturing and shipping can be done in bulk on the cheap these days, especially since the advent of blu-ray. Are you really ignorant of the realities of video production post 2010?
'Cause I ride like Kelly Bundy, Yo I keep that *beep* nasty~ (Spank Rock)
[deleted]
Obviously there ARE contractual difficulties, you *beep* moron. The studio won't release it to him to put out his own edit of it, you brainless twat. Learn to *beep* read before popping off on *beep* you clearly misunderstand.
'Cause I ride like Kelly Bundy, Yo I keep that *beep* nasty~ (Spank Rock)
This was painful to read. But I agree with the fact that the studio *beep* with the original edit and released one the director didn't approve of. 9 times out of 10, I'm going with the director. Consider studios have some of the most godawful ideas. It's like your dad going through a midlife crisis and coming home with tight jeans and A glow stick shirt.
Bring on the original version the director wanted.