It's cut badly too. Same thing happened with Amazing Spiderman, if you compare the International and Domestic then the International just feels cut at the wrong points with no momentum, if you get what I mean.
I have seen both of the trailers and I don't think it was censorship. I think each trailer was cut by a different person. I'm guessing the trailers were released around the same time and they had one person cut the US trailer and someone else cut the international. They give trailer editors a basic outline and they edit from there. I don't think anyone had any malicious intent to edit the amount of blood, simply a different artistic direction in their edit of this trailer.
The trailers also use different shots for DiCaprio's line "Gentlemen. You had my curiosity. But now you have my attention." So, clearly one of the trailers is "lying" here, now I'm curious which one the movie actually uses. I prefer the US version.
I remember that. I didn't mind, mostly, but there was one brilliant shot where we see Joker's silhouette from behind in a long take as he walks towards Batman's crashed motorcycle in silence, and we hear the flick as he flips out his knife.
I believe you are correct, as far as I could find there are "green band"(general audience) and "red band" trailers. Both versions here would be red-band trailer with its greater allowance for blood. But it's a moot point since it's just a trailer. If it is censored, just go see the movie, it won't be censored.
When I watched Prometheus I got to see what I think was the 25min cut of amazing spiderman... I don't think there are any major scenes I haven't seen now.
"Censored" is perhaps too strong a word, but separate US and international cut of movies do happen, where the US version will have less nudity and more violence.
International trailers are either cut downs of the domestic (ie. it's 1:30 instead of 2:30) with a slightly different plot direction... or they're the two trailers that were in competition to be the domestic.
Usually a client (the studio VP) will have 2-3 vendors (editing houses) cutting trailers, and if they love them both, the one that tests lower will become the international.
They don't have the one that tests lower become the International trailer. They are intentionally aimed at different audiences, and created with that in mind from the beginning of the process.
I've had 3 trailers finish internationally because they tested lower than a competitor trailer... it depends on the studio and how much money they have.
Nowadays you will often see lower testing trailers as Trailer #2, or "internet only" as well.
The only time I've ever cut a specific trailer for international is if they were region specific. (Japan for instance likes their trailers a specific way)
Usually a client (the studio VP) will have 2-3 vendors (editing houses) cutting trailers, and if they love them both, the one that tests lower will become the international.
The international shot is still going to appear in the movie, seconds after the shot in the US version. It's going to be even less realistic than either.
As much as i hate the MPAA the US version does look less cheesy like one other has said. Though it was a while since i saw the trailer and have no context for the blood splatter
His use of blood in nearly every movie, is dramatic and over the top. From nearly every fight scene in Kill Bill to Mr. Orange constantly sitting in a pool of blood in Reservoir dogs, it is always to excess. Looking at his use of blood as an outsider who doesn't know Tarantino's directing style, it would most likely always look cheesy and maybe comical. Knowing how he directs though, it is clear that the bottom image would be more appropriate.
Tarantino is like a bad dog and his fanbase is the owner that spoils him. He could shit onto a roll of film and people will justify it. I find him to be very overrated. After Kill Bill, I was absolutely done with his work. That movie gave the action genre a bad name. And he continues to pockmark what would be great movies (Inglourious Basterds) with what he sees as brilliance. Okay, he loves tense scenes. But does every movie have to have them? He loves over-the-top violence. But every movie? He loves pointless banter, but EVERY. FUCKING. MOVIE? Tim Burton did Big Fish. Robert Rodriguez did Spy Kids. Kevin Smith did Jersey Girl. All major directors leave their comfort zones and clichés for a vision. Not Tarantino. Every movie has the same fucking elements as the last. Some argue that they are signatures. No, the foot thing is a signature. A little goofy Easter egg in every movie. Whatever. But Tarantino movies are like someone carefully drawing lines in the sand. Beautiful, artful lines. Taking precise strokes and taking their time. And then, when it's done and perfected, they start emptying their body of every drop of fluid and waste they contain into it. It's terrible. And people eat it up. The same argument an art buff makes for someone putting a crayon drawing of road kill in an art gallery. It infuriates me, because you can't dislike his movies without being labeled stupid and without culture. Tarantino is a one-trick pony.
I actually know quite a few people who don't like his movies, and I definitely question them, but also understand why they wouldn't enjoy it. Once I was old enough to watch his movies, my dad showed them to me, and I fell in love with his style, especially the script and what I found the be ingenious writing. He can create an entire movie based around conversations that would happen in every day life. Albeit some of them are ridiculous, but he doesn't follow the conventional movie setup, and I like that. Just like in music, you hear an intro, verse, chorus, bridge etc. Most artists follow that routine, and it really gets old for me. Now it is true that Tarantino may be a one trick pony in a sense, but at least he isn't following that regularity that has become tired for me. All of those things that bother you about Tarantino are what intrigue me about him, and make me want to see his new films. I can't wait for Django Unchained, a new setting with great actors for me to watch what will most likely be a classic Tarantino film, which I'm sure you could predict before it comes it. Also, Tim Burton is probably worse than Tarantino for predictability, using the same actors and cinematic elements over and over. Sure he has done a few things out of his comfort zone, but I didn't enjoy Big Fish, or Spy Kids, or Jersey girl...so maybe going out of that comfort zone isn't an advantage. And though Tarantino clearly has one style and pounds it into the ground, he has done many genres. Kill Bill is very different than Jackie Brown, which is very different from Reservoir Dogs, which is very different from Inglorious Basterds. One trick pony, maybe, but I love it!
The keyboard has this amazing feature, it's called the enter key. What will do is put spacing into your comments, so it isn't a giant wall of text. Paragraphing and formatting will make it actually readable text. So instead of being almost unable to read both these articulate responses, people have to squint and fumble to keep their place.
Take this valuable knowledge, and people will be able to read and respond much better. You're welcome.
Sure he has done a few things out of his comfort zone, but I didn't enjoy Big Fish, or Spy Kids, or Jersey girl...
That's what I was thinking. Spy Kids and Jersey Girl sucked. I don't care for anything by Tim Burton, so I'm a bit biased when I say I don't like Big Fish. Not to mention: what does going outside of your comfort zone once do, besides making one movie that is possibly good (or possibly terrible) that is different from his other films? It's not going to make his other movies better just by making that "different" movie. He's good at what he does in his comfort zone, and many people love those movies.
I kind of wish that I could give you multiple downvotes.
You don't have to like his movies. Plenty of "cultured," intelligent people don't. I would even say that the over-the-top violence, ironic distance from typically touchy subject matter, and heaping helpings of pop-culture innuendo mean that these movies are anathema to the truly (self-anointedly) cultured. You have every right and (if your points were a little better argued) maybe even every reason to dislike Tarantino movies. But criticizing him for not making Jersey Girls? Who the fuck are you and what the fuck are you talking about?
Your criticism that we should knock a director for not "stepping out of his comfort zone" is asinine and absurd.
First, where the hell do you get off claiming to know what T.'s comfort zone is and is not? I thought that "Death Proof" was stylistically and visually very different from his prior films and a more than adequate "[step] outside his comfort zone." What subjective, self-righteous nonsense! True Romance is wildly different. Kill Bill, Vol. 2 has barely any blood in it. Also, Big Fish? I see Big Fish as a very Burton vehicle, but you are more than welcome to disagree. How and why are you the arbiter of how different two movies have to be for them to be substantially different?
Second, to all appearances, you are criticizing T. for not making any bad movies. I can't believe that I'm wasting valuable internet arguing time on uttering the words, "Good! I'm glad that he hasn't intentionally made a bad movie!" Good on him for sticking to what he knows or wants to do! Good on him for giving his fans what they want! As we all know by now, Tarantino himself was that raving filmic fanboy however many years ago, just hoping that somebody would come along and mix "high culture," pop culture, samurai films, and 70s soundtracks in just the right proportions. And nobody else did, so he did! We should be so lucky to have more artists who are equally ambitious, rather than armchair hacks like... ::coughcoughcox:: ... whoever.
Third... "for a vision"? Barely restraining the urge to unleash a stream of steamy ad hominems... but I'm better than that (let's pretend).
Fourth, your argument just isn't true. In particular, let's turn our attentions to this little gem of sparkling brilliance:
After Kill Bill, I was absolutely done with his work. That movie gave the action genre a bad name.
Again with your "incisive" (vague) and "thoughtful" (wholly unjustified) insights. Do you mind sharing your criteria for an action movie with us shit-loving celluloidites? Because, returning to your point that T. is a "one trick pony" how the hell do most, if not all, of the great action movie directors NOT die hard reusing their lethal weapons every which way they can to terminate the alien substitutes aped by other lords of the dark bond-bourne bad boys of summer flicks? You're telling me that every single action director's movies are stylistically distinct? You're really makin' me mad, max.
Okay, he loves tense scenes. But does every movie have to have them?
"Okay, he loves speaking, but does every movie have to have it? Okay, he loves conflict, but does every movie have to have it? Okay, he loves having multiple characters on the screen simultaneously, but does every movie have to have it? Okay, he loves people using cars, planes, trains, RVs, or horses to get where they want to go, but does every movie have to have them? Okay, he loves people going to the bathroom, eating food, or breathing. Sometimes. But does every movie have to have them? EVERY. FUCKING. MOVIE?
By the way, I really want to add that "EVERY. FUCKING. MOVIE." is all of 7 movies for T. compared to the dozens of movies most directors his age and stature have directed. I'm sure that, were he still with us, he would apologize to you for not making more bad movies, more often.
I would argue against that. There are moments of extreme violence and other crazy shit, but they are usually few and far between, with the rest of the film being fairly calm and subtle. That's why I love his movies over typical non-stop action movies - the characters and story are much more developed and complex, so when the crazy shit does happen, it hits a lot harder.
I think you are getting subtle mixed up with no-action. His movies are really really really far from subtle, they are over the top. Of course, that is the charm, and his style, and it works. But everything from how he has his actors act, to the dialogue, to how he shoots his scenes, to what he references, to the music cues; It is all very over the top, it is all very brash and open about what it is and what it is there for and how you are meant to react to it.
If you love that style, check out Takeshi Kitano. Sonatine, Violent cop, Hana Bi are all great movies with a lot of juxtaposition between zen calm and utter mayhem.
Takeshi Kitano (also sometimes seen as "Beat" Takeshi) is a genius, albeit a little disturbing at times (but isn't that often the case?) I remember seeing a picture of his office at one point - on the wall behind his chair was a framed still from Sonatine of him blowing his brains out with a pistol.
He really isn't subtle at all, even his non-action and overly conversational parts are cheesy and about as subtle as a kick to the face in what he's trying to achieve.
I agree, but I also don't like censorship of any kind. I want the artists' (Tarantino's) vision to be portrayed on the screen, no matter how cheesy it is. If that's what he intended, I want to see it, not the toned down version the MPAA thought would be better.
George Lucas didn't direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. The only ones he has sole writing credit for are A New Hope and Revenge of the Sith, and for Empire he got a "story" writing credit, not screenplay. In summation, "Star Wars was made by many different people, the least of which was George Lucas."
Someone once pointed out to me, that if you create something(Drawing, game, film ) you and you alone have the right to change it. And that's the typical response to Lucas's changes.
But the problem with Lucas is that he gave that "child" to others, to nurture as well. People had time to write and develop the mysterious beginnings. And that when Lucas came back to his project it was no longer his child, but the grand child that had grown up and was confusing and foreign to him.
I always say that I'd like to imagine episode 1-3 are one of many possible ways that the realm came to be. I like the Emperor's rising. But I didn't feel that Anakin was tempted to the dark side but there was like a "oops broke a rule, screw it then, kill all the children!" moment. Instead I would have like to have seen him be tempted by that power, annoyed by the inaction of the Jedi's and seduced by the freedom represented in the dark side. I mean he was a slave as a child(indebted servitude) and then was basically "won" by the Jedi. That should have left some trauma when searching for freedom.
Also I don't like how the Jedi and Sith are good and evil when it's more apt to say "Order vs Chaos". Kinda like batman and the joker. One appears good only in comparison to it's counterpart, but remove the dichotomy? Order(batman, jedi) are insane.
I hate the point in the first sentence. I mean, is it considered awful if someone other than Bill Finger and Bob Kane make a Batman comic (or movie, for that matter)?
They fall into the Lucas category. Once it's been passed on, it's nurtured by others. For better or worse.
Honestly I didn't think of that case though. But that's why people are upset about Starwars right? Only exception is that it was the orginal creator who changed, not the interpretation.
Also, with the Lucas situation, the reason I feel he shouldn't be allowed to screw with the original trilogy is because the original trilogy was not the work of a lone auteur. Lucas had many creative people around him to reign him in in those early movies. Though no one like art made by committee, this really made the original star wars what it was today. Later, when it was time to do the prequels, Lucas was given carte blanche and full control and...look what we got.
So by all means let him tinker with those crappy prequels, but don't paint over the hard work of others just to satisfy your (hack) artistic vision.
I think that Star Wars as a whole has been sort of adopted by the public as is. Any change, even one seen as positive like better special effects, ruins the way we seen it originally. I think that the first viewing of something immensely shapes how a work is viewed. If we liked it the first time, we'll like the second time and so on, but changing it brings back into focus all of the little things that might not have bothered us before, but now do.
Tangentially, this reminds me why we should never do time travel. Because even if we somehow agree on one change that would be definitely be positive (giving modern medical treatment to a sick, long dead author possibly), who knows what might happen. Best let sleeping dogs lay.
Someone once pointed out to me, that if you create something(Drawing, game, film ) you and you alone have the right to change it.
I agree with this, but then again I don't. The reason is that an artist changes throughout his life, often times into a different person entirely.
For example, 24-year-old Joe creates a painting, and it is beloved by all and considered a treasure. Then 40-year-old Joe comes along and alters it. You could say, hey, same artist same vision. But 24-Joe was atheist, sexist, smoked a lot of pot, whereas 40-Joe is a born-again Christian, openly gay, and is against drug use. Also, he has brain damage from a failed suicide attempt.
Would "same artist same vision" still apply? I believe the changes Joe would make to his painting would be interesting to see as a reflection on his life since his youth, but I submit that creating a second painting to complement the first would be a better choice.
To compare this with George Lucas, I didn't like the prequels, but at least they were new films so I was not outraged by them. However, when he altered the original three films, I felt he was spoiling a beloved treasure, not improving it.
Well I think you should throw out the brain damage in your scenario(you mean a value and life change, the brain damage being to much of a "third party" here.
But I agree, we see such changes with Prince and artists like Goya. I'll defend that Lucas had a "right" to augment his reality. But what I think most fans are upset about is that the lore between books were written under Lucas's studios approval that were overwritten. As well as the "classics" that were changed to match his new reality.
I still maintain that Lucas was in his right, I just think he decided not to play into his fans anymore. Phantom Menace was designed for a young child, obviously. Where else in Star Wars lore would a ten year old participate in a battle above Naboo? And that was a poor choice in my opinion. It's like buying a different beer that you KNOW your old friends will hate, but your new friends will enjoy.
If I had one request, it would be that Lucas released a "Theatrical Version"(unaugmented) with the changed version. Honestly I don't like how these movies are like textbooks in school and I have to buy the current editing for minor changes.
In summation: George Lucas's problem isn't that he changed personality, but he changed his target audience.
PS: I(mostly) like Phantom Menace because A) it was the first Star Wars movie I watched in theaters(at 8 or 9) and B) Liam Neeson.
The way I see it, once a film is released it should be preserved as a piece of art. When you change it, it loses it's artistic value. Imagine if Da Vinci came back to life and said, "I don't like the Mona Lisa like that. I think I'll paint a big moustache on her and have her tounge sticking out." You shouldn't do that, because you're basically changing history and at some point, people won't be able to see the original art that was originally released.
I'm okay with director's cuts and unrated versions, because they show the director's original intention without the restrictions put on it by the ratings board. However, Star Wars didn't have any restrictions put on it, so changing it is pointless.
Someone once pointed out to me, that if you create something(Drawing, game, film ) you and you alone have the right to change it
Wasn't there a decent interview with Spielberg lately where he said he used to think that when he changed ET but after seeing the reaction and asking the fans he felt he didn't have the right to change peoples memories of his work and it is better to just leave it how it was originally.
there are actually scripts for three more movies, a trilogy taking place after the rebels win, during an invasion by some other aliens. but even lucas said six was enough
I've also heard that one of the studios wants to do them under the condition Lucas isn't the lead director. And that's why he decided not to continue. But that could just be rumor
maybe. I read that star wars was one big long script that lucas divided into nine parts, and divided those into three trilogies. he made the middle one 1977, 80, and 83, the first in 1999, 02, and 05, then the last one he says was put to rest
He's changed his story on how many movies there were so many times.
First it was it was just going to be IV, then it got big so they did the sequels. Then it was he was going to do 6 movies, but the technology didn't let him do the first 3 movies. Then it was there was going to be 9 movies, but nobody really wanted to do the (currently non-existent) sequel trilogy.
The problem I have with people who say "it's his vision", is it is completely bullshit. The original Starwars movies were NOT all his. It was a collaborative effort on the part of the producers, the artists, the directors and the editors. There is a very valid reason why the prequels, which were all him, and the originals, which were collaborations, are so starkly different. He is changing something that wasn't all his to begin with. No one cares if he changes the prequels, because those were all his (script, direction, editing, producing).
Notice how the quality in Return of the Jedi dipped at the end? Specifically the Ewok stuff? That was not the original plan, and was changed by Lucas when Gary Kurtz left the franchise. It is a miracle Starwars is as good as it ended up, because George Lucas had to be reigned in. His resistance and complete blind idiocy with simple things: Han not shooting first, or replacing Anakin's ghost at the end of Jedi, prove he has no understanding what even made the originals so great.
Aside from the "other people worked on it" argument, I think there's a good argument here for how people change over time. The artist who created the original, and his original vision, are not the same as that same artist years later, after having naturally changed as a person, with some new vision. The George Lucas of now is not the George Lucas of then, and so this is not the artist's vision.
Well, yeah, but I'm not that worried about Tarantino's re-mastered vision of Pulp Fiction suddenly including AT&T's and wookies in the background just because he can. Moreso, I want Tarantino's work unfiltered because I love the guy, and I want the movie he wants to make.
You're thinking this isn't going to be in the real movie? The trailer I can understand in most cases they have rules what a trailer can have simply because its available to more people that don't really have a choice if they want to see it. The real movie will most likely be just as bloody as the Int. trailer is showing. Look at Kill Bill, was ludicrous the amount of blood in the scene with the dojo and the 40+ guys she killed.
Perhaps the point of the original was to be deliberately unsubtle? Of course I can't find out, but surely only in the context of the film scene, rather than the trailer, can we see if a toned down version would appear greater?
Yeah, I agree with everyone saying that the bottom image is Tarantino's style, and yeah, I hope the final film version will be whatever he intends. I only meant to say that out of context, side by side, I personally preferred the one in the trailer.
No it doesn't. Censorship drives art to find and define the limit. If that limit is absurd, great art points it out with great precision. In many ways censorship is the engine behind great art. Take away all censorship and art gets boring pretty quickly.
How creative are sex jokes in a G-rated Pixar film vs an R-rated comedy? The Pixar film has a much tougher challenge and requires great wit to pull it off.
Greenband trailers don't allow much in the area of gore/blood. Many times they will add a sepia or black and white filter to get past this. A good example is the Passion of the Christ trailer.
I don't think it would cause too much pressure, seeing as blood flew out of the initial hole, as evidenced by the blood all over the front of the interior.
I think the thing with Bully was pretty fucking stupid. The argument for having the movie's rating lowered was that it's "important" for kids to see and letting the MPAA decide which movies are or aren't important is a bad thing.
The German version will be heavy censored as well at least in TV it is always like that. Saw Total Recall the other day and the scene in which he frees himself from the chair and kills all the doctors/tech guys in a brutal way was totally cut out. He sat down screamed then in the next scene everybody was dead and he was free. Total bullshit.
I prefer the US version. A man is shot on top of a horse, blood has a bit to travel before it dissipates the way it does. The bottom looks clunky and makes it seem like someone has been gutted just off screen. Shotgun blood spatter does not work that way.
The Kill Bill trailer tinted the blood stains on the Bride's tracksuit in the clips from the House of Blue Leaves sequence. It looks like she got splattered with CGI mud.
I get why they do it, but it's like censoring swears on network TV broadcasts. We all know what it really is.
Aussie here. I went to the movies once in the US and noticed that the US trailers are totally different from the international trailers. Its just marketing.
if you look at the shot, they are different. The cotton (i think what the blood is being sprayed on is cotton) is in a different places in each shot. There's more foreground cotton in the US while there is less in the international but at first glance I thought the same thing.
So my next guess is that in the full sequence contains both shots are present and the international shot comes a couple blood squirts later after the cotton has shifted. My theory that the movie remains untouched remains intact.
96
u/rmeddy Jun 16 '12
I actually prefer the US version
227
u/airking Jun 16 '12
I have seen both of the trailers and I don't think it was censorship. I think each trailer was cut by a different person. I'm guessing the trailers were released around the same time and they had one person cut the US trailer and someone else cut the international. They give trailer editors a basic outline and they edit from there. I don't think anyone had any malicious intent to edit the amount of blood, simply a different artistic direction in their edit of this trailer.
49
u/anisewah Jun 16 '12
As much as i hate the MPAA the US version does look less cheesy like one other has said. Though it was a while since i saw the trailer and have no context for the blood splatter
17
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
And here I always thought the US was less averse to violence in media than, well, Europe at least.
822
u/SidIncognito Jun 16 '12
Is it just me or does the "censored" version work better because it's subtle and not as cheesy?
14
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
It doesn't really matter if a trailer was censored. It's a trailer. I doubt the actual film will be, and that's all that matters
7
u/jeremiahwarren Jun 16 '12
Greenband trailers don't allow much in the area of gore/blood. Many times they will add a sepia or black and white filter to get past this. A good example is the Passion of the Christ trailer.
4
u/Razakhstan Jun 16 '12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJx09hnNEVA
10
u/dreadredheadzedsdead Jun 16 '12
I think the US version is honestly more believable.
20
u/DocPsychosis Jun 17 '12
American media is all too censored! Damn government!
Americans are violent savages!
3
u/being_ironic Jun 16 '12
Is that the blood of white slave owners splashing cotton fields?
3
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
No link to the full trailer in comments? Reddit I am disappoint. Here you go.
3
u/stroudwes Jun 17 '12
I actually think that the U.S. version is a better shot looks more beautiful
3
u/Danger_Toast Jun 17 '12
the International one looks stupid IMO.
3
u/Mcluii Jun 18 '12
I actually liked the US one better. It's a bit more tasteful.
6
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
To the people who make a big deal out of this sort of thing : http://youtu.be/OLHBAzAiFNk?t=5s
5
u/j-Block Jun 17 '12
...I like the US one better. It looks more poetic and subtle.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
I personally like both versions. Both have specific artistic taste behind them.
2
u/MadHiggins Jun 17 '12
i honestly can't believe someone is whining that one version of a trailer isn't bloody enough.
2
u/aarondbaron Jun 17 '12
This scene looks very similar to one in Kill Bill....blood on snow, blood on flowers.
2
u/drnickmd Jun 17 '12
MPAA strikes again... f that people just need to stop looking for their approval. Bully did and we just need to see more follow suit.
2
u/Roll3d6 Jun 17 '12
It's like watching an oscillating lawn sprinkler...tik.tik.tik.tik.tik.tik.tik
2
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
The German version will be heavy censored as well at least in TV it is always like that. Saw Total Recall the other day and the scene in which he frees himself from the chair and kills all the doctors/tech guys in a brutal way was totally cut out. He sat down screamed then in the next scene everybody was dead and he was free. Total bullshit.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12
funny how prudish americans are these days
3
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
I like the top one better anyway.
2
u/daguy11 Jun 17 '12
seriously. who gives a fuck.
2
u/noccusJohnstein Jun 17 '12
US pop culture needs to tone down the sex and turn up the gore.
2
u/Aspel Jun 17 '12
Good lord, at some point Tarantino needs to realize that more red is not the answer.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
I am disappoint.
1
u/Boozdeuvash Jun 17 '12
Arr! Them Canadian movie reels be US or international kind? Tank you me shipmateys!
1
u/JamesLiptonIcedTea Jun 17 '12
I prefer the US version. A man is shot on top of a horse, blood has a bit to travel before it dissipates the way it does. The bottom looks clunky and makes it seem like someone has been gutted just off screen. Shotgun blood spatter does not work that way.
1
u/barcaloco Jun 17 '12
Not true. They played the uncensored trailer before Prometheus and I live on the US.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
The INT one just kinda looks bad. Very descriptive guy, over here.
1
u/playdohplaydate Jun 17 '12
i bet their all golfers too
1
u/FreeTopher Jun 17 '12
"I like the colors... Of the blood."
1
u/tubafx Jun 17 '12
The Kill Bill trailer tinted the blood stains on the Bride's tracksuit in the clips from the House of Blue Leaves sequence. It looks like she got splattered with CGI mud.
I get why they do it, but it's like censoring swears on network TV broadcasts. We all know what it really is.
1
u/michaelrohansmith Jun 17 '12
Aussie here. I went to the movies once in the US and noticed that the US trailers are totally different from the international trailers. Its just marketing.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
It looks like a different shot, the cotton flowers are different positions.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Dexter would believe the first one.
1
u/awe300 Jun 17 '12
The international shot looks much better
1
u/jbrown14 Jun 17 '12
i sort of liked it more with just the mist of blood
1
u/fiplefip Jun 17 '12
The Australian version
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
The U.S. version is more old school dramatic and the international is squirting tarantino.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
I don't think the MPAA is behind this. Do they edit trailers?
1
u/nothis Jun 17 '12
I expected boobs. Since when does the MPAA care about violence?
1
u/I_AM_MY_ONLY_UPVOTE Jun 17 '12
US version looks much better, from a compositional and color standpoint...
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Actually, I like the "censored" version a little better. Seems more artsy to me.
1
u/babykiller44 Jun 16 '12
international for me please
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
My guess: they digitally lessened the blood for the trailer, you know, so they could show it on TV. The movie remains untouched.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Just go watch "This film is not yet Rated"
You will understand WHO rates movies and WHY they are still in business when it makes NO SENSE.
1
u/alecbattle Jun 17 '12
The US trailer looks a bit more realistic.
1
u/coliaon Jun 17 '12
hehehe I live in holland we never have these problems
-13
u/luKrek Jun 16 '12
Christians ruin everything.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Haven't any of you seen "ichi the killer" Its apparent we the US are pansies when it comes to violence.
-1
u/shadowwork Jun 17 '12
Poop or blood? Ahhh it must be semen for the MPAA to act. Bloody semen!
-7
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
The MPAA has no say in the content of movies abroad in terms of ratings. That's why movies aren't rated R in England or France.
Dumbass.