Weighing the Value of Director's Cuts | Scanline 

I wanna see the movie version of "Cats" and its while-in-theaters changes along with the other promised bits, talked about in that ;-)

I second this motion.

Aye!

This man has lied to us? Hareton Splimby has Lied to us? He Hates us?

If you're wondering the Final Cut 2019 that came out when he was making the video is the best version of Apocalypse Now, it gets rid of all the useless scenes but keeps the plantation scene. It also looks way better, in 4k now, because it's restored from the original camera negatives. Similarly the sound design is clearer and more visceral as intended at the time but impeded by tech limitations. Theatrical is a hollywoody war movie, not very deep (much like Blade Runner's release) and the themes don't gel with the fast pace, and you're missing out (you also have to remember that Coppola was under a lot of pressure and stress to edit and cut it down so that he wont be financially destroyed as seen in the documentary), redux on the other hand is too long and slow, like the journey the characters are on, but I've heard it's good if you're on drugs, final cut is the perfect balance and best experience it's just right. But most people haven't watched that newest version, they will still tell you to watch the theatrical cut because they're angry at redux like hbomb (and alterations in general). Final Cut all the way, it's also the only version Coppola was ever actually happy with. There's no real point to watching any other version, but I recommend the Heart of Darkness documentary about the making of the film which is a crazy story on its own

Oh he knew what he was doing. The directors intended vision. ^_^

Hey shannon

reading this i thought to myself, "is their real name Shannon?"

That's quite a coincidence, don't you think so, James?

fellow shannon here, same

Oof.

The directors cut is also shorter cause audiences are less patient now lol

@@Tamacat388That doesn’t really make sense because I feel like we’ve been having longer movies recently? I haven’t done in depth research but just from a google, movies have been steadily getting longer as time goes on. Not that I don’t think our attention span sucks, but I don’t think it makes sense to blame directors cuts being shorter on that when movies as a whole are getting longer. As an (admittedly amateur) author, I just think that when you make a piece of media, whether it be a book or a story, you end up having to cut stuff to make it more concise. Hbomberguy even talks about this in his sherlock video, where he says writing is often improved by finishing, then cutting roughly 10% out.

@@Tamacat388 Now? No, it came out over 20 years ago. That's not "now". It's also only 1 minute shorter. 5 minutes deleted footage was restored and 4 minutes cut out. It feels faster though

I think film and art in general is a balancing act. The creativity of a director, the restraint of a producer/studio and the the balancing of the two by others involve (particularly editors in fixing pacing) are all often required to make a film work. If the studio takes too much control, the product can be sterile. If the director takes too much control, it can incomprehensible. If an editor is given too much control, they may miss the whole while fixating on the parts.

Two words: auteur theory.

Part of it is also the fact most other art forms often has a sole creator. You can write a book, do a painting or do a sculpture all by yourself. There is a sole visionary behind all that so naturally we think it's the same for that in a movie. Though even the things I mentioned often has someone behind the scenes to sort things out. Most of the best books have an editor to give pointers, clean up sentences and what not. Some painting and statues are commissioned and the client often has something specific in mind and then the artist takes help from someone else. And so many pieces of arts have been disputed on their authorships because of that sole creator. Just look at Bill Finger. Bob Kane may have created Batman but everything we love about him was made by Finger but it took only until recently for him to be acknowledged of that, long after his passing. All because of that sole creator mindset.

A personal observation I've made is there is an element to the filmmaking process that lends to the director being the chief architect for a film. The director is the only role that interacts with all other key roles. The director directly works with the screenwriter, editor, director of photography, producer and actors throughout the film. In contrast it's not normal for those other roles to all interact with each other. Screenwriters and editors are essentially on different ends of the production. So if you were to pick out who should have the best grasp of the overall film it is actually the director. Does this make them the author? Well I specifically used the term architect so you know my answer is no. I think its more the director is more the centre piece to build a good team around and this can be seen in the industry how the films of a specific director drastically changes based on the team they have around them for better or worst and how an entire period of one director's work is probably much more defined by who they are working with then anything to do with their own personal vision. I like to use Tim Burton as a great example of this, his earlier films are a rollercoaster of quirky but very different films. From Beatlejuice to Batman and edward scissorhands he's had different editors. But from Batman Returns onwards he's almost exclusively worked with the same Editor and you can see that in his films, Chris Lebenzon is a big part of what people consider the "Tim Burton formula" I'd argue much more then Danny Elfman or Johnny Depp. I think there is a similar effect that what people consider 'modern Spielberg' is visually coded by an almost exclusive cinematography by Janusz Kamiński since Schindler's List. Filmmaking is a collaborative medium but I'd argue it's built primarily around the collaboration of the director with all these other roles then those roles with each other.

Isn't it just a consequence of capitalism's divide and conquer strategy, the devaluing of the collective and privileging of the individual?

Film Scholars: well you see, the cockatoo can represent many things. The most common interpretation is that it's an outpouring of the emotional state of Kane as he devolves. Orson Welles: The jumpscare was to wake up the audience. That's the whole significance.

@Alvi Syahri I think that the meaning of "Jo" and it's placement in his name shows a lot. In his early life, he was an upstanding person, reflecting Jo (which can mean chivalrous). And in his later life (Part 4) he returns to being a good and kind person, thus having Jo be on the first and last parts of his names.

It doesn't matter why it's there, is just there. It's up to the audience to interpret it however they want.

@@Crlarl is it tho

@@sockmon1 Is what?

My inner goddess approves this plan.

ledgend has it he purposefully did a shitty job so they wouldnt include it nice try, han solo

In Uwe Boll's terrible, terrible film "Alone in the Dark", the main character does the same monologue shit, and I swear to god you almost get the feeling he's about to start narrating during a sex-scene.

How about Charles Dance? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fKCSGbX-JRM.html

"Holy fuck is this wrong, but holy hell, is it erotic."

You bafoon, you forgot to thank Tommy for making this comment

Still waiting tor my Amico here!! :@ :@

"My mom is very proud"

at night i need to go to the bathroom

Oof!

and his shoulders less unsettlingly wide

@@dommitchell4319 Hbomb is a beefy boy

@@axelbergstrom3644 vërr bœffy

@@dommitchell4319 and his outfit less bewitchingly suave

@@axelbergstrom3644 He's filled with that Beyond Meat soy filled beef!

It's really the only possibility with such an awful voiceover by such an A-class actor.

That’s what struck me hearing the clips, is that the VO could actually be half decent if the delivery was on-point; it would be far from ideal, but what we got was particularly awful.

_Studio Execs Hated the Blade Runner Voiceover They Forced Harrison Ford to Do_ - Vice

Supposedly, he figured they'd take out the voiceover if he read the lines badly enough.

No, simply put: Scott was being a prick and refused to direct the voiceover so it was basically Ford reading his lines. Note that the movie was scripted and largely shot with voiceover in mind but since Ridley Scott felt it diminished his visual talent decided to ditch it without telling the writers or the producers, he refused multiple (and often wildly different) versions of the voiceover before they forced him to accept the latest one made.

Hot take: Fuck making a whole movie in the worst aspect ratio because of "art" its like when someone says "ha the villain ends up winning because umm.... Humanity?"

@UCyPJ1fNpj8z_lBxJv6Tqn7A I kind of liked that aspect ratio... It was like fuck you, I'm going to be awkward. Probably not the real reason, but I'm sure there was a little bit of that. Especially the black and white cut. Which like maybe 7 or 8 people have watched. But I kinda love that "I'm making it like this so fuck you"

@@dndeadly6883 I didn't mind the aspect ratio, I forgot about it after a while. And I think Corridor Crew has an interesting discussion about it on their channel. Super not a perfect movie, but I thought it was far better than the Whedon version

In some cases the director's cut is used to push ideological concepts that were too heavy handed for the producers to put up with. Donnie Darko is a good example. Plus the score was much more on point in the original.

The Snyder Cut is super interesting. I wouldn't call it a good film, but it's very interesting. This video has some interesting quotes in it that apply quite well, because while the Snyder Cut was what the fans wanted, it's also most certainly self-indulgent to the extreme.

Yeah looking back (and especially thanks to the Pop Culture Detectice video essay about Predatory Romance in Harrison Ford films) one thing that definitely stands out is how empathy plays into the film, while obviously Deckard is a flawed and broken sort of man, where Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty is actually trying to live his life to the fullest, and that disparity of who’s the bad guy here, and clearly Deckard does feel empathy for those he has to put down and eventually rethinking about androids. BUT the relationship between Deckard and Rachel is sometimes so lacking in empathy, especially when he forces himself on her, she tries to run away and he shuts the door and forces her to say she loves him. Its fucking disturbing, and its a trend ive been seeing in some Ridley Scott films (Napoleon and Last Duel) where he’s clearly not processed some shit. That scene feels almost vengeful and bitter in the way its written where Rachel is straight up sexually abused. And this isn’t some PC woke argument, its just objectively disturbing to rewatch when ur older, something which as a kid i really never questioned growing up with Bond and Harrison Ford. Random tangent but just wanted to point it out, especially the part of this video that talks about sexual violence. Ofc i dont suggest taking it out, thats like how Disney censored French Connection, whats the fucking point if you censor everything wrong, im just so confused what Ridley’s thought process on that scene was and if he ever regretted it, especially when everything around the scene like the music wants to suggest its romantic

@@GuineaPigEverydayi don’t understand why that scene between the two exists? It all must have gone over my head even though blade runner is my favorite film. I always questioned it because it’s undoubtedly questionable and disturbing, but what is it even tying to say? The movie could have been the same if not better if Rachel had just fully consented

This honestly makes me feel like I should read the book. I think blade runner is a good film, but I personally didn't enjoy it. And I didn't really know why, since the concept fascinates me.

Yeah seriously. I was like "what voice over? Ohhhh. How did I never notice this is so egregious?"

Hate9. Final Cut was better

@@lostuser1094 final cut is actually the directors cut lol

Same

One time in my intro to film class everyone watched the director's cut... Except for one poor girl, who streamed it on Netflix instead of getting the DVD (this is 10 years ago when DVDs were the primary way people got movies through Netflix). The streaming service had the theatrical cut. She was really confused until my teacher brought up the theatrical cut and realized she'd seen a different version... She reeeeally didn't like the movie because of that awful narration.

"And so, I have no idea what was that whole Alien thing, I mean, were they like Alien overlords? Also, a fridge? get real..."

A purposefully sarcastic and subversively destructive tone yes yiiiiiisssss

"I obviously knew I did not kill my wife, but that U.S. Marshal did not caaaare. Like at aaaaall."

"This old man's magical force, known as, well, the Force, made him sound like he had lost it long ago. But, travelling the galaxy all these years, I've seen things that make this 'Force' sound sane by comparison."

"It turned out, however, that museums are frequently responsible for theft of artifacts from colonized countries, and this time wasn't any different"

Interesting!

Hi, I'm here 7 months after you commented to complain about the Aliens director's cut. Well not actually, I think it's great, but I also think it's great on a re-watch, rather than as your first exposure to the film. Aliens is paced well, with good tension & atmosphere that builds nicely to the climax. The extra scenes are cool but interfere with that pacing a little! E.g. the tension of the marines exploring the colony is a little undermined when you get to watch an inset scene of the colonists discovering the aliens for the first time.

@@Ninjat126 Hi, I'm here 7 months after you commented to remind you that you commented this seven months ago.

⁠@@Ninjat126yeah I Agree, although i definitely love the extended version as a more comprehensive work, but i think for people unfamiliar it can be quite slow. For instance someone wanted to watch a horror movie so i put Alien DC on becuz its the only version i had and i quickly noticed that the pacing definitely drags a bit, especially when it cuts to Newt with her family and the Weyland Yutani company there and discovering the alien ship. You dont rlly get into the horror of it till much later, so on a first watch it honestly can be a bit slow, especially nowadays. Still as a movie fan i def prefer the DC, all the added scenes are really well-directed regardless of whether or not they’re 100% essential

It also ruins the tension by showing Hadley's Hope before the marines land. Edit: Oh, somebody else said that above me.

The turret scene imo makes the movie, I always get disappointed not seeing it when I view the theatrical release

He might want to edit the random shots of a church. We're they deliberate? I don't know anything anymore.

In 20yrs

She actually mis-speaks numerous times. It was only at that point did I think it was deliberate.

I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder

It wasn't the only thing written out differently than writen in fact.

It was really nice!

It's a lot easier to just offend someone than it is to make someone feel shock, discomfort or sadness without offending them

@@jeremycorbin2178 Amen.

@@jeremycorbin2178 preach

He could've easily gone full anti sjw and talk about "PC culture run amok" and nerds would've loved that but no, he gave an empathetic and heartfelt reflection on his work

I am now actively, and unironically waiting for this. (Also throw in that 15 minute drive, just for good measure)

Release the Harris cut!

He was one of first and loudest critics of the voice overs and didn't really want to do them. I have only seen a dubbed version with the voice overs, and they gave a nice Film Noir feeling to the movie, which I liked back then. Ironically, without them it basically created a new influential style.

I found the voice-overs silly; cheap attempt at Humphrey Bogart or something. The voice-overs work perfectly in Steve Martin’s “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid”; very, very silly. And appropriate.

Minor note, but Harrison Ford wouldnt chug whiskey. He would throw back pot brownies. Thats the Harrison Ford I know.

God I hope he was drunk. Would you want to be sober for that?

@@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel Agree

what's it to ya!? I guess that super neat comment was your good deed huh cool guy It’s playful. I was early to the video. Sue me.

break into someone's home and after you've persauded them to stop screaming, do somethin' nice for them

☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻 Thought this about many things.

I hope they'll approve my pull request for fixing Godfather 3 soon

​​@@krkngd-wn6xjthey DID edit/cut a new version of it

Disney be like: "Copyright expiring? What's that? You mean Copyright EXPANDING :D"

I think it was Lindsay Ellis who said that Disney is super anxious to get their hands on the rights to the original Wizard of Oz film. This being hilarious since they are the reason they can't do so.

@@WolfHreda Yeah that's a classic FUBAR right there.

I consider it to be cultural violence that copyright terms are so long.

lmfao

The channel "codex entry" has over 9 hours of pathologic content relating only to the bachelor route(s... ish) with the intent to make videos relating to the other routes in the future

Snyder is all about indulgence to be fair, and honestly it is so blatantly not an original vision, because Snyder could see the release of the Whedon version, see all of people’s reactions, criticisms, what worked what didn’t, and had years to sort of take that feedback. Even if he didn’t shoot that many new scenes a lot of the CGI definitely was changed like the changes with Steppenwolf and how poor of a villain he was, and how comparatively better but still mediocre he was in the Snyder film. Snyder pretty much pulled a George Lucas by correcting what he saw as mistakes. And its unbelievably excessive. Like we really do not need half the dialogue in the batcave. Its sort of what that new Rebel Moon is shaping into which is not even releasing in theatres because at this point Snyder isn’t making movies for audiences but for auteur reasons and his dedicated fans. People praise this increasing director cut obsession like studios only ever shit on true artists, but the most famous films often were wild batshit ideas tempered by studio mandates. Of course we only ever remember the ‘amazing’ films cancelled or ruined by studios because yes ofc they do that, they’re corporations, but we only ever lambast the bad stories and not the million times the studios managed to negotiate different visions. I mean Alien was very likely the work of studio re-writes and not Dan O’Bannon’s original pitch, however much people love to obsess over artistic perfection. Movies aren’t getting any better now that the big old-timer artists can make whatever. In fact its the imbalance of old-time veteran directors get a blank slate but most new younger directors are completely suffocated by studios and have little to no power or say over their work. Its all about balance, studios back in the day were a lot more varied than the sort of anxiously risk-averse studios we have today that rely on IP and established fandoms like those of Snyder.

Then if he rebuilds the set again he’ll have replicated the Red Letter Media technique.

Like a space-age child hobo. But I like it.

what about the skellington

Any time someone mentions funko pop, I laugh thinking of this

George Lucas predicted NFTs

@@Jack_nnn_ oh god not NFTs

He's hit it!

I mean that creepy Mufasa face at the start getting fixed is worth it for me

I've never heard of this omg! Where can I go to learn more about it- like what the changes were or a comparison? It's hard to find anything online about it- now when you search "lion king" and "animation" a bunch of articles come up talking about the remake and if it counts as live action lol

... Could we get a Director's cut with an extra 2 hours where we get every director's cut at the release date of this youtube video?

@@vincentmuyo then we would need a directors cut for all those comments as they retroactively become wrong

You forgot to mention Y as well

Everyone saying "you missed x" means that by their consideration it is an exponent and good example worth adding to the essay. You should try to think for a minute or two why people do what they do and not just point fingers and laugh without even understanding because that's how ignorance becomes bliss.

@@lasarousi Um, no, I don’t have to do that at all. It’s okay to laugh at humans being silly.

Awww your dad is a saint!

the movie is so good, its even better than the book imo

@@fafo867 It's completely different than the book, so it's not really comparable. I favor the book over the movie because it has much better theme.

@@PK-vw3gd Philip K Dick saw the pre-studio meddling edit and liked it. Mind you, he was on a lot of drugs and close to death at the time.

Of course he would like it, it's a great movie. But P K is right, the book's theme is fundamentally different to the movie's and it's kind of pointless to pit them against each other.

Lmao

can't wait for the Special Edition Director's Cut of this video

You can't trust narrators, they're unreliable. Ba dum tss.

I didnt new what to make it but when she did the narration it was dawned me, this nerdy guy who talks about movies, likes movies.

Who doesn't like movies, though.

They should release a new version without the voice over. It would let the performance breathe.

@@rickard7606 it needs more pigeons though

Calling Orson Wells a hack is a take and a half, and while I disagree with it, I respect the fuck out of it

tommy tallarico rang ?

Well to be fair you could say it was a good act that' got him that far

He truly proved that confidence( and sometimes a high-vis ) will get you a lot of places in life.

Everyone "successful" has lied to get where they are and the more "successful" you get the more despicable crap you gotta do to get there. Success really depends on how big your balls are and how good your pokerface is.

*twenty

Ayyyyy Jay

Meanwhile, maybe you'd like a Jay-cut of this one?

I thought it said ill be back in two years to find your hairline harris

Hey Jay, shouldn't you be busy watching Sargon of Akkad and being all weird that Hbomberguy and Shaun agree on a lot of political beliefs.

Not really. Star Wars fans can be divided many ways, but one of the easiest is that some of them think George did everything as an auteur, and some think that his collaborators are the reason the original trilogy is what it is. The latter tends to have people old enough to remember the disappointments of the prequel trilogy on it's release. I myself fall into the latter camp, and hold the position that George always need to have his creative energies directed by others, but his failure to acknowledge that fact in the face of his own ego is his failure as a writer and director.

Agreed 10000% on all accounts, Morgan. If there's a director who desperately needs a babysitter, it's the Cohen Brothers 🤣

its also rarely talked about how star wars mediocre to bad at it's very best, and lacks any depth or meaning because it's literally a children's series, and adults obsessing over it reflects poorly on them both psychologically and intellectually.

@@nemo5335 I found the troll

@@AceSimGaming that sort of rebuttal is typical for someone who has the mental capacity of a star wars fan.

same! (at least re: the ADHD) i once took 7 hours to watch a 3 hour movie, but i managed to watch most of this video without tabbing out/pausing, and my meds have almost certainly worn off by now - something about the way he does these videos is really good for paying attention to

@@mozarteanchaos tritto on the ADHD thing.

I also have ADD and just don't allow myself to do stuff on my phone or tab out while watching movies as to not miss anything - unfortunately that means it's even harder for me to get through movies which always leads me to give in at some point and take out my phone our something but then I at least pause the movie or show I'm watching until I can concentrate again. This is far from ideal and caused me to require like 5 different tries to watch Night of the Living Dead at all - and when I did complete it it took me like at least 4 hours because of all the pauses. I just hope my new medication will help. Re Harris'and Shannon's videos: unfortunately I can't completely focus on then right now, but I do my best to always listen closely and not do anything too demanding while listening - most of the time I will just play minesweeper on my phone while listening and that does the trick. Minesweeper almost feels like a kind of skilling to calm myself down tbh 🤔

I have ADD and SAME🙌

the only time i ever tab out or leave the vid is to research interesting facts he mentions lmao

That's so cool! I loved doing comparative lit/media studies in college and I wish I'd had the opportunity at a younger age

I read the novel in my first year of university.

Wait what state was this? I live in New South Wales and I’d love to do Blade Runner

It was required viewing for my film class in college! (Okay, it was a film-and-the-Bible class, but it was the closest thing I got.)

Yep, I'm from Queensland and we did that :)

Well that's just stupid, Ridley scott got the name from a completely unrelated book.

Leaning over to my date and whispering in her ear: "That's the Blade Runner"

maybe the real bladerunner was the friends we made along the way

sandra sounds awesome

The virgin symbolism analyzer vs the chad literalist

very late reply but what is the difference? I've only seen the film on DVD so I imagine that was the director's cut.

@@tuesdaysellers1545 Basically, the director's cut decided to explicitly answer all of the open questions from the theatrical version that were most of the reason Donnie Darko was such a conversation piece in the first place. It also inexplicably completely rearranged the soundtrack to different parts of the film, completely changing the tone of several scenes, nearly always in much inferior ways from the theatrical cut. Stick to the theatrical cut at all costs. The directors cut is irredeemable trash.

@@KentuckyKaiju thanks for sharing!

ghostofdurruti and then interviews of Shannon talking about how collaborating with Harris is like

And it has to be 3 hours long!

I grew up with the Director's Cut. Hearing voiceovers from the theatrical sends me into a twitchy psychotic state.

It's like they're terrible on purpose

Harrison has revealed he made them terrible on purpose so that they wouldn't use them in the film however the studio (not the director) went ahead and used them anyway.

I've honestly never fully seen Blade Runner, my dad was watching it and I got freaked out at the scene where the bad guy was squeezing a guy's eyes, but I honestly want to watch both the original release and the directors cut.

I grew up on the Theatrical release, and so consider the voice over as an integral part of my original experience. They didn't hit me, then, as stupidly re-explaining what the they presumed the audience would miss, but as a stylistic choice meant to evoke a dime-store detective novel 'feel'. But I get that I would probably feel different if they had not been part of that first initial experience, and that my acceptance of them is a form of imprinting.

I'm going to tell myself hbomb is too much of a coward to actually ever come out and have the Prequel fight for real, just tease and joke about it forever. That way, if that's true, I'm prepared. And if he does come out with a video one day, it will be a pleasant surprise.

@@RoyalFusilier Honestly, I like that the prequels are trying to do (expand the lore, and recontextualize the story as the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker) but the execution is awful. However, the Clone Wars cartoon does a WAY better job executing the exact same basic ideas, to the point I forget how bad the actual movies were when I watch it

@@TheJadedJames The older one with that GIF of the Clone Trooper kicking ass or the newer CGI one?

@@GamerBurgerz Both are a great watch, but the CGI one is what he's referring to. The Genndy Tartakovsky show was too short to accomplish what The bigger series has been able to, though it still manages to make some unique additions to the universe while being a stunning showcase of Genndy's animation. I prefer the CGI show, but I'd recommend both.

Never forget that the Original pre-release screenings of Star Wars were an unmitigated disaster and the film was regarded as total garbage. Only a concerted effort from Lucas' then wife and Editor to fix the film's more egregious mistakes turned it into something decent. So, is that the studio system? kinda. In the sense of the preview screenings being the catalyst for deciding the film needed a major rework. And of course, having an editor that can call Lucas out on his nonsense, and be strong about what needed to be fixed. Perhaps, if the editor for the prequels had been as determined, things might have been different. Then again, perhaps not.

Did he? Or did he just wallpaper over the problem?

31:02

Moving the camera is hard

What time? What is time?

@@joshuababineau5826 Ha, well spotted. Only visible for 3 seconds in a 50 minute video too!

I just wish it wasn't called the directors cut. It should've been called an alternative version

@@TannerLindberg Women being abused for real is more of an epidemic than women lying about sexual assault. Sure, some may do that but come on. Those guys aren't reduced to begging in the streets, they are still rich as fuck and if their fame gets too damaged by false allegations they can always retreat to their own private islands. Forgive me for not shedding many tears. What the real problem is, I think, is that most sexual abuse isn't even reported and I'm talking abuse against men as well. MeToo was just the tip of the goddamn iceberg.

@@TannerLindberg I'd say you're on the wrong channel, but maybe you should stick around and learn a thing or two.

@@TannerLindberg Yeah, no. Women do not make money from accusing men of sexual assault. I've had enough friends confide their assaults to me to know this is the truth.

@@TannerLindberg really? Having their lives completely uprooted for no monetary gain, losing their jobs and livelihoods and being slandered across the internet by people like you? That seems to be more in line with what actually happened.

@@Xondar11223344 falsely accusing _any_ man of sexual assault - of course not. accusing _certain_ men can bring financial gain - just look at the James Charles fiasco. finally, financial gain isn't the only motivator to falsely accuse someone of something - it could be simple malice, it could be a smear campaign, it could be mental illness or even a mistake.

36:25 [Should I put a earape/jumpscare warning? I think I should put a earape/jumpscare warning...]

Your understanding of the verb "edged" and my understanding of it appear to be very different. _Very_ different.

@@flaming6 No, I think that was the joke being made.

Glances nervously at the Godfather collection with all the deleted scenes

True story, one time I had plancs to go Christmas shopping wheb visiting home, turned on the TV and it was on a LotR trilogy marathon with no ad breaks and I just gave up on buying presents that year.

I did that once while on a lil bit of lsd.

I've watched endgame+endgame with director's commentary back to back a few times

@@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868 you mean Avengers Endgame? please tell me there's another movie called Endgame, for my own sanity, please

someone said "I stand on the heads of giants" about this and i think thats important

​@@kaipoland3174 Newton

and Final Fantasy… or Silent Hill… *groans*

To be fair, almost all the versions of Skyrim are identical, so......it's even more vain, because it's masturbatory over how well the game was received......shit.

Bethesda doesn't even change anything though lol

That's not them changing shit. That's not vanity, it's marketing. It's Bethesda hunting for last coin they can get. And it still makes more sense than director's cuts because Skyrim was released on different platforms, so it could try and appeal to slightly different audiences.

@@KRAFTWERK2K6 Funny enough (or possibly depressingly enough), this whole thing about development issues and director's cuts reminded me of the development issues with Final Fantasy Versus XIII: the game that became Final Fantasy XV. It was originally created by Nomura, who envisioned it as a darker take on many classic FF tropes and a more serious story. However, they were forced to make it using Crystal Tools: the engine responsible for XIII's delays, and it was extremely incompatible with the game Nomura envisioned. After multiple years of delays, during which the team had been working hard to desperately work around the problems, the game was rebranded as XV and Nomura was replaced by Tabata. In order to meet the new release date, the story was entirely reworked and massive amounts of the game were altered or cut entirely, and some of those things were repackaged later as DLC, a six-episode anime, and the Kingsglaive movie. It was a development nightmare that resulted in a broken game. To this day, Nomura is still very upset about what happened, and I don't blame him. I would like to see Final Fantasy Versus XIII be realized one day as it was originally envisioned, but, if that happens, should Square Enix really be allowed to make the money from it, when their stubbornness and incompetence caused all its problems and delays?

Ford literally came up with the: "I know." response in Empire Strikes Back. That's talent.

“But we can’t turn back! Fear is their greatest defense - I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust, and what there is is likely directed toward a large-scale assault!” (wHo TaLkS LiKe tHiS gEoRgE?!)

Original Star Wars trilogy success was thanks to everybody's efforts but Lucas himself.

Tia Aaron Nah, George is a genuinely creative and talented guy, it’s just that he took a lot of input from other creative and talented people that helped refine the original trilogy into the masterpieces they are. But we didn’t realize that for like 20 years, so we all thought he was a genius, and then we had that illusion shattered when the all-George-all-the-time prequels exposed all the flaws in his execution. And since our standards were so high for him, him failing to meet them made him look like a hack.

@@joeybatmania9327 Nevermind that he hasn't written for a film in like 20 years, it's honestly a miracle that those movies weren't worse than they already were.

Joke's on you, it'll actually be an hour and a half in order to include all the bad jokes that Harris made and Shannon removed.

I'm waiting for the 5 hour workprint.

I'm sure it won't contain any pointless derailing into different subjects. Like an entire movie review or something.

Based on minute 12-13 this _is_ the director's cut. ^_^

Just to show you that Lucas wasn't the first nor the last director to recut and reedit their movies. It's something to keep in mind about the industry.

Why not both?!

I thought he looked very dapper

It just reminded me of the jackets my dad always wears.

It's not a good

To me it looked like a snarky film/art student that gets high on his own intellectualism. I felt like a scarf was missing though.

This is the next big meme mark my words

@@OneMoreMeme_INeedYou I'm willing to bet it's possible with minimal word splicing. This needs to be done.

burns had a whole episode that was a parody of it so it would be pretty easy imo

Alternatively, how much of Citzen Kane could you remake with either Pokemon or DBZ clips?

Can the new meme just be different versions of Citizen Kane created by recutting other shows together, like the Friends recut, or the Naruto recut?

And sometimes taken away to be butchered.

What am I supposed to do without my funko pops, eh? Develop a personality or something?

Wait, there's a Director's Cut of Dumb and Dumber?! Fucking why?!

Because dumb and dumber is a timeless masterpiece of a motion picture and deserves a directors cut

@@fro_e Does it deserve a director's cut if it's worse than the original cut?

@@maou8253 More dumb and dumber is never a bad thing.

@@fro_e it IS worse though! The extended cut has more homophobic jabs between Harry and Lloyd, including Harry teasing him about being sexually assaulted in the bathroom. It make their friendship dynamic meaner and weird, which makes the whole movie less fun.

Spider-man noir

I really want that jacket lmao

My hot take: It's a coat, and it looks dumb with the t shirt.

@@JanPospisilArt yeah, I kinda agree, it looks off with the t shirt.

@@JosiahMcCarthy I agree, he should have gone shirtless and shown off that sexy bare chest underneath

I agree, it's really nice

lol i was gonna say, does anyone else think harry looks really hot in that jacket???

Facts

I mean, he generally looks pretty good.

Ok, I am super glad that I was not the only one who thought this.

Aw ❤❤❤❤

so poetic

20/20 sight as well

Meu amigo de onde vc tirou essa foto de perfil?

i'm cringing but also smiling please call the police

No way that is done over the telephone. Quality is too good.

@@wilhelmvg9978 I believe it was a misunderstanding - whenever I've heard it mentioned, Harrison Ford's performance is described as famously "phoned in". Not literally over a telephone, just the colloquialism for low enthusiasm.

@@BuletPrufe To be fair, preceding the word _fact_ with _fun_ is the internationally recognised way of indicating that, it probably isn't!

@@luke-alex It isn't what? Fun? And what "it" are you referring to? You know if you're gonna be a snarky smartass you've gotta be clear what you're being a smartass about.

@@BuletPrufe please stop. nobody likes a snide jackass, but you don't have to be an annoying pedant about it. and by that i mean ignoring obvious context clues just so you can have more to criticize. and in case you try the same with me, i'll just spell it out for you: he's responding to what you wrote about this "fact" being a likely misunderstanding, so he clearly meant to say that fun facts aren't facts at all.

A deserved accolade for the excellent Paddington 2. To be fair, apparently it happened because an 80 year old negative review of Citizen Kane was uploaded to Rotten Tomatoes.

I am sorry to be the bearer (bear pun intended) of bad news, but apparently some person added a negative review to the Paddington 2 Rotten Tomatoes ratings which demoted it. I do not want to bully the person nor give them internet traffic, but the quotes from their review sounds like they were not built to enjoy a wholesome bear family film and/or they have no chill/joy. At least I have that Paddington Bear in-character tweet acknowledging the Citizen Kane RT toppling. Wholesome and brutal

Veterator Vulpes My wife saw that one first before we watched it together as the second (the one I liked the sound of best) version. I was furious, because it was for a class too. Just idiotic.

For me it’s the prequels. Knowing how lame the backstory of the OT was effects the overall experience. You can’t unwatch them.

For years it was the only version that existed on VHS, think how awful that was. The new cut was a revelation.

I own one of the box sets and I have never seen the version with VO either. I am glad I made it 34 years into life without knowing that. lol

@@bladedesoul yeah, it's total cringe, but at the time I still liked the film anyway. Tears in rain, RIP Rutger Hauer 2019 AD! Spooky, huh?