Weighing the Value of Director's Cuts | Scanline
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 08. 2019
- Get two months of Skillshare for free at skl.sh/hbomberguy
Are Director's Cuts worth it? Yes? Probably yes. But what if it's no? Let's have a look!
Shannon's CZcams: / @struccimovies
Shannon's Twitter: / plentyofalcoves
Patreon: / hbomb
Twitch: / hbomberguy
Twitter: / hbomberguy
Miss you Rutger
1944 - 2019
you hit one million, we want the directors cut
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
When he said "Hey Shannon" I seriously looked up from my phone like an idiot. Had a near heart attack.
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
I have the Alien DVD, which comes with both the original and Director's Cut versions. In the commentary, Scott directly says, "This isn't the director's cut. The original is the directors cut. It has everything I wanted it to have that was good for the film and none of the stuff added back into the director's cut works for the movie. I cut it for a reason. But because of Blade Runner, everybody wants a director's cut, so here we are."
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
It’s completely taken for granted now, but the very fact that the director somehow came to be treated as the sole author of a work of art that is, by its very nature, collaborative, is really strange. Directors are routinely credited with choices that are much more likely to have been made by the screenwriter, or the editor, or any number of other creators.
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?
I now want a fifty shades of grey audiobook narrated by Harrison Ford in that same dry voice
"What's going on. I am so confused."
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?
czcams.com/video/fKCSGbX-JRM/video.html
"Holy fuck is this wrong, but holy hell, is it erotic."
I will never get tired of Orson Welles stating, matter-of-factly, "That's the entire significance of the cockatoo."
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?
The bit at the end about feeling uncomfortable taking sole credit for the work of many hits slightly different (in a good way!) after the Tommy video
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!
“Some fans are specifically asking for a ‘Snyder Cut’ of justice league”. Huh. Weird watching this now.
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.
I heard Harrison Ford intentionally gave the worst voice over possible because he hates the idea so much.
So in a way it's all his fault.
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.
I need a director's cut of this that makes Harris' eyes less entrancingly blue
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!
“This movie’s Draft, much like the actual draft, is something you are morally obliged to dodge” is such a great quote lol
The sad thing about Blade Runner is that the reason Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep remains an incredibly good and popular book, aside from the strange and compelling subplots that PKD puts in everything, is the incredible sense of empathy the POV characters internal monologues create - there is one scene where Deckard realises that the toad he found isn't real, and it is a moment more devastating than nearly anything else I've read despite being as low-stakes as possible. The most powerful thing in the story is creating empathy through allowing us to feel the character's emotions in words, just as in film we see a character's emotions through performance, and they just trample it to death by having the least empathic voiceover in a good film ever made.
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
At 27:25 the word "benevolence" is spoken while the word "beneficence" is written. You need to make a Director's Cut of this video.
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.
Today I learned that I've never seen the original Blade Runner, just the director's cut. I apparently was spared.
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 the extended cuts of Lord of the Rings complicate this even further - as they were made by Peter Jackson even though he treated the theatrical cuts as the definitive version of the film. He only made the extended cuts for the fans, according to him. The extended cuts are essentially the FANS' cut, in a way.
Interesting!
Aliens is another fantastic example of a director's cut (though they call it 'extended cut'). Adding in the background information that Ripley's hypersleep made her miss the rest of her 11 year old daughter's life gives the subplot with Newt SO much more weight, and as a result there's a lot of fantastic themes about motherhood and parental responsibility that you just couldn't see clearly in the original cut.
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
“In 1977 George Lucas predicted funko pops”
lmao
Any time someone mentions funko pop, I laugh thinking of this
George Lucas predicted NFTs
@@Jack_nnn_ oh god not NFTs
I wish all Harrison Ford movies had a version where he explain what's going on in a monotone voice. It's great.
"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"
I just rewatched this video and, like all of your videos, it's great! In it, you say you'll do a director's cut in "20 years or when you reach a million subscribers" I know you said that as joke but you did it! Congratulations on reaching 1 million subscribers! You're the best!
I am now actively, and unironically waiting for this. (Also throw in that 15 minute drive, just for good measure)
Release the Harris cut!
Films should be released as git repositories, where you could see any version. and see how and when changes were made.
☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
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
“Go do something nice for someone today”
Hbomb that’s a very beautiful sentiment but this video was uploaded at 10pm for me it’s a little late for such demands
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
Hearing Sam Raimi speak was so uplifting.
I can't even remember the last time I heard someone use the word "offended" without sounding condescending and/or repulsed. But Raimi speaks with genuine sincerity and concern about not wanting people to feel.. well, offended, because he doesn't want people to feel BAD because he wanted to have an edgy/shocking scene in a film. Even more respect for the boi
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 think David Lynch is worth bringing up as part of this debate. He was infamously refused final cut on the movie Dune but, when the movie became a commercial failure, he refused to return and do a director’s cut at the studio’s request. (Although he’s also recently hinted he might return to it now, 40 years after release due to fan demand, which I’m personally ok with since it’s more like the Blade Runner situation than Star Wars etc.)
Likewise, with the Twin Peaks movie, Fire Walk with Me, even though Lynch had creative control and 3 hours of footage, he decided to limit the movie to 90 minutes in order to focus on the main story of Laura Palmer’s death. Surprisingly, the film was actually panned upon release by critics and fans alike, but Lynch liked it so much that he refused to go back and re-edit it. Cut to 20-30 years later and, lo and behold, critical opinion on Fire Walk with Me has completely changed, with many considering it one of Lynch’s most underrated works. Lynch was vindicated in his refusal to change the film.
Then, in 2014, Lynch did something very interesting. He compiled the unused footage from Fire Walk with Me, and edited it into a separate companion film, Twin Peaks: The Missing Pieces. It’s really well done and it really works as it’s own thing, giving more focus to the side-stories happening in the background of the original film, but without interrupting the pacing and artistic integrity of the original in the way a standard director’s cut would. It’s a very neat and clever compromise on Lynch’s part.
It's interesting watching this after the release of the Snyder Cut, as it demonstrates a lot of the potential problems with director's cuts that you mentioned in this video: it's bloated and indulgent, it honestly isn't that different if you leave out the bloat, and it is very obviously a revision; it is *not* his original vision, nor is it by any means what would've hit theatres if he hadn't left the project: theatres will not accept anything 3 hours or longer unless it can guarantee buts in seats, and given Batman vs Superman was miserably beaten in the box office, Snyder's 4-hour Justice League was not going to put buts in seats.
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.
My favorite comments are the ones that say "You forgot to mention X", as if this video were meant to be a complete list of director's cuts and not, you know, a carefully constructed video essay. Anyway, great work from both of you, as always.
... 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.
I often can't help but burst out laughing at the Blade Runner voice overs. The way he's talking I can't help but imagine Harrison stumbling around the recording room while an uncapped bottle of cheap whiskey sloshes around in his hand.
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
I miss Scanline so much. I still rewatch these videos regularly. Your passion comes through in everything you do, but it's clear you really care about this stuff as a specific interest. Your shorter videos were just as excellent as your longer epics.
I wish there are more episodes of scanline
“Copyrights expiring” I just imagine Disney executives laughing at that line.
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
31:05
I feel like each video he is going to break more and more of his set until its just him in his garage again
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
32:28 getting awfully close to that million subscriber milestone. Who else is excited about the director's cut version of this video?
He's hit it!
Reminds me of all the 'fixes' in animation errors they've done to the og Lion King over the years. Specially in tradition animation, were each frame is drawn painted individually, it honestly feels like a sin to go back and fix things, not mention that, it often makes the original version either lost media or REALLY hard to find! In the lion king's case, the only way to watch it is through the laserdisc release
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
I cackled at every George Lucas fake-out.
Every. Single. One.
my voice hurts now you bastard.
That said, I'm really interested in the "pathologic" video director's cut.
Please, make it happen. It can be 5 hours, it's okay
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
5:56 hits different in a post-James Somerton world
Harris admitting that he was inaccurately credited for sole creation of a scanline video that was in fact a collaboration is a horrifying bit of foreshadowing! Please release the bomberboy console i remortgaged my house for your kickstarter harris
I think this guy likes movies because the narrator said so, but I'm still not too sure.
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
It's rarely talked about how the editors of Star Wars, Marcia Lucas and Paul Hirsch, basically turned a bunch of unwatchable nonsense into the most successful film of all time. Sometimes directors need good editors. Good editing Shannon!
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.
Oh boy! It's almost 2 years since this episode, which means we should be getting another new one any time soon.
Lmao
can't wait for the Special Edition Director's Cut of this video
One of the biggest complications to me on this topic is that feeling of, every time a creative mentions "if i could do it over, i'd change [some of the things]", I _always_ think "Man, I want to see that version."
I think every single version is interesting because each version holds its own artistic merit! But I guess the problem is whether or not the society of media can actually hold every version as its own piece, instead of the fear of one supplanting the other. Simply put, I don't know if _we_ have the capability to do that.
Fun fact: In order to get into acting, Orson Wells showed up at a theater one night and lied that he was from a big theatre guild from New York. The man was a hack, but he was a big beautiful brilliant hack. Most people wish they could get as far as he did by lying about their resume.
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.
I've watched Blade Runner like 3 times with my dad and have never heard the voice over or seen that ending bit. It turns out my dad was protecting me from some horrific editing choices and only showing me director's cut.
I read the book too and loved it!
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.
Hey Harris, guess who reached a million subs and, therefore, now owes us an analysis of the latest cut of Apocalypse Now? (31:36 - 32:29) Can't wait for the director's cut of this video
tbh i dont really have a problem if directors (or literally anyone else) want to endlessly tinker with their works -- even if it leads to a slippery slope, even if the end product is worse -- so long as previous cuts are still around. i guess i just have sympathy since im prone to that sort of perfectionism/want for modification with literally everything i work on. if a director doesn't want to let go of the flaws in an old work, that's their prerogative and more power to them.
I'll be back in two years for the next scanline Harris!
*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.
throwback to watching bladerunner in english at school, and walking into drama talking about how confused we all were about the ending.
drama teacher: "do you know the significance of... the unicorn?"
us: "uhh, it was about his dream or something, right?"
teacher (dramatically, of course): "the unicorn... is the blade runner"
us: "what"
teacher, in full seriousness: "it has a blade on its head, and it runs. therefore, it is the blade runner."
wtf sandra
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
35:02 I did an actual spit take when you pulled the rug out from under us once again
A Director's Cut of Dances with Wolves was released in 1991, a year before the Blade Runner DC. Restored versions of Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia were also released theatrically in the late '80s.
Harris is gonna be 89 and on his death bed whispering "prequels!" and no one will understand what he meant. His biggest regret : not getting around to defending the preqels
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.
I demand the Harris Cut of this video, with the prequel defense scene left intact!!!
ghostofdurruti and then interviews of Shannon talking about how collaborating with Harris is like
And it has to be 3 hours long!
Donnie Darko is another good example of a theatrical cut being better than a director's cut.
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!
Well, a million is here, so...
I've only ever seen the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, and those voiceovers are really throwing me off.
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 actually lost my mind laughing when you teased George Lucas the second time showing Stephen Spielberg in the shot. Well played
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.
I find the director's cut of Alien interesting. It was done way later, and Ridley Scott has been very open that the theatrical cut is his preferred version. He just made the director's cut for fans who want to see some extra scenes.
I just wish it wasn't called the directors cut. It should've been called an alternative version
As a painter I'm very precious about finishing my work. Once it has my signature, its done. I can look at it and wish I did something different but it's done. It's part of my own personal history of learning and mistakes. It is what it is and unless it gets damaged and I have to fix it, It's done. At a certain point, you have to leave well enough alone.
Once in a while when I just want to reuse a canvas and really don't feel comfortable trying to keep it, I will repaint it. But for the most part I think a lot of art, actually happens when you decide to stop. You can always add more or repaint or poke stuff around forever, but I'd much rather just start something fresh. I learn more when I just accept it and move on.
It's kind of like when sequel movies come out and I'm just bored already. I'd rather have a new experience I don't like, or re-experience something I do like. I don't want to experience something close to the thing I actually liked, but isn't really the same, but has enough elements from the old thing that it's kind of boring.
My God, I felt like I was being edged so hard until he finally said "George Lucas."
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.
"In what other medium would such colossal vanity be permitted, much less encouraged?" Videogames. *Skyrim theme begins*
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?
32:10 *narrows eyes at 988k sub count as of March 2022* If you think we won't expect a Director's Cut of this video just because of a throwaway joke from years ago, you are sorely mistaken.
32:00 The time has COME!
Harry has really done a good job of repairing that wallpaper, after that time he put an axe through it.
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!
Dear Mr. Harris Bomberguy, I have severe ADHD and some depression and therefore typically have trouble sitting through an entire ~hour of even the movies/shows/videos that I like best. My inability to sit through videos/shows tends to not be a comment on how much I do or don't like the thing, it's just what my brain does.
But _something_ about your content has a magic touch- I virtually never compulsively pause and seek distractions when watching your videos, I watch them through beginning to end. I don't know what it is about your work exactly, but for 49 minutes or so once in a while I get to feel like a person with the capacity for actual focus. I mean this 100% sincerely, thank you for that.
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
Looks like you owe us a director’s cut, Harris.
When Shannon was quoting Roy’s monologue, my pc on the other room entered sleep mode so my headphones played the disconnection sound. So what I heard was
“All those moments will be lost in time like tears in ✨🙆♀️🎀🄳🄸🅂🄲🄾🄽🄽🄴🄲🅃🄴🄳🎀💁♀️✨
I don’t think you can get much more Cyberpunk than that
In the era of Me Too when so many actors, directors, and other influential professionals in the entertainment industry have been revealed to be sexual abusers or to hav perpetuated abuses against women in the industry that could only have come from a place of misogyny, its really refreshing to hear about Raimi and Haggard. They made poor choices, received feedback from the public, and instead of getting defensive and complaining people are too sensitive, they *listened.* They admitted they were wrong publicly, even. Its just really nice to hear, and I have an automatic respect for them now.
@@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.
"who would watch a 5h film?"
me who religiously goes to the cinema every year to binge all three LotR films in a single day *sweats nervously*
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
The desire for and fanfare around the final cut of bladerunner was likely a huge influence on the tone and editing of Bladerunner 2049. And for that, I'm thankful.
Great art is never finished; it is abandoned.
And sometimes taken away to be butchered.
fun fact: the director's cut of blade runner is one of the recommended texts to study for your final highschool exams for english in my state of australia, usually in the comparative text module (my class studied it with frankenstein). so like approx. 1 in 3 adults below the age of 35(?) in my state has had to write an essay at some point about blade runner.
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 :)
Perhaps instead of watching all 50 minutes of this I should just wait for the director's cut. I'm sure that will be a shorter, better, and more streamlined version and not a huge mess or anything.
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. ^_^
I really like the stuff you say towards the end about videos being a collaborative medium. Sometimes I forget that the editors and actors and basically everyone beyond the writers (I want to be a television writer, so that is my point of reference) are valid contributors to videos. Even in this video, it was at first weird to me that someone who "only" did the editing and voiceovers was credited. Thank you both for creating something that helped me to realize how much more this art form is than the individual. It's really refreshing to learn something new about human nature two hours after I had meant to go to sleep.
Also: It's nice to be reminded that collaboration and sharing is good. I desperately want to create art that can be shared with people, but I am obsessed with doing it all on my own because it feels easier that way; my own creative control can't be sacrificed and I can have a product that is mine and mine alone. But, that's not always the point, is it? I'm always trying to have friends join me in doing projects, but there's that underlying attitude that I can't claim doesn't interfere with how I approach collaboration.
P.S. I really like your videos
I like when Frank Capra, while on the Dick Cavett show, said Hollywood producers never messed with his work "Because they knew I'd put a bullet in their head."
I'm glad you put in that funko pop jab they deserve it.
What am I supposed to do without my funko pops, eh? Develop a personality or something?
I'm not sure if that jacket makes you look like a member of the black panthers or a public flasher.
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.
I can't believe it's finally time for the director's cut of this video! I hope the extra four hours of content in the second release doesn't muddle the pacing too much.
Where is my directors cut?
How much of citizen Kane, can you do reproduce using only simpsons clip?
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?
Regarding Rutger's performance, don't forget that also in Star Wars: A New Hope, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford did a LOT of re-writing of lines to fix George Lucas' pretty lousy script. Actors can be quite a powerful force.
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.
32:25 - promise of directors cut of this very video after hitting 1 million subscribers. -2 out of 3.14 cockatiels
Bro, you have a million subscribers now, make the video!
1:12 “What the purpose of the milk sipping”?
“TO WAKE UP THE AUDIENCE!”
Even hbomberguy have a great post credits scene. RIP Rutger Hauer
32:10 you hit a million subs, now you need to make a directors cut of this talking about the apocalypse now final cut
I am very happy you brought up that media is almost never made by just one person. Heck, even games widely known as being made by one person like undertale, were made by about 20 people, from doing art, animation, programming, to even people helping out with the clothes on the monsters.
Hbomb, this is actually also something that hits home for me as someone that wants to go into science. A lot of science is taught to us as the result of many geniuses adding their pieces to history over time, with scientists often being framed as lone wolves. This isn't true at all, and it perpetuates harmful ideas about self-worth and even expectations when it comes to pursue science for people it's not intuitive too. Especially because it's not the case at all, and much of the good, well-explored science that happens is the result of collaboration and acknowledgement of needing different viewpoints to solidify a theory or observation.
someone said "I stand on the heads of giants" about this and i think thats important
@@kaipoland3174 Newton
Grate video, now all we need are 2 companion pieces named the “Hbomb Cut” and the “Shannon Cut”.
You hit a million subs I want the directors cut of this video.
I heard that the voiceover for _Blade Runner_ was because Harrison Ford hated the idea, so he deliberately did it badly in the hopes they'd think "nah this is shit let's not use it".
But they used it.
The Director’s Cut of Dumb & Dumber is woeful! It’s a fine example of how less is more, particularly with comedy editing!
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.
Don't call your self a film buff if you haven't seen the Digimon final cut
Citizen Kane is one of those few classics thats actually as good as your film school teachers told you. 12 Angry Man is another
“…or, when I hit a million subscribers. Whichever comes first.”
is 12k away at the time of writing
overlooking Sonic Adventure: Director's Cut for the Gamecube, again, i see.
SLA4
What made that game a director's cut anyways?
fuck i had that game.
@@dvoicer6785 Holy shit good question.
@@dvoicer6785, It had some pretty cool extras. They added an entire Mission Mode for all the characters, which was planned for the original Dreamcast version but was scrapped for time. The missions were pretty fun and simple in themselves, and added a huge scavenger hunt element to the post game.
Other than that, they redid the player models to better match SA2. Also added Metal Sonic as a bonus character, and imported a lot of the Chao Garden improvements from the sequel. Lots of solid additions that don't detract from the game at all. Also added a "Free Camera" mode utilising the second joystick.
Then there is the less stellar "additions."
Most areas of the game had totally changed textures, which weren't really better, and sometimes much worse. And the entire moody atmospheric lighting system (Lantern Engine) was just totally changed, making the whole game's lighting look flat and stale. Sound effects quality was reduced, as well as a lot of water effects.
There were some minor bug fixes, but also new glitches that weren't originally there.
Anyway, there's a massive mod which fixes all this on the PC version. It's great. Play that version.
Fun fact: When Harrison Ford was asked to do the voice over for the theatrical cut of Blade Runner he submitted them via telephone because he didn't like the idea of taking away all subtlety from the movie. Hence his boring tone and the comparatively bad audio quality.
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.
Oh boi, only 6k subscribers left until we get the Directors Cut, or another 17 years, who is to say
you DID reach 1MIL subscribers :D
My hot take: Your jacket looks very good on you. Gives you a strong, serious "journalist" vibe.
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
This is funny to come back to after the disaster that is Cats 2019 with the "patch update" happening in its theatrical release
I feel terrible for those vfx artists. They were not only exploited but for nothing.
Back to say that Paddington 2 is now a higher rated movie than Citizen Kane.
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
This was an amazing analysis and critical look at the nature of director's cuts. I only have one minor disagreement--while film is a collaborative art, it is ultimately the director who is the storyteller, using the talents of the cast and crew to deliver a written story visually. That's what their job is, and it's their vision that ultimately shapes the film. It's why John Boorman's version of WarGames turned out to be much different than Martin Brest's.