Talk:Re-edited film

message: I removed this oddity from the "Future of the industry" section: "At this point in time, the studio effort to stop this movement has mostly eliminated the availability of edited movies; a tragedy to some, a victory to others." Unsourced and POV. As a matter of fact, the whole article is unsourced. Whip it! Now whip it good! 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced statement 

message: Here are some points:
:*Doesn't discuss films edited for TV too well at all.
:*Seems slanted to a "conservative" side, and for these "clear" programs and services.
:*Doesn't elaborate the techniques and such used since the 1940s for movies on TV.
:*Grammar and overall composition is confusing and poorly written.
:*Not really anything about notable TV edits:
::Godfather I & II was re-edited into The Godfather Saga
::Showgirls had poorly-rendered bras and panties inserted in the film.
::Die Hard 2 featured the line, "Yippy-ki-aye, Mister Falcon."
::The recent edit that is Snakes On a Plane.
::Superman I & II had extra scenes, making both movies individually 3:16 when commercials removed.
::What is the corrolation between sandlot edits and the 9/11 attacks?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.140.15 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this article over I think that it needs more detail in order to be included as censorship.  Movies get re-edited all the time by their directors, look at all the re-releases of the Star Wars franchise.  I think what this article needs to make clear is that it is censorship if it is done against the director's wishes or something like that.  Also, I don't think technical edits, like changing the aspect ratio to fit modern TVs for home releases count as censorship. Jsonitsac (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points in Regards to This Article 

message: Trying to add Contents list to page.
Centrepull (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: I propose that Film modification be merged into Re-edited film. I think that the content in the Film modification article can easily be explained in the context of Re-edited film, and the Re-edited film article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Film modification will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: * Bulleted list item The content section was extremely long, examples could maybe be put in a sub section?
* Bulleted list item The Marry Poppins part doesn't really make sense in the context of content
* Bulleted list item Need more resources for some of the sections. How do we establish credibility?
* Bulleted list item History of manual re-editing doesn't make sense. Also needs sources
* Bulleted list item Sentence structure and grammar is decent, but content is difficult to understand without prior knowledge
I'd say the whole thing just needs to be weeded through and either organized better, have information added, or just delete parts that aren't really relevant JClanton12 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp The Content Section (And The Whole Article)