Talk:List of films cut over the director's opposition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Would "A Star is Born" (1954) qualify for this list?[edit]

Would "A Star is Born" (1954) starring Judy Garland qualify for this list? It was cut by Warner Brothers without the participation or consent of George Cukor. He virtually disowned the film after it was cut by the studio.

It comes down to whether he was just really unhappy or did he fight for his version? I can't find anything supporting the latter. Do you have any references? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

I have to admit I'm confused as to why two films are listed in the "See also" section rather than in the main table. Are these cases particularly different from the ones in the table? If so, the difference should be clearly delineated in the description, and if not, they can be slotted into the table with the other films. In case there really is a difference, I won't change the page myself for the moment, but here's hoping somebody can clarify the ambiguity. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are explained. "Vigo was too ill to defend his work." To say he opposed the cuts is WP:OR. Even the statement that he was too sick to do anything about it is unreferenced in the film article, much less anything stronger. Similarly, while we can infer that Welles was unhappy with the changes to his film from the suggestions he made, that doesn't rise to overt opposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the prompt and helpful explanation!--Lemuellio (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would "The Thief and the Cobbler" qualify this list?[edit]

I thought that "The Thief and the Cobbler" was heavily edited by the new producers of the film after missing the deadlines so many times during production, and as a result, Richard Williams was kicked out of his project, leading to the new producers turning from William's intended masterpiece 31 years in the making, into an Aladdin/Disney ripoff could make this into a film that is heavily edited by corrupt executives for the sake of money without the director's consent. Since this was edited without the original creator's permission, would this qualify for the list?--70Jack90 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources saying Williams kicked up a fuss about it? Or did he just suffer in silence? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he just suffered it through it in silence as he doesn't want to mention his project again until his recent screening of the workprint of The Thief and The Cobbler as "A Moment of Time" in November of 2013. There are plenty of sources about the rise and fall of this unique production to be demanded as a masterpiece.70Jack90 (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, no, The Thief and the Cobbler can't be added to the list. We need some sources to verify he kicked up a fuss. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. 70Jack90 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table format[edit]

I noticed that this table format isn't particularly mobile-friendly, as the 'Notes' category has to become very long relative to the other three columns. Should this table be switched to one more like those used for many TV episode lists (using this one as a random example) where the factual info is on one row, divided in three columns, with the longer text on the row below taking up the entire span of the table?

Vegantics (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]