[pferreira1983]

This post may contain an affiliate link that helps support GBFans.com when you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.

However, in my VHS copy of Back to the Future, most of the swearing was edited out, or replaced with alternate noises/dialogue (I strongly remember "when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour, we're going to see some serious shit!", " "bastards", "take that you mutated son of a bitch!, "you space bastard!" "I'm gonna get that son of a bitch!", as well as the scene where Doc gets shot, being trimmed down).

The Christmas 1989 BBC1 showing of Back to the Future had bits of trimming and...

"when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour, we're going to see some serious stuff!"

"Holy Sheesh!"

"Doc what happens to us in the future, what do we become jerks or something?"

Don't be so quick to judge? When there is literally zero evidence to back up a claim that we have seen many, many times before, I think it's safe to assume this didn't happen.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you live in UK.

Other example of other films have been mentioned already like The Sound of Music. It's possible Ghostbusters II had a one off version as well. As I said don't be quick to judge.

A new "editors cut" of Spider-Man 3 appeared on Amazon.com for streaming. It was only up for a matter of hours before it was removed and yet we have quite a few sources of those who watched it.

And it's available in the new blu-ray boxset so bad example.

You may not watch GB when it's on TV but there are millions of other people living in the country who might.

But millions of people aren't obsessed fans as well who'd notice these changes.

[RichardLess]

This post may contain an affiliate link that helps support GBFans.com when you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.

However, in my VHS copy of Back to the Future, most of the swearing was edited out, or replaced with alternate noises/dialogue (I strongly remember "when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour, we're going to see some serious shit!", " "bastards", "take that you mutated son of a bitch!, "you space bastard!" "I'm gonna get that son of a bitch!", as well as the scene where Doc gets shot, being trimmed down).

The Christmas 1989 BBC1 showing of Back to the Future had bits of trimming and...

"when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour, we're going to see some serious stuff!"

"Holy Sheesh!"

"Doc what happens to us in the future, what do we become jerks or something?"

Don't be so quick to judge? When there is literally zero evidence to back up a claim that we have seen many, many times before, I think it's safe to assume this didn't happen.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you live in UK.

Other example of other films have been mentioned already like The Sound of Music. It's possible Ghostbusters II had a one off version as well. As I said don't be quick to judge.

A new "editors cut" of Spider-Man 3 appeared on Amazon.com for streaming. It was only up for a matter of hours before it was removed and yet we have quite a few sources of those who watched it.

And it's available in the new blu-ray boxset so bad example.

You may not watch GB when it's on TV but there are millions of other people living in the country who might.

But millions of people aren't obsessed fans as well who'd notice these changes.

How is that the Spiderman 3 thing a bad example? The blu ray was not released yet. I used that as an example of how quickly things spread. That cut was only out of a few hours and people made screen shots of it and everything. At the point it was released there was no blu ray so I think that's an apt example.

You say don't be so quick to judge. This is the Internet. People lie every second. For attention, to be a troll or whatever. There is no alternative GB2 cut. How do I know? We would have proof. You say don't be so quick to judge, I say don't be so quick to believe. Again, how many times has this come up? It's easy enough to prove. And yet...we have no proof. Occam's Razor is definatley something I believe in. All things being equal, the simplest explaination is usually the right one.

One thing history has shown over and over again? People have terrible memories and are very unreliable when it comes to being a witness. Now this is no court of law, but when did this suppose GB2 cut air? Was it last year? The year before? Or the year before that? Nope. 2012 I think it was. That & the fact the OP won't allow for the possibility he/she is mistaken is all the proof one needs.

[Kingpin]

On top of that, it appears Channel 4 now has the broadcast rights, so even in the unlikely chance the channel 5 copy was somehow different, we'll never receive confirmation from a showing in the near future (Ghostbusters II is on Film4's Summer movies list) because the Channel 4 broadcasts are the same version as on the DVD (minus any pre-watershed edits).

[pferreira1983]

How is that the Spiderman 3 thing a bad example? The blu ray was not released yet. I used that as an example of how quickly things spread. That cut was only out of a few hours and people made screen shots of it and everything. At the point it was released there was no blu ray so I think that's an apt example.

When I replied to you it was out on blu-ray already. It exists so therefore the example you gave doesn't quite work in this case.

You say don't be so quick to judge. This is the Internet. People lie every second. For attention, to be a troll or whatever. There is no alternative GB2 cut. How do I know? We would have proof. You say don't be so quick to judge, I say don't be so quick to believe. Again, how many times has this come up? It's easy enough to prove. And yet...we have no proof.

I agree we should always be cautious and not believe everything we read but at the same time it's worth at least listening to these claims just in case.

One thing history has shown over and over again? People have terrible memories and are very unreliable when it comes to being a witness. Now this is no court of law, but when did this suppose GB2 cut air? Was it last year? The year before? Or the year before that? Nope. 2012 I think it was. That & the fact the OP won't allow for the possibility he/she is mistaken is all the proof one needs.

I've seen hoaxes all the time with missing Doctor Who stories so I agree it's either memory or people seeking attention. But there are a lot of people who aren't hardcore fans like us who are searching for answers to their TV or film questions online from people who they feel would understand these things better. Whether casual TV or film viewers are correct in their memories we can't ignore every claim that comes along.

[RichardLess]

How is that the Spiderman 3 thing a bad example? The blu ray was not released yet. I used that as an example of how quickly things spread. That cut was only out of a few hours and people made screen shots of it and everything. At the point it was released there was no blu ray so I think that's an apt example.

When I replied to you it was out on blu-ray already. It exists so therefore the example you gave doesn't quite work in this case.

You say don't be so quick to judge. This is the Internet. People lie every second. For attention, to be a troll or whatever. There is no alternative GB2 cut. How do I know? We would have proof. You say don't be so quick to judge, I say don't be so quick to believe. Again, how many times has this come up? It's easy enough to prove. And yet...we have no proof.

I agree we should always be cautious and not believe everything we read but at the same time it's worth at least listening to these claims just in case.

One thing history has shown over and over again? People have terrible memories and are very unreliable when it comes to being a witness. Now this is no court of law, but when did this suppose GB2 cut air? Was it last year? The year before? Or the year before that? Nope. 2012 I think it was. That & the fact the OP won't allow for the possibility he/she is mistaken is all the proof one needs.

I've seen hoaxes all the time with missing Doctor Who stories so I agree it's either memory or people seeking attention. But there are a lot of people who aren't hardcore fans like us who are searching for answers to their TV or film questions online from people who they feel would understand these things better. Whether casual TV or film viewers are correct in their memories we can't ignore every claim that comes along.

When you replied to me? How does that have anything to do with what I said? The example is to show how quickly things spread on the internet. When that Spiderman 3.1 was released online weeks early and then taken down hours later the blu Ray was not released, your reply has no connection at all to that. What does your reply time frame have to do with the example I gave? When news spread about the accidental 3.1 release the blu Ray was still weeks away.

I'm not suggestion we ignore every claim that comes along. I'm just suggesting that we view unsupported claims with a bit of critical thinking, especially when they've come up so many times in the past and proven false. Especially when the story if from years and years ago. We can and should always listen to someone's claim, after we take in what they say and ask follow up questions, then we can draw our own conclusions. In this particular case I'm fairly confident the OP just mixed up some memories, I don't think he/she was out to troll or seek attention, just mixed up and not willing to appeal to reason. No harm no foul.

[pferreira1983]

When you replied to me? How does that have anything to do with what I said? The example is to show how quickly things spread on the internet. When that Spiderman 3.1 was released online weeks early and then taken down hours later the blu Ray was not released, your reply has no connection at all to that. What does your reply time frame have to do with the example I gave? When news spread about the accidental 3.1 release the blu Ray was still weeks away.

As far as I'm aware it was already out on blu-ray. There were user reviews for it so you can't be right there. And yes I am correctly responding to your post in that Spider-Man 3.1 was seen by a select few but then taken down however people can prove what they saw as its on blu-ray.

[RichardLess]

When you replied to me? How does that have anything to do with what I said? The example is to show how quickly things spread on the internet. When that Spiderman 3.1 was released online weeks early and then taken down hours later the blu Ray was not released, your reply has no connection at all to that. What does your reply time frame have to do with the example I gave? When news spread about the accidental 3.1 release the blu Ray was still weeks away.

As far as I'm aware it was already out on blu-ray. There were user reviews for it so you can't be right there. And yes I am correctly responding to your post in that Spider-Man 3.1 was seen by a select few but then taken down however people can prove what they saw as its on blu-ray.

. It was uploaded to Amazon's streaming service, the blu Ray was still a month and a half away(look it up!). The blu Ray release date was in June this happened in May. So no, you are incorrect. Confirmation is a simple google search away. Might want to use that instead of claiming things that aren't true

[Kingpin]

Empty Lighthouse Magazine: Spider-Man 3 Editor's Cut Added And Then Quickly Removed From Amazon
Spider-Man 3.1 taken off Amazon!!!

[pferreira1983]

It was uploaded to Amazon's streaming service, the blu Ray was still a month and a half away(look it up!). The blu Ray release date was in June this happened in May. So no, you are incorrect. Confirmation is a simple google search away. Might want to use that instead of claiming things that aren't true

I check out the blu-ray forums and got confirmation of the release on blu-ray of that cut of the movie so yeah I'm still right. I'm not disputing the cut wasn't put on Amazon, not sure where you got that from.

[RichardLess]

It was uploaded to Amazon's streaming service, the blu Ray was still a month and a half away(look it up!). The blu Ray release date was in June this happened in May. So no, you are incorrect. Confirmation is a simple google search away. Might want to use that instead of claiming things that aren't true

I check out the blu-ray forums and got confirmation of the release on blu-ray of that cut of the movie so yeah I'm still right. I'm not disputing the cut wasn't put on Amazon, not sure where you got that from.

You are wrong and it's kind of sad that you can't even admit it. Show me where you got this info from. Because like I said a Google search away will tell you when the release date was and when the accidental leak was. You are grasping at straws and you know it. Notice how you don't even give a date?
Come on. Tell me when the accidental release of 3.1 was and then the official release date. I dare you.

Edit: I think you've forgotten what we are even debating here. Which is funny in and of itself. I said that information spreads so quickly that when the 3.1 cut of Spiderman 3 was accidentally released it, proof went all over the place and that this was BEFORE the blu Ray was released. You disagreed and were incorrect.

[pferreira1983]

Edit: I think you've forgotten what we are even debating here. Which is funny in and of itself. I said that information spreads so quickly that when the 3.1 cut of Spiderman 3 was accidentally released it, proof went all over the place and that this was BEFORE the blu Ray was released. You disagreed and were incorrect.

Okay, going back to what I was actually saying I never said that the blu-ray was released before the Amazon streaming of the movie. Where did I say that??? I said that it was released on Amazon and taken down yet it is available on blu-ray therefore people have memories of seeing a different cut of Spider-Man 3. It's good to actually read my posts before you criticise. You come across very argumentative with people here for some reason, not sure why.

1) Read people's posts and understand what it says. Ask for clarification if required.

2) Consider what someone says is the truth.

Hope that helps.

[RichardLess]

This post may contain an affiliate link that helps support GBFans.com when you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.

Edit: I think you've forgotten what we are even debating here. Which is funny in and of itself. I said that information spreads so quickly that when the 3.1 cut of Spiderman 3 was accidentally released it, proof went all over the place and that this was BEFORE the blu Ray was released. You disagreed and were incorrect.

Okay, going back to what I was actually saying I never said that the blu-ray was released before the Amazon streaming of the movie. Where did I say that??? I said that it was released on Amazon and taken down yet it is available on blu-ray therefore people have memories of seeing a different cut of Spider-Man 3. It's good to actually read my posts before you criticise. You come across very argumentative with people here for some reason, not sure why.

1) Read people's posts and understand what it says. Ask for clarification if required.

2) Consider what someone says is the truth.

Hope that helps.

Dude. You are flat out lying. Why would you argue with my example then?? This was about Ghostbusters 2 and some guy seeing an extended cut on tv, I said if that was the case it would spread across the Internet like the Spiderman 3.1 cut that was on Amazon and then taken off before the blu Ray was released. You argued with that saying it's not the same because the blu Ray was out.

Now you are lying claiming you were talking about the original blu ray? From 2007?

You are a troll. Flat out. A troll. I don't know why you haven't been banned but man o man that is some Trollish BS you are spinning there.

Also, *I* come across as argumentative? Every post you make is an argument. Pot meet kettle.

Edit: RichardLess wrote:
A new "editors cut" of Spider-Man 3 appeared on Amazon.com for streaming. It was only up for a matter of hours before it was removed and yet we have quite a few sources of those who watched it.

Here's what's you wrote : And it's available in the new blu-ray boxset so bad example.

Edit number 2: RichardLess wrote:
How is that the Spiderman 3 thing a bad example? The blu ray was not released yet. I used that as an example of how quickly things spread. That cut was only out of a few hours and people made screen shots of it and everything. At the point it was released there was no blu ray so I think that's an apt example.

You wrote: When I replied to you it was out on blu-ray already. It exists so therefore the example you gave doesn't quite work in this case.

[pferreira1983]

Dude. You are flat out lying. Why would you argue with my example then?? This was about Ghostbusters 2 and some guy seeing an extended cut on tv, I said if that was the case it would spread across the Internet like the Spiderman 3.1 cut that was on Amazon and then taken off before the blu Ray was released. You argued with that saying it's not the same because the blu Ray was out.

Probably because when the I posted the blu-ray was out???

Now you are lying claiming you were talking about the original blu ray? From 2007?

Ha, ha! Really, where did I say that? You're accusing me of making things up?

You are a troll. Flat out. A troll. I don't know why you haven't been banned but man o man that is some Trollish BS you are spinning there.

No you're the troll. Why haven't I been banned yet? Not sure dude, you're the one who's been added to lots of ignore lists including Juror and I'm not sure who else.

Here's what's you wrote : And it's available in the new blu-ray boxset so bad example.

Yeah exactly so how is that 2007 or are you from the past?

[RichardLess]

Dude. You are flat out lying. Why would you argue with my example then?? This was about Ghostbusters 2 and some guy seeing an extended cut on tv, I said if that was the case it would spread across the Internet like the Spiderman 3.1 cut that was on Amazon and then taken off before the blu Ray was released. You argued with that saying it's not the same because the blu Ray was out.

Probably because when the I posted the blu-ray was out???

Now you are lying claiming you were talking about the original blu ray? From 2007?

Ha, ha! Really, where did I say that? You're accusing me of making things up?

You are a troll. Flat out. A troll. I don't know why you haven't been banned but man o man that is some Trollish BS you are spinning there.

No you're the troll. Why haven't I been banned yet? Not sure dude, you're the one who's been added to lots of ignore lists including Juror and I'm not sure who else.

Here's what's you wrote : And it's available in the new blu-ray boxset so bad example.

Yeah exactly so how is that 2007 or are you from the past?

I'm asking you a question about the 2007 thing! Duh! Forget about 2007. It matters not. What matters is you claiming the box set was available when the leak was made. It's very clear. And you are lying when you say that ISNT what you were clearly saying.

This isn't rocket science man. You=liar

[pferreira1983]

I'm asking you a question about the 2007 thing! Duh! Forget about 2007. It matters not.

You are asking my about a boxset from 2007:

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Car ... OA==/?ref=