I'm wondering if maybe rather than have all sorts of various categories, maybe an alphabetical list of re-cut trailers that aren't amongst the most popular (those being of course Shining and Brokeback to the Future) with a description of the change made would be sufficient. Personally I think the breakdown is unnecessary (particularly with some categories having just two items) and clutters the page. Darquis05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was just about to say that about the current method of categorization. Especially that whole bit with "Titanic doesn't belong in light-to-dark films because it was never a light film to begin with."
Not to mention some of the wording for the descriptions is very unfit for encyclopedias. "This trailer isn't exactly a recut trailer. It's actually a 7-minute short" and that sort of thing. --Foot Dragoon06:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed it around a bit. The three main films (Kill Christ, Shining, Brokeback) are still in one seperate section. I don't know if they should be chronological or alphabetical. The rest are alphabetical (they're less popular/known, and thus are more difficult to pin down time wise). For the time being, StarWoz is in it's own little section. I'm not sure if that should be here or not, but I'll keep it for now. I think History should be replaced with a more appropriate titel as well, I'm just not sure what that is. Darquis07:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so is the current system working for everyone? I'm not sure that the "big three" are so much more popular than the rest that they merit their own entry, other than perhaps in a paragraph about the origins of the phenomenon (and then they get listed like everything else). For that matter, this article seems to be becoming a repository of recut trailers. In the sense of being an accurate source of information about the subject, that's fine, but is there other information we should be including here? Darquis03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soon there may be enough trailers under 'Other' to allow for more categories. I counted 7 or 8 that would come under Comedies or Family Comedies or something like that. Perhaps a comedy category should be created, or change the Romantic Comedies category to include family comedies. What does everyone think? Samatic02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recut of Jaws that made it seem a lot more light hearted (I don't have a link handy now). I think it would be appropriate for this page, considering what's already here. My only concern is that this will turn into less of an article and more of a list if we include massive numbers of these, although I don't know how many are out there (and are done well enough to mention) Darquis05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole host of trailers not included in this list. In order for the list to be definitive it needs to be updated regularly. There are currently over 1700 different listings when 'trailer recut' or 'trailer mash' are entered into youtube. If we allow for repitition, there still is a huge volume of trailers not in this definition. Jesterjessiechrist18:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if re-cut trailers actually qualify as a copyright violation as they could be classified as parodies and parodies do not actually violate international (or United States) copyright policies. Perhaps someone can find out for sure? User:Gothenem
What happened to the big list? I enjoyed looking at all of them. If we don't want them cluttering up the page, we should spin it off to another page.--Richy09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article need to list and link to all of these? There must be over a hundred? That is completely not necessary. Why has it been allowed to happen? —ScouterSig16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this long list of YouTube videos is inappropriate. In fact, as it is now, the article is a good candidate for deletion. I removed all of the links to YouTube. • Supāsaru21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
