• Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This community doesn’t require the post title to be the same as the article title, not even for bots. Why would you leave it as clickbait?

    • realcaseyrollinsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m used to posting in a community that does. The inline headline is better:

      Is Napoleon: Director’s Cut Worth Watching? Ridley Scott Fans Already Know the Answer

      I’ll see if I can put it in this post, and either avoid Inverse (their titles are always like this) or alter the titles moving forward.

  • maegul@lemm.eeM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I didn’t know Scott teased about the directors cut, but watching it I could quickly tell there would be one and Scott also knew there’d be one while he was editing the main release. The feel of the film had a “fine, well cut it short“ vibe all over it.

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think the fundamental themes of the film were at odds with a compelling and historically relevant telling of the story of Napoleon. Mostly mindless repetition of two centuries-old British propaganda. I don’t see how an alternate cut could address the flawed approach this film had.