Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
Amazon’s streaming service is under fire for airing an altered version of the beloved Christmas movieIt’s a Wonderful Life, receiving backlash from not only fans of the movie but cinema as a whole.
The bizarre change cuts what many consider to be a crucial part of the story in which the protagonist, George Bailey, a businessman and banker, contemplates what life would look like if he had never been born.
Highlights
- Amazon criticized for airing an altered version of 'It's a Wonderful Life'.
- Key scene removal deemed 'offensive' and 'disrespectful' by viewers.
- The changes are the result of the complicated copyright history of the film. Being in and out of public domain.
- Amazon Prime hosts three versions, including the controversial abridged version.
The scene sees his guardian angel show him an alternate reality in which, without him, his family-oriented community, Bedford Falls, becomes “Pottersville,” a coarse and vulgar place filled with betting, alcohol, and debauchery.
The moment is considered by many to be an essential turning point in George’s story, and its removal is “offensive” and “disrespectful.”
“They should have chosen not to stream it at all rather than destroy the story,” a reader said.
RELATED:
Amazon Prime is being slammed by viewers after airing a cut version of It’s a Wonderful Life, which removed a pivotal scene
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
Netizens flocked to social media to share their indignation about the changes, with many wondering about the cause behind the removal of the scenes.
Some theorized that the changes were made due to the sensitive topics the film touches on, as it deals with the meaning of life, depression, and hope. George Bailey reconsiders his existence throughout the story, and the classic “Pottersville” scene could be interpreted as a form of self-harm ideation.
“Why does the abridged version exist?” a viewer asked.
“Some misguided censored version. Can’t have the kiddies exposed to anything bad!” another replied.
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
The main cause for the edits, however, appears to have been the result of the complicated history of It’s a Wonderful Life, which entered the public domain due to a copyright renewal failure by Republic Pictures in 1974.
It was precisely the film’s temporary status as a public domain full-feature that allowed it to gain its “holiday classic” status, being freely broadcast each festive season on many TV channels without the need to pay royalties.
The movie entered—and then partially left—the public domain in 1993, which led to the abridged version’s creation, using non-copyrighted material
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
According to the Library of Congress, the movie became a yearly mainstay of living rooms across the country for close to 20 years.
However, all of that changed in 1993 when Republic Pictures notified all networks to stop playing It’s a Wonderful Life without the payment of royalties. The company was able to do this because they realized they still retained the rights to the original story the movie was based on: The Greatest Gift.
Frank Capra’s
IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
starring James Stewart, Donna Reed,
Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell,
Henry Travers, Beulah Bondi, Ward
Bond, Frank Faylen and Gloria Grahame pic.twitter.com/rlbofZD8n6— Classic Movies & TV Shows (@ClassicFilmTV) December 23, 2022
That meant parts of the movie directly adapted from The Greatest Gift became copyrighted material—while others did not. That, sadly, resulted in pivotal scenes such as the famous “Pottersville” dream sequence being cut alongside certain songs.
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
Republic Pictures was eventually bought by Paramount Pictures in 1998, which, in turn, made them the right-holders of the full, unabridged version of It’s a Wonderful Life.
The controversial abridged version was then released in 2007 by Legend Films, using the film’s public domain material.
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
Amazon Prime currently offers all three versions on its platform: the full version, credited to Viacom (part of Paramount Global); the colorized edition, credited to Paramount Pictures; and the abridged version, credited to Legend Films.
Regardless of what caused the edited version to exist, netizens raged against the streaming service for hosting the cut version
Image credits: Paramount / Plex
Many viewers were angry that the streaming service suggested the cut version instead of the original when searching on the platform, feeling that the changes made were “a crime against art.”
“My wife clicked this one by accident and I was confused as hell. Why would anyone watch this on purpose?” a user asked. “What kind of hack cut this version, anyway!?”
“This is why physical media is superior. It can never be censored, taken away from you, or banned for political reasons,” one reader said.
“Appalling. Just buy the 4K version. This is an essential film,” another stated.
“Wait, they took out nearly the entire Pottersville sequence?!” one viewer asked. “What is the point of the movie then?”
Others, aware of the complex copyright situation surrounding the movie, tried their best to explain what led to the scenes being cut.
“Paramount is the distributor of the ‘full’ versions of the film, with the Pottersville scenes and original music. The rest of the film is in the public domain,” one user wrote.
“There is no scenario where Amazon would be able to edit a film owned by another company to put on their service.”
“Unforgivable.” Netizens were insulted by the movie’s abridged version, labeling its changes as “criminal”
Image credits: Dean_Min_Travel
Image credits: Inadvertantview
Image credits: ericroach45
Image credits: agraphafx
Image credits: thinkingcrimes
Image credits: HiredG31045
Image credits: PennyWizeOlFool
Image credits: randyarock
Image credits: Gotfooled143485
Image credits: RohlintheWretch
Image credits: JustinH79095883
Image credits: sfrantzman
Image credits: RichHosek
Image credits: WebDigitalWorks
Image credits: KeithGoldsmith
Image credits: Bye_the_Day
Image credits: PamLivesLife
Image credits: _suecasa
Image credits: neal4Dom_Domme
Image credits: TMAN1138pm
Image credits: 20thC_annie
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
What do you think ?
Ace 11 months ago
The biggest question here for me, if I were an Amazon Prime user, would be how to ensure that I'm getting the full version - was it clearly marked which was which? I mean, I guess the running time might give a clue, but I would be well pissed off if I watched the adulterated version without knowing that the full one was available if only I'd clicked the second or third on that came up in a search.
Nikole 11 months ago
That’s the *only* thing I can rationally see getting heated about: Are the different versions properly labeled?
Load More Replies...
Pencil 11 months ago
This has nothing to do with censorship. As the article plainly states, this has to do with streaming services having to pay royalties for the two versions of the film that are not in the public domain. Amazon has all three versions available but pushed this version on its users simply because it doesn't want to pay royalties.
Binky Melnik 11 months ago
That doesn’t stop all the people who are against “wokeness” from assuming someone’s delicate sensibilities can’t handle something. 🙄 While I myself am apparently not a fan of the movie (I saw it once and immediately forgot it; that happens when I don’t care for something), it still seems to me as if there’s no good point in this version existing anyway. Movies without scenes crucial to the story strike me as pointless. I don’t know what’s to be gained from doing this. (Normally, I’d assume money is the reason, but who’s profiting? And how much? I spose if I had the answer to those two questions, I could understand and judge better.)
Load More Replies...
David 11 months ago (edited)
People love to hate Amazon as the villain here. Due to colorization and copyright issues there are three versions of the film and Amazon carries all three. The article clearly states the abridged version (NOT created by Amazon) is due to Republic Pictures / Paramount wanting royalties. But people are raging on Amazon for 'censorship' instead of Paramount for 'greedy' or even Legend Films for making a royalty free version available. Also - the abridged version was made in 2007 but once again BP is trying to stir up tea and drama from years ago.
Ace 11 months ago
The biggest question here for me, if I were an Amazon Prime user, would be how to ensure that I'm getting the full version - was it clearly marked which was which? I mean, I guess the running time might give a clue, but I would be well pissed off if I watched the adulterated version without knowing that the full one was available if only I'd clicked the second or third on that came up in a search.
Nikole 11 months ago
That’s the *only* thing I can rationally see getting heated about: Are the different versions properly labeled?
Load More Replies... Pencil 11 months ago
This has nothing to do with censorship. As the article plainly states, this has to do with streaming services having to pay royalties for the two versions of the film that are not in the public domain. Amazon has all three versions available but pushed this version on its users simply because it doesn't want to pay royalties.
Binky Melnik 11 months ago
That doesn’t stop all the people who are against “wokeness” from assuming someone’s delicate sensibilities can’t handle something. 🙄 While I myself am apparently not a fan of the movie (I saw it once and immediately forgot it; that happens when I don’t care for something), it still seems to me as if there’s no good point in this version existing anyway. Movies without scenes crucial to the story strike me as pointless. I don’t know what’s to be gained from doing this. (Normally, I’d assume money is the reason, but who’s profiting? And how much? I spose if I had the answer to those two questions, I could understand and judge better.)
Load More Replies... David 11 months ago (edited)
People love to hate Amazon as the villain here. Due to colorization and copyright issues there are three versions of the film and Amazon carries all three. The article clearly states the abridged version (NOT created by Amazon) is due to Republic Pictures / Paramount wanting royalties. But people are raging on Amazon for 'censorship' instead of Paramount for 'greedy' or even Legend Films for making a royalty free version available. Also - the abridged version was made in 2007 but once again BP is trying to stir up tea and drama from years ago.
You May Like
Related on Bored Panda
19
39