Category Archives: Transhuman News

No writer ever really wants to talk about censorship. Writers want to talk about creation, and censorship is anti-creation, negative energy, uncreation, the bringing into being of non-being, or, to use Tom Stoppards description of death, the absence of presence. Censorship is the thing that stops you doing what you want to do, and what writers want to talk about is what they do, not what stops them doing it. And writers want to talk about how much they get paid, and they want to gossip about other writers and how much they get paid, and they want to complain about critics and publishers, and gripe about politicians, and they want to talk about what they love, the writers they love, the stories and even sentences that have meant something to them, and, finally, they want to talk about their own ideas and their own stories. Their things. The British humorist Paul Jennings, in his brilliant essay on Resistentialism, a spoof of Existentialism, proposed that the world was divided into two categories, Thing and No-Thing, and suggested that between these two is waged a never-ending war. If writing is Thing, then censorship is No-Thing, and, as King Lear told Cordelia, Nothing will came of nothing, or, as Mr. Jennings would have revised Shakespeare, No-Thing will come of No-Thing. Think again.

Consider, if you will, the air. Here it is, all around us, plentiful, freely available, and broadly breathable. And yes, I know, its not perfectly clean or perfectly pure, but here it nevertheless is, plenty of it, enough for all of us and lots to spare. When breathable air is available so freely and in such quantity, it would be redundant to demand that breathable air be freely provided to all, in sufficient quantity for the needs of all. What you have, you can easily take for granted, and ignore. Theres just no need to make a fuss about it. You breathe the freely available, broadly breathable air, and you get on with your day. The air is not a subject. It is not something that most of us want to discuss.

Imagine, now, that somewhere up there you might find a giant set of faucets, and that the air we breathe flows from those faucets, hot air and cold air and tepid air from some celestial mixer-unit. And imagine that an entity up there, not known to us, or perhaps even known to us, begins on a certain day to turn off the faucets one by one, so that slowly we begin to notice that the available air, still breathable, still free, is thinning. The time comes when we find that we are breathing more heavily, perhaps even gasping for air. By this time, many of us would have begun to protest, to condemn the reduction in the air supply, and to argue loudly for the right to freely available, broadly breathable air. Scarcity, you could say, creates demand.

Liberty is the air we breathe, and we live in a part of the world where, imperfect as the supply is, it is, nevertheless, freely available, at least to those of us who arent black youngsters wearing hoodies in Miami, and broadly breathable, unless, of course, were women in red states trying to make free choices about our own bodies. Imperfectly free, imperfectly breathable, but when it is breathable and free we dont need to make a song and dance about it. We take it for granted and get on with our day. And at night, as we fall asleep, we assume we will be free tomorrow, because we were free today.

The creative act requires not only freedom but also this assumption of freedom. If the creative artist worries if he will still be free tomorrow, then he will not be free today. If he is afraid of the consequences of his choice of subject or of his manner of treatment of it, then his choices will not be determined by his talent, but by fear. If we are not confident of our freedom, then we are not free.

And, even worse than that, when censorship intrudes on art, it becomes the subject; the art becomes censored art, and that is how the world sees and understands it. The censor labels the work immoral, or blasphemous, or pornographic, or controversial, and those words are forever hung like albatrosses around the necks of those cursed mariners, the censored works. The attack on the work does more than define the work; in a sense, for the general public, it becomes the work. For every reader of Lady Chatterleys Lover or Tropic of Capricorn, every viewer of Last Tango in Paris or A Clockwork Orange, there will be ten, a hundred, a thousand people who know those works as excessively filthy, or excessively violent, or both.

The assumption of guilt replaces the assumption of innocence. Why did that Indian Muslim artist have to paint that Hindu goddess in the nude? Couldnt he have respected her modesty? Why did that Russian writer have his hero fall in love with a nymphet? Couldnt he have chosen a legally acceptable age? Why did that British playwright depict a sexual assault in a Sikh temple, a gurdwara? Couldnt the same assault have been removed from holy ground? Why are artists so troublesome? Cant they just offer us beauty, morality, and a damn good story? Why do artists think, if they behave in this way, that we should be on their side? And the people all said sit down, sit down youre rocking the boat / And the devil will drag you under, with a soul so heavy youll never float / Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down / Youre rocking the boat.

At its most effective, the censors lie actually succeeds in replacing the artists truth. That which is censored is thought to have deserved censorship. Boat-rocking is deplored.

Nor is this only so in the world of art. The Ministry of Truth in present-day China has successfully persuaded a very large part of the Chinese public that the heroes of Tiananmen Square were actually villains bent on the destruction of the nation. This is the final victory of the censor: When people, even people who know they are routinely lied to, cease to be able to imagine what is really the case.

Sometimes great, banned works defy the censors description and impose themselves on the worldUlysses, Lolita, the Arabian Nights. Sometimes great and brave artists defy the censors to create marvellous literature underground, as in the case of the samizdat literature of the Soviet Union, or to make subtle films that dodge the edge of the censors knife, as in the case of much contemporary Iranian and some Chinese cinema. You will even find people who will give you the argument that censorship is good for artists because it challenges their imagination. This is like arguing that if you cut a mans arms off you can praise him for learning to write with a pen held between his teeth. Censorship is not good for art, and it is even worse for artists themselves. The work of Ai Weiwei survives; the artist himself has an increasingly difficult life. The poet Ovid was banished to the Black Sea by a displeased Augustus Caesar, and spent the rest of his life in a little hellhole called Tomis, but the poetry of Ovid has outlived the Roman Empire. The poet Mandelstam died in one of Stalins labor camps, but the poetry of Mandelstam has outlived the Soviet Union. The poet Lorca was murdered in Spain, by Generalissimo Francos goons, but the poetry of Lorca has outlived the fascistic Falange. So perhaps we can argue that art is stronger than the censor, and perhaps it often is. Artists, however, are vulnerable.

In England last week, English PEN protested that the London Book Fair had invited only a bunch of official, State-approved writers from China while the voices of at least thirty-five writers jailed by the regime, including Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo and the political dissident and poet Zhu Yufu, remained silent and ignored. In the United States, every year, religious zealots try to ban writers as disparate as Kurt Vonnegut and J. K. Rowling, an obvious advocate of sorcery and the black arts; to say nothing of poor, God-bothered Charles Darwin, against whom the advocates of intelligent design continue to march. I once wrote, and it still feels true, that the attacks on the theory of evolution in parts of the United States themselves go some way to disproving the theory, demonstrating that natural selection doesnt always work, or at least not in the Kansas area, and that human beings are capable of evolving backward, too, towards the Missing Link.

Even more serious is the growing acceptance of the dont-rock-the-boat response to those artists who do rock it, the growing agreement that censorship can be justified when certain interest groups, or genders, or faiths declare themselves affronted by a piece of work. Great art, or, lets just say, more modestly, original art is never created in the safe middle ground, but always at the edge. Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catch-all term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend, but celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, its a revolution.

This piece is drawn from the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture given by Rushdie, on May 6th, as part of the PEN World Voices Festival.

Illustration by Matthew Hollister.

Read this article:
On Censorship - The New Yorker

The Library of Congress created an exhibit, "Books that Shaped America," that explores books that "have had a profound effect on American life." Below is a list of books from that exhibit that have been banned/challenged.

(To learn more about challenges to books since the inception of Banned Books Week, check out the timeline created by ALA.)

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain, 1884

The first ban of Mark Twains American classic in Concord, MA in 1885 called it trash and suitable only for the slums. Objections to the book have evolved, but only marginally. Twains book is one of the most-challenged of all time and is frequently challenged even today because of its frequent use of the word nigger. Otherwise it is alleged the book is racially insensitive, oppressive, and perpetuates racism.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X and Alex Haley, 1965 (Grove Press)

Objectors have called this seminal work a how-to-manual for crime and decried because of anti-white statements present in the book. The book presents the life story of Malcolm Little, also known as Malcolm X, who was a human rights activist and who has been called one of the most influential Americans in recent history.

Beloved, Toni Morrison, 1987

Again and again, this Pulitzer-prize winning novel by perhaps the most influential African-American writer of all time is assigned to high school English students. And again and again, parental complaints are lodged against the book because of its violence, sexual content and discussion of bestiality.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown, 1970

Subtitled An Indian History of the American West, this book tells the history of United States growth and expansion into the West from the point of view of Native Americans. This book was banned by a school district official in Wisconsin in 1974 because the book might be polemical and they wanted to avoid controversy at all costs. If theres a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it, the official stated.

The Call of the Wild, Jack London, 1903

Generally hailed as Jack Londons best work, The Call of the Wild is commonly challenged for its dark tone and bloody violence. Because it is seen as a man-and-his-dog story, it is sometimes read by adolescents and subsequently challenged for age-inappropriateness. Not only have objections been raised here, the book was banned in Italy, Yugoslavia and burned in bonfires in Nazi Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s because it was considered too radical.

Catch-22, Joseph Heller, 1961

A school board in Strongsville, OH refused to allow the book to be taught in high school English classrooms in 1972. It also refused to consider Cats Cradle as a substitute text and removed both books from the school library. The issue eventually led to a 1976 District Court ruling overturning the ban in Minarcini v. Strongsville.

The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger, 1951

Young Holden, favorite child of the censor. Frequently removed from classrooms and school libraries because it is unacceptable, obscene, blasphemous, negative, foul, filthy, and undermines morality. And to think Holden always thought people never notice anything.

Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, 1953

Rather than ban the book about book-banning outright, Venado Middle school in Irvine, CA utilized an expurgated version of the text in which all the hells and damns were blacked out. Other complaints have said the book went against objectors religious beliefs. The books author, Ray Bradbury, died this year.

For Whom the Bell Tolls, Ernest Hemingway, 1940

Shortly after its publication the U.S. Post Office, which purpose was in part to monitor and censor distribution of media and texts, declared the book nonmailable. In the 1970s, eight Turkish booksellers were tried for spreading propaganda unfavorable to the state because they had published and distributed the text. This wasnt Hemingways only banned book A Farewell to Arms and Across the River and Into the Trees were also censored domestically and abroad in Ireland, South Africa, Germany and Italy.

Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell, 1936

The Pulitzer-prize winning novel (which three years after its publication became an Academy-Award Winning film) follows the life of the spoiled daughter of a southern plantation owner just before and then after the fall of the Confederacy and decline of the South in the aftermath of the Civil War. Critically praised for its thought-provoking and realistic depiction of ante- and postbellum life in the South, it has also been banned for more or less the same reasons. Its realism has come under fire, specifically its realistic portrayal though at times perhaps tending toward optimistic -- of slavery and use of the words nigger and darkies.

The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, 1939

Kern County, California has the great honor both of being the setting of Steinbecks novel and being the first place where it was banned (1939). Objections to profanityespecially goddamn and the likeand sexual references continued from then into the 1990s. It is a work with international banning appeal: the book was barred in Ireland in the 50s and a group of booksellers in Turkey were taken to court for spreading propaganda in 1973.

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1925

Perhaps the first great American novel that comes to the mind of the average person, this book chronicles the booze-infused and decadent lives of East Hampton socialites. It was challenged at the Baptist College in South Carolina because of the books language and mere references to sex.

Howl, Allen Ginsberg, 1956

Following in the footsteps of other Shaping America book Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman, Allen Ginsbergs boundary-pushing poetic works were challenged because of descriptions of homosexual acts.

In Cold Blood, Truman Capote, 1966

The subject of controversy in an AP English class in Savannah, GA after a parent complained about sex, violence and profanity. Banned but brought back.

Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison, 1952

Ellisons book won the 1953 National Book Award for Fiction because it expertly dealt with issues of black nationalism, Marxism and identity in the twentieth century. Considered to be too expert in its ruminations for some high schools, the book was banned from high school reading lists and schools in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington state.

The Jungle, Upton Sinclair, 1906

For decades, American students have studied muckraking and yellow journalism in social studies lessons about the industrial revolution, with The Jungle headlining the unit. And yet, the dangerous and purportedly socialist views expressed in the book and Sinclairs Oil led to its being banned in Yugoslavia, East Germany, South Korea and Boston.

Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman, 1855

If they dont understand you, sometimes they ban you. This was the case when the great American poem Leaves of Grass was first published and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice found the sensuality of the text disturbing. Caving to pressure, booksellers in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania conceded to advising their patrons not to buy the filthy book.

Moby-Dick; or The Whale, Herman Melville,1851

In a real head-scratcher of a case, a Texas school district banned the book from its Advanced English class lists because it conflicted with their community values in 1996. Community values are frequently cited in discussions over challenged books by those who wish to censor them.

Native Son, Richard Wright, 1940

Richard Wrights landmark work of literary naturalism follows the life of young Bigger Thomas, a poor Black man living on the South Side of Chicago. Bigger is faced with numerous awkward and frustrating situations when he begins working for a rich white family as their chauffer. After he unintentionally kills a member of the family, he flees but is eventually caught, tried and sentenced to death. The book has been challenged or removed in at least eight different states because of objections to violent and sexually graphic content.

Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Womens Health Book Collective, 1971

Challenges of this book about the female anatomy and sexuality ran from the books publication into the mid-1980s. One Public Library lodged it promotes homosexuality and perversion. Not surprising in a country where some legislators want to keep others from saying the word vagina.

The Red Badge of Courage, Stephen Crane, 1895

Restricting access and refusing to allow teachers to teach books is still a form of censorship in many cases. Cranes book was among many on a list compiled by the Bay District School board in 1986 after parents began lodging informal complaints about books in an English classroom library.

The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1850

According to many critics, Hawthorne should have been less friendly toward his main character, Hester Prynne (in fairness, so should have minister Arthur Dimmesdale). One isnt surprised by the moralist outrage the book caused in 1852. But when, one hundred and forty years later, the book is still being banned because it is sinful and conflicts with community values, you have to raise your eyebrows. Parents in one school district called the book pornographic and obscene in 1977. Clearly this was before the days of the World Wide Web.

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, 1948

How dare Alfred Kinsey ask men and women questions about their sex lives! The groundbreaking study, truly the first of its scope and kind, was banned from publication abroad and highly criticized at home.

Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein, 1961

The book was actually retained after a 2003 challenge in Mercedes, TX to the books adult themes. However, parents were subsequently given more control over what their child was assigned to read in class, a common school board response to a challenge.

A Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams, 1947

The sexual content of this play, which later became a popular and critically acclaimed film, raised eyebrows and led to self-censorship when the film was being made. The director left a number of scenes on the cutting room floor to get an adequate rating and protect against complaints of the plays immorality.

Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neale Hurston, 1937

Parents of students in Advanced English classes in a Virginia high school objected to language and sexual content in this book, which made TIME magazines list of top 100 Best English-Language Novels from 1923 to 2005.

To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee, 1960

Harper Lees great American tome stands as proof positive that the censorious impulse is alive and well in our country, even today. For some educators, the Pulitzer-prize winning book is one of the greatest texts teens can study in an American literature class. Others have called it a degrading, profane and racist work that promotes white supremacy.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe, 1852

Like Huck Finn, Of Mice and Men and Gone With the Wind, the contextual, historically and culturally accurate depiction of the treatment of Black slaves in the United States has rankled would-be censors.

Where the Wild Things Are, Maurice Sendak, 1963

Sendaks work is beloved by children in the generations since its publication and has captured the collective imagination. Many parents and librarians, however, did much hand-wringing over the dark and disturbing nature of the story. They also wrung their hands over the babys penis drawn in In the Night Kitchen.

The Words of Cesar Chavez, Cesar Chavez, 2002

The works of Chavez were among the many books banned in the dissolution of the Mexican-American Studies Program in Tucson, Arizona. The Tucson Unified School District disbanded the program so as to accord with a piece of legislation which outlawed Ethnic Studies classes in the state. To read more about this egregious case of censorship, click here.

Read the rest here:
Banned Books That Shaped America | Banned Books Week

Compared are the Theatrical Version and the Extended Version (Unrated Version) (both represented by the Universal UK-Blu-ray)

- 23 differences, including 9x alternate footage - difference: 371.9 sec (= 6:12 min)

MacFarlane's voice is an essential part of the success of Family Guy. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that his voice can't be missing in it and the story of a talking teddy bear does the trick just fine. For Family Guy and American Dad fans, this movie is kind of a reunion because there are many familiar people involved. The narrator of the movie is Patrick Stewart who's playing Stan's boss in American Dad. Then there's Alex Borstein (voice of Lois, Tricia Takanawa and more) as John's mom, Mila "Shut up, Meg!" Kunis as leading actress, Mike Henry (voice of Cleveland, Herbert the Pervert and more) as Southern newscaster, John Viener as Alix, Danny Smith as waiter and Alec Sulkin as screenplay writer. Furthermore, the movie contains loads of popcultural references. There are also many ansurd scenes isolated from the actual storyline. Sound familiar? Well, that's because Family Guy does the exact same thing. Unfortunately, the movie becomes pretty conventional in the end; just like other Hollywood comedies do. But in this case, it's acceptable. The audience has to have thought the same thing because the movie made $500 million worldwide at the box office. With that amazing result, it's the most successful Original R-rated movie ever (Hangover 2 was more successful but that's "just" a sequel). No surprise that a sequel is already in the pipeline.

As expected, the new footage doesn't reinvent the wheel, that's for sure. And there are no scenes that were censored in the Theatrical Version either (like the F-word in the TV Version of Family Guy). Refering to the rampage at Virginia Tech University might be borderline but then again gags like that are on MacFarlane's shows all the time. Probably a highlight is the scene in the beginning when Donny (as a kid) takes notice of Ted for the very first time. Apart from that, the longer version contains some nice gags that enhance the quality of it. Due to the use of alternate footage for some scenes, the Theatrical Version is still worth being watched because some gags from the Theatrical Version have been removed in the process of editing the longer version. Finally, fans don't get around watching both versions anyway.

Time index refers to Theatrical Version Blu-ray / Extended Version Blu-ray

When the kids approach the little ginger (Greenbaum), the scene is longer in the Extended Version; including alternate footage.

The Theatrical Version only shows Greenbaum saying "Oh-oh...".

In the Extended Version, he says that from a different angle while the head of the bullies is approaching. Then the bully says: "It's Jesus' birthday tomorrow and you know what I'm gonna get him?" Greenbaum: "What?" Bully: "My fist in your fucking face?" Greenbaum: "Why would Jesus want that?"

Extended Version 9.3 sec longer

05:12 / 05:22-05:46

Before John enters the kitchen, the Extended Version contains an additional scene with the parents. After some implications, they get straight to the fact that the mom (Helen) gave the dad (Steve) a BJ the previous evening.

Helen: "Well, I think we've had a wonderful Christmas this year." Steve: "One of the best. And I particularly enjoyed the gift you gave me last night." Helen: "Well, my big strong husband works so hard all year. I figured you deserved a little Christmas treat." Steve: "I think those veneers just make it a smoother ride for me." Helen: "Mmm. Well, that's how much I love you." Steve: "Seriously though, that was an outstanding blowjob!"

24.6 sec

06:23 / 06:57-07:08

A further news report, this time from Japan. The female news anchor speaks Japanese before she's getting slapped by the male anchor.

10.9 sec

06:50 / 07:35-08:13

Additional scene. Little Donny is watching the talkshow with Ted which is why he wants a teddy bear in the first place. In the background, his dad is doing some chick, so he just states Donny already got a rake to clean the yard for his birthday.

Donny: "Dad, I want a teddy bear!" Dad: "Hey! What did daddy just get you for your birthday, huh?" Donny: "A rake." Dad: "That's right. An excellent rake. A birthday rake. So when you clean the yard you don't have to pick up the leaves with your hands." Donny: "But, Dad, I want the bear on TV?" Dad: "Donny, shut up, will ya! Daddy's making love to New Mommy." Donny: "But, Daddy..." Dad: "Go to your hammock!" Donny gets up, takes another look at the TV, then he leaves.

38.4 sec

Alternate 13:31-13:32 / 14:54-15:25

The Tom Skerritt dialog is longer. The Extended Version gives Murphy the opportunity to show off with his previleges.

Murphy: "I don't think of him as an actor anymore. He's just, like, a guy. Like, we work... we worked at my garage two months ago. Helped me hang a garage door. You ever hang a garage door with Tom Skerritt?" John: "No..." Murphy: "No! You ever, uh, go miniature golfing with Tom Skerritt's wife and her kid? No. You haven't. Do you ever watch a Bulls game, a Chicago Bulls game, in Chicago with Tom Skerritt? No, you haven't. All right? Liberty, fast track, Skerritt - John."

15:35 / 17:28-17:46

Ted comments John's "So bad, but so good" commentary regarding Flash Gordon with the following words: "Yes, a study in contrast." John replies: "Whoa, whoa, I love this part right here." Now both of them start singing: "He's for every one of us! Stands for everyone of us! He'll save with a mighty hand every man, every woman, every child with a mighty flash!" Ted finally says: "Fuck yeah, Flash!"

17.2 sec

Alternate 18:22-18:25 / 20:32-20:36

A very similar, but still alternate take. In the Extended Version, John expresses himself more direct: "I'm a fucking classy broad."

Extended Version 0.5 sec longer

Alternate 18:40-18:45 / 20:51-21:00

In both versions, John says "I'm taking you to the best place in town." but an alternate take has been used here (recognizable by the arm position). Then he remains still for a moment in the Theatrical Version. The Extended Version on the other hand switches to another shot of him in which he adds: "I've been crapping out room for it for two days. I mean, I know exactly what I'm gonna order." Lori: "You're so disgusting." Then, John's comment "You know I love you" follows. And again, the Extended Version contains an alternate take of his comment.

Extended Version 4.2 sec longer

Alternate 18:55-19:00 / 21:10-21:16

In the Extended Version, the distance shot is a few frames longer. Then an alternate take of John turning around in bed. But he only swears in the Extended Version "Ah, fucking cocksucker motherfucker!" while he's doing so. The Extended Version then just sticks to this shot when Lori addresses him while the Theatrical Version contains footage of from a different with the very same comment of Lori's. Not until its ending, the Theatrical Version goes to the distance shot from the Extended Version.

Extended Version 1 sec longer

21:11 / 23:27-23:31

First a shot of Lori. then Rex who reaches for magnifying glass and says about the photo: "Now, if you look close, you can see the outline of my root."

3.9 sec

Alternate 21:38-21:40 / 23:58-24:13

In the Theatrical Version, Lori says "Goodbye, Rex" from a closer angle. Then she gets up.

25:32 / 28:05-28:15

More dialog. John is being tactless by mentioning the rampage at Virginia Tech University. In the same shot, he adds: "I could have wound up like that Asian kid at Virginia Tech but I didn't because of him. So I'm not that psyched to just, like, kick him out." Lori: "What? It's good to know that a talking teddy bear is the only thing that prevented you from gunning down your classmates."

Subsequently Lori's comment "But you're no longer eight." which ia also in the Theatrical Version.

10.6 sec

Alternate 27:17-27:21 / 30:00-30:09

Ted has an alternate explanation for the excrements on the appartment floor. At first, the Extended Version contains an alternate take, followed by two additional ones.

In the Theatrical Version, Ted says: "Oh, yeah. Yeah, we were playing truth or dare and Cherene's pretty ballsy." In the Extended Version, he says: "Oh, my God! You know what, that's probably what Dierdre was doing over there. Remember she was crouched over in the corner for a really long time? I thought she was just making a phone call or something."

Extended Version 4.2 sec longer

Alternate 27:23-27:28 / 30:11-30:20

After Lori repeated "There is a shit on my floor!", the version continue differently.

In the Theatrical Version, Ted says: "'Or is the floor on the shit?' is what Kierkegaard would say." In the Extended Version, he says: "Yeah, yeah. She's passed out in the bathroom now. She seemed like she was hopped up on something but, you know, mystery solved, I guess, right? She was taking a shit." Lori yells "What the fuck?" one more time.

Extended Version 4.3 sec longer

30:14 / 33:06-33:26

John reacts to the attorney's proposal: "As I said, you would need a law degree for a law school." Ted: "No, no... I'm a special case. I'm a talking teddy bear for Christ's sake. They might make an exception because they'd be all like, 'Oh, my God, this bear's so cool. He can talk and do stuff. Let's give him a job. Maybe he'll give us a few laughs around the office.' And then they're like, 'Oh, my God! He can deliver. He's actually quite a litigator.' And then they'll practically have to give me the Anderson case."

20.5 sec

39:10 / 42:22-43:04

Read more:
Ted (Comparison: Theatrical Version - Movie-Censorship.com