Senior HTF Member
- May 31, 2004
- Agua Verde
- Real Name
- Pike Bishop
Yes, a shorter cut of anything is a hard sell, a lot of people on sites like this one always want the longest version available.
I think that it really depends upon what is cut or added. When home video arrived at DVD and Blu-ray different cuts started to proliferate. It became a fairly regular thing for the home releases to have "theatrical" and "extended" cuts for all kinds of films. It got to the point where they had all sorts of names for these extended cuts -- unrated cut, director's cut, final cut, extended cut -- and some were interesting and some just muddied the waters.
At first I think it was just exciting to get "more of" a film you loved. Did not really matter what was being added we just wanted to see what else there was. When Coppola recut Apocalypse Now to create a third version, this was basically his explanation for why he was releasing a third cut. When he cut Redux the idea was just to put as much as he could back in. When he cut it this most recent time it was with the idea that he added too much and wanted to actually cut the film to what he felt was the best version.
Andrei Tarkovsky once said that editing was the true art when it comes to filmmaking. The whole sculpting in time idea. I guess if we want to really look at how Kubrick's mind may have worked when it came to cutting a film the one picture we have to make comparisons and get an idea of different ways he may have seen it is The Shining, because as Josh points out, it is the only film he signed off on with two separate cuts.