I'm puzzled. I have seen lots of people announce that they are waiting with bated breath for the new Blade Runner SE which will supposedly have the original theatrical version. The theatrical version had a voiceover and a tacked on happy ending which were both added long after Scott finished the film because the of preview audience responses--audiences were confused by the film and felt that it was too dark. I bet most of the same people would scoff at "Joe Sixpack" who wanted the film in P&S. So, how is this voiceover/happy ending abomination different from P&S? Was it only because the director himself worked on the changes, even against his will? If a director worked on a P&S version of his film because he wanted the P&S verson of a film to be less bungled than it would otherwise be, would the P&S version be acceptable? Or is it because the film originally came out butchered in the theater? 2001 was pretty confusing to a lot of people; what if originally against Kubrick's wishes it came out in theatres with a voiceover, and maybe a less ambiguous ending and a nice Britney Spears soundtrack, would that version be OK? Redford and Newman ride off into the sunset together at the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ? Roberto Begnini's character overpowers the Nazi soldier, survives and leads Allied troops to victory in It's a Beautiful Life? The "directors change films all the time to accommodate studio wishes" argument does not fly here either--it is one thing to change a film during filming/editing, or to tame the film a little to meet rating board requirements, and another to change it very significantly after it is completely finished to make it more palatable to test audiences. I'm not quarreling with anyone's right to enjoy whatever version of the film they want, but does it not seem a bit hyppocritical to belittle the P&S desires of lowly J6P and then drool in anticipation of the version of a film which the director was forced to change to accommodate the wishes of studio suits?