In message , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:54:28 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

Ohh, no, I have to disagree. I have both versions, and lemme tell you,
I think they ruined it. It was a stretch anyway, but they only made it
worse.

...Depends on how fluent you are in the Duniverse. I still preferred
the longer version simply because I prefer 3 hour films with all the
outtakes put back in that work. Most of the outtakes we see these days
clearly show that at least 75% of the cuts made are made only to
reduce the film's length, and not to tighten the story or make it
better. The grand goal, IMHO, is to make all films exactly one hour
long so you can charge $20/hour to see a film. _Men in Black II_ is
what I see the first major step in that direction, as it came in at 88
minutes, IIRC.

Most TV shows seem to be 43 minutes, with a "feature-length" double
episode of Star Trek coming in at 83-86 minutes, so you can run them
with adverts in a one hour slot. I remember when "for the next hour we
will control all that you see and hear" meant 50 minutes of story and
credits, and that's still usual in the UK. So you probably lost seven
minutes of "Invasion: Earth", for instance, if you bothered to watch it.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.