[scrooched_moose]

Most of the time flops have had too much material cut out to hit runtime requirements ("nobody will watch a 3 hour movie!"). Kingdom of Heaven, Batman v Superman, Watchmen, Alien3 all get better with restored material.

Blade Runner is interesting as there are 3 different versions, all about the same length but with some very different scenes. Theatrical also has a terrible voice over which was later removed.

The Shining is one that gets better when shortened - most feel that the 119 minute European version is better than the 144 minute US cut.

Apocalypse Now is interesting - Redux (193 minute) is a slog compared to theatrical (147); but Final (182) is probably the best version and a great example of the balance needed.

There's also the video 'How Star Wars was saved in the edit' which has a lot of good information on what editing can do. The video has kindof been co-opted by the internet as definitive proof that George Lucas is a talentless hack, but it's really not that much different than what happens on every other film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEHRNS-Scrs

[mattm]

Almost Famous is another example. I love the movie. But then I watched the director's cut which added 40 minutes more and it was very meh. The jokes weren't as crisp and there were scenes that didn't really add anything and just slowed down the pace.

[magicalhippo]

> The Shining is one that gets better when shortened

For me the opening scene added in the extended edition of Aliens completely ruins the first half of the film for me. Sometimes less is more...