I find “deleted” scenes like the one above of interest. In any case, it’s surely at least as interesting as the “theatrical cut” might be (I haven’t seen either myself).
[quote=“stanton, post:121, topic:356, full:true”]And I don’t see the 88 cut as a true Peckinpah cut, Seydor doesn’t either, as it betrays imo Peckinpah’s artistic craftmanship, and I think Mike Siegel also sees the 2005 version as the best so far, but is more critical towards it than I.
Of course it’s not a “true” Peckinpah cut, because he never tweaked it exactly as he would have wanted. However, it is as close as we are ever going to get and surely not that far off.
I’m not gonna speak for Mike (I don’t remember what he’s said about it), but you’re certainly not the only person who prefers the Seydor cut. However, it seems to get little support on any forums or websites where I’ve seen people express their preferences. Having said that it’s great that some people like it since it allows for good debates (like we’ve had before ). I also found Seydor’s book on the matter to be a fantastic read so I certainly don’t mean to knock him at all.
I’ve never seen the “theatrical cut”, but surely you’re kidding?