I'll bite. What's better about it? I rarely find longer cuts to be worthwhile. Editing is usually a form of enhancement. One of the hardest yet most significant improvements you can make as a writer is better editing. With all the work that goes into just a few minutes of film, there is a resistance to cutting anything. The best editors usually have no involvement in the creation and can condense and richen the intensity and flow of a film.

[–] dontsayaword@piefed.social 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

The Theatrical Edition is arguably better paced, but the Extended Edition contains extra depth and plot points (eg. Sarumon's death).

The choice is subjective. IMO: If you were reading a fantastic novel, and it had a bonus chapter, would you read it? For me it's definitely a yes.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I thought this until I read the longer version of The Stand where he’d put a load of padding back in and updated all the cultural references to the late 80s for no good reason.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 3 points 6 days ago

King has almost always written his stories in the immediate present. There are a few exceptions, but they are intentional and critical to the plot. In all the others, it is fully in keeping with his style to update cultural references to set the story in the recent past, the now, or the very near future. He is a contemporary writer of contemporary stories, that is fundamentally the reason. King also seems to feel no loyalty to preserving his past works. He is alive. His stories are more about the lives of the characters than fashion or pop culture. I'm not always a fan of his revisions either (The Gunslinger being a good example), but it's part of the total package of his writing philosophy.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)