Thanks for your e-mail. It's impossible for me to answer all your questions as I don't remember all the reasons myself. All I can say is making any movie, especially at the studio level, is a long process full of many compromises. Too many people are involved and they all have their own ideas about what's best for the movie. And sometimes the ideas are bad and damaging to the movie, even though everyone thinks they are making the movie better. Therefore, I consider myself blessed to have the opportunity to correct some of these bad decisions years later in the "editor's cut" (which, by the way, was not really an editor's cut, it was just an earlier version of the movie that I thought was better than the one that was released theatrically). That's why things like the doctor scenes didn't appear in this version. Both Sam and I decided the movie would be better without them, mostly for reasons of pacing, so I did not want to reinstate them into this revised cut. The goal was not to create version of the movie that included everything that was shot, good or bad, but to restore the movie to a better version that existed before everyone started meddling with it. Right or wrong, it's my idea of that best version, and I'll take full credit (or blame) for the contents. So in that respect, maybe "editor's cut" is a valid label.
I doubt if Sony will ever want to do another extended version, and I don't think Sam would authorize it anyway.
Best wishes,
Bob Murawski
