Rhett - it's about the film, the complete film. You're not going to tell the whole impact from a tiny clip of a few seconds. There are many films that may benefit from a snip here or there, but as has always been the case with DVD - people generally want the most complete print of films. They generally don't want cut versions, or at the very least, they want to know they're getting a cut version. It's simple really. Still, I'm surprised you saw all that from what amounts to a poor Google clip. Personally I think you've just gotten used to seeing it cut, but that's just my view - and it serves as another excuse to defend Criterion. Maybe the film is better with the scene cut, that's a matter of opinion, there are plenty of people who'd suggest other scenes being cut would make the film better too. So why stop with this one scene? Even Chaoster, who saw this in the theater, has gone on record as saying he's seen it there. I've seen this film theatrically with it there. No conspiracy. I bet that if we'd known it was going to be so difficult for these so called film scholars to figure it out, we'd have invited them along. And no-one has yet seen the new Bfi disc, so discussion on quality issues is, once again, a reflexive, and defensive move on your part. To suggest "distractingly out of place because of the glaring difference in condition" is dishonest - you don't know that, and have no way of knowing it. You have no idea on how it will look. It's this kind of speculation that Criterion have indulged in to cover their tracks. In fact, you've done nothing more in this thread that defend Criterion and suggest it's the version to get - when you've only just seen a (very poor) copy of the scene, and not seen the Bfi release. You've made up your mind without seeing it, now that's clever. Doesn't really make things very balanced on your part - one assumes you actually know about what you write - but I guess we can all speculate. For the record, I guess it's possible the Bfi copy will be in black and white, and only run to one reel. It's possible. Doubtful though. Still, you are free to buy the cut version. Fortunately, I'm free to buy the full version. What's important is that people make informed buying decisions. I suggest people buy the uncut version of this film, and in hi-def if they have capability. At the very least, they can then make their own decisions about the validity of the scene. Fans of the film will want to see it. Again - this is a rather poor comment, it barely reaches the level of crediblity of tabloid journalism, a little disappointing from someone like yourself, but oh well. Bfi have the full print, not the cut one (even Criterion admit they've had this since 2001 in the article linked to. ). That's fact. Rather than throw around comments such as this, I think we'll stick to the facts, don't you? They've said they're releasing the full print, Criterion mention it themselves.... simply as. You've turned into a Criterion apologist, and that's fine. As with all similar discussion on this site about new releases, it's just important that readers can make an informed decision. I really don't care which version people buy, I know which *I'll* buy, because hi-def and uncut beats SD and cut for me - others might feel differently, and that's fine. This scene, at the very least, should have been an extra on the Criterion release. The fact is, they don't have the scene because they couldn't be bothered to do the research, or pay the money, to have it. Otherwise, on a disc that is supposed to be exhaustive, how do we explain its complete absence - let alone having it missing from the film? Is this scene so flawed it didn't even warrant as an extra? Would it injure the film even as a "deleted scene" on the disc? That's just silly, imo. They haven't got it because they didn't bother to go get it - they took the new master they were handed, and want to put that out with the extras they had in hand. No additional work. There can be no other explanation of its complete absence- even from the extras. But yeah - you can have your cut print, and the Criterion brand. I have no issue with that. It's just important that people know the differences. That's all. Come to think of it - when there were insert shots into Zombi 3 with horrendous quality, it sure didn't make me rush out and buy a cut version, so I'm very confident things will work out here - since the cut footage from the Criterion didn't look all that bad in the last Bfi release, let alone now it's had additional work done on it. My guess? Criterion ship you free discs for review and you don't want to upset them. I have no idea, but that's my guess based on what I've read here in this case. Generally I read a lot of sense about such things from you, but in this case, you're being inconsistent - defending films being cut, defending DVD companies who can't even be bothered to get a scene we all know is freely out there because it would have cost money - even as an extra.... As I say, odd. So, I assume it's one freebie too many. ps: The scene in question was in the last Bfi release of this film - and while that version won't match the current releases, it was no worse at that time to the rest of their release. At least the old release would sure have made a nice extra.... pity but Criterion buyers will have to make do with youtube.