Terrible film, in so many ways.
And call me cynical but hearing (yet again) that it was all down to bad editing, I'm beginning to be suspicious that that was deliberate to make even more money on the director's cut editions ect.
Tempted to agree. Certainly, somebody let this out of the door fully knowing it was a pathetic mess in terms of characterization, motivation, sense etc. The worst examples are well documented out there. But are the producers really so Machiavellian? Scott said in an interview that he was told to get it in in less than two hours, on the basis that the suits 'knew' that more than that would turn audiences away.
This is clearly so stupid as advice (as Avengers, TDKR and many others demonstrate) that you have to think. To be in their position they cannot be stupid people. But can they really be so on the case as to be looking to Director's cuts etc to make the numbers look good? Or is it that they just know that these days, over time, high investment films tend to be very profitable regardless of their inherent worth? (Scott is very clear on this in another interview.)
My own suspicion is that the producers couldn't care less about the details of how they will get their return, and less again about the film itself. They just know it will be payday, now and down the line.
This is of course Hollywood business as usual. It only annoys me because the film was based on a great original and showed signs of having the potential to develop it really well.
(My sympathies to posters who thought it was good, but...have you actually thought about it? At all?)