Well, certainly I saw the theatrical versions in cinemas on each film's original release but I had figured at home may as well wait because I think it was known that extended versions would follow on. I suppose 'inferior' version is a way of looking at it and I suppose I would have to say in all honesty that I would probably call some theatrical versions just that: inferior. Or more politely just 'different'. But if I was being impolite!
It depends on how significant a difference it may be though. Some of these versions are mostly extended sequences already in the film and might have relatively minor changes but sometimes it can give a scene a whole different feel and affect the character. Insofar as The Wrath of Khan it's not really material that Peter Preston was Scotty's nephew. When in the original version he is introduced and then his body brought up it has the impact intended. But when you see the version when you do know the relationship between the two it just gives it that extra little thing for the character of Scotty. And it's almost always character beats, sections that fill out plot and events that get culled for theatrical release to start with.
That's a pretty minor thing - there are much bigger films with much more substantial changes and additions in them along the way as well pretty obviously. I don't want to disparage theatrical cuts in a big way because there's nothing wrong with them. But normally once I've seen an extended etc version of a film I like then I never really go back to the theatrical version and that these changes usually do make a film feel more complete once I've seen it. That's just me perhaps.
Last edited by kevin : 11-17-2012 at 12:00 PM.