Wich2 wrote:
>Yes, but must it be with the same exact point every time? Can you perhaps think of something new to add?<

Clark, I will if you will!

And Casey, you're dead-on. Much evidence is missing, so Rhodes sometimes surmises - and sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not.

BUT - there IS evidence extant.

And he marshalls a great deal of it in his excellent chapters on the film's production and post-production. It all makes clear that as Casey says, the film morphed much as it was shot, and through reshoots - the script was far from an ironclad template. And things were changed more, during a period of editing, previewing, and reediting. (All of which in fact, was the common system then.)

There is no evidence at all for any formulation anywhere near as simple as "there was Browning's cut - and then there was Laemmle's cut." Nor is there any evidence that Browning was shut out of these processes at any time; in fact, there's a fair amount of evidence to the contrary.

-Craig
Craig and Casey are voices of reason here.  Fan edits are great and fun.  Yet nothing here I've read shows it's a "restored" version.