@urbanemovies​ the alternate cut deserves its own title if it was made by the director and/or studio or producer (if such examples even exist).

1. The IMDb title has a distinctive name to immediately let us know that it is an alternate cut, e.g. "Aliens: Director's cut". 
2. Where required, already existing IMDb titles of alternate versions also get this distinctive addition in their title.
3. The director isn't permitted to have more than one alternate cut IMDb title of the same movie. (The only example I'm aware of is "Blade Runner: Director's cut (1992) and "Blade Runner: Final Cut (2007". Even in this silly, extravagant case from a famous director I'd pick just one cut, presumably the last one (2007), which is 100% the directos's version, whereas the 1992 aparently isn't 100% his vision) This limit is important to prevent too many IMDb titles, which would indeed get confusing (sorry Ridley, you overdid it).
4. An alternate TV version is its own thing.

• "The Godfather saga (1977)" is a TV mini-series (and not a movie) and is therefore its own thing. Such cuts from one medium to another are (or rather, were) super rare and shouldn't deter separate IMDb titles for alternate movie cuts.
• "The Godfather trilogy (1992) seems like an edit of all 3 movies into one long cut (over 9h). Not sure why it's classifies as "Video". The "Trivia" page falsely states that it was made so FFC could get "Apocalypse Now" financed, as that movie is from the 70's.

@Pencho15​ thank you for the idea of YES and NO. It was my intention to make it a binary vote in the first place, but didn't know that I can do it the way you suggested.

Can I change this existing list or do I need to make another one?

@Geekofriendly​ You can change the existing list.

You may also mention the example movies either in this discussion thread or in the list description if you want to keep them as references.

@Pencho15​ I've decided to creat an additional IMDb list (https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/) that I'd like to serve as the poll and linked the existing list of movies with alternate cuts. On that list I've also added the titles mentioned in this conversation thread and added some of the names of alternate cuts and their release dates.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/

@Breumaster​,

I would add 'A Touch of Evil' (1958) to that list. It was initially released as the "B" film of a double feature in 1958 with a studio-ordered final cut. 

Variety said in its original 1957 review: "Touch of Evil smacks of brilliance but ultimately flounders in it. Taken scene by scene, there is much to be said for this filmization of Whit Masterson's novel, Badge of Evil. Orson Welles' script contains some hard-hitting dialog; his use of low key lighting is effective, and Russell Metty's photography is fluid and impressive; and Henry Mancini's music is poignant. But Touch of Evil proves it takes more than good scenes to make a good picture."

The film was re-cut, based on Orson Wells editing notes in a 58 page memo, and re-released in 1998. The result elevated the film status to that of a widely considered cinematic masterpiece, when it was re-cut to honor the director's original vision.

@urbanemovies​ 

I think a more detailed view on things is always better, but in borders. There must be a competent crew who decides if another cut is really worth for an extra page. I see also technical problems. When you search for a title, which one would be picked? If there are fife cuts for one movie, then how to separate them? (Especially without confusing people, which are not such movie nerds like us.)

Some people go to cinema once or twice a year, because many people are not so into that hobby. Some of them might be deterred if there are too many options they can't understand. For many people one movie is simply one movie. It takes sensual methods to not overwhelm them. I don't know if the database would think about these things, but I would welcome them as well as separated movie and premiere image galeries. One thing which annoys me more is the mixing of premiere photos and movie images.

@Breumaster​, I partially agree with the difficulty of separating titles between themselves. Therefore I would propose that ALL alternate cuts (meaning, the ones not primarily shown in cinemas) should have some sort of immediately visible distinction, be it in their movie title [e.g. "Terminator 2: Judgement day (Director's cut)"] or even more directly ["ALTERNATE CUT - Lord of The RIngs: The Fellowship of the rings (Extended edition)"].

Yes, there will be some initial confusion (but not much) among people who aren't movie fanatics, but at the same time, these alternate cuts will be more promoted and become more known to regular folks :-)

I for one found the "T2: Director's cut" terrible compared to the cinematic version, but because director's cuts are now a thing, many people who'll see this movie for the first time will likely stumble upon this version rather than the cinematic one. When they go to IMDb to give their rating, they might be surprised to find out there are two cuts of this movie and will perhaps:

1. become more aware before viewing or the next time around
2. cast their vote for the version they saw
3. also see the other version and rate that one too
4. be more mindful of these alternate cuts the next time and pick the version that will be more to their liking (this will actually work and make sense if both cuts of the same movie have votes and one title has a considerably better rating than the other)

Given that there are more existing "anomalies" (thanks @urbanemovies  for pointing them out) on IMDb already (Das Boot, The Godfather trilogy, etc.) this inclusion of new IMDb titles for alternate version should be considered A MUST. Because right now it's actually just a double standard for these movies and not for other ones with alternate titles and no separate IMDb title.

@Breumaster​ well, to take it even a step further, there are a couple of, khm, "bootleg" cuts of "The Hobbit" trilogy where the three movies are cut into one shorter one. One or two of these alternate versions is supposedly rather good and supposedly improves upon the original trilogy from Peter Jackson. I'm not sure if this would even be suitable for IMDb, but it would be quite the comparison to see if this shorter, home-made cut of "The Hobbit" is a better choice than the cinema versions.

And even if such unofficial cuts were permitted on IMDb, there should be strict guidelines, e.g. that it qualifies for its own IMDb title if the changes exceed a certain amount of the movie's length. But because this is a super slippery slope and would potentially "invite" more wannabe directors and movie editors to make their own "cuts", the idea should probably be avoided.

Still, the official alternate cuts are their own separate movies and IMHO deserve the distinction from the cinematic version.

@Geekofriendly,

I couldn't agree more: alternate cuts are their own separate movies and that they deserve distinction from the cinematic version. But, relisting the movie and giving alternate cuts their own separate IMDb title is not the solution. As, all the bad things that would come from it far outweigh the good things. First, as proven elsewhere on IMDb with similarly named titles (not the same movie), voters often for the wrong or unintended title. I can see IMDb users voting for the wrong cut than the one they saw alot. This idea maybe benefits the less 1% of IMDb users that are "true cinephiles" that probably know of the various alternate cuts and differences between them. The end result would that IMDb user ratings would become meaningless due to mis-voted titles and would render the overall website unnavigable due to 2, 3, 5 or 10 listings per movie. Plus, it is a slippery slope, as to where to draw the line between which alternate cut movies get a seperate IMDb listing and those that don't. The only fair solution is one IMDb listing per title, even for "Superman II" and "Justice League".

I think a far better solve to the problem is to allow IMDb users to choose, under an umbrella title listing for all versions of a single title listing, the specific cut they are voting for. The most common cut would be the default choice, but opting out to vote for an alternate cut is an option for those that choose it. Then, those who know they are watching an re-cut version could vote accordingly. Then, the movie would have a rating specific to the cut and a collective weighted ranking of all the votes for the umbrella single movie title. I think such a set-up solves the problem without creating a set of new problems worse than the original issue. Maybe, there is an even better solution out there, any ideas?

I don't think anyone is disputing the problem and all the harms that are caused from not giving re-cut movies their due. I just think most people would agree the medicine is worse than the original affliction it is meant to treat, in this case. Again, you are pointing out a legimate problem and something should be done to address it. The only real question, in my mind,  is the best solution to remedy it.

@urbanemovies​ my main concern was actually that it would be sort of ridiculous if the IMDb Top 250 also included, say, all of the three new titles of the LoTR trilogy (the IMDb title for Extended edition for each movie), but you bring up valid concerns as well.

I strongly disagree with abandoning the idea of alternate cuts (even for existing tiles) and while the umbrella idea sounds like it has potential, the aggregated rating defeats the main purpose of my proposal.

The whole point is for everybody on IMDb to quickly see if there is an alternate cut of a movie. Because sometimes, that cut just might be considerably better or worse than the theatrical cut. And that difference should be more recognizable through the means of the IMDb rating (https://250.took.nl/title/tt12361974).

Yes, it will be clumsy at first, because e.g. the beloved LoTR extended edition IMDb titles will have 1000x less votes than their existing IMDb titles for the theatrical cut, but with time, it'll become a normal IMDb thing and future alternate cuts will immediately get their deserved IMDb title.

As I've said, the concern of too many new IMDb titles for too many versions of a movie's cut would be limited by a simple rule (no.3 on the list):

1. The IMDb title has a distinctive name to immediately let us know that it is an alternate cut, e.g. "Aliens: Director's cut". 
2. Where required, already existing IMDb titles of alternate versions also get this distinctive addition in their title.
3. The director isn't permitted to have more than one alternate cut IMDb title of the same movie. (e.g. "Blade Runner: Director's cut (1992) and "Blade Runner: Final Cut (2007". Even in this silly, extravagant case from a famous director I'd pick just one cut, presumably the last one (2007), which is 100% the directos's version, whereas the 1992 aparently isn't 100% his vision) This limit is important to prevent too many IMDb titles, which would indeed get confusing (sorry Ridley, you overdid it).
4. An alternate TV version is its own thing.

• "The Godfather saga (1977)" is a TV mini-series (and not a movie) and is therefore its own thing. Such cuts from one medium to another are (or rather, were) super rare and shouldn't deter separate IMDb titles for alternate movie cuts.
• "The Godfather trilogy (1992) seems like an edit of all 3 movies into one long cut (over 9h). Not sure why it's classifies as "Video". The "Trivia" page falsely states that it was made so FFC could get "Apocalypse Now" financed, as that movie is from the 70's.

@Geekofriendly​ I think we both agree 1) that the situation needs to be addressed 2) there are pros and cons all around 3) it is a slippery slope, so  the solution in order to work has to have strict ground rules 4) even the best solution is going to be imperfect. 

I am still on the other side of the fence on this issue. But, your specifics on how to make to work is making me believe that more alternate cut title listings on IMDb, if moderated to only the most worthy cuts, is a workable solve.

@Geekofriendly​ This is definitely one of those problems that "the devil is in the details."🤔

@Pencho15​ thanks for your help!

I've corrected the URL's in the poll:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/

I've made the list PUBLIC.

What's the next step to turn it into a live poll where people can vote?

Also, should I add "YES or NO?" .... Meaning: Should movies with alternate cuts have separate IMDb titles for their alternate cuts? YES or NO?

@Geekofriendly​ 

Hi, Geekofriendly.

I started making polls in January 2018. I've 180 Live Polls. And each of them was chosen by other guys to go live. Getting a poll idea into a live poll is about content and social commonality. When I have no time and spare no time in this forum, I get no polls online. That's what I experienced in the last four years. When I spare time also on other user's poll ideas by simply interest, my chances to get one of my own ideas live, raises. It's a simple give and take thing. It's social. I often have no time. So I often have a period of two months when I don't get a poll live. But that's not bad, because I also have a rich stuffed life beyond IMDb. There are many interesting people I've met on the database forum. And with more and more time I share, I also take personal benefits about it, not only the polls.

I hope it satisfies as an answere.

@Geekofriendly​ 

If you made your list public and other user's can't see it, there might be a technical error. That happens not often, but sometimes. I just don't remember the URL where to report it. Maybe one of the mods can handle this.

@Geekofriendly​ Please head to this forum and report the problem that your list appears as Not public, when you have marked it as public. That's a problem that every poll author has faced at some time. Once they fix it we can take a new look at your list and check if everything is ok now.

@mariojacobs​ thanks so much!

Here's the corrected version.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/

Now I just have to figure out how to turn it into a poll :-)

@Geekofriendly​ 

This list is not public

The creator of this list has not enabled public viewing

@mariojacobs​ and @Breumaster​ my bad, it should be Public now:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/edit

@Geekofriendly​ 

No problem, but you should delete the four letters at the end of the URL (edit), because others have no access to your personal user-profile. If you let stay the "edit" at the end of the URL, any other user will get a 404-error, instead of the list. That happened to me right now. ;)

P.S.: You can test your links, if they fit for other users, if you log out and then test it while being logged out. When you are logged out, you are John Doe for the system and will also have no access to your profile. That's the best method to test your own links.

Are you logged out from IMDb? (Not the Sprinklr-forum.) Please try your link.

I copied the URL from your link and put it here without the "edit". Now try this, please:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/

@Breumaster​ I logged out of my account and IMDb displays the list. Who turns it into a poll?

@Geekofriendly​ 

Why is that important to you?

@Geekofriendly​ 

You've linked 2 lists with different content. Which should be the list we should concentrate to?

It's best to only make a suggestion on only one list, the second list might be another suggestion.

@Geekofriendly​ ,

@Breumaster​ I logged out of my account and IMDb displays the list. Who turns it into a poll?

Poll administrators determine which polls suggestion meet the criteria for an IMDb poll and determine when/if it should go live. Pencho15, others and I are poll admins. For more information, please see:

● FAQ: So You Want to Make an IMDb Poll? Here's How...
Please note: Polls are limited to a maximum of 35 choices.

● IMDb Poll FAQ: Learn How to Make IMDb Poll on YouTube | Easy Tutorial for Beginners
● FAQ: Selection Criteria for Polls
● FAQ: Time to Go Live

Since you've followed Pencho15's advice, your poll suggestion appears to be in good shape.

@Breumaster​ on this list:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565920886/

Also, if it's not a poll, what's the point? It's a YES or NO question for a reason :-)

The second list (the one with movies with alternate cuts) is just for the sake of reference.

@dan_dassow​ Great! Thanks.

Now I just hope IMDb notifies me when the poll goes LIVE :-)

@Geekofriendly​ ,

@dan_dassow​ Great! Thanks.

Now I just hope IMDb notifies me when the poll goes LIVE :-)

If/when your poll suggestion goes live, a poll admin will congratulate you in this thread. For instance, this poll went live yesterday:

Movies That Represent Their Genre

If you click on the link to the discussion thread, you should notice at the end of the thread that the poll author was notified that his poll went live.

Thread:

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdb-poll/movies-that-are-iconic-to-their-genre/629a14a81186097eca9017f3

@Jessica​ Thank you and the rest of you guys in this community so much!

I did not expect such a speedy creation of a poll :-D

@Geekofriendly​ 

Congratulations! I voted "yes". But I also think it should be pointed out well to avoid irritations.

There is another issue I would like: Two different galleries for movie-images and premiere-images.

@Breumaster​ thank you for voting! :-) I agree such an implementation should be made in such a way as to not cause confusion.

I also like your suggestion for a poll regarding IMDb gallery images.