Originally posted by: boba feta
Why should the running time have any bearing on whether the edit is good or not? ADM reinserted several deleted scenes back into his edits.

Right, but ADM's things are extended editions of movies that were already half way decent to begin with. He isn't trying to improve the movies he adds scenes into, he just likes making alternative extended cuts. I understand what Mojo is saying, if it is a movie as crappy as AotC or ROtS no small amount of editing is going to add up to anything. I myself wouldn't put a specific time limit on it, but he is pretty much right. You have got to remove enough of the bad stuff to make it worth while, otherwise what you leave in there will still be enough to kill the film. Though some movies like 300, though not a very intelligent movie to begin with, I think gained a lot by removing (as I did in my personal edit of the film) some of the overly silly "comic book elements" (that ironically were not even in the 300 graphic novel to begin with) which add up to little more than five minutes of screen time. Again, 300 isn't that great of a film to begin with so it is not the best example for short edits benefiting movies, but I am sure it is not the only case. I am sure there are several movies where a couple of dumb moments bring them down considerably.