Director Cuts or Theatrical Cuts: Which one do you typically prefer?

[Popcorn_Bliss]

I suspect the answer is that it depends on the film, but which is more definitive in your eyes?

Are you one who believes that the theatrical version is always the one that should ultimately be remembered? Or do you believe that a director is the one who has ultimate say over which cut is the "definitive" one?

In my experience, most people seem to default to theatrical cuts probably because A) It's how they first seen it, or B) Many "director or original cuts" aren't always offered in a Blu/DVD package.

When it comes to films of which I have seen both cuts, I'm a mixed bag. Here are a couple "director cuts" I prefer:

Apocalypse Now Redux 1979
I'm not popular with this preference (most say the Redux pads the film and makes it plodding or unnecessary) but I welcome the additional scenes. The added length accentuates the never-ending feel of the maddening mission in which the lead character is thrust into, making "the horror" all the more weaving and epic. At least that's how it comes off to me.

JFK Director's Cut 1991
This cut is unusual in that it is used on all the blu releases to date and it's the THEATRICAL cut that is absent. Nonetheless, I like it that way (although I do wish the theatrical cut had been added to the original digibook for complete-ness sake). In a film with this much attention to detail, testimony and viewpoint, more is always better. Perhaps an ironic statement since I'm usually a "less is more" person. But not in this case.

An example of where I favor the theatrical cut despite the fame of the director's cut...

The Exorcist 1973
While I'm glad to have both cuts, I've finally come to the conclusion that the theatrical version works best. Despite the addition of the hospital test scenes (of which I welcome), I'm less enthused with the "spider-walk" scene (kinda goofy in my opinion) and of the superimposed demon faces (not necessary - our imagination works much better). So when I add it all up, I like the original best.

Feel free to discuss your stance on director cuts versus theatrical cuts and which ones stand out for you.

[ThatOneGuy]

Simple for me, Director's cut. I like more story.

Edit: Even if it is one scene too many, I still prefer that over one scene too few.

[willo007]

If its an extended version of a film that was created by the studio, Ill rather have the Theatrical Cut,.

But 99% of the time ill stick with what the director originally envisioned, so ill choose Director's cut.

[Riddler The Slag]

Greatest of all the Directors Cuts.

[Tony208]

Whichever one is better.

Troy director's cut is worse.
Alexander theatrical cut is the worst out of the bunch.

[dvdmike]

Choice, it depends on each film
But I want both cuts available, see the crappy Warriors bluray

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Choice, it depends on each film
But I want both cuts available, see the crappy Warriors bluray

Yeah, if I'm able to have both versions, I'll take both versions.

[imsounoriginal]

Usually Director's Cuts. It's the Extended or Unrated ones that tend to be crap.

[warrian]

Choice is everything.

It's fun trying to decide which cut is best, which should be watched first etc.

It sucks having a studio with multiple cuts at their disposal decide for you either way.

Even when the studio just throws the deleted scenes back in ala Black Hawk Down or Knight's Tale, I still like having a choice.

Even though there's not a single person on the planet that lamented the exclusion of the re-worked E.T. on the Blu-ray release, I personally feel that once you put that kind of thing out there, you are obligated to give viewers the choice in further releases (technology permitting).

[Booker Dewitt]

Whichever one is a better film.

[dohrmannmf]

Whichever is better. Sometimes having a theatrical cut which is more lean can benefit a movie (Alien, Exorcist), while at other times having more material can improve something that shouldn't have been cut down in the first place (Kingdom of Heaven, Terminator 2). But I also love a good workprint cut. It's always nice to see a 'what could have been' idea (Alien 3, Halloween 6).

[Al_The_Strange]

I usually prefer longer cuts.

I definitely love the DC/SE/EE versions of The Abyss, LOTR, Kingdom of Heaven, Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner, Avatar, T2, Pearl Harbor, and I forget what else.

The only ones I found myself hating were Dumb and Dumber, 2005's The Fantastic 4, some of Dune, and maybe just a few others.

[Moviefan2k4]

For me, it depends on the film. For example, I love the extended edition of "T2", but prefer the theatrical version of "X-Men: Days of Future Past". I also love the extended cuts for "Lord of the Rings", but those done for "The Hobbit" miss the mark somewhat.

[gabbott]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I usually prefer longer cuts.

I definitely love the DC/SE/EE versions of The Abyss, LOTR, Kingdom of Heaven, Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner, Avatar, T2, Titanic, Pearl Harbor, and I forget what else.

The only ones I found myself hating were Dumb and Dumber, 2005's The Fantastic 4, some of Dune, and maybe just a few others.

There is a different cut of Titantic than the theatrical?

[Chris60119]

Really depends on the film. Each one is a unique situation. Natural Born Killers directors cut is amazing! While Dumb and Dumbers I think ruined the movie.

Natural Born Killers had to be cut to make an R rating to go to theaters (Just like what's happening to Rob Zombies 31)

Dumb and Dumber had stuff added just to call it a directors cut to sell copies of a movie that people already owned. I think a lot of it didn't need to be in the movie and it makes it less funny.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by gabbott

There is a different cut of Titantic than the theatrical?

I thought there was.

...crap, never mind.

[NARMAK]

Yeah, it does depend on the movie and sometimes you as a person.

I find that theatrical cuts generally are designed to maximise "Bums in Seats" and thus a way to increase revenue for the studio but Directors cuts etc. are designed to fully flesh out a story, characters etc.

Then and again, sometimes the exposition pads out the movie too much and can compromise the feel of a movie and flow. Not often though do I find myself think a theatrical cuts necessarily better. Lord of The Rings extended editions whilst long as heck make it an even more epic journey

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Riddler The Slag

Greatest of all the Directors Cuts.

I like to think this is the only cut that exists of Kingdom of Heaven. The butchering in the theatrical cut is just criminal.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by John Klein

Simple for me, Director's cut. I like more story.

Edit: Even if it is one scene too many, I still prefer that over one scene too few.

Sometimes that really hurts the film. One of my all-time favorites is That Thing You Do! Great film, but the extended version seriously hurts it -- the pacing is waaaay off, and the ending is much weaker. Dances With Wolves doesn't suffer as badly, but the extra 40 or so minutes doesn't add much and it slows the film down terribly.

There are certainly exceptions (like Touch Of Evil) but "more" is often "less." I generally prefer the theatrical version.

[Col. Zombie]

I honestly can't say that I prefer a DC over the TC in every instance. For example,

I loathe the DC's for; Donnie Darko, Rob Zombie's Halloween, and Payback. I prefer in every way the theatrical releases of these films and it's bloody shame I can't get the TC's for any of these films on Blu (unless someone knows something I don't).

But I do prefer the DC's for; Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator, and The Abyss.

In a nutshell, it depends on the film.