Smokey,

You bring up a good topic for discussion, but the first thing that really needs to be addressed is 'whose film is it anyway?" Most movies are controlled by the studio that they are being released through, since that is where the money comes from, but there are few directors who gain enough clout and success that they are able to have a bit more control over their projects and in some cases able to own the full rights to the film. This has always been an ongoing battle in the industry and probably will always be a battle. Directors go back and forth with the studio trying to establish what is known as 'the final cut' and a film will have many many cuts made at different stages of editing before arriving at that final cut. It's not uncommon for movie producers and such to sit down and watch a 4 hour version of a film before having the film cut down to about 2 hours. Directors will fight tooth and nail over executive decisions made during the 'trimming' process as the director usually wants to see their vision fulfilled. The Exec's are not interested as much in the artistry as they are in what sells the film, so this is usually where the battle begins. Is the film marketable?

DVD has introduced us to a whole new marketing ploy though in the business of movies as we see various cuts of films that are usually unnecessary and words like 'unrated' or 'extended' cut are used in ways to manipulate the consumer into buying the movie twice...it's hardly worth it though. There are of course the infamous cases of directors cuts out there though and DVD has brought out some really great material like the Alien Quadrilogy, which had 2 cuts of each film. Ridley Scott's BLADERUNNER is another obvious choice for a famous debate over the 'theatrical' and 'director's cut, as is Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL, which is one of the best examples of how a studio completely butchered a film into an absolute mess, the 140-minute version is superior in all aspects and is more coherent. The 90-minute cut doesn't even make sense!

Most of the time, but not always, the directors cut is a bit more complete and gives further insight into things, like DONNIE DARKO (dir. cut) or even the extended versions of THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. While some people might be more interested in a quicker, more direct presentation of the film, i'd rather get all the details and if the extra material 'adds' to the film than I would like to see it, there are only a few examples of films that I felt worked better in the shorter version, APOLLO 13 comes to mind. There was a shorter IMAX version, which cut all the dull moments out of the film and made it far more engaging in my mind.

Competent directors should get the final cut in my mind with some minor supervision from the studio. Scorsese, Spielberg, and Coppola usually get their cut released.