Originally Posted by Elizadolots
Or...maybe they're going to pull a Jackson: release the movie in it's theatrical version, get us all to buy it and then, a year later, release the "extended" version we all wanted in the first place so we buy that too....
Except in the case of Peter Jackson, we knew in advance what we were getting. He even maintained that the 'preferred' cut of LOTR was what we saw in theaters (and I agree with him, although I still bought both versions. I miss the days when my job actually kept up with the cost of living).
I think it really all depends on the director. If he 'sees' the possibility for another edit of his film to exist, than maybe
it's worth the time/money to color-correct the spliced film, re-edit the music and add new effects. If not, we instead get raw video-assist captures of the material with time code stamped on them. Either way, I think most directors agree they had the material cut for a reason. Which is probably why the term 'director's cut' seems to have fallen out of favor.