Originally Posted by 8mile13
Most directors are hired to do a job, being flexible to do, at least partially, what other people, representatives of investors, tell them to do. What is considered to be director's/extended cut are often left overs thrown in to make a extra buck. Those few directors who have a great deal of control, Kubrick being the best example, offer the directors cut from day one. Or am i wrong?
The Director's Cut is most often the story the way the director wanted to present it, rather than with cuts imposed by studio hacks or others, and in some cases featuring effects they couldn't quite get right.
The director is the person who takes the story from the script to the screen, and I want to see their
vision, not the compromised studio version where the studio told them to cut say fifteen minutes so they could get more screenings a day in.
Very few directors have the clout to present what they want; even Spielberg couldn't present a true Director's Cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind
for decades after its release because, frankly, it takes time, effort and big $$$$.
You can see this most notably in films by David Fincher; as an example, the audio time passage sequence behind a black screen in Zodiac
, but the studio forced him to remove it.