It varies!

The theatrical version is generally dumbed down to the random Paultard level (simplied plot and cheap thrills), but what can you do.


Actually, I know what to do.
Give most Hollywood flicks a wide pass.

 

-----signature-----

I think the director's cut of Fellowship was better. Two Towers was about the same. Return of the King was worse. Directors cut of Blade Runner was different, but, I liked both versions. I like the theatrical release version of Apocalypse Now better than the extended version. I haven't seen the original version of Leon, The Professional, but, I understand that Matilda comes on sexually to Leon a lot more than she does in the American release version. Sounds kind of icky. I think Dune also had an extended version that was thought to be a good thing. The original was definitely hard to follow. Not sure if I've seen the longer version. I've also heard that the extended version of Kingdom of Heaven is very good, but, the theatrical version was so bad I haven't the interest to see the extended version.

 

-----signature-----

I'm a member of the cult of the director, so I always prefer the directors cut.

 

-----signature-----

Neither cut is as good as the book.

 

-----signature-----

When I can watch a movie at home then I can watch it at my own pace. Make breaks when I want to, even fast forward or skip sections. Similar to reading a book. When I watch it at a theater then I'm usually forced to go through the whole thing from beginning to end. So it mustn't be too long, it has to be paced appropriately and the story arc must fit the expectations of many people at the same time.

You can't really compare those two cuts and conclude one is generally better than the other. They are of different categories.

 

-----signature-----