By skyforbes My most controversial take is that the theatrical cuts of The Lord of the Rings trilogy are vastly superior to the Extended Editions. Maybe it's just because I watched the Theatrical Versions countless times growing up, but any time I watch the Extended Editions, I find myself taken out by the differences. The edits from the Theatrical Versions stick out like a sore thumb. They aren't bad by any means, but the pacing of the Theatrical Versions is much tighter, which is crucial for such long movies. The Theatrical Version of Fellowship of the Ring is literally a perfect film. Not an ounce of fat on there. Even Peter Jackson prefers the Theatrical Editions and says he put the Extended Editions together for the most hardcore fans.
Another is Step Brothers. One of my favorites comedies that I feel really gets hampered by its Director's Cut. The pacing grinds to a halt and the jokes don't really land. The theatrical cut is much tighter. It's crazy how much of a difference a few minutes makes.
Spider Man 2.1 is also vastly inferior to the theatrical version. I've seen people praise it as the "definitive edition" of the film, and I don't understand why. A briskly paced and perfectly edited film that is elongated for no good reason. The added scenes were unnecessary and didn't add anything to the story or what it was saying.
A lot of the time, the Theatrical Cut is what the director intended to be seen by everyone. What are your examples of a Theatrical Cut that is the superior version?
*EDIT: I would say the most essential Director’s Cut is the Extended Edition of Once Upon A Time In America. At 251 minutes, it isn’t even Leone’s full vision, but it’s the closest we’ll ever get. It completes the story as much as it can.