I think it's kind of strange to release a "director's cut" without first giving audiences the chance to buy the movie they saw in the theatre and loved. Perhaps the thought was it was a "valued added" (god, how I hate that phrase) approach. Still, I'm not always convinced the director's cut IS the definitive version - what the hell is the editor's role then? Like music, cinema is a lot about pacing isn't it? Plus, it just throws off viewers memories of an experience they've had (and it's always most profound the first time, if you weren't day dreaming, that is). I know I'm in the minority (or at least I am among my friends) but I liked Blade Runner WITH the narration rather than the director's cut without it. Maybe I had just gotten used to seeing it that way and the missing voice over bothered me, but that was always one case of me NOT prefering the director's cut. But I would be curious to see what was adding to LOTR, I enjoyed it the movie. I tried reading the books again after seeing the movie, but I abandoned them for the second time in my life. I had tried reading it once before when I was 12, but I found them tedious - whereas I read The Hobbit twice (same characters and literary concept, but a complete tale in one volume. I was always more interested in Sci-Fi than sword and scocery, anway). Thirty years later, I still found them tedious. I heard my classics professor's voice ringing in my head, shades of Sir Gawain and Beowulf.