As far as I can see, the primary reason for trying to make a movie "better" after it's done is to make more money. When they re-issue a movie or do a new DVD, their sales pitch is, "expanded, with NEVER BEFORE SEEN SCENES. They expanded version is usuall two or three minutes longer and a real disaapointment if you even notice the difference. The re-released Close Encounters of the Third Kind with a "never before seen scene" of the INSIDE of the space ship. Big Whoop!, as my sons would say. They re-issued Blade Runner (one of my favorite movies) eliminating the voice over in the opening credits (which supposedly bothered people terribly) and added one scene suggesting that the Harrison Ford character was a replicant. A scene that must have run all of 45 seconds. I have a video of the original version and a DVD of the "Director's Cut" and it's no big deal to me. Eliminating a minute of voice over and adding a cryptic 45 second scene.

The Director's Cut is another marketing ploy to a great extent (I Think.) In most cases, it makes the movie longer... sometimes a LOT longer, and may clarify a point or two. Some movies would be better if the Director went back and re-edited the film, taking out superfluous scenes that were his personal favorites. Very few movies these days are too short.

Jerry