This whole debate makes no sense to me, because it assumes that the director is the one in charge of the final product. In the case of Star Wars, that's accurate. But look at the Superman movies: clearly, the producers ran the show on those, and basically had total creative control once they fired Richard Donner. Almost all of the things that happened to Superman II after Donner's firing - jettisoning all the Marlon Brando scenes, reshooting footage to play up the comedic angles, inserting stupid gags in the climactic fight - were ordered by the producers, not the replacement director. So what's the moral imperative of watching the theatrical Superman II first, since it bears little resemblance to the creative vision of the director?

I mention Superman II because it's the perfect example of a creative vision being torn to shreds by bean-counters. That the film even works at all is a testament to how strong the material really was. But the sad reality is that there is no "definitive" version of Superman II. Instead, we have two competing, incomplete documents, with two different directors editing and revising each other's footage. The Donner Cut, especially, treats Lester's footage like the fanedits treat SW prequel footage - by tiptoeing around the goofy crap and trying to isolate the dramatic core. But it's not all in Donner's favor - there are many moments when Lester's editing, or reshoots, or usage of different takes, works quite a bit better. The ideal "final cut" would be a savvier blend of the different footage, without regard to director's egos, producer's insecurities, or an unwillingness to pay certain actors. But this "final cut" has not been provided - who will provide it, if not the fanedits? (please note that I have yet to encounter a fanedit that actually does a good job of this, but I know it is possible).