3 ms·

Fan theories are fun but usually extrapolate far too much off of innocuous (and likely accidental) clues. Post production cuts are often out of the control of t

Fan theories are fun but usually extrapolate far too much off of innocuous (and likely accidental) clues. Post production cuts are often out of the control of the director entirely. If this was the intended meaning, it would have been far more explicit - Christopher Nolan isn't Edgar Allen Poe, he's making blockbuster movies meant for a general audience.

razodactyl 2y ago
Can't argue that it's not an interesting interpretation though... then again, pareidolia...
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  I mean honestly, to me, it isn't - Dreams foreshadowing future events is an extraordinarily common film and storytelling trope and much likelier is what was intended. Stuff like this: > “Then the dialogue, the words his kids speak, they sound so much like private thoughts that a person would have about a parent who suffered an untimely, accidental death.” This is actually explained by following along with the plot. To them, he was for all intents and purposes dead - he fast traveled many decades into the future where they didn't hear from him.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> Post production cuts are often out of the control of the director entirely. How accurate is this? I could see it for movies where the director doesn't have much sway with the studio... But I can imagine when you look at the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, The Coen Brothers, Spielberg, Wes Anderson and the like, they probably do have the sway with the studio to have "final cut" rights or at least approval.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  Cuts are done by the editor of the film, usually but not always in consultation with the director. Some directors also edit their films but that is the exception.
  - zoky 2y ago
    That is understating the facts by quite a bit. The editor will usually do an initial cut without the director, but once the director is involved in editing the two of them work very closely, often sitting in editorial together making the changes in real time. If the director asks the editor to make a change, there is basically no chance that the director won’t subsequently review and approve the change. The director’s cut may not necessarily be the final cut, particularly with newer directors, but for someone like Christopher Nolan it almost certainly is. So however the film was edited, it can be assumed that that is exactly how Nolan intended it to be.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      No, the whole reason "Director's Cuts" exists is that those represent the cut the director wanted, not the theatrical cut released by the studio (which is driven by the studio's or producer's wants). See, for example, Alien 3, Blade Runner, and Justice League for the most notorious/well-known examples. Lesser known examples include Aliens, The Abyss, Kingdom of Heaven, Doctor Sleep, Lethal Weapon, Dark City. Only a handful of directors at the big studios get the right to control the final cut. You'll notice the director responsible for 3 of the 4 highest-grossing movies of all time has 2 movies in that list; this is because James Cameron didn't earn the right to control final cut until after his 3rd blockbuster success. A few studios, like Netflix and A24, adhere to the "auteur's theory" of filmmaking, and let the director have full control over the creative process of the film, including the final cut, even without an established record of hits, but this is the exception, not the norm.
      - tedunangst 2y ago
        Cynically, the directors cut exists to drum up hype and resales. Hence Netflix now carrying the Snyder cut of rebel moon alongside the apparently sullied plebe cut.
      - zoky 2y ago
        > No, the whole reason "Director's Cuts" exists is that those represent the cut the director wanted, not the theatrical cut released by the studio (which is driven by the studio's or producer's wants). Again, this is a vast oversimplification. If there is a disagreement between the director and the studio, they will negotiate with each other about which changes to make. But the director is never cut completely out of the process. Even if the director doesn’t get final cut, the DGA guarantees that the director has a very high level of input and say into what the final cut looks like. If the studio tries to take creative control completely away from the director, the director can petition the DGA to have his or her name removed from the film. Getting back to your original statement: > Cuts are done by the editor of the film, usually but not always in consultation with the director. That is just incorrect. The director always is consulted during the edit, and in most cases works very closely with the editor. The studio may or may not insist on changes later, but there is just no universe where the editor makes changes alone with no input from the director at all. The DGA would have a fit if that happened.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If this was the intended meaning Directors will leave these sort of against-the-grain intepretations open for film buffs. One can similarly watch Dumbo, Encanto and Coraline as involving, past an early part of the movie, a character in the process of dying.
popalchemist 2y ago
Yes in general this is true, but not for Christopher Nolan. Everything is intentional and he has final cut on all of his films. Not saying this theory is true, but just that this particular argument against it doesn't hold water.
Rastonbury 2y ago
Have you seen Memento?

razodactyl 2y ago

Can't argue that it's not an interesting interpretation though... then again, pareidolia...

JohnMakin 2y ago
I mean honestly, to me, it isn't - Dreams foreshadowing future events is an extraordinarily common film and storytelling trope and much likelier is what was intended. Stuff like this: > “Then the dialogue, the words his kids speak, they sound so much like private thoughts that a person would have about a parent who suffered an untimely, accidental death.” This is actually explained by following along with the plot. To them, he was for all intents and purposes dead - he fast traveled many decades into the future where they didn't hear from him.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> Post production cuts are often out of the control of the director entirely. How accurate is this? I could see it for movies where the director doesn't have much sway with the studio... But I can imagine when you look at the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, The Coen Brothers, Spielberg, Wes Anderson and the like, they probably do have the sway with the studio to have "final cut" rights or at least approval.

gamblor956 2y ago
Cuts are done by the editor of the film, usually but not always in consultation with the director. Some directors also edit their films but that is the exception.
- zoky 2y ago
  That is understating the facts by quite a bit. The editor will usually do an initial cut without the director, but once the director is involved in editing the two of them work very closely, often sitting in editorial together making the changes in real time. If the director asks the editor to make a change, there is basically no chance that the director won’t subsequently review and approve the change. The director’s cut may not necessarily be the final cut, particularly with newer directors, but for someone like Christopher Nolan it almost certainly is. So however the film was edited, it can be assumed that that is exactly how Nolan intended it to be.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    No, the whole reason "Director's Cuts" exists is that those represent the cut the director wanted, not the theatrical cut released by the studio (which is driven by the studio's or producer's wants). See, for example, Alien 3, Blade Runner, and Justice League for the most notorious/well-known examples. Lesser known examples include Aliens, The Abyss, Kingdom of Heaven, Doctor Sleep, Lethal Weapon, Dark City. Only a handful of directors at the big studios get the right to control the final cut. You'll notice the director responsible for 3 of the 4 highest-grossing movies of all time has 2 movies in that list; this is because James Cameron didn't earn the right to control final cut until after his 3rd blockbuster success. A few studios, like Netflix and A24, adhere to the "auteur's theory" of filmmaking, and let the director have full control over the creative process of the film, including the final cut, even without an established record of hits, but this is the exception, not the norm.
    - tedunangst 2y ago
      Cynically, the directors cut exists to drum up hype and resales. Hence Netflix now carrying the Snyder cut of rebel moon alongside the apparently sullied plebe cut.
    - zoky 2y ago
      > No, the whole reason "Director's Cuts" exists is that those represent the cut the director wanted, not the theatrical cut released by the studio (which is driven by the studio's or producer's wants). Again, this is a vast oversimplification. If there is a disagreement between the director and the studio, they will negotiate with each other about which changes to make. But the director is never cut completely out of the process. Even if the director doesn’t get final cut, the DGA guarantees that the director has a very high level of input and say into what the final cut looks like. If the studio tries to take creative control completely away from the director, the director can petition the DGA to have his or her name removed from the film. Getting back to your original statement: > Cuts are done by the editor of the film, usually but not always in consultation with the director. That is just incorrect. The director always is consulted during the edit, and in most cases works very closely with the editor. The studio may or may not insist on changes later, but there is just no universe where the editor makes changes alone with no input from the director at all. The DGA would have a fit if that happened.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If this was the intended meaning Directors will leave these sort of against-the-grain intepretations open for film buffs. One can similarly watch Dumbo, Encanto and Coraline as involving, past an early part of the movie, a character in the process of dying.

popalchemist 2y ago

Yes in general this is true, but not for Christopher Nolan. Everything is intentional and he has final cut on all of his films. Not saying this theory is true, but just that this particular argument against it doesn't hold water.

Rastonbury 2y ago

Have you seen Memento?