4 ms·

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 excepti

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.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      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. There are a lot of directors who would disagree with you on that... Disney is notorious for this; off the top of my head, Ant Man, Rogue One, Solo, and Brave changed directors because of disagreements with the studio in post-production. With the Marvels, it is widely known that the director did not have final cut of the film. Bryan Singer and Steven Soderbergh have been replaced on movies due to disagreements with studios after filming had started (and in both cases, the films at issue went on to be multiple-Oscar nominees). Cary Joji Fukunaga was replaced on It due to disagreements with the studio (but retained writing credit) right before filming started; and he replaced Danny Boyle on No Time to Die after Boyle was let go due to disagreements with the studio. 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. 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. This is just incorrect. Indeed, what you suggest is at odds with over a 100 years of film history... The DGA does not have a fit over stuff like this because a director is not entitled to "complete creative control" or to "final cut" unless they negotiate for it, get themselves hired as editor on the film they direct (which would also involve them being a producer), or work with a studio that embraces the auteur school of filmmaking (in which the released film represents the director's vision of the film). It's one thing to support the auteur school since it usually results in better films (counterpoint: most Netflix films), but it is objectively not the way most films are made.

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.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    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. There are a lot of directors who would disagree with you on that... Disney is notorious for this; off the top of my head, Ant Man, Rogue One, Solo, and Brave changed directors because of disagreements with the studio in post-production. With the Marvels, it is widely known that the director did not have final cut of the film. Bryan Singer and Steven Soderbergh have been replaced on movies due to disagreements with studios after filming had started (and in both cases, the films at issue went on to be multiple-Oscar nominees). Cary Joji Fukunaga was replaced on It due to disagreements with the studio (but retained writing credit) right before filming started; and he replaced Danny Boyle on No Time to Die after Boyle was let go due to disagreements with the studio. 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. 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. This is just incorrect. Indeed, what you suggest is at odds with over a 100 years of film history... The DGA does not have a fit over stuff like this because a director is not entitled to "complete creative control" or to "final cut" unless they negotiate for it, get themselves hired as editor on the film they direct (which would also involve them being a producer), or work with a studio that embraces the auteur school of filmmaking (in which the released film represents the director's vision of the film). It's one thing to support the auteur school since it usually results in better films (counterpoint: most Netflix films), but it is objectively not the way most films are made.