> 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

> 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 They absolutely do. It doesn’t matter whether the director has “complete creative control” or not. If the DGA is convinced that creative control has been taken away from the director, then–and only then–will they permit the director to have his or her name removed from the film, and have the film credited to a pseudonym. The original name used was Alan Smithee, but nowadays a new alias is invented for each film where this happens. > get themselves hired as editor on the film they direct (which would also involve them being a producer) It’s strange how you think this is somehow a means for a director to exert complete creative control, when at least one of the examples (Doctor Sleep) you gave as a film where the director was not given creative control and thus necessitated a “director’s cut” was, in fact, edited by the director. Look, I’m not claiming to be any sort of authority on this or anything, but my nearly two decades of experience working in features and television editorial, including working on and for some of the films and studios you’ve mentioned, tell me that you fundamentally don’t understand how the editing process works vis-à-vis directors.