> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.