I don't understand how studio interference works with movies.

Basically I will watch a movie and then find out later, that there was a much longer and better version of that movie that was intended, but the studio producers will then cut it down much shorter, and perhaps remove a lot of depth of the story in the process.

For example, I read that the movie The Crow: City of Angels was originally 160 minutes long, but then when producer Harvey Weinstein saw, it, he demanded that it cut down to around 90 minutes and they ended up having to reshoot a good portion of it, just to tie scenes together, cause they had to change a lot of the plot around to fit 90 minutes, since they were taking a lot out.

I've heard of this happening on other movies as well, where the producer will see the director's cut, and then say no, and then cut a lot out and also reshoot parts. But what I don't get is, why don't the director and producer just work together from the beginning, and come up with a movie they both want to make and do it together from the start, so there are no hidden surprises at the end, that result in having to reshoot new material, which costs more money.

Don't the producers hate having to increase the budget on reshoots, when it's already done, and they allowed the director to do something they didn't like? I was just curious. What do you think?

It was either, cut the film down, or have sex with Weinstein I mean which would you choose

Seriously, if the producer is funding the film it's his or her call as to how long the film will be.

I think the more important questions is: why don't directors just shoot the shorter length if that's what the producer wants? And if they can't abide by the producers wishes which usually are spelled out in a legal contract, why take on the directing job in the first place.

When egos collide.

Most of the time the suits in the office think they know better than the director.
Quite often it's true. I mean, look at the quality between the Star Wars prequels, and the original trilogy.
Lucas was reigned in by his missus on the originals... and there were other directors for Empire and Jedi.
Lucas basically had total free reign on the prequels... and look how they turned out.


José Padhila is a good example. He's made some revered movies and he's a talented director... then, along came RoboCop (2014). From what I can gather, he made a half-decent movie, and then the studio interfered and cocked it all up, because they thought they knew better than someone who actually knows what they were doing.
The studio's movie was garbage.
Padhila got blamed.
Since then, in the 4 years since RoboCop, he's made one movie, just one, and it went completely under the radar.


The problem today, is there's a lack of talent in the movie industry... which also means the producers and the suits in the offices are also lacking in any kind of vision/talent/brains.


Everyone thinks they can do everything, yet, they just can't.


So, thinking of the ticket sales, the money, the bottom line... the talentless suits who are worried about a possible loss of earnings, simply go ahead and undermine genuinely talented people by changing their work.
What happens then is the director's name gets tainted because the movie that has their name on it, completely sucks.

__________________

Addition:


Alien 3 is another, famous example of studio interference.
Again, it was the suits who thought they knew better. They thought they could direct, when they can't.


What the studio wanted, was a Yes-Man.
The producers/suits, had a very clear idea of what movie they wanted.
So, they hire a director, the director has a vision that is different, so they fire him... and hire someone else, hoping this time it'll be a Yes-Man.
The Alien 3 production did this about 5 times before they found Fincher.
Fincher was new to the industry, so basically he had to be a Yes-Man, or he'd be out of a job.


Studios/suits... they have a pre-set idea of what they want to film to be... but, they have no skills in actual directing... so they try to hire Yes-Men to bring their ideas to life.
Also, the suits have zero talent when it comes to vision... so their vision is also a load of cack.
When that director turns out to be a genuinely talented and individual, the studio either fires them, or edits their work so it matches their crappy talentless vision.

Even if they work together from the beginning, that doesn't preclude creative differences during the process. Also, you don't always know if something works until you see the end result. So, for example, a producer and a director might not see eye-to-eye during production, but maybe the producer lets them assemble their preferred cut and they override their choice only when they see it come together. Or maybe they're on the same page, but when they see the result, one of them feels differently after. Stuff like that.

It's really the same as any collaborative effort: even if you take steps to talk about it beforehand and talk about it throughout, the possibility for disagreements to crop up (or linger during and come to a head later) is always there.

Yeah I guess, I just thought the producer would want to keep better tabs on the director, to make sure the director doesn't make something completely different. Also why is that Weinstein has a problem with The Crow: City of Angels being two and a half hours longs, but he has no problem with The English Patient being an even longer movie, and he gave that one the okay?

That's easy to guess. The English Patient is aimed at an older audience that will except a longer slower movie. While The Crow: City of Angels is aimed at younger people who want faster, shorter films with more action.

I think films can change so much in the editing process that this kind of thing happens even if they "keep tabs" on them. And, as I mentioned, they might be totally fine with the direction and not see problems with it until they see a finished product.

I'd also imagine some producers are wary of being seen as difficult to work with. They're all still people and creative collaborations mean personalities matter, so they're not robots just game theory-ing this out. Ordering someone to do something is probably a last resort. People are already sensitive to the intersection of art and commerce, so stories about a producer overruling a director can spread bad word of mouth about a film.

How is it if a producer overrules a director that it's a bad mouth word? The producer is the boss, so why does the boss not get some sort of final say? Plus usually the director and editor will work together in the editing process, and the producer doesn't seem to be keeping a lot of tabs on them and then as a result, might be disappointed by the final product. So if this is true, why doesn't the producer and editor work together, and the director can be the one keeping the occasional tabs on what's going on?

Money!