I keep hearing about how a film had to be cut down from what the director wanted because of studio interference or the producers interfering, as it was put.
But why is this always a bad thing? Sometimes maybe the producer might be able to judge a movie for it's audience more objectively, as the director may be too close to the material, which isn't always a good thing, is it?
There are times when I have liked the director's cut better than the theatrical cut. But there are movies where I have seen the director's cuts released later, and I will think it's actually not as good as the theatrical cut.
So I think that studio interference is certainly not as bad as many times as the stigma has made it out to be. What do you think out of curiosity?
But why is this always a bad thing? Sometimes maybe the producer might be able to judge a movie for it's audience more objectively, as the director may be too close to the material, which isn't always a good thing, is it?
There are times when I have liked the director's cut better than the theatrical cut. But there are movies where I have seen the director's cuts released later, and I will think it's actually not as good as the theatrical cut.
So I think that studio interference is certainly not as bad as many times as the stigma has made it out to be. What do you think out of curiosity?