Jump to content

Director and composer relationship / Music in the final edit of the movie


mxsch

Recommended Posts

Who have a final word for the final edit of music in the movies?

Director, composer or editor?

And why some movies have their scores butchered to death, replaced and e.t.c.

For example, I can't understand why Kershner decided to omit some music in the Empire Strikes Back, maybe for suspense and stuff like that but c'mon Williams score is fucking perfect.

I also want to salute Williams and every other composer who can write such music in those tight schedules, it is pretty much genius.

Star Wars is definitely have no rivals in terms of thematic complexity, maybe LOTR and HTTYD, but they are still not on the same level, IMHO

And it's sad that there are so little amount of movies released with their scores isolated on separate audio track, I wish there was more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, same as most parts of the filmmaking process. Just because someone contributes something amazing—a shot, a costume, a line, an effect, a whole scene, a musical cue, whatever—doesn't mean the director is obligated to keep it in if it doesn't support the film as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mxsch said:

And if composer is absolutely against director's decision, it is still will be done?

 

The director is the be-all-end-all of the entire project. What they say goes, no matter what. They are 100% in control of the film. Think of them like a manager/CEO and the composers/actors/editors, etc. as employees.

 

As for why some scores are butchered, well that just comes down to the director preferring the music to be edited in that way, as unfortunate as it might be for the composer and us.

 

Some directors just clearly are not musicians. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

The composer director is the be-all-end-all of the entire project. What they say goes, no matter what. They are 100% in control of the film. Think of them like a manager/CEO and the composers/actors/editors, etc. as employees.

I think you meant director, even though the producers are the ones who actually have the final word on the film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, May the Force be with You said:

I think you meant director, even though the producers are the ones who actually have the final word on the film

I read thru it too fast to catch a mistake and wasn’t sure why you corrected him:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

 

The composer is the be-all-end-all of the entire project. What they say goes, no matter what. They are 100% in control of the film. Think of them like a manager/CEO

 

I thought this was going to be a sarcastic or troll post 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mxsch said:

And if composer is absolutely against director's decision, it is still will be done?

 

Very probably, and the composer will probably have a hard time finding another job on a film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's either the director or the producer, never the composer. Some Directors have "final cut" rights in their contracts, which allow them to have final saying on their movie. In other cases they only have the "first cut" and the producers decide on further tampering with the movie, manage the scoring process etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bounty95 said:

I thought this was going to be a sarcastic or troll post 

 

Nope, legit typo this time! :lol:

 

12 hours ago, May the Force be with You said:

I think you meant director, even though the producers are the ones who actually have the final word on the film

 

Yep, late night typo :lol:

 

I wanted to kind of simplify it for him, but as for my analogy I'd probably adjust it to Producers/Studio heads = the CEO, Director is the manager, and the composer is like a (maybe high-ranking) employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bayesian said:

I was under the impression that directors often have final say over a film but that that privilege was given at the studio’s pleasure. I’m other words, a director could always be overruled by the exec producer or the film’s main producer. 
 

I suppose it’s fair to ask why director’s cuts of films are even a thing if the director always has final say.

 

Yep I made that correction in my previous post (or rather a clarification) Some directors have "final cut", whereas some do not and instead the studio does. Depends on the film/director/studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bayesian said:

I was under the impression that directors often have final say over a film but that that privilege was given at the studio’s pleasure. I’m other words, a director could always be overruled by the exec producer or the film’s main producer. 

The reason for that is because the studio/exec producer/film's main producer paid for the cost of the film's entire production budget, so that makes it their movie which includes the decision to remove a music score from their film if they don't like it.

However if they feel that the director's artist ability can deliver a film that would make the money back--plus profit, then they will give that director the final cut. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2022 at 3:31 AM, mxsch said:

And if composer is absolutely against director's decision, it is still will be done?

 

19 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Very probably, and the composer will probably have a hard time finding another job on a film.

 

TORN CURTAIN

M'lud, the case for the prosecution rests 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.