Hi there, I’ve seen your post on the DWD screening and since I’ve been working in film production for more than a decade I thought I’d help clear some things up. So, you’re correct in saying that picture lock is the stage right before color and mix, which are the last things that happen before a film is delivered (along with GFX and credits being added). In order to get to picture lock, the film needs to be approved by a number of people (execs mostly, but it depends). When the director and editor are ready, they screen what is called a “fine cut”, which is basically the film according to them, with structure, pacing and music in place (the latter as much as possible). In most medium to high level productions, there are assistant editors who do a pass at grading and pre-mixing, so that the film is presentable without having been through actual color and mix, which are expensive and only happen at the very end, once everyone’s approved the cut. In other words, yes, it is VERY plausible that they would screen a film to test audiences before picture lock - it would make very little sense to do that after, unless some major issues arise that would warrant reopening the edit. But that’s rare and usually really really bad. So I think it’s absolutely possible that the screening was for DWD, and based on the gossip we got from set it would make a lot of sense for the studio to test it with audiences, especially if, as it seems, the story is pretty confusing. I just want to add that it is INSANE to me that the director of a film that’s in edit would take a two week vacation right in the middle of the editing process. It’s basically unheard of, especially for someone with so little experience. She should be spending time with the editor and be available to them, no matter what their process is (and it can vary a lot). The fact that she was on a completely different time zone for so long tells me that she has completely checked out of the process. If I were the producer, I’d be livid - unless, of course, I knew that she’s much more valuable to the movie on a yacht pretending to make out with the lead actor than she is in the editing room, crafting the actual film. Anyways - rant over. Hope this helps, happy to clear up any other question.
Hi dear,
Thank you so much for this added info! Highly appreciated! So as I understand what you said, it's common to test a movie when picture lock is close to being done in a "fine cut" version of the movie with some music and coloring tweaks, but no special effects or the fine detail editing/color grading that we see in the final version. So it's basically the closest they can get the movie at that stage to what they hope the final stage will look like, but with enough room for changes/editing.
So for example, if a scene has actors attached to wires etc, or requires special effects, that would not be fully edited in the way we see in the final version, correct? It'd be a rough cut of that? Or some scenes would be more done than others?
In regards to Olivia, it really does look like her involvement in the editing process is very minimal and someone else is overseeing the day-today decisions then she just looks at more broad editing decisions? It's hard to imagine coordinating all that work when London is 8 hours ahead of LA - that's an entire working day, meaning the LA team would have to wait extra days to get notes and direction back and vice-versa. Is that a fair assessment? Let's hope whoever is doing the work is credited accordingly then.
Note: in relation to this post
