Now, this was a rather contentious point. In fact, it still is. The previs reviews bring in a number of changes to the edit, where the editor isn’t even present. As an editor, you become used to people making changes to the shots that you’ve selected – even not being present at the decision and therefore not being able to argue your case is something you have to live with on occasion. But this involves entire sequences being shaped away from the department. And is, understandably, somewhat frustrating.

I’m in a rather unique position on it all. I sympathise entirely with the editor’s wish to be the one in control of these decisions. But from the previs perspective, the sequences need to be viewable at our reviews with the director. It was one of the reasons I was hired in the first place – to be able to tidy up sequences and show the director different possibilities within reviews without the entire thing having to go into the main edit suite and involve about twice as many people. But with the massively hectic schedule we have, the added complications of dialogue selects coming back on a near-daily basis, sequences being updated in edit with incoming shots and newly recorded/approved dialogue whilst they’re being updated in previs to solve issues with sets, models, actions…. well, it’s impossible to request the editor to attend all of our reviews, and impractical for previs notes to be given within edit reviews when there are so many feedback sessions required per sequence before they’re approved.

The upshot of it all is that our approval workflow is changing on a monthly basis, as we sort out what’s working and what isn’t for our relative departments as well as the overall production. The meetings are vastly interesting as we all get to say what would work best for us, and then hear what that would imply for the others further down the line. It’s a masterclass in communication and adaptation. And it’s actually pretty damn enjoyable.

Then a FoxNews columnist reviews the film in its non-finished form with incomplete VFX and sound (link to article on WorstPreviews). Possibly with the best of intentions – he says in the article (which has since been removed from the FoxNews site) that 20th Century Fox should have no concerns over the leak because the film is so good.

But within that, he’s endorsing the series of events which led to him being able to see it. Not only that, he’s significantly denying the contribution that possibly hundreds of VFX artists whose work had yet to go into a full cut of the film. He’s denying the impact that a full sound tracklay and mix will have on the film.  And he’s saying that it’s fine for people to go out and download films before they’ve even opened.

Now whatever your views on current definitions of piracy (there are certainly business lessons to be learnt from how the release of media can encourage purchases once a passion for a product has been built), this is a very bad thing to start legitimising. A lot of people who’ve worked in a very creative capacity (directors, cinematographers, editors, actors) on a film can be very insecure about the part they’ve played and will try to minimise the number of people who’ll see it before a certain stage. Endorsing leaks would take that decision out of their hands and invite judgement before the product looks anything like it would otherwise have ended up as, and may even influence the rest of the post-production process and distribution. The ‘released’ version would doubtless be compared to the leaked version(s) without any understanding of the processes which took them from A to B to C.

Of course there are test screenings. Of course films change massively from script to production to edit.  But these are all controlled by a much much smaller number of people. Whether these people are the best people for the film is often a subject of debate amongst the fans…. but any editor will tell you how having more than a couple of key decision makers commenting on a cut can often lead to as many different opinions as there are people in the room. Imagine that multiplied on a global level. Not only is there never a way to please everyone, but any film which aspires to do so will often lead to utter blandness on screen.

So let us hope that this doesn’t become a trend. News sites indicate that the FBI is following the trail in an attempt to catch the origin of the Wolverine leak, and whoever did it is certain to never work in the film industry again.  And if nothing else, the rest of us have been reminded that once out, these things can spread really quickly – irrespective of any original intention.