Should the Oscar for Best Director go to the movie that wins Best Picture?

I know there are other people involved in making and finishing the movie but if the Director didn't do a great job, the movie wouldn't have gotten the Best Picture. And the Director has to be one of the main key people involved in the production.

So I always felt that Best Picture and Best Director should go hand in hand.

Nope - Director and Picture should always be separated! There is a big difference between the 'best movie of the year' and the 'best directing of the year'...

I don't care, this is a stupid question. I award you the Oscar for the most unnecessary threads in this subforum...

Goldie, you're killing me.

Ok, to my 2 friends who yesterday commented that my DGA thread wasn't needed and that turned out into a very interesting discussion piece. As it gave alot of discussion both before and after the award was announced

Anyway, this is just one question that I never agreed with or maybe understood so I would appreciate someone actually giving an answer as to why.

The Director seems to me to be the biggest person on the movie. Also do the director's like Eastwood and Scorcese have the editing and final cut votes on the movie. Aren't the director's the ones who decides on the final form of the movie. Then I still say that the Director and Best Picture go hand in hand.

No. Technically, the editor is the person who decides on the final form of the movie. Your argument is moot.

Give a Steve Spieldberg a crappy screenplay and see what he makes of it.

If anything best writing and best picture should go hand in hand (and that's not the case either).

( now you have an arguement for directing, writing, and editing. I could go on, and argue that on certain ocassions really good actors can elevate average material to something that's....much better than average)

To everyone, is the above always true or is Sommie's argument MOOT again.