http://creativeskillset.org/job_roles/758_director

What does a Director do?

Directors are responsible for creatively translating the film's written script into actual images and sounds on the screen. They are ultimately responsible for a film's artistic and commercial success or failure.

Directors may write the film's script or commission it to be written, or they may be hired after an early draft of the script is complete. They must then develop a vision for the finished film and work out how to achieve it.

During pre-production, Directors make crucial decisions, such as selecting the right cast, crew and locations for the film. They then direct rehearsals and the performances of the actors once the film is in production.

They also manage the technical aspects of filming including the camera, sound, lighting, design and special effects departments.

During post production, Directors work closely with Editors through the many technical processes of editing, to reach the final cut or version of the film.

At all stages, Directors are responsible for motivating the team to produce the best possible results. Directors must also always be aware of the constraints of the film's budget and schedule and manage the expectations of the film's financiers. 

How does this goes against anything I have said?

How does it go against what I said? Or are we just in a weird state of agreeing.

Ok it must be a problem of comunication or something here, the work of the director is not the same as the work from the art director which is basically what you were saying from the beggining, and no, the director is not a God, he is present in all parts of the process but that doesn't mean he has 100% of the final creative decisions or that he is responsable of the virtues of all the parts of the movies, is a team work and the director has to learn to negociate with their producers and key members.

They all collaborate on a vision, but what you see on screen if the final call of the director (as far as shots, the exacutives tend to have final say in the editing at times which sucks).

And that's not a little thing, some movies were completely ruined because of the executive decisions in the editing, Orson Welles always said Citizen Kane was the ONLY movie where he had real control, all the others were modified by someone else, not him.

Well yeah. But that's just the politics of business. The guy that puts up the money ultimately has final say, but that's not his job, it's more of a benefit of being rich. He owns the film so he can do what he wants. The producers job is to make sure the movie is done on time, under budget (if he can). 

Funny...because Sam Mendes already made the Nolan 007. It was called Skyfall.

Oh man...The Magnificent Ambersons. It causes me physical pain when I remember the movie's deleted footage, which was burned by the studio to save space. It's gone. Forever.

Too late! The last three bond films were far more dry and humorless than any of Nolans films, and they sucked to boot. I'd be happy to see a Nolan directed Bond movie at this point.