To be a Director ...

[Elsie N]

well, I mentioned the technical vs. organic side of it, so not sure why u seem to be under the impression of me just pointing out to the technical aspect of it... (?)

if the last sentence with F1 did not communicate well with u, then take any of the other analogies. A script is usually also revised by a few other peeps, the fact remains that none of the engineers drive the car and the driver does not engineer anything. Clearly, they communicate heavily.

ur last sentence is just weird... u seem to be implying that I was implying screenwriting is just "writing the lines"... I was referring to that a screenwriter writes the very lines that a director directs on a given talent. Obviously there's much more going on in a screenplay then just dialogue.

But - having said that - dialogue is by far one of the most important aspects of a script, and if u think it's "just lines" and any of these directors can write these "just lines" then u are massively naive... people like Sorkin are very, very rare. Whether u like his dialogue driven pieces or not is a different discussion.

Overall, naturally I agree with you that the lines of tasks and positions are blurred/bleed over pretty much everywhere in production. And as I stated, I think the more any single individual on set knows about the entire production process the better. Especially the director. You should try to be a master of everything.

But as countless examples have shown, u don't need to be a "master in screenwriting" to be a great director. Script breakdown and script analysis are separate tickets that any director needs to learn.

I have 2 admit eye interpreted ur statements the same way... that the script is just lines for a director 2 pretty much adhere 2. Maybe that's what they teach in some film schools?

As for ur harkening back 2 the statement that u don't need 2 b a "master in screenwriting" 2 b a gr8 director that was explained and settled in posts long ago,

 

[Mike Nagel]

I have 2 admit eye interpreted ur statements the same way... that the script is just lines for a director 2 pretty much adhere 2. Maybe that's what they teach in some film schools?

As for ur harkening back 2 the statement that u don't need 2 b a "master in screenwriting" 2 b a gr8 director that was explained and settled in posts long ago,

just go out shoot a movie... shooting an establishing shot of the scenery - as outlined in the script - with nobody in it is way less challenging than shooting a highly dramatic and emotional fight scene between a couple - all in the very same script...

that is where the meat is. The dialogue is what separates great writers from good writers.

It is one thing to write something, it is a whole other animal to then execute that scene with talent that in a lot of productions were not first choice (of the director) but ended up one way or another in the flick.

By default, the writer writes. The film director directs that script.

Now Elsie, instead of trying to be 30 years younger and cool by copying some abbreviations u learned from ur grandson why don't u rather post some pics of the VV 8K... ;-))))) or were u still not allocated ?!?

That camera though won't make ur script better !!! That is something this thread should state !!!

Not some copycat lost in translation Kurosawa misquote.


As a writer or director, u need to be a master of storytelling. Independent of the medium being used.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

well, I mentioned the technical vs. organic side of it, so not sure why u seem to be under the impression of me just pointing out to the technical aspect of it... (?)

Because you keep banging on about the technical stuff with little to no regard for the intent of the quote which you called "BS". Technically speaking your posts have validity but they point towards the sort of Director who holds no value towards story not a great director like Kurosawa or Hitchcock.

ur last sentence is just weird... u seem to be implying that I was implying screenwriting is just "writing the lines"... I was referring to that a screenwriter writes the very lines that a director directs on a given talent. Obviously there's much more going on in a screenplay then just dialogue.

But - having said that - dialogue is by far one of the most important aspects of a script, and if u think it's "just lines" and any of these directors can write these "just lines" then u are massively naive... people like Sorkin are very, very rare. Whether u like his dialogue driven pieces or not is a different discussion.

It was your words not mine and here you sort of confirm the sentiment by sating that "dialogue is by far one of the most important aspects of a script" in actuality it isn't in fact it's quite possibly one of the least important parts of the screenplay. Aaron Sorkin may be known for his Dialogue but it's not what makes him a great writer. Aaron Sorkin himself will say everything he writes is based on intention and obstacle. The dialogue is just dressing for the underlying story where an understanding of Story structure is essential and if you want to be a director it's important to have at least a rudimentary understanding of this. In my first comment here I noted that there was a brief time where I didn't think of myself as capable of screenwriting but even at this stage I had a good understanding of the theory behind it.

Overall, naturally I agree with you that the lines of tasks and positions are blurred/bleed over pretty much everywhere in production. And as I stated, I think the more any single individual on set knows about the entire production process the better. Especially the director. You should try to be a master of everything.

But as countless examples have shown, u don't need to be a "master in screenwriting" to be a great director. Script breakdown and script analysis are separate tickets that any director needs to learn.

My point has nothing to do with blaring of tasks, it's that the skills required of a great director are also those which are required of a great screenwriter. If you want to be pedantic and say it's not necessary to even to so much as know how to read to be a director that's fine but It's not really representative of what Kurosawa was likely trying to say with his quote and if you look at the whole paragraph that it comes from you'll see that. I'll try and avoid the F1 thing because I watch F1 and that could get off topic real quick however I will say this though, most engineers will have had a go in the simulator and have at least some idea of how to drive the car.

 

[Mike Nagel]

It was your words not mine and here you sort of confirm the sentiment by sating that "dialogue is by far one of the most important aspects of a script" in actuality it isn't in fact it's quite possibly one of the least important parts of the screenplay.

man, I could not disagree more. I can only assume Shakespeare got his reputation for his storylines... ;-)))

I'll try and avoid the F1 thing because I watch F1 and that could get off topic real quick however I will say this though, most engineers will have had a go in the simulator and have at least some idea of how to drive the car.

The F1 thingy is complex. I know peeps in F1, I've sat in a 2 seater. I know first hand peeps who drive F1 cars. The engineers would kill themselves if they tried. G-force...............

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

man, I could not disagree more. I can only assume Shakespeare got his reputation for his storylines... ;-)))


The F1 thingy is complex. I know peeps in F1, I've sat in a 2 seater. I know first hand peeps who drive F1 cars. The engineers would kill themselves if they tried. G-force...............

All I'm getting from this is that you don't really know anything about writing if you think Shakespeare is just about the dialogue and you don't really know anything about F1 either.

 

[Elsie N]

just go out shoot a movie... shooting an establishing shot of the scenery - as outlined in the script - with nobody in it is way less challenging than shooting a highly dramatic and emotional fight scene between a couple - all in the very same script...

that is where the meat is. The dialogue is what separates great writers from good writers.

It is one thing to write something, it is a whole other animal to then execute that scene with talent that in a lot of productions were not first choice (of the director) but ended up one way or another in the flick.

By default, the writer writes. The film director directs that script.

Now Elsie, instead of trying to be 30 years younger and cool by copying some abbreviations u learned from ur grandson why don't u rather post some pics of the VV 8K... ;-))))) or were u still not allocated ?!?

That camera though won't make ur script better !!! That is something this thread should state !!!

Not some copycat lost in translation Kurosawa misquote.


As a writer or director, u need to be a master of storytelling. Independent of the medium being used.

That was cold Mike... really, really cold. :crying:

'-)

As to your point about the camera not making a script better, your right. But it will make edit and post easier and better. But that generally is out of the purview of the Director/writer debate.

 

[Ben Scott]

The article does mention they didn't opt for the credit. They have their own reasons.

You're right, a nod in the awards is not a guarantee the film is great, at least in a test-of-time perspective. It may have been considered the best film of that particular year, but not really great with all things considered. I am sure some (all) of us can think of a film/s that were not even nominated that should have been. Or films that were nominated that should have won. 'Far From Heaven' (released 2002/Award season 2003) comes to mind, for me. Opinion, obviously. I personally am not a fan of James Cameron's work. I appreciate the work and talent and vision that went into his films, I just can't sit through them.


On the flip side of creits, there are also those who consider them pure gold. Some, with their morals on the fense, will scoop them up, fully earned or not. Credit harvesting I call it. Don't believe everything listed on IMDB - not their fault in my opinion. The sheer amount of information would be impossible to validate.

Nominations come off the back of huge marketing campaigns ergo more money = more nominations.

I couldn't care less about credits. I think I have 2 on IMDB both for short films as opposed to the countless things I have done.

In 2016 we need to move away from the idea of sole authorship and more towards respecting the collaborations between talented peoples. Yes there is a hierarchy and yes some people have final say over certain things, but the whole thing falls down without everyone bringing their A game. A gaffer could be just as important to a movie as a screenplay writer. And vice versa.

 

[Elsie N]

Before shutting down for sleep, I just want to say that the disagreement here seems to be between the established job title of director, which many do practice within historic limitations as well as some who have taken it upon themselves to expand their method of operation.

On the other hand you have the Holistic movie maker, as I like to refer to us, who don't really recognize job titles except in the credits... to be decided who gets what credit after the movie is made.

In the end, it's all about content.

 

[Mike Nagel]

All I'm getting from this is that you don't really know anything about writing if you think Shakespeare is just about the dialogue and you don't really know anything about F1 either.

don't worry about the F1 thing... it distracts and Newey driving with 50mph around means nothing. U need to drive at the limit, which is what all real drivers do. including all test drivers. drive in a 2 seater as a passenger which has slower pace and then we'll talk.

regarding dialogue, the nicest thing I can say is that u need - for once - try to stand in front of a camera and try to deliver truthfully and organic (as the actor) absolute shit ass lines... and then please repeat ur thinking about how dialogue is the least important thing in a script.... ;-)))))) hahahahahaaaa

That is just massively wrong. Have u ever shot a scripted dramatic piece ?!?

Sorkin is on-set and demands that every single word is delivered as written. EVERY SINGLE WORD. Sure yeah, because dialogue is not important... dialogue is the vehicle that drives the story forward, most importantly character development and arcs... even in silent movies they freaking blended in cards with DIALOGUE.

Who is on the movie poster ? The actor. Who sells ur movie ? The actor. Who is the face of the movie ? The actor.

What does an actor do ? Deliver lines of dialogue.

I guess by your logic, soap operas have a really good reputation... ;-)))))))


Any actor will show very, very appreciative of scripts that have great dialogue. What is being mentioned in all best actor award speeches at the globes / emmys ? The thanks to the writers for the lines.

U know that SAG/Aftra classifies actor's status by amount of lines, under 5 etc.... I guess yeah dialogue is really unimportant.

Man, u seem to drastically under appreciate and under value the work of the screenwriter. it seems for u, the screenwriter is just the secretary of the director that writes merely down what the director wants... because it's all so easy..... sure yeah and the director is just as good as a writer as the screenwriter... he just doesn't have the time to write it down.... sure... dialogue ?! overvalued !!! ;-)))) hahahahaaaaaa


I wonder why literally everybody in Hollywood is chasing great scripts if it's all so easy... dialogue ? No, nobody talks here. just fart, same thing !

 

[Mike Nagel]

On the other hand you have the Holistic movie maker, as I like to refer to us, who don't really recognize job titles except in the credits... to be decided who gets what credit after the movie is made.

In the end, it's all about content.

IMO, it's a clear advantage to be writer & director of the project as the execution of the vision is exactly what was originally intended !

And also, one party less to argue with ! ;-)

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

don't worry about the F1 thing... it distracts and Newey driving with 50mph around means nothing. U need to drive at the limit, which is what all real drivers do. including all test drivers. drive in a 2 seater as a passenger which has slower pace and then we'll talk.

regarding dialogue, the nicest thing I can say is that u need - for once - try to stand in front of a camera and try to deliver truthfully and organic (as the actor) absolute shit ass lines... and then please repeat ur thinking about how dialogue is the least important thing in a script.... ;-)))))) hahahahahaaaa

That is just massively wrong. Have u ever shot a scripted dramatic piece ?!?

Sorkin is on-set and demands that every single word is delivered as written. EVERY SINGLE WORD. Sure yeah, because dialogue is not important... dialogue is the vehicle that drives the story forward, most importantly character development and arcs... even in silent movies they freaking blended in cards with DIALOGUE.

Who is on the movie poster ? The actor. Who sells ur movie ? The actor. Who is the face of the movie ? The actor.

What does an actor do ? Deliver lines of dialogue.

I guess by your logic, soap operas have a really good reputation... ;-)))))))


Any actor will show very, very appreciative of scripts that have great dialogue. What is being mentioned in all best actor award speeches at the globes / emmys ? The thanks to the writers for the lines.

U know that SAG/Aftra classifies actor's status by amount of lines, under 5 etc.... I guess yeah dialogue is really unimportant.

Man, u seem to drastically under appreciate and under value the work of the screenwriter. it seems for u, the screenwriter is just the secretary of the director that writes merely down what the director wants... because it's all so easy..... sure yeah and the director is just as good as a writer as the screenwriter... he just doesn't have the time to write it down.... sure... dialogue ?! overvalued !!! ;-)))) hahahahaaaaaa


I wonder why literally everybody in Hollywood is chasing great scripts if it's all so easy... dialogue ? No, nobody talks here. just fart, same thing !

I know you must think you've been incredibly witty and sarcastic here but really the gist of what you've said is pretty stupid. I love Aaron Sorkin every bit as much as I love great dialogue and Aaron is the reason I love great dialogue so when I say Dialogue is quite possibly the least important part of the script I don't say it lightly. The way I know all this is because the story structure of Shakespeare's plays have been ripped off again and again and it still holds up even without the Shakespeare dialogue. Dialogue is written and re-written but if they underlying structure is crap the whole story is crap. You may think you know what you are talking about but it really seems like you don't either that or you are being deliberately disagreeable to annoy people.

 

[Mike Nagel]

u appear like a person who has never executed a single scripted dramatic piece.

structure is very important. and of course u can exchange dialogue, with other GOOD dialogue because nobody uses Shakespeare's language nowadays and keeping his exact words will make it the exact same piece. keeping the structure but changing the story will make it something else..... because structure is abstract and independent of content......... isn't that obvious (?)

but why don't u run on set and actually execute the structure u ripped off and put in some Sesame street lines... let's see how that works for u.

More importantly as I've explained u now many times: try to execute that with talent that is not Meryl Streep. They will look like shit. And they won't like it. More importantly: u as the director/producer will look bad, because ur project will look bad.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Ben Scott]

IMO, it's a clear advantage to be writer & director of the project as the execution of the vision is exactly what was originally intended !

And also, one party less to argue with ! ;-)

Advantage for the film or advantage for the individual?

Being tied up so close to the material makes it very very hard to be objective and when required 'kill your babies' when the need arises, plus it completely dismisses all the benefits of collaboration with other equally talented people. Shock horror, other people might have ideas you never thought of or wouldn't even begin to know to execute.

This whole romantic notion of the 'sole vision' of the Director is, with a few exceptions, bullshit. A good Director makes final decisions but trusts the team he works with and listens as much as he dictates.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Advantage for the film or advantage for the individual?

Being tied up so close to the material makes it very very hard to be objective and when required 'kill your babies' when the need arises, plus it completely dismisses all the benefits of collaboration with other equally talented people. Shock horror, other people might have ideas you never thought of or wouldn't even begin to know to execute.

This whole romantic notion of the 'sole vision' of the Director is, with a few exceptions, bullshit. A good Director makes final decisions but trusts the team he works with and listens as much as he dictates.

advantages for the creator to actually get his original vision made... a lot of writers complain that what ultimately ends up on screen is not what they envisioned...whether their original vision is "better" or "worse" to what got done is absolutely subjective... (Stephen King / Kubrick / The Shining is an example - I love what Kubrick did)

one problem is for sure when writer, director and producers all have different visions that end up in endless battles/discussions on set... some directors (like Scott) demand it in their contract to be able to release a Director's Cut of the piece to ensure their vision gets released.

Investors only have one vision: ROI ;-))))

 

[Ben Scott]

But the writer isn't the creator of the film. They are the writer of the script and often the creator of the story. Those are two very very different things.

A lot of writers complain period. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes because they don't quite get it. It's nothing like being a novelist. As the writer of a screenplay they are one (important) cog in a huge machine and their vision isn't any more important than that of the Editor, or the DP or the Director, or the Producer who got the whole thing financed off the back of what he felt about the screenplay.

Ridley Scott (along with Spielberg and Peter jackson of the bigtime guys) has final cut on his films. He refused to release a Director's cut of Prometheus because he said it was right how it was. Deleted scenes were an extra on the blu-ray but not inserted into the film. He said to ignore the Director's cut of Alien which was a commercial move from the studio and watch the original one which he felt is correct.

Next tier down the likes of Malick & Woody Allen eschew bigger budgets in exchange for having final cut.

 

[a whitmer]

Again, bear with me. I just can't figure out how to do multiple quotes.


This ...

and all the writers here know well that every studio expects them to finish a script on spec these days and not to sell a pitch or option (unless for virtually nothing)... studios want a proven quantity.

This is sadly true. There just isn't any money in writing, at least for the general masses. There is a lot of risk to take on a project knowing the writing process - which can easily hit between 2,000 and 4,000 hours in working time - may never get legs, and the script is shelved. If it is the writer's original spec, they are free to market it elsewhere. If it was 'for hire' on the agreement payment will come if and only if the project gets a greenlight, then it is a total loss. An overwhelming majority of the risk is on the writer. What DP here can work under similar circustances. Paid only after - and if - the film is released? This is not meant as a writer's boo-hoo, just the reality that the writer only is a weak brand - even if the script itself has glowing reviews ...

We have run across a lot of scripts. As a matter of fact we have stacks of them at the office. The one thing we can guarentee is that format and structure of this script are better than any one of those. Throughout the entire script it is very obvious that you guys have put a considerable amount of time and effort into this particular script. The script has great flow and was a very easy read. Your ability to paint a very visual picture with words was incredible. Congatulations on job well done.


Regardless of the comments, the project was never funded. I don't know why, that was out of my hands. This was one of those projects where the writer (me) worked closely with the director, who had the original idea, and would be directing it. There were two very well-made teasers to go with it, and still no funds.

There was a tremendous amout of time into this, and nothing to show for it. That hurts.


And this is not to toot my horn, but the reason this script (and others) have recieved positive comments such as this, is because I learned to write while hanging around directors and cinematographers - none of whom I have met in person. Again, I do not know how to do either of those jobs, but I did learn to be kinda like them - and actors - through their eyes when writing. I do direct on the page, I just keep it quitely tucked away in the text blocks! I do control your mind .

And I tried to see the film through the eyes of the guys and gals behind the camera. What would they see, and what shot would they choose over another. Waaay back when I was 9, I saw 'The Sound of Music' - big screen theater and all that - and for some reason, these two images were forever imbedded in my brain. (crappy pics, sorry. All I could find in short notice)

Point is, by 9 I knew I wanted to be able to do this: tell stories with this kind of imagrey. But, I am not a social person. Not at all. And I am naturally inclined to write, anyways. Hanging around writer forums only gave me the ABCs - important in themselves, but they were not really the story. They were structure and formatting. The framework on which the story is hung. But I wanted to be a storyteller, and that came to fruition by hanging around and lurking in places like this. Not that I am any good, but I am satisfied with the direction the craft is moving - EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT!!

EDIT: I want to add that I grew up on B&W television (and UHF/VHF) so going to the theater was a huge deal. To see this film in color on the big screen was just so far out of routine, and as a kid it was pure magic. I am sure that had much to do with the images burning into tmy brain.

Maybe I can turn Kurosawa's quote around (not knowing if the translation is correct or not) ...

If you goal is to become a screenwriter, you must first master production.


This ...

To say that everything begins with the script is too obvious to be an interesting statement.

So very true, but it is regurgitated as gospel. And why I avoid writers


This is me, by the way, and reason #300 I can never be on a set ... when you are born to write, you find a way. BTW, that is the same model I began writing with. Trying to find another one.

https://vimeo.com/86241322

 

[a whitmer]

I love great dialogue so when I say Dialogue is quite possibly the least important part of the script I don't say it lightly.

This is an interesting thought. Dialogue's role in film is probably the most misunderstood. It is, in its most fundamental function, something that fills in story where the visuals cannot in any efficient manner.

The visuals are king / Queen. How those visuals are scored will add to the story - build tension, set pace, shock, and set the viewer at ease. How those visuals are colored, close on, pan back, fractured, blurry, stark, warm and fuzzy, graphic, can't even watch, overhead, tracked, and so on - often all in the same film - will add greatly to the overall effect. The story is incomplete without them.

Costumes, locations, lighting, make up will all assist in making the story authentic. Now, with all these things considered, we need to make these characters - or robots or dogs - make sounds, or speak. Man can this quickly unravel an otherwise fairly good story with potentially solid visuals.

There are some pretty good to excellent short films out there sans dialogue. I do believe every writer should write silent short films just to polish their skills in visual writing. Dialogue is a late consideration, once one has set the scene and put things in motion, then come in and add story through dialogue where and if needed.

Still, though, actors want 'speaking roles'. BBC just did a poorly-executed article on all the 'isms' in Hollywood, with all kinds of facts and figures on who is getting what speaking roles - that being the percieved idea of good acting (?). Harken back to Robert Duvall's debut appearence as Boo Radley in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' - a powerful non-speaking role.

And lest we forget Lillian Gish.


EDIT: I have a big chapter on dialogue. I'll try and get serious and polish it this month.

 

[a whitmer]

A lot of writers complain period. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes because they don't quite get it.

Yes, we do. I have had my moments as well


Sometimes for good reason, as said, and USUALLY because they don't quite get it.

To clarify, I am referring to writers who are not also directors, or involved in prodcution.


Most are stubborn, and just don't want to leave their comfort zones of predictability. They don't read much outside industry news on what's been picked up or optioned - and for how much, what's in the works, and articles and such specific to screewriting. And drone on and on the forums. CHUBBY COP vs. COP #1 has never been resolved after 15 years running.


To be honest, most just aren't that good, or even write readable screenplays.

According to Sturgen's Law ...

Sturgeon's revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's law, is an adage commonly cited as "ninety percent of everything is crap".


I have been asked again and again how I accomplished what I have (so far), and I tell them. But they don't move on it. It's hard work and means being way outside your circle of comfort. So, most (90% ?) continue to run the same ruts, and hope like hell they get lucky. Some do, and some deserve it. They wrote a compelling story in such a way that production can run with it. The hard part, especially if it will be their first, is to step back and just let it happen.

Most cannot let go. They just don't understand or embrace what needs to happen next. Try grabbing that out of their hands without gettiing bit.


Or, if hired, they will see themselves as owner of the project by devine default, and make themselves as irritating as possible.

Or, since they put up the cash, they feel it is their obligation to make your life a living hell.


As a writer (more boo hoo) the disappointments outnumber the successes, and not by a measly 40/60 margin. More like 20/80. By dissapointments I don't mean poor production, bad acting and such - though those do factor in. I mean projects never getting legs, or shelved at some point during production, creative differences between director and producer that derails everything in under a minute, liars and thieves erasing your name from a script, then paying themselves with your money. Projects never getting released, or languishing in post for years.

The producer shelving the project because another opportunity came along that they just don't want to pass on, so everyone's work and out-of-pocket expeses on the no-budget film are lost - but hey, the producer got to move up the food chain! It's a dog-eat-dog world they say - and my fave response to complaints - 'Get a thicker skin'.

Stupid wenches lying to you about their connections, and promising to promote the project if only you'll write it on spec. Editors getting a 50% writing credit. Actors storming off set, or - one of my best - an 40-something actor wanting to punch an 8-year-old actress in the face because she's - well, 8 (the stupid little cunt - his words), then threaten to sue if his likeness is used, thus chopping out a chunk of the story and its logical continuity. Faith-based projects stripping you of credit and cash for a misspelled word.

Shall I go on?


But this is an acceptable collateral damage to get to the few that really nailed it for you. Even some of the shelved projects at least gave some spectacular grabs that look damn good in a portfolio, either by production values or subject, or both.

Writers are, for the most part, crybabies convinced of their own infallibity. Not all. But they are also up against some disheartening odds, especially when working for free, which is often the case.

I do think more non-director/writer writers should at least familiarize themselves with productiona and post. Some are quite good at it, and have even found a good rhythm getting into dynamic circles of filmmakers, and finding creative ways to self-promote and so on. A few.


Writers are not the only ones with delusions of grandeur. I do know of one director (his debut) that locked up a project for some time until he got his way on distribution and final cut, costing a truckload of cash to resolve. I know of him because one of my feature screenplays was being considered by the same production company, and an offer to buy the script had already been made. This was all shelved so they could resolve the Director's rant.

I stopped following the drama some years ago, but I do know the film was eventually released. My opportunity, of course, was lost forever.

alex

 

[Mike Nagel]

But the writer isn't the creator of the film. They are the writer of the script and often the creator of the story. Those are two very very different things.

A lot of writers complain period. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes because they don't quite get it. It's nothing like being a novelist. As the writer of a screenplay they are one (important) cog in a huge machine and their vision isn't any more important than that of the Editor, or the DP or the Director, or the Producer who got the whole thing financed off the back of what he felt about the screenplay.

Ridley Scott (along with Spielberg and Peter jackson of the bigtime guys) has final cut on his films. He refused to release a Director's cut of Prometheus because he said it was right how it was. Deleted scenes were an extra on the blu-ray but not inserted into the film. He said to ignore the Director's cut of Alien which was a commercial move from the studio and watch the original one which he felt is correct.

Next tier down the likes of Malick & Woody Allen eschew bigger budgets in exchange for having final cut.

What I meant is, the writer is the creator of the story (unless the story was adapted). It's all about storytelling and movies are just one medium to tell a story.

But I absolutely agree with what u wrote here. IMO, once the writer is done and/or has sold the script it is now up to the director to execute his vision and the writer whether he likes it or not has to be okay with that.

Some writers want the right to be on set. Other times directors/producers invite writers onto the set for consultation.

But IMO too many cooks mess up the food, so once the script has been sold that ship has sailed.

Everybody has a (different) vision when they read stories. You can only execute one. Better to execute one vision properly, then to try to mix the writers/directors/producers vision and end up with as mess that means nothing.

 

[Elsie N]

What I meant is, the writer is the creator of the story (unless the story was adapted). It's all about storytelling and movies are just one medium to tell a story.

But I absolutely agree with what u wrote here. IMO, once the writer is done and/or has sold the script it is now up to the director to execute his vision and the writer whether he likes it or not has to be okay with that.

Some writers want the right to be on set. Other times directors/producers invite writers onto the set for consultation.

But IMO too many cooks mess up the food, so once the script has been sold that ship has sailed.

Everybody has a (different) vision when they read stories. You can only execute one. Better to execute one vision properly, then to try to mix the writers/directors/producers vision and end up with as mess that means nothing.

As primarily an observer/sometimes poster to this thread, this seems to sum up your belief of the writer/director relationship.

What's interesting to me is that no one that I can recall directly contradict that belief as stated above. It's just that the thread is really about Writer/Director as one (or acting as virtually one)... and even the Kurosawa statement taken out of context but when viewed in its entirety isn't at odds with what you have been defending. But it is also not at odds with what others on here are saying.

That said, I'm glad the back and forth has played out the way it has BecaSue it has prompted many posts with references both pro and con and from both sides of the debate that are interesting.

IME, A hearty well done participants!