> for example, if i tell you 'i went to macdonalds and ordered a big mac > and came home and ate it and threw up', i'm the writer. do you know > how many ways this can be expressed visually? countless ways.
Now let me play the part of the writer while you play the director and tell me how you would translate this to the silver screen;
>I'm only using Tolkien's "LotR" as an example, pick any movie you >want it and still needs a story and thus a writer or it never happens >(even if the writer happens to also be the director).
Right. So your usage of the idea of "most important" is analogous to how I might use the notion of "being first in a sequence of events". I see what you're trying to say. It's nonsense, but I see what you're trying to say.
>And that's my point; regardless of who is the director (or actor, ect) >there must be a story first or no movie can be made.
And the story can't be made unless there's a director. And actors. And a producer. And all the rest of the movie making process. Without all that, all you've got is a story. Not a movie.
>> I'm guessing you're just seeing a movie as simply a story on a >> silver screen.
>But once you boil it down, that's all a movie really is.
No it's not. That's another place where you're missing the point.
>"LotR" was hyped as; "Peter Jackson's: Lord of the Rings" not >"Peter Jackson's _film version_ of Tolkien's: "Lord of the Rings"
I don't know about that, really. And I'm in NZ where *anything* done by a NZer is hyped beyond all belief (it's a bit small-minded and parochial, in my view, but I guess it's because we're a small country which feels like it should be more imporant to everyone else than it actually is).
>and if it's a lesser known author like Phillip K. Dick, then the >credit is even less.
Interestingly... I have no idea who directed Minority Report (I have seen it, a couple of times), but I knew it was by PKD. And I don't even like SF. BUt that's neither here nor there... just an interesting observation.
Anyway... I've had enough of this conversation. We're both repeating ourselves, so it's obvious it's not getting anywhere.
But cheers, anyway.
Adam --
Adam Cameron Senior Application Developer Straker Interactive
> Adam Cameron <adam_j...@hotmail.com> wrote > > Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote
> > I'm only using Tolkien's "LotR" as an example, pick any movie > > you want it and still needs a story and thus a writer or it > > never happens
> Right. So your usage of the idea of "most important" is analogous to > how I might use the notion of "being first in a sequence of events". > I see what you're trying to say. It's nonsense, but I see what you're > trying to say.
How is it nonsense? I'll ask you the same question I asked "miss guydid" down thread;
Let me play the part of the writer while you play the director and tell me how you would translate this to the silver screen;
"____________________________"
See what I mean? As the director you have nothing to work with if I don't provide you with a story, the movie cannot be made without me.
> > And that's my point; regardless of who is the director (or actor, > > ect) there must be a story first or no movie can be made.
> And the story can't be made unless there's a director.
The story still exists regardless of whether there is a director, actors, ect.
Sure, a _film version_ of the story won't happen without them but the story can still be presented to an audience, either thru a book or even by the author simply telling them the story.
> > But once you boil it down, that's all a movie really is.
> No it's not. That's another place where you're missing the point.
Then what is a movie if not the efforts of a director, actors, hair dressers, janitors, ect to present the authors story on film?
By changing any of those people involved in a film production you can still have a movie, remove the writer and they have nothing to do and there won't be a movie.
>From: estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) >Let me play the part of the writer while you play the director and >tell me how you would translate this to the silver screen;
>"____________________________"
I don't know what I'd put up on screen, but I'd be ecstatic I was given an entirely blank slate to work with. As long as the movie was being financed, I wouldn't care.
>By changing any of those people involved in a film production you can >still have a movie, remove the writer and they have nothing to do and >there won't be a movie.
Sure, and remove the guy in the auto plant who sticks the gas tanks in cars and you won't have cars that work but that doesn't make the that guy the most important factor in the manufacture of automobiles.
Try reading David Lynch's screenplays some time. They're terrible. They read like a 13 year old wrote them. No one would produce them if Lynch wasn't going to be the one to direct them. His visonary skills as a director make his lack of writing talent immaterial.
> > for example, if i tell you 'i went to macdonalds and ordered a big mac > > and came home and ate it and threw up', i'm the writer. do you know > > how many ways this can be expressed visually? countless ways.
> Now let me play the part of the writer while you play the director and > tell me how you would translate this to the silver screen;
> "____________________________"
> See what I mean?
it's what antonioni is all about. the emptiness of modern life.
In article <f33e00ab.0406151232.482f0...@posting.google.com>, estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) wrote:
> > Right. So your usage of the idea of "most important" is analogous to > > how I might use the notion of "being first in a sequence of events". > > I see what you're trying to say. It's nonsense, but I see what you're > > trying to say.
> How is it nonsense? I'll ask you the same question I asked "miss > guydid" down thread;
> Let me play the part of the writer while you play the director and > tell me how you would translate this to the silver screen;
> "____________________________"
Films with directors but not writers are made all the time; we call them "documentaries," usually, but there have also been more than a few films improvised on-set by the actors and the director.
Films with writers but not directors aren't hard to find, either; we generally call them "unsold screenplays."
By the way, I'm a screenwriter.
> See what I mean? As the director you have nothing to work with if > I don't provide you with a story, the movie cannot be made without > me.
Happens all the time - see above.
> > > And that's my point; regardless of who is the director (or actor, > > > ect) there must be a story first or no movie can be made.
This is what is known as a "flawed premise."
> > And the story can't be made unless there's a director.
> The story still exists regardless of whether there is a director, > actors, ect.
Right. Exists as a story, but not as a film.
At around 9:30 this evening, the lights came up in a screening room on the WB lot in H'wood; we were all there to watch a screening of a film I worked on last summer, called 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover. Might get some kind of distribution, might not. The finished version we saw tonight was substantially different than the script we started with.
Typically, in H'wood at least, the process starts with a producer or development exec, who has an IDEA for a story. That idea is usually plucked from a newspaper or magazine article, or is even based on market research about what a potential audience might like (and be willing to pay ten bucks) to see. Then that producer or devo drone hires a screenwriter to create a script, on assignment. The script will go through several different writers, as a rule, and the director will usually also take a pass at the script. The story will usually change (and sometimes dramatically) during production, and once you get into post, the editor can change it even more.
Another show from last year, they decided - after the entire film was shot and cut - that not only did they not like the ending, they didn't like the choice of hero. One of the supporting players was chosen, by the producers, to be the new hero of the piece. They flew that actor to somewhere in Eastern Europe and did some fairly extensive reshoots, recut the film to include as much of him as possible from the oiginal shoot, and now have a story that bears a passing resemblence, at best, to what the worter originally created.
Welcome to Hollywood.
-- Life Continues, Despite Evidence to the Contrary
>By changing any of those people involved in a film production you can >still have a movie, remove the writer and they have nothing to do and >there won't be a movie.
This pretty much sums up your "argument".
> >>>changing<<< any of those people involved in a film production > >>>remove<<< the writer
See how you're arguing a different thing than the rest of the thread.
The opposite of what you say bears up too:
*Change* the writer... there's still a movie. *Remove* the director... no movie.
You seem to be getting confused over the words "a" and "the".
Adam
--
Adam Cameron Senior Application Developer Straker Interactive
> nmacphe...@aol.com (Nick Macpherson) wrote > > Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote
> > "____________________________"
> I don't know what I'd put up on screen, but I'd be ecstatic I was > given an entirely blank slate to work with. As long as the movie > was being financed, I wouldn't care.
But that ain't gunna happen, as you (or somebody) would still have to produce a story before you could put anything on film.
> > By changing any of those people involved in a film production you > > can still have a movie, remove the writer and they have nothing to > > do and there won't be a movie.
> Sure, and remove the guy in the auto plant who sticks the gas tanks > in cars and you won't have cars that work but that doesn't make the > that guy the most important factor in the manufacture of automobiles.
Which is what I've been saying all along. The director is essentially the guy putting the gas tank on the car frame, (thou more like the supervisor of the assembly line) he can be replaced by anybody and the car will still be made
> Try reading David Lynch's screenplays some time. They're terrible. > His visonary skills as a director make his lack of writing talent > immaterial.
This is still only a case of judging the story that is absolutely necessary for the film to be made, Lynch's visionary skills are useless without a story to work with.
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote > > "Ed Stasiak" <estas...@att.net> wrote
> > "____________________________"
> Films with directors but not writers are made all the time; we call > them "documentaries," usually, but there have also been more than a > few films improvised on-set by the actors and the director.
Even a documentary needs a story, somebody had to think up the idea to film the life cycle of rabbits or whatever before filming can start and even a film that's totally improvised on-the-spot by the actors, requires them to think of something for their characters to do and say.
Whether you call it the screen play, story or idea, that's the first step and the most important aspect. Everything else follows.
> Films with writers but not directors aren't hard to find, either; > we generally call them "unsold screenplays."
> By the way, I'm a screenwriter.
And that's my point. A writer doesn't need directors ect to produce a story but they all need the writer (or at least the idea for a story) before they can do their jobs.
I realize that things probably won't change any time soon but at least IMO, if you were to get a deal to have one of your screen plays made into a movie _you_ should be the person getting the lions share of the credit for the film, because without you there is no film.
Good luck (honestly) and that's my complaint about Hollywood.
If you were to get your story published as a book, the cover would read; '"Title Of Story" by Steven J. Weller' not '"Title Of Story" by Doubleday Publishing'.
In the film industry on the other hand, they might make your story into a movie without changing a word but your name will not be head- lining the credits and the director, actors and even lesser players involved in the film, are probably going to make more money off it then you are.
> > And that's my point; regardless of who is the director (or actor, > > ect) there must be a story first or no movie can be made.
> This is what is known as a "flawed premise."
It's not false and nobody in this thread has been able to show that.
All that has been said so far is whether the movie would suck or be great depending on who the director is, disregarding the fact that regardless of who the director is, the story is absolutely necessary or the director and everybody else involved has nothing to do.
> > The story still exists regardless of whether there is a director, > > actors, ect.
> Right. Exists as a story, but not as a film. > Typically, in H'wood at least, the process starts with a producer > or development exec, who has an IDEA for a story.
No need to go on, you've made my point for me.
The process starts with the IDEA for a story, without it nothing can happen.
All we're discussing from this point on is who actually thought up the idea, it might be the producer or the development exe or the screen writer but without it no movie can be made.
Nat Perrin's daughter is a friend of the family. She lives up in Idyllwild (CA). Many an evening I've spent with her reminiscing about the Marx Brothers.
> > "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote > > > "Ed Stasiak" <estas...@att.net> wrote
> > > "____________________________"
> > Films with directors but not writers are made all the time; we call > > them "documentaries," usually, but there have also been more than a > > few films improvised on-set by the actors and the director.
> Even a documentary needs a story, somebody had to think up the > idea to film the life cycle of rabbits or whatever before filming > can start and even a film that's totally improvised on-the-spot > by the actors, requires them to think of something for their > characters to do and say.
> Whether you call it the screen play, story or idea, that's the > first step and the most important aspect. Everything else follows.
Clearly, you're not a writer.
The difference between a screenplay - or any kind of fully-realized story - and an _idea_ for a story, is the difference between a seed and a mature redwood tree. If you want to give the lion's share of the credit to the _idea_ for the story, then for nearly every film you've seen in your lifetime, forget the screenwriter listed in the credits. Place your accolades (or throw your brickbats) at the feet of the producer.
> > Films with writers but not directors aren't hard to find, either; > > we generally call them "unsold screenplays."
> > By the way, I'm a screenwriter.
> And that's my point. A writer doesn't need directors ect to > produce a story but they all need the writer (or at least the > idea for a story) before they can do their jobs.
For people who create screenplays (or any other kind of finished story), elevating the simple _idea_ for a story to this level, is something of an insult. There is, as mentioned, a HUGE difference between 110 pages of screenplay and "hey, mebbe something about the life cycle of rabbits."
> I realize that things probably won't change any time soon but at > least IMO, if you were to get a deal to have one of your screen > plays made into a movie _you_ should be the person getting the > lions share of the credit for the film, because without you there > is no film.
When my stuff has been produced, I get the appropriate credit - "screenplay by." Some writers get bent out of shape over what's known as the 'possessory credit' - "A Film By" for the director, but I have no problem with it. Whether it's a spec script or an assignment, I wrote it, so I want credit as the writer. I didn't make the film, so I'm not looking for credit for that, and have no problem with other people taking credit for what they did.
> If you were to get your story published as a book, the cover would > read; '"Title Of Story" by Steven J. Weller' not '"Title Of Story" > by Doubleday Publishing'.
A publisher isn't analogous to a director; it's analogous to a studio. And both the studio and the publisher will take similar credits in their respective endeavors.
> In the film industry on the other hand, they might make your story > into a movie without changing a word
Actually, that has never happened. Film is a collaborative effort and scripts are rewritten in virtually every professional situation. Other writers, the director, the producer, the editor... all will have a hand in re-making the story itself, not just the film version of that story.
In other words, another flawed premise.
> but your name will not be head- > lining the credits and the director, actors and even lesser players > involved in the film, are probably going to make more money off it > then you are.
Credits are assigned according to union regs; the WGA (that's the screenwriter's union) has negotiated with the other guilds, over the years. Most folks seem to be more-or-less happy with it, except for the question of the possessory credit - and I still hold that that's a question of vanity, on both sides.
> > > And that's my point; regardless of who is the director (or actor, > > > ect) there must be a story first or no movie can be made.
> > This is what is known as a "flawed premise."
> It's not false and nobody in this thread has been able to show that.
Except for the part about documentaries, which start with an idea - which is not a story - and improvised films, which also start with an idea, which is still not a story.
> All that has been said so far is whether the movie would suck or be > great depending on who the director is, disregarding the fact that > regardless of who the director is, the story is absolutely necessary > or the director and everybody else involved has nothing to do.
You're stuck on the idea that a story and an idea for a story are somehow the same thing. Couldn't be farther from the truth, but unless you've actually done the job, you're not lkely to understand that.
-- Life Continues, Despite Evidence to the Contrary
> > >>>changing<<< any of those people involved in a film production
> > >>>remove<<< the writer
> See how you're arguing a different thing than the rest of the thread.
Now you're just cherry picking my comments from one post while ignoring comments I've already made in reply to your posts earlier in the thread, such as;
"Sure any writer can be plugged in _if_ the director(or the studio) _already_ has the idea for a story to start with, but somebody had to come up with the story in the first place."
The debate is then how much of the resulting screen play comes from the initial idea and how much is from the writers efforts.
I assume that this can range from 99% of the story coming from the initial idea (whosever it is) with the writer only putting it on paper and touching up details to 99% of the story coming from the hired writer, who then gets the shaft when it comes to credit for the story....
But either way there has to be a story first or there can be no movie regardless of who else is involved in the production of the film.
> The opposite of what you say bears up too:
> *Change* the writer... there's still a movie.
Sure, but only if there is _still_ an idea for a story to begin with.
> *Remove* the director... no movie.
Agreed, but the director is still secondary to whether the movie is made or not. The story comes first.
estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) wrote: > I realize that things probably won't change any time soon > but at least IMO, if you were to get a deal to have one > of your screen plays made into a movie _you_ should be the > person getting the lions share of the credit for the film, > because without you there is no film.
First of all, credit tends to go primarily to the person who is believed to be responsible for bringing in the ticket-buying public. One might make the argument that it's Tolkien who did that for the LOTR films, but in 99% of the cases in the industry, very few people know who the writer is, and care even less.
Second of all, you seem to be missing the point that people are making over and over again.
Look at what you wrote above: "...without [the writer] there is no film".
That's just as true if you substitute "[the director]" for "[the writer]".
While you're correct that the story still exists in some form if there's no director, a *film* won't exist if there's no director.
>> yet, all of us still talk of the director as being the primary >> artistic force behind movies.
>> for instance, like LOR or not, we generally discuss it as the >> visionary creation of peter jackson. few, if any, have mentioned >> the writers, editor, cameraman, CGI geeks, etc by name.
> It's a shame that writers aren't given the lions share of the credit > that they truly deserve, since without them everybody from the director > on down to the janitor wouldn't have a job.
Well, that's a gross over-simplification if I've ever heard one.
Firstly, many directors also write or co-write the screenplays themselves (e.g., Dreyer, Griffith, Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, etc.).
Secondly, a film is, unlike a novel, a result of so much more than a screenplay or a story idea. You can take a generic script and turn it into two totally different films. There are so many decisions which need to made, the list is gargantuan.
Just look at any film made by a respected director. Let's use PSYCHO as an example. Now, I think the screenplay is pretty decent for PYSCHO. It's a twisted little story, with some shocks and a few truly creepy scenes. But are you trying to imply that PSYCHO was not a result of Hitchcock's choices and of his vision of the film?
Hitchcock is actually an excellent example, since so many of his films had screenplays written by so many different hands. And, yet, you *know* you are watching a Hitchcock film don't you? Quick, who wrote VERTIGO? Quick, who wrote THE BIRDS? And I bet, even if you didn't know who directed those, you could have guessed it while watching.
Of course, part of the story with Hitch is that he started in silent film. One of the goals for many people who worked in silent films was to tell the story as completely as possible visually (look at Murnau's SUNRISE, e.g.). For Hitchcock, this carried over into sound films; thus we end up with a film like VERTIGO, which, for all intents and purposes, could have been a silent film.
The fact of the matter is that the director, in most cases, makes the creative decisions which build the entire film. The look of the film, the sound of the film, the pace of the film, what's included and what's not, the very essence of the film is in the hands of the director.
Is this to say that screenwriters are irrelevant? No, not at all. Lately, Charlie Kauffman has been the big kahuna in this regard. And if you just take a look at the films which were written by Ben Hecht, you can see a vast, impressive, and important body of work.
> IMO Peter Jackson & Co. did a pretty good job with Tolkien's "Lord > of the Rings" but like every movie ever made, he and everybody else > involved were simply technicians who ultimately could have been > replaced by anybody and the movie still could have been made.
Peter Jackson was a co-writer of the screenplay for all three films.
The entire set of films was his idea, his vision, and his baby. To imply otherwise is to simply ignore the fact that everything that was included (or not) and every decision was, in the end, up to Peter Jackson (for better or for worse, depending upon your viewpoint).
> Remove the writer thou, and you have nothing.
If you believe for one second that you could remove Peter Jackson from the equation, and you still would have had LotR, you are, I'm sorry to say, insane.
-- A.E. Jabbour
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic films I've ever seen, but it also raises the possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself, a species of love." - A.O. Scott
|
