Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: jayembeeNoS...@snurcher.com (jayembee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films,alt.movies,rec.arts.movies.current-films,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Date: 11 Jun 2004 14:37:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff06e0@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <f33e00ab.0406110552.5af0bfec@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.85.47.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1086989833 6700 127.0.0.1 (11 Jun 2004 21:37:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:37:13 +0000 (UTC)

estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) wrote:

> 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 technicians who ultimately could have been replaced by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.
> 
> Remove the writer thou, and you have nothing.

Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, it's true that the director and all of the other
technicians "could have been replaced by anybody and
the movie still could have been made". But the key point
is that they are *replaced*.

But when you say "remove the writer though, and you have
nothing" suggests that the writer cannot be replaced as
anyone else involved in making the film can be. This is
bogus. Writers can replaced just as easily as anyone else.

In fact, I would argue that writers are probably replaced
more often than directors.

-- jayembee