how come we still talk primarily about directors? - rec.arts.movies.past-films

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

Ed Stasiak

View profile

More options Jun 12 2004, 10:58 pm

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films, alt.movies, rec.arts.movies.current-films, alt.cult-movies

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

Date: 12 Jun 2004 07:58:46 -0700

Local: Sat, Jun 12 2004 10:58 pm

Subject: Re: how come we still talk primarily about directors?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

> jayembeeNoS...@snurcher.com (jayembee) wrote
> > estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak) wrote

> > Remove the writer thou, and you have nothing.

> 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.

If you remove Tolkien then "Lord of the Rings" is never written,
eliminate Mario Puzo and there is no "Godfather", no Stephen King
means "The Shining" never happens, ect ect ect.

In any movie ever made one could replace the director, lead actor,
hair dresser, caterer, ect on down the line and the movie can still
happen and thou I'm not suggesting that if Steven Segal had been
cast as Frodo, a "LotR" movie would still have been a success, with
_no story_ there simply is _no movie_.

Everything starts with the story, thus making the writer the most
important element in a movie.

Reply to author Forward