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

Message from discussion how come we still talk primarily about directors?
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: estas...@att.net (Ed Stasiak)
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: 12 Jun 2004 07:58:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <f33e00ab.0406120658.2bd3a023@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <f33e00ab.0406110552.5af0bfec@posting.google.com> <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff06e0@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.47.236.165
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1087052326 9057 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2004 14:58:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:58:46 +0000 (UTC)

> 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.