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: 11 Jun 2004 06:52:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <f33e00ab.0406110552.5af0bfec@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@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 1086961965 19308 127.0.0.1 (11 Jun 2004 13:52:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:52:45 +0000 (UTC)

> symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef) wrote
>
> 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.

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involved were simply technicians who ultimately could have been
replaced by anybody and the movie still could have been made.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.