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

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

poldy

View profile

More options Jun 12 2004, 6:38 am

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

From: poldy <po...@kfu.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:38:26 GMT

Local: Sat, Jun 12 2004 6:38 am

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
  

In article <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff0...@posting.google.com>,

jayembeeNoS...@snurcher.com (jayembee) wrote:
> In fact, I would argue that writers are probably replaced
> more often than directors.

Film making is a collaborative medium and usually, the directors are
suppose to have the final authority on the artistic side of things. But
we know producers often overrule directors.

And writers are pretty low on the totem pole, below the directors and
actors who like to infuse their "input" on the script.

Directors are more like a managerial position. They are chosen based on
their past financial performance (as are actors) and expected to deliver
the film in a way that enhances the economic value of the studio
property.

Particularly in these FX-fests, directors appear to be guiding the
actors how to move in front of a blue screen rather than drawing
emotional responses from them.

Who comes up with the "vision" to do the movie? Do all directors
story-board how the movie is going to look or are there "visual
consultants" or "designers" who determine the look of a movie? As well
as the FX people who can say what kinds of effects are or are not
possible?

Reply to author Forward