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: missguy...@hotmail.com (miss guydid)
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 21:59:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <e18a7727.0406112059.523c1518@posting.google.com>
References: <7b98c3ee.0406101718.7e268f95@posting.google.com> <f33e00ab.0406110552.5af0bfec@posting.google.com> <d3aeee5b.0406111337.29ff06e0@posting.google.com> <poldy-D0668C.15382511062004@netnews.comcast.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.131.5.64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1087016378 3509 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2004 04:59:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:59:38 +0000 (UTC)

poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote in message news:<poldy-D0668C.15382511062004@netnews.comcast.net>...
> 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.
> 

yes, it all depends on the contract.  an average hollywood director is
a hired hack craftsman.

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

largely because most writers are hired by the producer to write a
formulaic script. and, most screenwriters are cynical hacks who just
wanna break into the industry and give us cliche-ridden crap.

> 
> 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?

with the average hollywood product, director don't count much. i don't
care who directed X-men, terminator 3, pearl harbor, etc.   all same
shit.

however, even with hollywood movies, there are directors with a
personal vision and/or concept. cameron, jackson, wachowski brothers,
etc, like them or not, are not mere hired hacks.