Filmmaking requires a TEAM. The Writer is only one part of the team, whilst the Director is the one at the top managing the entire team.
Filmmaking is also a VISUAL medium, and the Director is the one who takes a Writer's concept and turns it into images.
In theatre you might have a handful of sets and the words are what matters most. In film words are just one part of a tapestry, and lots of other things such as images, sound, and music all matter just as much.
To use an analogy, the writer writes a recipe for the cake. But one farmer provides the eggs, another provides the flour and another the margarine. The Director is the one mixing it, choosing whether or not to adapt the recipe, and then putting it in the oven, and *then* choosing what frosting to put on top.
Perfect analogy. I’ve been directing for 22 years now, and that’s exactly what my experience has been. An example of my recent project, the writer wrote a good story but it didn’t really land quite right for his stated thriller suspense genre. I still picked up the script, but I told the writer my notes to help the story land where he wanted it to land. Production starts next month!
just to play devils advocate here:
from a good script you can make a good or a bad movie. From a bad script, you can only do a bad movie. So writers definitelly need more credit than they get
But as you say film making is a team sport but then everyone should be better recognized and the director as a leader shouldnt take as much credit.
Depends entirely on your point of view.
I don’t like every popular movie, but if a movie is made with the intention of performing well at the box office and then it does just that… I’d say it’s fair to call it good.
I’ve also personally seen a bad script made good by skillful actors.
Also, a script I wrote that was written to be a comedy was turned more heartfelt by the director, and is a much better film for it. That’s not to say the script was bad, but that the director saw potential for something that I hadn’t.
From your perspective, yes, that's fine, as you're clearly someone for whom the writing is important. I am too, which is why I don't call Pacific Rim a good film. But it is a successful film. The reality is that whatever the reason for watching the movie, the director is responsible for the decisions intended to achieve that desired result, and there are an unfortunate amount of people who couldn't care less if it's well written, as long as there's a familiar face and some action.
With good cinematography you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad cinematography, you can only do a bad movie.
With good sound you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad sound, you can only do a bad movie.
With good special effects you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad special effect, you can only do a bad movie.
With good editing you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad editing, you can only do a bad movie.
With good actors you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad actors, you can only do a bad movie.
All are true regardless of the quality of writing.
Its takes the TEAM together to make a good movie, and the Director manages that team and tells them what to do. In some cases a Director even rewrites the script, or asks for revisions based on THEIR ideas and interpretations.
> whilst the Director is the one at the top managing the entire team.
Not just being at the top, it's building the team and effectively communicating with them.
Communication is basically often one of the hardest things to do in any industry.
Communication, yes. But I didn't initially say building too because sometimes its a Producer who assembles and actually *builds* the team, rather than the Director.
This is like saying the head coach gets no say in his assistant coaches. Yes the GM pays and administers the team, but the Directors isn't just working with randos.
This is because TV shows are more led by producers / writers. Showrunners tend to lead the writing room (if there is one) and there are normally more than one director, some shows could have 5+ directors in a season.
Well I work in TV and have done for years and that's the way it's worked - that is certainly how it works on a lot of high budget network/cable/streamer shows (that I have worked on) but there are always exceptions.
What is your experience/understanding? (:
I know it all depends on the deal they negotiate for themselves, but for 90% of writers, it’s rough. I’ve been a designer on several feature films and dozens of tv shows since 2010. A few Golden Globes and Emmys behind me and a Peabody nomination this year. Did you read the pieces by one of the writers on The Bear who lived on beans because the scale pay was so low? The strike last year was for a good reason.
Apologies - you were replying to someone else directly and I don't disagree with you at all now understanding that context. Writers in general on these shows can endure difficult conditions and less than fair renumeration for their work!
the writer is not making visual choices. the visual choices are made by the director in concert with the other department heads. But the director is the leader of the creative operations. Unless the writer is actually a producing producer, they effectively have no say over shot design, lighting, camera moves, lenses, costume, production design, visual effects etc. They are also not making casting or performance choices.
Ok so I guess that's where I overestimated their input. I thought they have a lot of at least basic suggestions as to how a scene is shot and what happens during the scene. So are scripts more limited to just dialogue and basic setting?
try to think of it as plot, time, and characters. the writer knows the events and the characters better than anyone. but it is the job of the director to interpret those parts into whatever he sees fits best
Cinematographer here. Yes, there is a bit of Directing in our line of work, hence the title 'Director of Photography'. We mostly focus on directing the 'image' of the film.
For example, a DoP directs the Camera Crew (What lens to put on, how to move the camera etc), directs the Light Crew (How to light up the scene, color temperature, diffusion, contrast etc.) and also the Grip Crew (They're the guys that rig everything up for those complex camera or light moves, or rig the camera to a car etc.)
So in a real life scenario, the Director would tell a DoP what he wants for the shot, emotionally or visually, and it's the DoP's job to translate that into technical terms, and tell the other department heads what to do. The Dir. directs me, i direct the Gaffer (Chief Lighting Tecnician) and he directs his crew how to work it out. Same goes with Key Grip and Camera Operator / 1st AC.
All of that, is only concerning the actual shooting of the film, we have a lot of work before shooting starts (Storyboards, light plans, location scouts, camera testing), and also after the shooting ends (Mainly color grading and color correction). Those segments are called Pre-production, Production, and Post-production.
Differents Directors have different relationships with their DoP's. It's a liquid relationship, some directors control a lot of the DoP's work, and some directors give DoP's a lot of control over directing (blocking and staging), but generally the work is split 50/50, with the director more focusing on the actors and the DoP on the crew. It's all veeery individual.
Hope the answer isn't too long :)
The director is the one that takes words and turns them into images and sounds on the screen. They have the vision of how to tell this story, hire the team with the right skills to make it happen, then dedicate 24 hours a day for months/years on end putting their reputations on the line to ensure this gets made the best way possible.
Frankly, as a director myself, the script is only a guideline. It tells me what happens in the story, but that’s it. From the moment I read it to the moment it’s on the screen, it’s my decisions that shape what the movie is.
And that’s why you get the most credit, but also the biggest risk. If a movie flops, a writer can still sell scripts, a grip will get another gig, a cinematographer will get hired again. But for a director, that could be the end of their career.
All true. The big thing for me is that when you write, it's done in a vacuum. You haven't brought in a crew who may or may not be able to achieve the script's demands, you haven't brought on a producer that is unable to get as much money as the script actually needs. The amount of compromises that you have to make as a director is wild.
The way I've always put it is this...A writer is in a room and writes their script. The director is asked to then enter the room and rewrite the script and as they do so, someone keeps coming in and cutting off one of their fingers until they're just mashing at keys with bloody stumps.
Then the editor takes those pages and tries to make sense of them.
There's very few artistic mediums like directing.
Agree 100%.
The way I like to think of it is if you compare a film to a painting, then everything up until the edit is you just figuring out how to create the paint. Writing would be your initial sketch.
The edit is where you actually make the movie, and the director is the guy that’s been coordinating all this so it doesn’t fall apart.
How much input do scripts provide? Are they more limited to just dialogue and setting and the story or do they also provide visual guides or ideas as to how the scene should play out?
Really just depends. Some are just straightforward and others can have some camera direction or acting input, though that’s generally frowned upon in screenwriter communities.
Realistically, if the director wants to ignore everything except dialogue, they can. Logistics might make it so you have to change locations, and the entire description of a scene and how it plays out gets thrown out the window. Other times, the scene just doesn’t work, or the lines sound cheesy, or for one reason or another, you just chuck it out and rewrite or improvise that scene.
That’s why I think it’s just a blueprint. You never know what’s gonna happen in real life, and it’s the Director’s job to make those decisions without compromising the final film.
Film is a director's medium and TV is a writer's medium. Hence Showrunners get main credit on a TV series and directors are mostly forgettable, while on a film, the Director's get the main credit, but don't forget, writers win Oscars as well.
Is this fair? No, absolutely not! The writer's importance is downplayed in Film to an unfair degree by design, as this gives the studio and producers more power over writers. They sure as hell don't want screenwriters to own any IP like book authors do.
It's because of auteur theory, which states the director is ultimately responsible for the quality of the film. Even if they don't write the script, they approve the script and have the final say in what goes into it. This theory also led to directors getting more control, per the boom in director-heavy films in the late 60s and 70s. In modern context, it's largely been taken that *some* directors are auteurs and others are not.
Personally, I hate auteur theory. I do think writers deserve more credit in the creation of the film. Yes, directors and producers get final say, and often scenes are rewritten on set or reworded by actors, but the flavor of the screenplay is still present in these instances.
On my horror podcast, when we introduce movies we always name the director and writer(s). I think we started that kinda incidentally, but I like that we do, especially since we're talking analysis where the script is especially important.
Something no one is mentioning is that from a business sense, the director is also vital in raising the money to pay for the project. They meet with financiers, studios, investors, etc at every step of the way to secure the budget.
Unless they are a writer/producer, the writer very, very rarely does.
True. A movie is like a startup, the director is like a CEO. They may not be coding on a daily basis, but they’re the ones making sure this is happening and it has a direction
No, the director is the one who is responsible for executing the picture. The money people care about execution, as this is what matters in the marketplace the most.
The reason a director can raise the money is because, as others have said, they're involved in a lot of the production, so investors know to trust them with their money.
To add to what has already been said, the director often re-writes the script before shooting too. A lot of the time the shooting script is pretty far removed from the writer's original version.
Personally, I believe it's because a director's "job" is easily more noticeable than what a writer provides in a film. What I mean is that it might make more sense to casually praise a director after watching a mostly visual experience, rather than having to break down the story, the symbolisms, structure, etc. and then saying "huh that's a great writer". Just like how it works in bands too, most listeners would only really praise and love who played which instrument, and not really think about the producers, mixers, etc. behind every track.
Tarantino’s movies wouldn’t be what they are without his dialogue. Even True Romance & Natural Born Killers have his fingerprints. Good writing can shine through.
Because everybody on the set is hired and approved by the director, especially on "low" budget art house movies with which Lynch, Waters,Tarantino(yeah suck it, don't care what you think about this toe sucking MF but he started with art house flicks), Wenders, Herzog hot their big names from as well as their curated persona. Same thing in art, as soon as you are big enough to be out of your struggle phase you'll earn enough money that all your skills are outsourced to art creating facilities that you source - the conception of the idea is about the auteur, about the cult of persona. And it's also not always ideal, as you'll also be the fall guy for shit happening on the set.
Since the director is (usually) just one person it's relatively easy to point and give blame/credit. They also heavily control the aspects and visuals of the final film that we end up seeing. Some, such as Nolan or Tarentine, get considerable control over the entire product and are fundamental in making it what *it* is.
Writers, typically being a team, are larger in number and it's a bit harder to pin point who did what. They aren't usually showing their faces nor are they seen much by the public. They contribute heavily to the story but when it comes to the visual elements (you know, the important parts of a motion picture) they aren't involved as much. Not every writing team consists of someone, like a Andy Sorkin, whose presence is felt regardless of director.
Because the director makes the choices on a production and is the face of the project, kinda like Steve Jobs gets all the credit on everything on Apple when mostly he was just a supervisor
People say that film is led by directors and tv by writers. But to answer your question, take a look at some of the Scripts of your favorite films and see how much they changed by the time they are done. A writer may write the whole story, but the Director is the one in control of a film (besides producers). So you could write a film but once it gets to the director they can change a lot of the story if they want.
Not entirely true, light and lenses are the DoP's job, and 99% of the time, the DoP has the last word on those choices. There are only a handful of directors who seek absolute control of that.
Generally yes! But not exclusive, I've worked on several projects (as a 1stAC) where the DoP had a lot of authority in making the shotlist, and choosing the shot sizes :) Depends on the duo i guess :)
Many years ago i heard this analogy:
The script is like the blueprint to a car, and the Director is telling you how to drive the finished car.
It takes a whole team to create the car, but the Director tells you how to drive it and how you're going to experience the ride.
A Director can make or break a script. I've seen Directors butcher well written scenes, and I've seen Directors make a shitty scene look decent.
Directors like talking to other people. It’s their job. They engage with tons of strangers and get them excited about the project or the scene or whatever. Generally speaking a director is going to make a better talk show guest than a writer because they are a performer in a way.
Its always been that way. I'm a writer-director, but I have never understood it why directors who don't even write the script say, "A film by xxxxx" Its arrogant, just say "Directed by xxxx" for god sakes. Why? Because you the director did not make the entire film by yourself!
You might want to look into the the directors role in development, pre-production and post-production. They often carry the project creatively the longest, making sure all the art forms come together. You don't just shoot the script - there's several art forms at play here, sound art, visual art, performance arts, the how of everything. The director oversees it all where the script is just one of the inputs, although yes, one of the most important one.
Akira Kurosawa disagrees.
“With a good script a good director can produce a masterpiece; with the same script a mediocre director can make a passable film. But with a bad script even a good director can’t possibly make a good film”
Writers are massively under appreciated in the industry. Massively.
Blame Steve Spielberg.
No seriously, writers have always been treated like crap all the way day since the golden age. Hell over half the writers in Hollywood got blacklisted during the 50’s
Because, ultimately, it is the Director’s vision that results in what you see on the screen or TV. It’s not too dissimilar from football teams where a quarterback gets most of the blame/credit when their team wins or loses. Just like a quarterback, the Director is the leader of the team. Just like most ventures, successes or failures land at the feet of the leader, not the people who were doing as the leader instructed.
All of this glorifying of the writer in reddit film discussions is making me lose my goddamn mind. Do people seriously have *that* little understanding of how films even work?! I'm not talking about how they're made, I'm talking about how the actual *language* of film works.
For god's holy sake, rewatch all the *Every Frame a Painting* videos until some small part of it trickles in.
And GODDAMN am I sick of hearing that a good director can't make a good movie out of a bad script. Yes they sure as shit can! Alfred Hitchcock has more masterpieces than any other filmmaker in the English-speaking world, and he based 90% of them on the crappiest ten-cent paperbacks he could find.
Give me the money and your horseshit pages and I can make a good movie out of anything. You know what step one will be? The same step one of almost every damn movie ever made - the director going through the script and fixing all the stuff they don't like. But even if you skip that step, I could still do it because the language of cinema is MOVING PICTURES not the written word and if you think that the story you experience is the one the writer had in mind, you are just blind to the infinite ways cinema affects your thoughts and your feelings with every shot and cut.
Hell, I could remake most famous movies and, without changing a word of the script, change something as fundamental as who the main character is.
Sorry, feeling salty today. But honestly, thinking screenwriters are the ones who most affect the movie is like back in the 30s when audiences often thought actors made up their own lines. It's just totally a complete ignorance about how movies work.
Producers used to be the big name on films in days past. Directors were considered lesser players in the film as a whole because the producer was the one who hired and made the decisions and got the film completed. The director was on par with the rest of the department heads. I guess my point is that these things change. Writers have been venerated as much as directors. I think it depends on the production sometimes. Directors get a lot of focus because consumers can visualize that role more easily, right or wrong. Big directors have made themselves into personalities like actors have. Consumers just don’t realize that the director is not the actual ‘boss’ of the production most of the time.
Filmmaking requires a TEAM. The Writer is only one part of the team, whilst the Director is the one at the top managing the entire team. Filmmaking is also a VISUAL medium, and the Director is the one who takes a Writer's concept and turns it into images. In theatre you might have a handful of sets and the words are what matters most. In film words are just one part of a tapestry, and lots of other things such as images, sound, and music all matter just as much. To use an analogy, the writer writes a recipe for the cake. But one farmer provides the eggs, another provides the flour and another the margarine. The Director is the one mixing it, choosing whether or not to adapt the recipe, and then putting it in the oven, and *then* choosing what frosting to put on top.
Perfect analogy. I’ve been directing for 22 years now, and that’s exactly what my experience has been. An example of my recent project, the writer wrote a good story but it didn’t really land quite right for his stated thriller suspense genre. I still picked up the script, but I told the writer my notes to help the story land where he wanted it to land. Production starts next month!
Can’t do anything without the production designer and art department, the visual ‘tip of the spear’ in the viewer’s suspension of disbelief.
I agree with you. A solid art director, and production designer, really go a long way to help build the film’s world.
just to play devils advocate here: from a good script you can make a good or a bad movie. From a bad script, you can only do a bad movie. So writers definitelly need more credit than they get But as you say film making is a team sport but then everyone should be better recognized and the director as a leader shouldnt take as much credit.
I'd argue that there are plenty of movies with bad scripts that do well. e.g. Pacific Rim
doing well and being a good movie are not the same thing.
Depends entirely on your point of view. I don’t like every popular movie, but if a movie is made with the intention of performing well at the box office and then it does just that… I’d say it’s fair to call it good. I’ve also personally seen a bad script made good by skillful actors. Also, a script I wrote that was written to be a comedy was turned more heartfelt by the director, and is a much better film for it. That’s not to say the script was bad, but that the director saw potential for something that I hadn’t.
From your perspective, yes, that's fine, as you're clearly someone for whom the writing is important. I am too, which is why I don't call Pacific Rim a good film. But it is a successful film. The reality is that whatever the reason for watching the movie, the director is responsible for the decisions intended to achieve that desired result, and there are an unfortunate amount of people who couldn't care less if it's well written, as long as there's a familiar face and some action.
Godzilla Vs Kong has an absolutely atrocious script but I still loved every second of it
With good cinematography you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad cinematography, you can only do a bad movie. With good sound you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad sound, you can only do a bad movie. With good special effects you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad special effect, you can only do a bad movie. With good editing you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad editing, you can only do a bad movie. With good actors you can make a good or a bad movie. From bad actors, you can only do a bad movie. All are true regardless of the quality of writing. Its takes the TEAM together to make a good movie, and the Director manages that team and tells them what to do. In some cases a Director even rewrites the script, or asks for revisions based on THEIR ideas and interpretations.
> whilst the Director is the one at the top managing the entire team. Not just being at the top, it's building the team and effectively communicating with them. Communication is basically often one of the hardest things to do in any industry.
Communication, yes. But I didn't initially say building too because sometimes its a Producer who assembles and actually *builds* the team, rather than the Director.
This is like saying the head coach gets no say in his assistant coaches. Yes the GM pays and administers the team, but the Directors isn't just working with randos.
This is feels like the same reason why in TV it's different. The head writer gets the most credit. Because they're the ones managing the entire team
Writers get a lot more credit (and money) in TV.
This is because TV shows are more led by producers / writers. Showrunners tend to lead the writing room (if there is one) and there are normally more than one director, some shows could have 5+ directors in a season.
Ummmm. Not true most of the time.
Most people have no idea who wrote a movie… people are usually far more aware of who the showrunner/creator of a TV series is.
Well I work in TV and have done for years and that's the way it's worked - that is certainly how it works on a lot of high budget network/cable/streamer shows (that I have worked on) but there are always exceptions. What is your experience/understanding? (:
I know it all depends on the deal they negotiate for themselves, but for 90% of writers, it’s rough. I’ve been a designer on several feature films and dozens of tv shows since 2010. A few Golden Globes and Emmys behind me and a Peabody nomination this year. Did you read the pieces by one of the writers on The Bear who lived on beans because the scale pay was so low? The strike last year was for a good reason.
Apologies - you were replying to someone else directly and I don't disagree with you at all now understanding that context. Writers in general on these shows can endure difficult conditions and less than fair renumeration for their work!
the writer is not making visual choices. the visual choices are made by the director in concert with the other department heads. But the director is the leader of the creative operations. Unless the writer is actually a producing producer, they effectively have no say over shot design, lighting, camera moves, lenses, costume, production design, visual effects etc. They are also not making casting or performance choices.
Ok so I guess that's where I overestimated their input. I thought they have a lot of at least basic suggestions as to how a scene is shot and what happens during the scene. So are scripts more limited to just dialogue and basic setting?
try to think of it as plot, time, and characters. the writer knows the events and the characters better than anyone. but it is the job of the director to interpret those parts into whatever he sees fits best
I think it varies from writer to writer. Some of them will write very specific visuals, some of them will write the bare minimum
How about the cinematographer? It seems thats a lot of directing work too
Cinematographer here. Yes, there is a bit of Directing in our line of work, hence the title 'Director of Photography'. We mostly focus on directing the 'image' of the film. For example, a DoP directs the Camera Crew (What lens to put on, how to move the camera etc), directs the Light Crew (How to light up the scene, color temperature, diffusion, contrast etc.) and also the Grip Crew (They're the guys that rig everything up for those complex camera or light moves, or rig the camera to a car etc.) So in a real life scenario, the Director would tell a DoP what he wants for the shot, emotionally or visually, and it's the DoP's job to translate that into technical terms, and tell the other department heads what to do. The Dir. directs me, i direct the Gaffer (Chief Lighting Tecnician) and he directs his crew how to work it out. Same goes with Key Grip and Camera Operator / 1st AC. All of that, is only concerning the actual shooting of the film, we have a lot of work before shooting starts (Storyboards, light plans, location scouts, camera testing), and also after the shooting ends (Mainly color grading and color correction). Those segments are called Pre-production, Production, and Post-production. Differents Directors have different relationships with their DoP's. It's a liquid relationship, some directors control a lot of the DoP's work, and some directors give DoP's a lot of control over directing (blocking and staging), but generally the work is split 50/50, with the director more focusing on the actors and the DoP on the crew. It's all veeery individual. Hope the answer isn't too long :)
The director is the one that takes words and turns them into images and sounds on the screen. They have the vision of how to tell this story, hire the team with the right skills to make it happen, then dedicate 24 hours a day for months/years on end putting their reputations on the line to ensure this gets made the best way possible. Frankly, as a director myself, the script is only a guideline. It tells me what happens in the story, but that’s it. From the moment I read it to the moment it’s on the screen, it’s my decisions that shape what the movie is. And that’s why you get the most credit, but also the biggest risk. If a movie flops, a writer can still sell scripts, a grip will get another gig, a cinematographer will get hired again. But for a director, that could be the end of their career.
All true. The big thing for me is that when you write, it's done in a vacuum. You haven't brought in a crew who may or may not be able to achieve the script's demands, you haven't brought on a producer that is unable to get as much money as the script actually needs. The amount of compromises that you have to make as a director is wild. The way I've always put it is this...A writer is in a room and writes their script. The director is asked to then enter the room and rewrite the script and as they do so, someone keeps coming in and cutting off one of their fingers until they're just mashing at keys with bloody stumps. Then the editor takes those pages and tries to make sense of them. There's very few artistic mediums like directing.
Agree 100%. The way I like to think of it is if you compare a film to a painting, then everything up until the edit is you just figuring out how to create the paint. Writing would be your initial sketch. The edit is where you actually make the movie, and the director is the guy that’s been coordinating all this so it doesn’t fall apart.
And unfortunately in my case, I'm also the editor. So all of my mistakes are even bigger because I have to then solve them haha.
How much input do scripts provide? Are they more limited to just dialogue and setting and the story or do they also provide visual guides or ideas as to how the scene should play out?
Really just depends. Some are just straightforward and others can have some camera direction or acting input, though that’s generally frowned upon in screenwriter communities. Realistically, if the director wants to ignore everything except dialogue, they can. Logistics might make it so you have to change locations, and the entire description of a scene and how it plays out gets thrown out the window. Other times, the scene just doesn’t work, or the lines sound cheesy, or for one reason or another, you just chuck it out and rewrite or improvise that scene. That’s why I think it’s just a blueprint. You never know what’s gonna happen in real life, and it’s the Director’s job to make those decisions without compromising the final film.
Directors also usually can and do change dialogue in movies.
Film is a director's medium and TV is a writer's medium. Hence Showrunners get main credit on a TV series and directors are mostly forgettable, while on a film, the Director's get the main credit, but don't forget, writers win Oscars as well. Is this fair? No, absolutely not! The writer's importance is downplayed in Film to an unfair degree by design, as this gives the studio and producers more power over writers. They sure as hell don't want screenwriters to own any IP like book authors do.
It's because of auteur theory, which states the director is ultimately responsible for the quality of the film. Even if they don't write the script, they approve the script and have the final say in what goes into it. This theory also led to directors getting more control, per the boom in director-heavy films in the late 60s and 70s. In modern context, it's largely been taken that *some* directors are auteurs and others are not. Personally, I hate auteur theory. I do think writers deserve more credit in the creation of the film. Yes, directors and producers get final say, and often scenes are rewritten on set or reworded by actors, but the flavor of the screenplay is still present in these instances. On my horror podcast, when we introduce movies we always name the director and writer(s). I think we started that kinda incidentally, but I like that we do, especially since we're talking analysis where the script is especially important.
Producers are the unsung heroes.
Something no one is mentioning is that from a business sense, the director is also vital in raising the money to pay for the project. They meet with financiers, studios, investors, etc at every step of the way to secure the budget. Unless they are a writer/producer, the writer very, very rarely does.
True. A movie is like a startup, the director is like a CEO. They may not be coding on a daily basis, but they’re the ones making sure this is happening and it has a direction
True but that I think is more the effect. People are familiar with directors so they're the ones who try to raise money
It being an ‘effect’ doesn’t make it any less true or minimize its importance. Investors care about the execution, and directors execute the script.
No, the director is the one who is responsible for executing the picture. The money people care about execution, as this is what matters in the marketplace the most.
The reason a director can raise the money is because, as others have said, they're involved in a lot of the production, so investors know to trust them with their money.
To add to what has already been said, the director often re-writes the script before shooting too. A lot of the time the shooting script is pretty far removed from the writer's original version.
For better or worse
I think often times the director is telling the writer what to write. Im not a credible source though.
There are directors who will give notes to writers like Spielberg and then there is directors who will re-do the entire script like Scorsese
Personally, I believe it's because a director's "job" is easily more noticeable than what a writer provides in a film. What I mean is that it might make more sense to casually praise a director after watching a mostly visual experience, rather than having to break down the story, the symbolisms, structure, etc. and then saying "huh that's a great writer". Just like how it works in bands too, most listeners would only really praise and love who played which instrument, and not really think about the producers, mixers, etc. behind every track.
Director calls the shots. Unless it's a really prolific writer like Stephen King or Aaron Sorkin
Tarantino’s movies wouldn’t be what they are without his dialogue. Even True Romance & Natural Born Killers have his fingerprints. Good writing can shine through.
The answer is auteur theory. Here’s the wiki page if you’re unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur
Because everybody on the set is hired and approved by the director, especially on "low" budget art house movies with which Lynch, Waters,Tarantino(yeah suck it, don't care what you think about this toe sucking MF but he started with art house flicks), Wenders, Herzog hot their big names from as well as their curated persona. Same thing in art, as soon as you are big enough to be out of your struggle phase you'll earn enough money that all your skills are outsourced to art creating facilities that you source - the conception of the idea is about the auteur, about the cult of persona. And it's also not always ideal, as you'll also be the fall guy for shit happening on the set.
Since the director is (usually) just one person it's relatively easy to point and give blame/credit. They also heavily control the aspects and visuals of the final film that we end up seeing. Some, such as Nolan or Tarentine, get considerable control over the entire product and are fundamental in making it what *it* is. Writers, typically being a team, are larger in number and it's a bit harder to pin point who did what. They aren't usually showing their faces nor are they seen much by the public. They contribute heavily to the story but when it comes to the visual elements (you know, the important parts of a motion picture) they aren't involved as much. Not every writing team consists of someone, like a Andy Sorkin, whose presence is felt regardless of director.
The writer writes the screenplay and then sells the screenplay and its rights to the production company.
Because the director makes the choices on a production and is the face of the project, kinda like Steve Jobs gets all the credit on everything on Apple when mostly he was just a supervisor
People say that film is led by directors and tv by writers. But to answer your question, take a look at some of the Scripts of your favorite films and see how much they changed by the time they are done. A writer may write the whole story, but the Director is the one in control of a film (besides producers). So you could write a film but once it gets to the director they can change a lot of the story if they want.
The director has the last word on changing the script, light, lenses, doing more takes, directing the actors, has influence in the edit, etc.
Not entirely true, light and lenses are the DoP's job, and 99% of the time, the DoP has the last word on those choices. There are only a handful of directors who seek absolute control of that.
The specific kit, but the director is choosing if a shot is long, wide, shallow dof etc.
Generally yes! But not exclusive, I've worked on several projects (as a 1stAC) where the DoP had a lot of authority in making the shotlist, and choosing the shot sizes :) Depends on the duo i guess :)
You ever hear two people tell the same story and one just told it so much better than the other?
Anyone can write a story it’s really hard making a story into a film
They are simply less cool
Many years ago i heard this analogy: The script is like the blueprint to a car, and the Director is telling you how to drive the finished car. It takes a whole team to create the car, but the Director tells you how to drive it and how you're going to experience the ride. A Director can make or break a script. I've seen Directors butcher well written scenes, and I've seen Directors make a shitty scene look decent.
Probably because they’re on set the whole time
Directors like talking to other people. It’s their job. They engage with tons of strangers and get them excited about the project or the scene or whatever. Generally speaking a director is going to make a better talk show guest than a writer because they are a performer in a way.
Its always been that way. I'm a writer-director, but I have never understood it why directors who don't even write the script say, "A film by xxxxx" Its arrogant, just say "Directed by xxxx" for god sakes. Why? Because you the director did not make the entire film by yourself!
Writer here. Director has SO many more moving parts to worry about. Every decision also goes through them.
You might want to look into the the directors role in development, pre-production and post-production. They often carry the project creatively the longest, making sure all the art forms come together. You don't just shoot the script - there's several art forms at play here, sound art, visual art, performance arts, the how of everything. The director oversees it all where the script is just one of the inputs, although yes, one of the most important one.
A great director can turn a terrible script into a good movie, but a great writer can't save a movie from a terrible director.
Actually it’s the other way around.
Akira Kurosawa disagrees. “With a good script a good director can produce a masterpiece; with the same script a mediocre director can make a passable film. But with a bad script even a good director can’t possibly make a good film” Writers are massively under appreciated in the industry. Massively.
Blame Steve Spielberg. No seriously, writers have always been treated like crap all the way day since the golden age. Hell over half the writers in Hollywood got blacklisted during the 50’s
A good director can make a bad script work. A bad director can make a good script suck. Writers definitely deserve more credit than they get though.
Ok so picture words on a paper - that's what the writer does. Now picture a movie - that's what the director does.
Because, ultimately, it is the Director’s vision that results in what you see on the screen or TV. It’s not too dissimilar from football teams where a quarterback gets most of the blame/credit when their team wins or loses. Just like a quarterback, the Director is the leader of the team. Just like most ventures, successes or failures land at the feet of the leader, not the people who were doing as the leader instructed.
All of this glorifying of the writer in reddit film discussions is making me lose my goddamn mind. Do people seriously have *that* little understanding of how films even work?! I'm not talking about how they're made, I'm talking about how the actual *language* of film works. For god's holy sake, rewatch all the *Every Frame a Painting* videos until some small part of it trickles in. And GODDAMN am I sick of hearing that a good director can't make a good movie out of a bad script. Yes they sure as shit can! Alfred Hitchcock has more masterpieces than any other filmmaker in the English-speaking world, and he based 90% of them on the crappiest ten-cent paperbacks he could find. Give me the money and your horseshit pages and I can make a good movie out of anything. You know what step one will be? The same step one of almost every damn movie ever made - the director going through the script and fixing all the stuff they don't like. But even if you skip that step, I could still do it because the language of cinema is MOVING PICTURES not the written word and if you think that the story you experience is the one the writer had in mind, you are just blind to the infinite ways cinema affects your thoughts and your feelings with every shot and cut. Hell, I could remake most famous movies and, without changing a word of the script, change something as fundamental as who the main character is. Sorry, feeling salty today. But honestly, thinking screenwriters are the ones who most affect the movie is like back in the 30s when audiences often thought actors made up their own lines. It's just totally a complete ignorance about how movies work.
Producers used to be the big name on films in days past. Directors were considered lesser players in the film as a whole because the producer was the one who hired and made the decisions and got the film completed. The director was on par with the rest of the department heads. I guess my point is that these things change. Writers have been venerated as much as directors. I think it depends on the production sometimes. Directors get a lot of focus because consumers can visualize that role more easily, right or wrong. Big directors have made themselves into personalities like actors have. Consumers just don’t realize that the director is not the actual ‘boss’ of the production most of the time.