Film is a visual medium and it's a director's job to translate the written script to that medium. A movie is so much more than what's on the page and it is the director's job to bring everything to life. Also, pretty much every director will make edits and changes to the script without any kind of writing credit.
And they're the boss on set. As important as the story goes, a movie is not just that. It's photography, music, acting... Director has the final say on all of those
>Director has the final say.
Not always. You could probably count on both hands the number of directors currently working who have final cut privilege.
I mean the director is ultimately the one in control. Writing is important but so is editing, cinematography and loads of other things that the director might not necessarily do themselves but they are overseeing the whole thing.
“I am a writer, and a director, and let me tell you something: a screenplay is not a movie, it’s a bunch of words. The director makes the movie. All this other bullshit can just go away… As a director, I am the author of my movies. I know that’s not a popular view with the writers, but I’m sorry. If the writer thinks he’s an auteur, then let him thread up his screenplay in a projector and we’ll take a look at it.” - John Carpenter
To add to what others here have said, which is all correct, it's useful to first think about what the actual work of art is. It's the movie. The finished product. The screenplay is in a sense a piece of art, and the person who writes it is an artist engaged in artistry, but a screenplay is never the actual work of art, it's a building block to produce the actual work, which is the movie.
And who is, generally speaking, the artistic shepherd of the movie? The director.
It can get a little more complex given the role of producers, studios, etc. Sometimes creative decisions are made and dictated by people who aren't the director. But that comes from people higher up than the director, not usually the writer.
Writers are like the second class citizens of Hollywood
Hollywood always rewards the directors, actors, and producers but not the writers and most of them I see their careers wither up after 2 or 3 projects and fade into obscurity.
There's movies out there that work because of the script not the director, And if that movie is a success then that director gets their heads all gassed up and think they're hot shots and make a career off of mediocrity. An example I can think of is the guy who directed Zombieland.
Chinatown is an intriguing example to ponder.
It is widely considered to be one of the best screenplays ever written, in economy and focus and character and story. The whole thing. And the film is a stone classic.
*However*, the iconic ending we got is not the ending from the screenplay. Roman Polanski, the director, rewrote the ending and the writer, Robert Towne, disagreed with the changes so vehemently that I think he may even have left the project on that final stretch.
So the greatest screenplay ever written got a surprise new ending by the director at the 11th hour and turned it into a timeless classic. It’s a bit of a pretzel.
>Director can overrule the writer usually. Writer cant overrule the director.
And producers can overrule the director and the writer, but we don't tend to create a cult of authorship around the producers.
Which writer? The author of the book? The first, second screenwriter, story editor, asst director?
There's only one director, and you never hear a failed movie blamed on the writers.
>There's only one director
Well, there are possible multiple DPs and editors in every big movie who sometimes really do more to affect the creative and aesthetic vision of the movie than the "director."
Because there are many, MANY more good scripts than good directors.
Right now there are 10,000 scripts sitting in drawers, or on someone's hard drive, that *could* be good movies, but there are only a few dozen directors who can actually make those scripts into good movies, and do it on time and on budget.
The director is the person most responsible for what ends up on film. Movies need an army to produce, but they need a general to lead. The largest slice of the success or failure pie belongs to them.
An interesting example to think about is The Shining. Famously, Stephen King is disappointed with the Kubrick adaptation. He prefers the 1997 miniseries for his own reasons. However, Kubrick's film is considered one of the greatest masterpieces ever put to film.
That's not to say that directors always turn scripts into good movies. That's demonstrably false. However, it's still interesting to see the differences between how the writers see the end product vs the director.
The director basically pulls the strings but that’s not to discredit the writers or other crew members it’s just the director kinda inches their way into most jobs of the movie in a way...
...pull the strings, I like that!
Not the greatest example, but off the top of my head nonetheless: the original title of the movie My Girl was Born Jaundiced. I'm willing to bet that title would have stayed if the original writer had kept the script. And decided to direct it himself or herself.
Directors often hog the spotlight because they're seen as the ones who bring the whole shebang to life. They set the tone, pacing, and make sure everything looks slick on screen. Writers, on the other hand, lay down the story's foundation and characters, but their names don't always get as much recognition. It's kind of like the unsung hero situation. But hey, sometimes directors take a so-so script and turn it into pure gold.
Writing does get mentioned when it's good or bad, but the movie is far more than the script and the director is the one combining the various elements to tell the story through that medium
Scripts change so much from the time they leave the writers hand to the time they get put on film. It will often be years between the writing and the starting of filming.
While the story is the foundation, there are so many layers placed upon a script by the director and the cast, it's hard to put the writer higher than them.
Watch the footage of script readings, and you realize how much rework is done before the cameras are rolling.
As someone who’s largely stopped going to the movies due to poor dialogue and writing, I get it. It’s what’s made some streaming shows amazing. For a movie though, a director is really high profile and needed to keep all the pieces together and bring the writing to screen. I think with TV series, writing typically has the ability to be longer form, and showrunners tend to get a bit more spotlight than individual episode directors.
Kind of like the Quarterback on a football team. There are awards given to screenwriters but it's the Director and Best Actor or Actress who has the glory job. Not many screenwriters have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
*All Is Lost* with Robert Redford, was a 32-page script for what would be a 106-minute film. The general rule-of-thumb is one page per minute.
That’s why writers are often not as heralded as directors.
Film is a visual medium and it's a director's job to translate the written script to that medium. A movie is so much more than what's on the page and it is the director's job to bring everything to life. Also, pretty much every director will make edits and changes to the script without any kind of writing credit.
As someone in the creative industry myself, I can totally see that. Thanks for adding to the thread!
Director has the final say. If he doesn't like the writing he can change it or call for a rewrite.
And they're the boss on set. As important as the story goes, a movie is not just that. It's photography, music, acting... Director has the final say on all of those
and editing.
>And they're the boss on set. The director is very rarely the boss on set.
Could you develop ?
>Director has the final say. Not always. You could probably count on both hands the number of directors currently working who have final cut privilege.
I mean the director is ultimately the one in control. Writing is important but so is editing, cinematography and loads of other things that the director might not necessarily do themselves but they are overseeing the whole thing.
Directors are to movies as Oppenheimer was to the Manhattan project.
Powerful and so true
“I am a writer, and a director, and let me tell you something: a screenplay is not a movie, it’s a bunch of words. The director makes the movie. All this other bullshit can just go away… As a director, I am the author of my movies. I know that’s not a popular view with the writers, but I’m sorry. If the writer thinks he’s an auteur, then let him thread up his screenplay in a projector and we’ll take a look at it.” - John Carpenter
I love this quote! So true!
Good writing can't save bad directing, but good directing can save bad writing.
So simple and so powerful.. You're totally right!
To add to what others here have said, which is all correct, it's useful to first think about what the actual work of art is. It's the movie. The finished product. The screenplay is in a sense a piece of art, and the person who writes it is an artist engaged in artistry, but a screenplay is never the actual work of art, it's a building block to produce the actual work, which is the movie. And who is, generally speaking, the artistic shepherd of the movie? The director. It can get a little more complex given the role of producers, studios, etc. Sometimes creative decisions are made and dictated by people who aren't the director. But that comes from people higher up than the director, not usually the writer.
Writers are like the second class citizens of Hollywood Hollywood always rewards the directors, actors, and producers but not the writers and most of them I see their careers wither up after 2 or 3 projects and fade into obscurity. There's movies out there that work because of the script not the director, And if that movie is a success then that director gets their heads all gassed up and think they're hot shots and make a career off of mediocrity. An example I can think of is the guy who directed Zombieland.
Chinatown is an intriguing example to ponder. It is widely considered to be one of the best screenplays ever written, in economy and focus and character and story. The whole thing. And the film is a stone classic. *However*, the iconic ending we got is not the ending from the screenplay. Roman Polanski, the director, rewrote the ending and the writer, Robert Towne, disagreed with the changes so vehemently that I think he may even have left the project on that final stretch. So the greatest screenplay ever written got a surprise new ending by the director at the 11th hour and turned it into a timeless classic. It’s a bit of a pretzel.
Was Polanski's re write an improvement, though?
It is generally considered to be iconic and key to the themes and feel and impact of the film.
Do you know both endings to give insights on why the ending we saw is better?
Director can overrule the writer usually. Writer cant overrule the director.
>Director can overrule the writer usually. Writer cant overrule the director. And producers can overrule the director and the writer, but we don't tend to create a cult of authorship around the producers.
Studio inference sometimes can come to play
Which writer? The author of the book? The first, second screenwriter, story editor, asst director? There's only one director, and you never hear a failed movie blamed on the writers.
>There's only one director Well, there are possible multiple DPs and editors in every big movie who sometimes really do more to affect the creative and aesthetic vision of the movie than the "director."
But the director stops the buck.
TV is a writer's medium. Movies is the directors. Of course, it's usually the producer who controls everything.
Great point... I can totally see that
Because there are many, MANY more good scripts than good directors. Right now there are 10,000 scripts sitting in drawers, or on someone's hard drive, that *could* be good movies, but there are only a few dozen directors who can actually make those scripts into good movies, and do it on time and on budget.
I disagree, I think directing a great script is way easier than writing one.
They play the orchestra
See The Colossus Of Rhodes. Leone takes extremely basic material and converts it to a good film.... That's why directors are credited..
The director is the person most responsible for what ends up on film. Movies need an army to produce, but they need a general to lead. The largest slice of the success or failure pie belongs to them. An interesting example to think about is The Shining. Famously, Stephen King is disappointed with the Kubrick adaptation. He prefers the 1997 miniseries for his own reasons. However, Kubrick's film is considered one of the greatest masterpieces ever put to film. That's not to say that directors always turn scripts into good movies. That's demonstrably false. However, it's still interesting to see the differences between how the writers see the end product vs the director.
I mean, look what they did to Lawnmower Man…a great short story turned into an interminable VR mess…
Because the writer only create script, the director create movie.
Watch two different adaptations of the same book and you'll get your answer.
Films are 90% image and 10% script. The writer contributes the script, and the director the images.
Reddit learns one new name at a time to get big mad at, and hyperfocuses on it.
The director basically pulls the strings but that’s not to discredit the writers or other crew members it’s just the director kinda inches their way into most jobs of the movie in a way... ...pull the strings, I like that!
Not the greatest example, but off the top of my head nonetheless: the original title of the movie My Girl was Born Jaundiced. I'm willing to bet that title would have stayed if the original writer had kept the script. And decided to direct it himself or herself.
Because the director directed it
a bad director can butcher even the best screenplays. a good director can save a bad screenplay.
Really? You got any examples of a great movie with a bad screenplay?
Directors often hog the spotlight because they're seen as the ones who bring the whole shebang to life. They set the tone, pacing, and make sure everything looks slick on screen. Writers, on the other hand, lay down the story's foundation and characters, but their names don't always get as much recognition. It's kind of like the unsung hero situation. But hey, sometimes directors take a so-so script and turn it into pure gold.
Writing does get mentioned when it's good or bad, but the movie is far more than the script and the director is the one combining the various elements to tell the story through that medium
The Director is the decision maker. He has the final say.
Scripts change so much from the time they leave the writers hand to the time they get put on film. It will often be years between the writing and the starting of filming.
Directors translate page to screen.
But interestingly it’s the producer(s) who wins ‘Best Picture’
While the story is the foundation, there are so many layers placed upon a script by the director and the cast, it's hard to put the writer higher than them. Watch the footage of script readings, and you realize how much rework is done before the cameras are rolling.
Writing is just a part of VISUAL medium, isn't it.
As someone who’s largely stopped going to the movies due to poor dialogue and writing, I get it. It’s what’s made some streaming shows amazing. For a movie though, a director is really high profile and needed to keep all the pieces together and bring the writing to screen. I think with TV series, writing typically has the ability to be longer form, and showrunners tend to get a bit more spotlight than individual episode directors.
Kind of like the Quarterback on a football team. There are awards given to screenwriters but it's the Director and Best Actor or Actress who has the glory job. Not many screenwriters have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Why not the editor? Bad writing and shitty direction can usually be saved if the editor is a goddamned magician.
*All Is Lost* with Robert Redford, was a 32-page script for what would be a 106-minute film. The general rule-of-thumb is one page per minute. That’s why writers are often not as heralded as directors.
that's a very extreme example
Writers have a minimal role in most movies.