Why do directors get all the credit for a film being created, while the screenwriter who is the reason the film exists at all is completely unknown to most people?
>the screenwriter who is the reason the film exists at all
>not the producer
>while the screenwriter who is the reason the film exists
I'd say that "honour" would go to the main producer or group of producers, if anyone.
Anyway, the director gets the credit because they take what's down on the page and transform it into something that works within the realm of a visual medium.
Because director is the guy who will tie down the directing and overall cinematography to tell the screenplay.
Screenplay is a hacked-together-shit that's just bare bones, the pleb bait.
You don't even need script, screenplay, or source material like that for a movie.
but you do need director.
It really depends on the film desu. I personally find it fascinating
Sometimes the director and actor share the credit. sometimes people can't even remember who the director is for their favorite movie when he's a complete no-name and people just associate the film with the actor. For instance, I couldn't tell you who directed The Truman Show or who is in it other than Jim Carrey, because that's just a "Jim Carrey movie". I don't know the director for Casablanca either, but I do know it stars Bogart and Bergman.
And very rarely do people actually mention a screenwriter before anyone else: "True Romance! As written by Tarantino, of such hit flicks as 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs'!"
But you are right, the screenplay is the most important thing to make a film remain interesting and stick afterwards and it's kinda bothersome that some guys never get the credit for it when it all goes to the director and actor. So it goes. Oftentimes the director co-writes and overrules the screenplay anyway
>great directors are also in charge of the cinematography
people talk a lot about Deakins but listen to any interview of his and he explicitly says the Coens have a huge amount of control over how their film is shot. He can put up ideas of course and be creative, but this huge misconception about the cinematographer is actually the director is nonsense.
Cute. Upon naming the films, I instantly would know who directed such reference works. Takes just a healthily sized interest in cinema. Curtiz and Weir are very well known, then.
In resume, I am /film/, and you are the film buff of >>>reddit.
>They basically fund it.
Not really, it's mostly investors who fund the movies, and it's producers who have to get the funding from the investors and build a team to make the movie from an idea or a screenplay.
They either just pony up the cash for a movie, or they kickstart the project from scratch. Buy a script (or the rights to a novel, then hire a screenwriter to adapt it), find a director who is interested, help the director find casting director, location scouts, etc.
Usually it's something in between. Neither all hands-on, nor just "here's the money, do what you want"
When I hear script, I think, dialogue.
But a screenplay includes descriptions of the setting, action, motions and movements of the actors, camera movements, cuts, etc etc, which is all dressings around the dialogue.
Maybe colloquially they mean the same thing though I dunno.
You should see a producer as a sort of manager. His role is mostly to make sure the moviemaking process goes as fluently and efficiently as possible to create the best possible movie. To do so, he could take subordinates who are better at certain tasks like casting the right actors. Since moviemaking is a collaborative effort, he has to make sure everyone is happy working with each other, so his decisions should often reflect the best interest of the members. For instance a director might have preference for a certain editor or DP, or might hate to work with a certain actor.
FX studios and such are more often decided by the studio instead of the producer as the studio might have contracts with these studios.
The producer manages the film's production and is the highest on the food chain. They guide the film from it's gestation stages through the process of being shot and then prepared for the audience at large. They basically manage all of the teams and parts to generate a movie. The director is working for them as basically a creative coordinator. A good producer creates a technical environment where the creative processes can thrive while still maintaining a grip on the flow of work to keep the film on-time and on-budget. Sometimes being a good producer means knowing when to protect a production from the studio (such as keeping George Lucas from interfering with the off-schedule-and-budget The Empire Strikes Back) or knowing when to put the director down (like Josh Trank getting cucked on Fantastic 4).
>tfw you continue to write your script knowing full well nobody will ever buy it
Screenplay and script are the same thing. Script is just more generic and can include play scripts and other things.
A screenplay can tell you the tone and specific shots, but doesn't necessarily do so.
Just keep writing. Scripts are a product. Think of it like hitting on a girl.
You see the hottest girl in the world, and think "I want her, she's my soul mate"
So you hit on her and maybe she rejects you. It's possible that you're super suave and good looking and succeed, but she'll probably reject you. And then you're devastated
But it wouldn't make sense t give up there. Indeed, your chances grow infinitely if you keep trying. So the next day you hit on another girl. And the next another. And eventually you might succeed.
Now replace hitting on girls with writing screenplays and you'll get my point. If you write multiple screenplays, there's a higher chance one of them will get bought
(there was probably a better metaphor I could've used)
not him but the script for Pan, the dreadful with the cover of smells like teen spirit, was on the blacklist for a while
(the blacklist is a list of the most promising scripts that haven't produced yet each year as voted for by producers and screenwriters - it holds a lot of clout)
you have to be persistent
jesus fuck off back to whatever circlejerk pretentious subreddit you came from
How about he keeps trying to sell his scripts to multiple people much like trying to get pussy,he tries to get paid for his work ?
Additional writting for the sake of it lacks practicality,man has to eat to shit out more scripts
>director isn't the screenwriter
And I was sort of like that for a bit, but considering the amount of great films with separate directors and writers...
Also, Tarantino writes everything he makes and Nolan co-writes everything with his brother and we can see how good their films turn out
>mfw this thread is the closest we have at the moment to actual film discussion
the more scripts you have, the more likely a producer is to buy something
You go in with your masterpiece historical epic and finally get someone to look at it. 3 weeks later they say they're not interested, the market for historical epics doesn't seem that big these days blah blah blah
>but you've got talent kid
And then they talk about how comedies with middle-age men learning life lessons are doing well and ask if you have anything like that.
Yes this happens.
Yes, you should always be prepared. Becoming a screenwriter is about accepting that 90% of what you write will never be produced
They turn out fine, but hey, keep living the meme life
>LOL TARANTOLA SUCH A KEK LE 3:17 FUCKING RIP OFF
>NOLAN MORE LIKE DOLAN 'LOVE IS A DIMENSIOS XD LE EXPOSITION. GUYS, GUYS DID I SAY BANE LEL KKK
nice projecting faggot
If you genuinely think Nolan is a good director then you have literally no taste. Baneposting only works because that film is such a disaster
Nolan dumbs down complex themes, shoves in a shit load of exposition and baysplosions and then sells it making idiots feel inteligent because they're basically watching a michael bay film where the characters pretend to talk about something deep
Tarantino has literally never had an original thought in his entire fucking life. He's made a career out of cutting and pasting scenes from obscure films together with pop-culture soundtracks and aggressive swearing and violence
That's not talent
But hey, keep memeing and you can ignore how ignorant your film tastes are
>a stupid kid laughing out of stupidity at someone who knows their craft
Yeah, that's about right
Tbh this is true.
>Reservoir Dogs is an original piece of work
>editor fucks up
>but it's not christopher "i don't do reshoots" nolan's fault
>it's never his fault
Things like these- continuity mistakes, stunts not correctly executed- aren't found but by autists and nitpickers. They don't interfere with the flow of the film or its overall quality.
The director generally has final say, and in Nolan's case, has absolute power. He's notorious for never reshooting, or only taking limited takes.
I can't say for sure, but when Directors like Fincher shoot until they have what they believe is the perfect shot, you will never find sloppiness and glaring errors like this in their films. Nolan is a made-for-tv director. I don't care how many Shamalamadingdong twists he can pull, or how many times he can hoodwink the audience, I will never consider his work 'art'. It is just slightly above average popcorn wank for the masses.
*tipping my own before someone tips it for me*
Lmao, I have to wonder with you Amerifats. The director, producer, editor, DP, and everyone else plays a huge part in what is a collaborative process when creating a film. To think that a screenplay is 'plebbait' - whatever that means - is ridiculous. Have you ever read a screenplay in your life? Clearly not.
trust me, any director worth his salt would notice all these problems because they have to watch every scene a thousand times
if you're not a perfectionist as a director, you're a shit director
But nolan's just happy with the bare minimum. Fuck plotholes that he admits all his films have, he doesn't give a shit so why should we? And unsurprisingly plebs love him for it
There's no problem, you just have to realise you're a pleb
>the directing and overall cinematography to tell the screenplay.
It's story first and foremost you fucking retard and that comes from the screenplay. Without it you're using the tools to tell the story. You allow the story to justify the use of the tools, not the other way round. Go play in front of your green screen, Lucas.
>I couldn't tell you who directed The Truman Show
That's funny man, thought the same thing about Master and Commander which I really love and looked it up yesterday, they were both directed by the same guy Peter Weir.
Just once try to make a film of your own, you will understand the importance of the director: the guy who makes all the important decisions.
Do you have any idea how much the perspective a story is told from changes a movie?
Or the editing decisions?
Music placement, what kind of mood he wants from the color key artist, visual director/camera angles, what performance he finds adequate from the actors...
He gets all the creative control over these and the final say.
Screenwriters get a lot of credit. They have the third most important Oscar behind film and director.
Anyway its what separates movies and television and good movies from great movies.
There are so many minor and subtle things a director does that subconsciously affects the viewer. A decent movie tells a story while a great one makes you experience a story.
Im not film savy or whatever but theres a reason why theres a saying "It looks like a TV movie or it looks like a tv show"
It's inevitable, directors work with people, this makes them alphas, writers work alone and need constant coddling and "safe spaces" to do their work, they are betas, therefore it is no surprise at all that directors are easily able to secure all the credit for themselves.
Fuck off autist, this shit isn't what made that a bad film, it's just the things that bed wetting simpletons like you cry yourself to sleep over. The film was bad because it made no sense within itself and had no internal logic, he same thing that makes his other films like the dark night and memento good. Of course it's too bad that they're popular because that sends you into a frenzy of thumb-sucking and pant-pissing that only a Dragonball Z marathon can calm.
To reiterate, fuck off autist.
Not trying to defend Nolan because I think he's extremely overrated but probably does notice them in editing but for a scene like that plane one, re-shooting is way too expensive to justify fixing something that 99% of viewers aren't going to notice..
>the little details don't make a film bad
Don't get me wrong, the writing was appalling too. But this shit is unacceptable. And you spouting autist doesn't change shit. If you don't have the attention span to notice the small details in your work, you shouldn't be directing in the first place
I know what you're saying. But even with than specific scene, if, like any half decent director, he'd done multiple takes in the first place then it wouldn't be a problem.
If it was really bad, he could just take one of the takes from the other side, mirror it and correct any details in post. What I'm trying to say is that there's always a way.
Even green-screening would be better (though I know Nolan hates that too on principle)
Especially when you're making a blockbuster finale to one of the highest rated/grossing trilogies of all time