Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1482347223197.jpg (174KB, 1533x961px) Image search:
[Google]
174KB, 1533x961px
Please help me clear up this confusion /tv/
From what I know, the Director acts as an overseer and guides the editor and cinematographer and all the others who work on the movie, and makes all the important creative decisions and stuff, and this is why they are usually considered the "author" of a movie.
However, in awards for some reason Best Picture and Best Director are two different things. Wouldn't the best director make the best movie? That's like saying "This writer is great but not his book." Are there movies where the directing is great but the movie sucks, or vice versa? How do you separate directing from the movie when it is the movie? desu I don't really know what it means when people say "the directing is great," other than the movie itself was good.
>>
>>79955771
>directing is great but the movie sucks
For instance that happens when the source material (script) sucks but the movie is coherent, its pace is on point, etc.
>>
>>79955771
>The Academy gives out meaningless awards to stroke the egos of it's members
Holy shit I think you might be on to something theredumb frogposter
>>
Best Picture goes to the producers of the film. When a film wins Best Director, but not best picture, it means the directing, what you see on screen, is better than the other film, but isn't better as a whole. La La Land is a big extravagant film with good directing, so Chazelle gets the award, but Moonlight is the better film overall.
>>
>>79956003
>it means the directing, what you see on screen, is better than the other film, but isn't better as a whole
but what you see on screen is the movie?
>>
>>79956025
There's also the music, the costumes, the story, the actors and everything
>>
>>79956039
And they all have their own categories
>>
>>79956070
And the best overall gets the "Best picture" award
>>
>>79955771
What does a director even really do? Unless they're also the screenwriter, it seems like they just take credit for everyone else's hard work.
>>
>>79956003
>producers
So the Jews that throw the most money behind a movie while having no influence on how it is made?
I wish I was wealthy so I could win an award for simply funding a movie.
>>
>>79956147
He gives the order, he's the General.
>>79956099
But that's not true
>>
>>79956039
Okay, but isn't part of directing working with those people?
>>
>>79956221
But the general has knowledge of military tactics and plans out the attacks. The director could potentially just sit on his ass saying "yes" or "no" to everything.
>>
>>79956299
The director has knowledge of film-making and plans out the movie making.
They're the business manager, the football coach, the person making the decisions that all the other people follow.
>>
>>79956299
>The director could potentially just sit on his ass saying "yes" or "no" to everything.
Some of them do. Some of them just worry about the technical aspects of films. Some of them are really hands on working with every step of production. Some of them laboriously plan out every single shot.
>>
>>79956213
>So the Jews that throw the most money behind a movie while having no influence on how it is made?
The producers are not the studio execs you stupid fuck, they're the ones who pick the script and start the project in order to get it done in time and budget, They're the middle point between the studio and the director
>>
>>79956426
Don't the producers just have the financial backing and chooses the studio and director and shit?
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1