Because when people praise movies and its directors, the impression I get is that the directors are the main reasons why a movie is as good (or as bad) as it is, like they're more responsible for the story you're going to watch than the writers, the storyboard artists, and the post prod team.
Obviously, I'm not the mxycan with a film-school background, but the way I understand it is that the director's job is to tell what an actor does in a scene, and if needed, give him the proper motivation. I don't know what else, does a director also shoulder the responsibility of lighting modifications, set design, script revisions? Inquiring minds need to know.
I'm just wondering why directors - who I think are partly responsible for the interpretation of the story - get more rockstar cred than the people responsible for the story in a movie. When movies are pimped, "directed by" seems to have more weight than "written by"
To be honest, I have never bought into the theory that directors are the big deal as to whether a film stands or falls.
Without a decent story, acting and production, then a director isnt worth shit.
Cant say I have ever watched or avoided a film based on who is directing.
A film is a sum of its parts, but for me the two most important things as to whether I enjoy a film or not is the actors and the story.
It depends. Directors are the ones who tell everyone else what to do. Cinematographers are responsible for lighting and such, but they're working off of what the director has told them to do. Same with the scripts. Directors can make on the set changes to dialogue and such or even have rewrites before shooting begins. It holds for editing, music, actors performances, costumes, etc. A lot of it boils down to how much power the studio and producers give the director. Spielberg and Kubrick are perfect examples of directors who control every aspect of their movies and shape them to their own visions.
It depends. Directors are the ones who tell everyone else what to do. Cinematographers are responsible for lighting and such, but they're working off of what the director has told them to do. Same with the scripts. Directors can make on the set changes to dialogue and such or even have rewrites before shooting begins. It holds for editing, music, actors performances, costumes, etc. A lot of it boils down to how much power the studio and producers give the director. Spielberg and Kubrick are perfect examples of directors who control every aspect of their movies and shape them to their own visions.
Yeah, pretty much. In addition, a lot depends on just how good (or bad) a director is. A middling director is going to be as good or bad as the people around him or her. A guy like Scorcese, Eastwood or Nolan is going to put his stamp on something and elevate it above the genre. Conversely, no matter how good your actors and writers are, if you get someone like Uwe Boll to direct a film it's most likely going to be shit.
And by the same token, as much as a person will slate Joel Schumacher for stuff like Batman & Robin, he is also responsible for great movies like Falling Down and Lost Boys.
Falling Down was also produced by Michael Douglas, who had a heavy hand in the running of the set. Once again, it depends on the circumstances. And Lost Boys is fucking gay.
I've always thought of directors, CEOs, presidents and coaches in the same way. The great ones will surround themselves with the right people. Christopher Nolan is this way he always hires the same actors because he knows they will deliver in the way he expects them to.
If you look at the IMDb page of a guy like Terry Gilliam, he doesn't always work with the same people, but his movies still look like they were directed by Terry Gilliam because he tries to be in charge of every little detail. Same goes for Kubrick and to some degree Scorsese (a big part of the Scorsese style is due to the editor he always works with).
There aren't many directors like that, though. If a guy who doesn't have the talent tries to pull that off he'll just come off looking like a douchebag.
If you look at the IMDb page of a guy like Terry Gilliam, he doesn't always work with the same people, but his movies still look like they were directed by Terry Gilliam because he tries to be in charge of every little detail. Same goes for Kubrick and to some degree Scorsese (a big part of the Scorsese style is due to the editor he always works with).
There aren't many directors like that, though. If a guy who doesn't have the talent tries to pull that off he'll just come off looking like a douchebag.
Exactly. Once again, it depends on the director and studio/producers. Tombstone was pretty much directed by Kurt Russell, but another guy got the credit as Russell did it behind the scenes after the first director was fired. John Woo was in charge 100% of his Hong Kong movies, and they kicked all kinds of ass. He gets to America, and the studios take over giving up mediocre fare such as Hard Target.
And Lost Boys is fucking gay.
This is
You are both gay.
Did Schumacher direct your lives?
He's the one who put nipples on all of my shirts.
And Lost Boys is fucking gay.
This is
You are both gay.
Did Schumacher direct your lives?
Lost Boys sucks. Deal with it. As you savor Corey Haim's bath scene, you limey ginger poof.
And Lost Boys is fucking gay.
This is
You are both gay.
Did Schumacher direct your lives?
Lost Boys sucks. Deal with it. As you savor Corey Haim's bath scene, you limey ginger poof.
First thing that comes to your mind about it is a boy in the bath.
Yup, you are gay.