Discussion in 'Fan Films, Fan Audio & SciFi 3D' started by VinDyr01, Jan 2, 2002.
okay .... whew.
JS Starnes - <<I'll agree that the writer sets the basic foundation for the movie - but ... >>
TRANSLATION ... So you're a writer ... WHO CARES?!
Without the written word, YOU DON'T HAVE A MOVIE, JS. Someone has to write down the scenes, someone has to give the actor DIALOG, someone has to describe the action so the director can ... well DIRECT.
And that someone is a WRITER.
In the case where director's write ... well they take off one hat and put on another.
And in cases where that director, or the producer, gets "an idea for something" ... THAT'S WHAT THE STORY BY CREDIT IS FOR.
But to casually offer a variety of excuses why it's okay to IGNORE a writer's efforts and not give credit where credit is due is atypical of someone who thinks that only the director or producer deserves accolades for the birth of a film.
Well, as writers, we've been fighting that kind of attitude since Edison put light through a piece of acetate and don't find it all all suprising ... even now, here on the fan film board.
The bottom line is, if you're going to list categories of excellence for any film venture - even fan films - A WRITER MUST GET THEIR PROPS JUST AS MUCH AS AN ACTOR OR DIRECTOR.
I'm not saying I want "a film by" credit ... that's certainly the director's right and purvue.
But giving credit where credit is due ... is absolutely appropriate ... NOT "BUTS" ABOUT IT.
Don't sit on the fence, just come out and tell us what you think
Semaj, I don't understand. As a writer, I'd have thought you were in FAVOUR of writer's getting more credit, yet you seem to be saying that a film is purely dependant on the director.
As a director, I understand what it is to appreciate good writing.
Perhaps it's best summed up in what Spielberg once said, "We owe our career's to the writers."
Cheers to all of the writers out there. Thanks.
I am both a writer and director (though I have yet to direct my own fan film, I have directed other projects).
A writer writes. He deserves screenplay, and/or story by credit if he came up with the idea. Once I write something, I let go of it. It's no longer my responsibility.
A director directs. He takes the design and builds the film.
I've said it before. If you use the analogy of building a house. There's the architect and the builder.
The builder builds the house, the architect designs it. Now, should the architect demand to be called the builder of the house as well? No, of course not. He designed it. But he should definitely be given his due for his design.
They have a symbiotic relationship. A house can't get built without both. But the difference is that in the home building industry the architect is much more revered and respected than a writer is in our industry.
I don't much care for "more credit." I think writers have the screen credit they deserve.
What I want is RESPECT. I think that's what every writer wants. To be given the kind of respect for their work as a director enjoys for theirs.
And that doesn't mean "a film by." That means directors/producers A-C-K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-I-N-G that a writer designs the story and WITHOUT the writer, a film can't get made.
So, to bring it full circle, folks.
If you want to come up with kudos for excellence with these silly lists, don't list everything else but the writer. Give respect where respect is due.
That's all this writer asks, anyway.
AAHAHAHAHH!!!! I RESURRECTED THIS THREAD AND PEOPLE ARE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY! IM A GENIUS!
As a director and writer, I think both jobs are just as important. I think writers shuld get a MUCH bigger credit in the movie though. The Star does not make the movie Great, but the director makes the movie creative and interesting. The playwright makes the movie work.
Actually, a playwright writes PLAYS.
A screenwriter writes movies.
My mistake. I'm used to my drama class.
You seem to be under the illusion that we are talking about the same thing. You need to pay attention to what is actually posted.
I am not trying to prove that a movie can be made without being written, that is clearly impossible.
Neither am I trying to argue that the writer isn't an integral part of the filmmaking process. As a film must be written in order to be made, the writer must be a part of the filmmaking process.
What I was talking about is who is more important to the final product, the director or the writer. I believe that it is the director. Yes, you can make an analogy that the writer sets the foundation for the director to build on, and is thus the most important member - but I believe that this is a fallacy. A house built on a weak foundation will eventually tumble over, but many a great movie has been made from a weak script, made great through the hands of the director (the original SW, I think, is a perfect example of this - the film is much, much stronger than the script - in most any other directors hands, it would have crumbled in on itself, because of its weak foundation), and vice versa, many a strong script (like Quentin Tarantino's original script for True Romance) has been ruined by a bad director.
For both good and bad, the director is the one who decides what the film is going to be - many a script can be (and is) written without a director, but no film can be made without one (yes, yes - the script exists independently of the film, and coud be seen as the stronger component - that's not really true, all components of a film exist seperately of the film, a film is a total greater than the sum of its parts - and it is the director who makes it so, not the writer).
And by the way, a STORY BY credit has nothing to do with whom came up the original idea (one reason why authors don't get story by credit when their books are turned into screenplays) - it is given based on written material in the shooting draft of a screenplay. Even though Steven Spielberg helped come up with the story for E.T., he neither deserved nor recieved any writing credit for the movie becuase he did no actual writing. What he did was sit next to the writer and direct her in the crafting of the screenplay so that it would reflect the vision he had of the movie.
<<someone has to describe the action so the director can ... well DIRECT. >>
If you've never read action descriptions in a script, it is usually very minimal - the specifics (and sometimes all of the action, if the director feels like it) are decided by the director when he begins taking the script and turning it into shots as a part of pre-production.
I've been writing scripts for nearly 10 years, JStarnes, so I don't need a lesson in scriptwriting 101.
And I NEVER said that the writer was more important than the director. NEVER. I was pointing out that the writer needs to get the respect he is due. Nothing more and nothing less. I also agreed that the director deserves the film by credit because he takes the script and brings it to life.
Maybe I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, eh?
CLOSE THAT THREAD - HEY - CLOSE THAT THREAD
CLOSE THAT THREAD - HEY - CLOSE THAT THREAD
<<To Semaj: I appreciate your feedback. I apologize for offending you. I meant nothing personal by the remark, but it is a creative fact of filmmaking that the director is the "auteur" of the film, and thus receives the credit. The writer receives the story credit, but once the director comes on the production, the screen writer is only referred to sparingly for story reference, and rarely has any say on what appears on screen (I speak from personal experiences.)>>
This is were the argument started, and I sided with Vyn in regards to the auteur theory of film, and was told that I wasn't giving enough respect to the written word, when all I had said was that I thought the director was generally involved with all aspects of a film from start to finish, including the screenplay, and not necessarily in a writing persona but in a directing persona.
I am paying attention.
JediTAC, can't you let us debate, isn't that what message boards are for?
No, message boards are for FAQs