Why all the "directors vision" junk?

[toef]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

But still a well written story plays like a movie in your mind. when you read a book what pulls you in is you see it all in your head. so what you see in your head is what it should look like on film.

Obviously there are writer/director combos out there (Tarantino, Nolan, Coens, etc), so it's not impossible to sort of "see" the movie as you write it.

But I think a lot of people don't want to give the directors enough credit.

It may be possible to visualize the final outcome in your head, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being able to pull it off.

I can visualize myself batting in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series, and hitting the game winning home run. That doesn't mean I can go and actually make it happen.

Similarly, it might be possible to visualize how a movie plays out in your head, but if you're dumped on a set with a camera and crew, you'll probably be lost as to what to do next.

What you're seeing in your head is the finished product. What you're not seeing is all the little pieces that go into making it, and that can be a bit overwhelming. As sussudio said, there's a lot more to it than calling "action" and "cut".

[koontz1973]

I have always seen films as a collaboration of visions, from the guy with the initial pitch, the studio taking that next step, the writer(s), directors, stars, lightning, effects, stunt people etc etc. No one person can claim overall total vision of a film. But it is the director who not only gets the fame but also the criticism, he/she is only as good as there last film.

A writer can also get a small bit of fame if he/she has a few hits under his belt. There are some writers whose films/TV I like (Aaron Sorkin, David E Kelly.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

I still don't see the directors being so all powerful and perfect that they have the right to be given so much liscense over someone elses work.

The "right" comes with the other responsibilies of being given the role of Director. I am not sure what it is you don't understand. These are two different jobs and each require different skills.

[Spiderbri]

but some of you are arguing with the wrong angle. of course a writer doesn't know the technical parts of directing. that's not the issue. I'm not talking about what camera to use or how much lighting to have. I'm talking about the story. how it flows, the script, the setting, the look of the characters.

and I'm not saying directors don't deserve credit for what they do, my point has always been why does it matter more about the directors "vision" of a script instead of the writers "vision" of a script when the writer wrote it?

I agree that the best solution is definitely the writer/director combo like Tarentino or Lucas. Because then it truly is their vision and deserves to be whatever they want it to be.

But I'm getting the feeling I should just stop bothering, because clearly no one shares or understands my view on this. Every response (and I appreciate that they are all civil ) have been defending the directors to the end.

I suppose it doesn't matter its just opinion, plus Hollywood certainly isn't going to change. I just hope more writers are able to become directors so THEIR visions can truly be shown.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

I just hope more writers are able to become directors so THEIR visions can truly be shown.

Except David Goyer. He should stick to writing, because he can't direct.

[Clark Kent]

Hollywood movies are vehicles for the director's creativity. Writers have a much reduced role in comparison. Writing a script only barely resembles the control a novelist has over their works. It is the commercial reality that writers are at the bottom of the totem pole in most movies. Lead actors will often have more input into the script than the principal screenwriter.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

when you read a book what pulls you in is you see it all in your head. so what you see in your head is what it should look like on film.

But exactly who's head are we talking about? Your's? Mine? Someone else? Do you truly believe that when 10 people read a book they imagine in their head what is written and describe in it the same way? Sure we all read the same words but believe me, we interpret them very differently. So who get's to bring this to the movie? Yep you got it the director! It may not be your vision of what you think it should be but then again you are not the director.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

but some of you are arguing with the wrong angle. of course a writer doesn't know the technical parts of directing. that's not the issue. I'm not talking about what camera to use or how much lighting to have. I'm talking about the story. how it flows, the script, the setting, the look of the characters.

I get what you're saying - and agree - the writer of the movie is probably the last person to get credit for a great movie experience.

However, I do believe the director deserves top credit/blame.

It's their job to create the imagery from the words, the direct the actors to say those words the way they were meant to be heard out loud, etc.

Take the story of The Empire Strikes Back and let Uwe Bole direct it and see how good the "story" is.

Same with The Dark Knight - let Brett Ratner direct and see if the "story" is just as good.

Writer's deserve more credit - no doubt about it, but the "director's vision" is essential to the best of movies.

[Jeremy1983]

I have written feature-length scripts and written and directed short films. While I have the utmost respect for screenwriters and have a tremendous respect for the craft, let me tell you, the director's job is MUCH more difficult.

The writer sits in a cozy chair in front of a computer and is limited only by his/her imagination and a deadline. A director has so many things to worry about on-set like budget, managing talent and crew, equipment failures, weather, long grueling schedules, deadlines, crazy movie execs and producers, etc, etc, and they have to be able to adapt and adjust on the fly, all while maintaining his/her vision for the film.

The writer can visualize all they want, but their vision is not the end product. The directors vision (usually) is. Screenwriter deserves credit for creating a compelling story, which is unquestionably difficult and important, but that's it. Directors deserve all the credit they get, and then some!

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

my point has always been why does it matter more about the directors "vision" of a script instead of the writers "vision" of a script when the writer wrote it?

Because again, the goal of the writer is not to express their vision, it is to express their story...the goal of the director is to see that story through to the screen by way of his/her vision. Separate jobs, separate responsibilities....you're mixing them up, my friend

(unless of course, the writer is also the director)

[Spiderbri]

But I'm not.

You guys just aren't getting it. I don't care if the directors job is more involved. that's not the point.

The point is the WRITER knows what it is supposed to look/sound like. It is HIS/HER VISION not just a dang story.

These arguments that story and vision are different. and directors do more so they deserve more credit has no relevancy.

I've been trying to say that directors concept of the script should not trump the writers. THEY WROTE IT! they know exactly what it should be like. I don't care if they don't know the tech specs of what lens to use or what filter or the editing process that's not the point.

Someone (i apologize for not being able to do the multi quote thing) said if 10 ppl read something they see 10 different things in their heads. I completely agree.

they also said who should say what the right version is? the director. NO the WRITER. They wrote it. It's not just "some story" it is their vision of events, characters, relationships, themes.

I guess I didn't state it well enough in my first post. I am NOT knocking directors or saying don't deserve credit or respect for the hard work they do. Good movies are because of good writing, AND good acting AND good directing. Most certainly!

I was just talking about how much emphasis is put on a directors vision when I think the true vision of any story is the writers because they created it. The directors job originally was to take the written word and put it on film. Now directors have this power to use the script as more of a guideline instead of an actual core.

I hope I've finally made my views clear on this.

[dmb70]

Any artistic endeavor that also involves commerce usually has someone who has the final say. In film it is typically the studio. They finance the project & selects a director to oversee their investment. The director in turn probably brings on people who have other specialties, such as sound, costuming, lighting, a DP, assistant director, editor ect.

So in film the director is the person in charge of bringing the creation to life. In TV the producer is the power player, in journalism & literature it's probably the editor, in music it's probably the producer.
Once an artist establishes themselves then typically they get more creative control & recognition.

So as a writer if you want more creative control & recognition you'll have to direct your own material, Kevin Smith & James Cameron are two examples off the top of my head.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

I was just talking about how much emphasis is put on a directors vision when I think the true vision of any story is the writers because they created it. The directors job originally was to take the written word and put it on film. Now directors have this power to use the script as more of a guideline instead of an actual core.

I hope I've finally made my views clear on this.

Now. I think I understand the point you were trying to make.

The answer is simple, it's called business.

1) A studio buys the rights to a story from the author.
2) The studio then decides how best to turn this story into a film.
2a) Your view is that the writer's "vision" is what should count.
2b) But this is not what he/she sold to the studio, he/he sold the rights to a story.
3) The studio decides to hire a Director to create his/her "vision" of the story.
4) The Director is defacto Project Manager of the film subject to a budget the Producers have provided.

5) As Project Manager in the end, the Director has to answer to the studio and/Producers, this is what gives him/her God like powers.

Final: The Writer sold the rights to the story for a movie to be made. Nobody forced the writer to sell the story, it was a choice they made. Some regret that choice once a film is made (see Clive Cussler's and his Dirk Pitt novels) and don't like the "vision" the Director created.

Movies are all about choices people make; from the writer, the studio, the Producers, the Director, the DP, the casting people etc...

Final Note: Directors are not perfect, the day you find one who says they are, take a step back and remember this is the day you met a fool. Poor or even great Directors are always learning about the art form. Bad ones, of which there are enough don't care about the art. And that is sad.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

The point is the WRITER knows what it is supposed to look/sound like. It is HIS/HER VISION not just a dang story.

I've been trying to say that directors concept of the script should not trump the writers. THEY WROTE IT! they know exactly what it should be like.

Oh, well, than that is a silly point to try and make.

If the writer wants HIS/HER VISION filmed - then they need to be the DIRECTOR too! That's the only way that will work - a director can only "envision" what the words conjur up in "their" minds.

Also, sometimes, what is on the page does not translate to film and needs to be changed.

[dcowboy7]

Yea if the directors are so concerned about "vision" they shouldnt let most tv stations show thier movies in non OAR format.

Yes i know someone will post its not under their control, but not the point, they still let it happen.

[Spiderbri]

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

Now. I think I understand the point you were trying to make.

The answer is simple, it's called business.

1) A studio buys the rights to a story from the author.
2) The studio then decides how best to turn this story into a film.
2a) Your view is that the writer's "vision" is what should count.
2b) But this is not what he/she sold to the studio, he/he sold the rights to a story.
3) The studio decides to hire a Director to create his/her "vision" of the story.
4) The Director is defacto Project Manager of the film subject to a budget the Producers have provided.

5) As Project Manager in the end, the Director has to answer to the studio and/Producers, this is what gives him/her God like powers.

Final: The Writer sold the rights to the story for a movie to be made. Nobody forced the writer to sell the story, it was a choice they made. Some regret that choice once a film is made (see Clive Cussler's and his Dirk Pitt novels) and don't like the "vision" the Director created.

Movies are all about choices people make; from the writer, the studio, the Producers, the Director, the DP, the casting people etc...

Final Note: Directors are not perfect, the day you find one who says they are, take a step back and remember this is the day you met a fool. Poor or even great Directors are always learning about the art form. Bad ones, of which there are enough don't care about the art. And that is sad.

ah see. now here is an argument that at least see's part of what I was getting at and brings up reasons why things are the way the are. thank you.

You are right the writer does pretty much give up any ownership once they sell a manuscript or such to a studio. probably one of the main reasons why writers are not part of the actual movie creation process.

however my main point is still, and was meant to be, a opinion debate. Everyone still seems to think I am bashing directors or I am an idiot and don't understand what directors do and how many people are involved with movies who's money, blah,blah, blah.

I am well aware of all of that.

the point is still that I don't think a directors vision is better than the writers. yes this is how it is, yes you are a writer and don't like it then be a director too, blah blah blah.

I'm just saying it's bassackward

perfect world the director should work with the writer to understand and translate the writers vision to the screen. not make up his/her own interpretation of the script.

oh well. I appreciate all the responses anyway even if no one really got what I was trying to discuss.

[zahinn]

Originally Posted by Spiderbri

Ok, over the last few years I've been getting more and more annoyed with all the talk about "the directors vision" or "how the director intended"

Why? How about the dang writers vision? they are the one that, you know, came up with the whole MOVIE!

ok, ok. Admitedly I have aspirations of being a writer so there is no doubt bias. however if I ever got good and gained some influence I'd like to direct as well. (both pipe dreams that will never happen)

But seriously, I just don't get it. When I make a story I see in my head exactly how it should be. Tha camera angels, the facial expressions, the timing, everything. But writers get no love. Everyone knows actors, and at least half of the directors get a certain level of fame.

But how many normal people know who WROTE the Matrix, or Spider-man or Transformers. They know who directed them, and who stared.

It just seems like BS. It should be the writers vision what they wanted to portray not the director. If nothing else it should be a colaboration, but most scripts get rewritten half the time.

Granted I'm not in hollywood so I don't KNOW anything, maybe the writers are always on set helping the director. But from what I've heard and seen in behind the scenes stuff they aren't.

Who cares if the director wanted grain, maybe the writer didn't. Who cares if the director wanted to make it darker and more edge, maybe the writer wanted it to be lighter with more of a comedic edge.

And we can't say the director is always right because if the writers vision isn't done we don't know how it would have done financially.

*sigh* I don't know. It just has really started to bug me, and I know it will never change. But I wanted to see what you guys thought.

Thanks for listening.

Yes...its a sad truth. In the end, the director's vision is what we truly see. But hey, if the script is good, there is a higher chance of the movie becoming successful (critically or financially).

I am also going to major in screenwriting ^.^ I know how you feel

[WiWavelength]

Read up on Andrew Sarris' "Auteur theory," which views the director as the "author" of the film.

AJ

[mjbethancourt]

The writer is not the creator of the film any more than they are the creator of any painting, illustration, or music that is inspired by their work. A film is a work of art independant of the book that inspired it.

In the case of something being written specifically for the screen, then it's like Logan said, that they were someone contracted to do a job which is part of a whole, and the writer doesn't own "dibs" on creative credit for the movie any more than any of the other major contributors. The "director's vision" is supreme, because that is his specific job in the team collaboration that is filmmaking.

[Cremildo]

So, you are a screenwriting student (or was, since this thread is years old) with a big chip on your shoulder who's already resenting the fact that directors tend to get most of the spotlight - and you don't know why.

I think you're not going to have a happy career. It seems like you're concerned only about your part in getting a film made. Don't you read about other stages of the filmmaking process? Don't you watch film-related documentaries? Aren't you a collector of Criterion or Masters of Cinema DVDs and Blu-rays, with all their making-ofs, essays, interviews etc.? How can you not realize that your screenplay is a means to an end that is going to be interpreted and "translated" from page (written words) to screen (visuals) by another artist - i.e. the director? (supervising other key collaborators, of course, such as actors, editors, cinematographers, designers etc.)

The backstage drama between Alain Resnais and writer Alain Robbe-Grillet in Last Year at Marienbad is so illustrative of this. Read this. Robbe-Grillet thought he had written a very specific and rigid script only to be taken aback by the way Resnais ended up seeing it his own way when directing it.

What we see on the big screen is the movie. Your screenplay isn't.