A Film By... How does it sit with you?

Drunk on the Moon said:
There's such a lack of good scripts that all we have now is remakes and utter crap like Kick Ass and Avatar.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Kick Ass was fantastic... would be really interested in the "international gems" you found as I love foreign cinema too and I'm always looking for new films I missed out on...

How come you guys think the auteur theory has hurt cinema? Maybe its just my tastes or maybe i misunderstand the auteur theory but Im confused.
 
Drunk on the Moon said:
superficial dork director
Click to expand...
I smell t-shirt...

dork.jpg
 
Well, I think if it is for a DVXfest it is no problem. People around here know each other enough to recognize the name and have an association. That's for the poster. In the final film there are full credits anyway.
 
It doesn't bother me at all. In fact if it was a Tarantino film or Ron Howard or whatever it would catch my attention as something I might not have been aware of and would want to watch.

As for egotistical, I don't see it that way. More of a marketing tag as was mentioned.
It doesn't mean to me that they did it all by themselves, more of a 'presented by' kind of thing.

At any rate, I'm not anal about it. It can be a good thing, from my pov though anyways.
I'm sure national marketing campaigns may differ so don't by any means go by me. :)

//btw: I did read Barry's link. Excellent and a little sad that that kind of thing happens to writers and their stories.
 
Last edited:
Even if I get flak for this - I do it.

If you had the idea or vision, and you are the person who made the film came true, it actually is a "Film by You". If you did not start the whole thing, there would be no film at all.

In my book it´s also a kind of signature. A guaranty - or at least some sort of promise - that the film will have a certain "quality". If you see a poster or trailer with "A Woody Allan Film" you probably know what to expect.

Starting early with it can´t hurt, so people get used to your name. Carpenter doesn't actually need it anymore - but I guess he does it for nostalgic reasons.

I don´t feel, like it does anything away from the rest of the crew (they get their detailed credits anyway).

IMHO "A film by soandso" says only, that´s the guy that started it all.

myct2

- A post by Frank - :happy:
 
Postmaster said:
Even if I get flak for this - I do it.

If you had the idea or vision, and you are the person who made the film came true, it actually is a "Film by You".
Click to expand...

Problem is that the person who had the idea or vision is hardly ever the person who 'made the film come true.'

'Making things come true' is the province of the creative professionals* and crew who actually did the work. Having hired or otherwise engaged those people does not make the hiring individual the sole creator of the work, any more than the Sistine Chapel ceiling is the work of Pope Julius II - who after all could have perfectly straight-facedly claimed to have had the idea and vision, and just hired some guy to sling the paint.



* or amateurs
 
Zak Forsman said:
a post by Zak Forsman
Click to expand...

Well, now this is back to the use of the title re:established brands. Sure, seeing that it's a post by Zak Forsman piques my interest as a consumer. What? A Zak Forsman post? What will it be? Will it touch my Heart of Now? Or will I Just F***ing Hate It? If it were a post by Joe DVX or some other guy I'd never heard of, what's the point?

And, blue is pretty.
 
Well English is not my first language and "'made the film come true" was probably the wrong term.

I try to explain:

If there is nothing in the beginning and then there is one guy that has a vision/idea. Than he elate and inspires people to follow him, makes sure there is a solid screenplay, money, cast and crew - even if writing, casting, lighting and acting is not done by him, but caused by him and his vision. Then it is his film and he has all the right in the word to write that on a poster, cause he caused the film to exist at all.

I understand, that this is not the Hollywood standard way to make films.
So a indyfilmmaker maybe has a better right to "brand" his film, than a studio production.

Frank
 
Sad Max said:
Well, now this is back to the use of the title re:established brands. Sure, seeing that it's a post by Zak Forsman piques my interest as a consumer. What? A Zak Forsman post? What will it be? Will it touch my Heart of Now? Or will I Just F***ing Hate It? If it were a post by Joe DVX or some other guy I'd never heard of, what's the point?

And, blue is pretty.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. Okay. I guess I'm a little ahead of you guys on the ol' beer-o-meter tonight.
Got it.

@Frank. Makes sense.
 
*shrug* Frank, no matter how you slice it you are taking credit for the work of others.

Which is of course your call to make, if you want to.
 
David Jimerson said:
What annoys me is the onslaught of trailers declaring "visionary directors."
Click to expand...

It's okay so long as they are directing adaptations of the best-loved story of our time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top