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

Fahad said:
i think i like what George Lucas did in A New Hope. i haven't seen any Star Wars in a while (or paying attention)... but if i remember correctly, the movie starts with the movie (a long time ago.... STAR WARS.... blah blah blah....).... gives you a kick-ass movie, it ends and you go WOW! and then it cuts to: Directed by George Lucas and made possible by everyone else in the end credits.
Click to expand...
100% agreed, I think this was the perfect way to do it.

Except that the Director's Guild of America refused to allow him to do it. In order to do it, George actually had to resign from the DGA.
 
IIRC the DGA's primary beef was with the 'Lucasfilm Ltd' title card at the opening: they argued that this was basically a sneaky front-end credit when no one else was getting one (since it was Lucas' name even if there was no specific associated credit) and therefore violated standards.

But it's been a while.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
i have to say, one of the things that puzzles me "from the guys that brought you disaster movie, or meet the spartans".
Click to expand...

It's all marketing. Someone somewhere in here said "No one care about who made the film." (or some derivation of that line).

Honestly, that couldn't be further from the truth. The average movie goer might not actively seek out films directed by X director. But if the studio associates the film with "From the people that brought you X movie (that our target demographic enjoyed)", people can associate the film with something they watched and enjoyed earlier.

Let's look at Due Date. A Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures film. Zach Galifinakis and Robert Downey Jr. Zach is playing the same character that he did in the hangover (kinda). It's the same director, the same studio, and the same production house. Targeted at the same demographic as the hangover.

What's it say in the trailer? "From the Director of The Hangover"

Marketing. It's the idea of pre-awareness.

Long story short, link the film to something else that was interesting to your demographic. Hopefully people will be more interested in going to see it. There's really no other reason films are marketed using the "A film by X" or "From the team that brought you Y".

And like someone else said earlier, if your film is tagged with a "a film by [some random guy]", what's the point? Even with Due Date, they didn't name the director. Most trailers don't. Because people don't know who directed most films today. Major people aside. And even if you use the "From the Director who brought you [some random film that was never distributed]" Who is going to care?

If you aren't established, if your production house isn't established, if your films aren't known. Then I'd hazard to say you hurt yourself. Because it looks terribly amateur and pretty desperate.
 
Well, the only legitimate level at which the a film by business works is marketing. And ego-strokeage, to whatever degree that's 'legitimate.'
 
Sad Max said:
IIRC the DGA's primary beef was with the 'Lucasfilm Ltd' title card at the opening: they argued that this was basically a sneaky front-end credit when no one else was getting one (since it was Lucas' name even if there was no specific associated credit) and therefore violated standards.

But it's been a while.
Click to expand...
That's not the way I remember it. The Lucasfilm Ltd card is not really any different from the 20th Century Fox leader. But the problem the DGA had as I remember it (and, I think I got this from Kurtz's book, not sure now) is that they demanded the director's name come before the film title, that they couldn't allow a precedent to be set where the director's eminence was diminished.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Other than Hitchcock and Capra, I don't want to see a name above the title.
*(Add Jim Henson and Walt Disney to that list, for different reasons.)

Below is kosher, if it works aesthetically for the poster/marketing.
Click to expand...

And I don't ever want to see Comic Sans in a post. You've been warned. :Drogar-Sick(DBG):
 
Barry_Green said:
That's not the way I remember it. The Lucasfilm Ltd card is not really any different from the 20th Century Fox leader. But the problem the DGA had as I remember it (and, I think I got this from Kurtz's book, not sure now) is that they demanded the director's name come before the film title, that they couldn't allow a precedent to be set where the director's eminence was diminished.
Click to expand...

I might have it backwards; maybe the argument was that the 'Lucas' in Lucasfilm served as a front credit, or didn't.

Sure, protecting the 'eminence' of the director sounds like a priority for the Directors' Guild.
 
I think some people just have the ideas that "a film by" somehow is implying that this person did everything himself. Thats just absurd and impossible. So i think its more appropriate to understand it as an arbitrary way of saying this person, in the ultimate sense, is the driving force behind the movie's creation.

The films in my head will never be created by anyone else, its impossible, you will never see them on the screen unless I work hard to bring them there. Im sure others have felt that way and perhaps for many that is all the "a film by" credit is implying.

Could it be that the off putting reaction we sometimes have to it is caused by our own insecurities and desires to feel more important within the creation of a film? Sometimes it hard to accept that we can just be work for hire in the larger scheme of a passionate vision.

I know that on the few film sets I ever worked on there was an overwhelming atmosphere of "this is my job" No one would have died for the films, or even come anywhere close to sacrificing themselves :) but since they were paying gigs everyone certainly tried to appear like they "work hard" so they could network and get future gigs. These were films had budgets of around 300k, so nothing really big or really small. It was an eye opening experience tho to see that most people working on a film were just 'working'. No one except the director would have mortgaged their house for the film.
 
Seriously though, the problem remains: when you describe this person (who), in the ultimate sense, is the driving force behind the movie's creation I have to admit that I think more of the producer than the director. Of course every project is to some degree its own unique thing, and of course there can be a lot of overlap in responsibilities or people both producing and directing on the same project. But if you want to identify the individuals who usually have the most influence over and responsibility for 'making things happen' you will more frequently be describing producers than directors.
 
The New Film By Quentin Tarantino = The New Film By TEAM TARANTINO

-also-

Producer = King,
Director = Prime Minister
(so of course the Producer (King) represents the Movie (Nation)...and collects said award.)







Tags: Quentin Tarantino; David Jimerson; Bwahaha
 
Last edited:
Producer=God-Emperor
Director=God-Emperor's Regent and Representative on Stage
Assistant Director=Prime Minister
2nd Assistant Director=Master of the Gentleman Pensioners/Hatchet Man
Director of Photographer=Court Painter
Production Designer=Court Sculptor
Writer=Dungeon Occupant #1

---

Peasants
 
I have no problem with "A film by" credit for writer-directors. They are the filters through which everything else flows and are therefore the rightful heirs to that title.

However, I do have a big problem with "A film by" credits for directors that DIDN'T also write. If you didn't write it then you are not the author -- period. This is especially contemptuous in the indie scene where there is no marketing scapegoat to blame one's unbridled hubris on.

And on that subject and to riff further off Zak's thoughts, the makers of indie films (short indie films in particular) would do well to remember no one cares what any of our names are yet. That has to be earned. Minute-long opening titles on a six minute short is just light-yourself-on-fire obnoxious. In all likelihood they will never see any of those names ever again. Same thing goes for the litany of fake production companies plastered everywhere. No one cares. It's ridiculous. Dive into your story headfirst. That's what people care about. That's what they came for. No one cares about the actors you found on craiglist or your uncle/producer, stop wasting everybody's time and tell your story. Wow them with that and they'll remember your name even if they only see it at the end when it can actually be given some sort of context/significance.
 
Sad Max said:
...Writer=Dungeon Occupant #1...
Click to expand...
Nice.

...Or perhaps:
Writer =
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

"Piss Boy"​
 
Kubrick71 said:
I think some people just have the ideas that "a film by" somehow is implying that this person did everything himself. Thats just absurd and impossible. So i think its more appropriate to understand it as an arbitrary way of saying this person, in the ultimate sense, is the driving force behind the movie's creation.

The films in my head will never be created by anyone else, its impossible, you will never see them on the screen unless I work hard to bring them there. Im sure others have felt that way and perhaps for many that is all the "a film by" credit is implying.

Could it be that the off putting reaction we sometimes have to it is caused by our own insecurities and desires to feel more important within the creation of a film? Sometimes it hard to accept that we can just be work for hire in the larger scheme of a passionate vision.

I know that on the few film sets I ever worked on there was an overwhelming atmosphere of "this is my job" No one would have died for the films, or even come anywhere close to sacrificing themselves :) but since they were paying gigs everyone certainly tried to appear like they "work hard" so they could network and get future gigs. These were films had budgets of around 300k, so nothing really big or really small. It was an eye opening experience tho to see that most people working on a film were just 'working'. No one except the director would have mortgaged their house for the film.
Click to expand...

Exactly my feelings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top