At what point are you considered a bad director?
- Thread starter FilmBoy77
- Start date
FilmBoy77 said:
Let's not forget though. The director may get undue criticism when the movie is bad. But he gets WAY TOO MUCH undeserved praise when the movie goes well. Good movies universally have one thing in common. A good script. But it is almost never mentioned when the movie does well. It's always, "Ohhhh, what great *directing*"
kyle.presley
Well-known member
As far as who is credited first, here is what I think:
1. The writer(s)
2. The Producer(s)
3. The cast
4. The editor
5. The composer
6. The director
7. The DOP
8. The craft service, (j/k, lol)
But the director doesn't deserve all the glory, unless (s)he also wrote and produced it; and it's actually good. The directors on most film sets don't really do much, anyway; they don't even call action anymore.
1. The writer(s)
2. The Producer(s)
3. The cast
4. The editor
5. The composer
6. The director
7. The DOP
8. The craft service, (j/k, lol)
But the director doesn't deserve all the glory, unless (s)he also wrote and produced it; and it's actually good. The directors on most film sets don't really do much, anyway; they don't even call action anymore.
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
how do you account for all the wonderful films made without a conventional screenplay?c.g._eads said:
Zak Forsman said:
I'm not saying a movie can't be made well without a conventional script. I think wonderful movies have been made with no script (say what you will about Blair Witch - but it was a darn good movie before the inevitable backlash).
I think that proportionally, however, the ratio of good movies with a conventional good screenplay, far outweigh the good movies with an unconventional one. There are always exceptions.
DorkmanScott
Active member
If you made a film that won Academy Awards, or was a smash commercial hit, you will never be a "bad" director no matter how many flops you make.
If at any point in your career you made something brilliant, people are going to back you no matter how many turds you've dropped since then, on the off chance that your next thing will be brilliant again and they don't want to be known as the guy who turned it down.
Heck, some executive at Universal was fired for turning down Lady in the Water after reading the script because dammit, that's the Sixth Sense guy and what if it makes billions! It didn't, of course, but she was sacked long before it came out.
If at any point in your career you made something brilliant, people are going to back you no matter how many turds you've dropped since then, on the off chance that your next thing will be brilliant again and they don't want to be known as the guy who turned it down.
Heck, some executive at Universal was fired for turning down Lady in the Water after reading the script because dammit, that's the Sixth Sense guy and what if it makes billions! It didn't, of course, but she was sacked long before it came out.
Well for my 2 cents: I worked on the majors for a while, so I have seen the creme dela creme direct. It comes down to a simple thing. A good Director will coax a great performance out of the talent. He/She will make sure everything is right according to the vision of the writer/screenplay. Finally maintain control throughout the entire process. What makes a bad director? One whom does not care enough. I have seen some. The likes that say "aww don't worry about it we will fix in post" or the old adage of "What me Worry?" So to put it into perspective if a director is dedicated and works well with talent/crew/production/suits you will get more gigs. I do agree that commercial success is important but you dont have to look far on the shelves of the local video rental houses to see that there is some sub-par work that has made money. Just take a moment and watch how people pick a movie "Hum, I wonder if it's good?" Caching!
seandelgado
Member
Is a painting only as good as its sale price? By this reckoning Blair Witch is the greatest film ever, but on the other hand it took 2001 A Space Odyssey over 20 years to see black, is Blair Witch the better film?
Dr Strangelove bombed on its initial release, but 43 years later sold out the Arclight, do you think Columbia thinks it made a bad investment? There are some out there who are after the art and let the money take care of itself. Borat was made as a whore, Pans Labyrinth was made for love, in 43 years no one will have heard of Borat while Pans Labyrinth might be in its 500th revival.
In Mamets new book Bambi vs Godzilla he says the dirty little secret is that no film cost as much as they say (its always rolling, advance blanket purchase e orders etc) and that any sold film will make money eventually.
Initial box office grosses are not and should not be a determinate of a films quality.
Dr Strangelove bombed on its initial release, but 43 years later sold out the Arclight, do you think Columbia thinks it made a bad investment? There are some out there who are after the art and let the money take care of itself. Borat was made as a whore, Pans Labyrinth was made for love, in 43 years no one will have heard of Borat while Pans Labyrinth might be in its 500th revival.
In Mamets new book Bambi vs Godzilla he says the dirty little secret is that no film cost as much as they say (its always rolling, advance blanket purchase e orders etc) and that any sold film will make money eventually.
Initial box office grosses are not and should not be a determinate of a films quality.
DorkmanScott
Active member
Yes.seandelgado said:
//hates 2001
I'm sure that the Columbia executives DID think Strangelove was a mistake at the time, and a film that takes 20 or 40 years just to climb up into the black is, by definition, a pretty bad investment. The executives are the ones worried about the money.seandelgado said:
What evidence do you have that Borat was just made as a money-grab? I would bet that its box office gross surprised even the filmmakers, and frankly I think it's pretty self-righteous of you to call Pan's Labyrinth "art" and Borat a "whore" just because Pan happens to have prettier pictures. Borat, despite having dick and fart jokes, was a very strong social satire that also happened to be very crude. Between it and Pan's Labyrinth, I would put my money on Borat to be the one to have a lasting reputation just because of the social ripple effects it caused.
Or maybe they both will. Or maybe neither.
I agree. But it goes both ways. Just because a film bombs doesn't mean it sucks, and just because a film makes millions of dollars doesn't mean it's not art.seandelgado said: