And even then you still may not make it.
Should a director be interested more in screenwriting or cinematography?
- Thread starter dioxholster
- Start date
And even then you still may not make it.
Okay, but we've already established that a "good story" means nothing when giving advice to someone. You or I may hate a story, and yet it becomes a classic. So, great, the story matters. You can talk that up all day. But when it comes down to telling someone how to write a "good" story, then all bets are off.
Batutta
Major Contributor
To be honest, I'm not sure what you are saying.
What I'm saying is that I see a lot of this around, those touting, "Write a good story!" and that's about it. But who sets out to write a bad story? No one fires up their word processor thinking, "I'm going to write the most blatant derivative piece of crap I can possibly come up with!" and yet they still do, time after time.
So, yes, I'm sure everyone gets it by now, story matters, content is king, you need a good script, blah blah blah. But when it comes down to specifics, when it comes to differentiating what makes a good story from a bad story, well, no one knows. There's no agreement. So what does all that positing mean in the end? When you cannot give specific reasons why Star Wars is a great story, but Battle Beyond the Stars fails (at other than effects, production value, ect.) then what does it really mean to say you need a great story, like Star Wars had, in the end? What is someone who's about to create their story supposed to take away?
Batutta
Major Contributor
I'm realizing where this thread broke down, and it's in the fact that there is a difference between a script, and a story, and we kept confusing the two. A story is a series of events arranged in narrative form. A script is story, characterization, dramatization, sequencing, visual description, dialogue theme, etc. Star Wars is a better script than Battle Beyond the Stars in most of those aspects. Seven Samurai is a million times better script than Battle Beyond the Stars, even though the stories are the same. I probably should have been saying "the script" in most of these cases, rather than the story.
john threat
Carbonite Member
to make a film you need a script. it starts there and thats why you need to write to get into the biz from music videos to ads to tv, to moves wr1te and you can get 1n.
No writing? Well take the long route.
No writing? Well take the long route.
Okay, so I've just wrote the script for Battle Beyond the Stars and handed it into you for a critique. You have just seen Star Wars and had your life altered forever.
What would some of the specifics of your critique of my BBtS script entail?
Batutta
Major Contributor
Really...come on...I'm not going there...It would accomplish nothing...The only question that matters is what do YOU think a good script is. That's what you'd write. A writer learns his craft and then writes something they want to see, which is informed by their opinion of work they think is good. And writing is a craft you can learn. Just as you can learn the craft of cinematography. If you're proficient enough at your craft, you can do good work. And like any proficiency it takes time and effort. A director should be interested in all aspects of filmmaking, but I'd say a director with a firm grasp on the craft of writing has a better chance of making a good movie, than one who only knows how to light and frame a shot.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
I have my doubts about both contentions, especially the first. In both cases I believe that what you can learn is to be a better writer, a better cinematographer. But if the brain is not wired the right way one will hardly be preconditioned to really execute the craft in any satisfacting way.
Last edited:
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Just a short notice: Why don't we try it with the notion, that filmmaking is presenting a story by the means of literature, theater, ballet, opera, painting, photography, architecture, costume design ...... All in once ..... But that giving this conglomerate a dramatic structure is based mostly on the written simulation of the movie (the script) and the actor's work in the scene and the flow of scenes created by the director..... ? This would also mean, that we can not set those things apart from each other because they are intwined. It's an over-used term, but call that approach "holistic"......
And all those stories out there that you think are terrible and fail and a fundamental level? The script writer probably thinks he/she wrote a good script (I have personally experienced this phenomenon a multitude of times). So you're right back to square one. You want people to write good stories, they go out and write what they think are good stories, but they're not.
I believe that what you remember about Battle Beyond the Stars vs. Star Wars has nothing to do with the script at all. I believe your willingness to dump on the former ("Star Wars is a better script than Battle Beyond the Stars in most of those aspects) is solely about the fact that BBtS is "Cormanesque", i.e. cheap and light on production value. You can't give any specific reason why a science fiction film based on Seven Samurai didn't have a good story/script over a science fiction film based on Hidden Fortress. All that's really going on is that the FX were cheaply done, the music was a blatant rip-off of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (though James Horner's first score), and George Peppard isn't quite a charming as Harrison Ford (though he would fair much better in The A-Team). None of which, by the way, has anything to do with the story.
I agree with this. Making a film is not a sole effort, like writing a novel. So many things can get in the way, including budget and location availability issues that can effect production value, which in turn can sour someone's experience with a story in a film that has nothing to do with the script at all.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Well there's a difference between terrible and fail at a fundamental level, serviceable, and really good. With craft, you can make something that is serviceable. With talent, you can make something that i think is really good. Your comparisons of Star Wars vs Battle Beyond The Stars will never work and negates your own argument. You're saying I can't prove people enjoyed Star Wars more because of the story, but that also means you can't prove they disliked it as well. So if you can't prove they disliked it, you can't say it was only successful because of the execution.
Batutta
Major Contributor
So what, everyone is just making crap up, without any rhyme and reason? There is a craft to writing and cinematography that can be taught to get you to a certain level of competence. How to put words together, how to structure, how to pace something, where to put a punchline. How far beyond competence you get is a combination of talent, practice and your own unique view of the world.
I've seen evidence of that in my experience. I've shot interviews with people who've never been on camera before and yet they are natural and look really well, others have a teleprompter in front of them and can't even get out a coherent sentence. I'm not "talent", but I can totally handle myself in front of a camera in the very odd situations I need to.
I think there might possibly be some innate ability, but you cannot simply rely on it. You still have to develop your craft, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there who can read every book, take every class, write, write, write, and still never come up with anything presentable.
Batutta
Major Contributor
There might be but I don't think they'd be the norm. Most people can become competent at something with enough time and effort. A director can become competent enough at screenwriting that they could see where a script needs work, even if they can't execute that work at a high level of quality themselves.
I think that's what we're talking about...executing. However, given that, I still see plenty of examples where people fail to see how terrible something is. How many movie trailers have you seen in your life? I'd wager it's quite a significant number, should be enough to know what makes a trailer a trailer...and yet how many absolutely terrible trailers for indie films do you see? Those are numerous too. It's not like there are examples of great trailers all over the web, and yet people still edit trailers that in no way resemble what you see in a darkened theater (and I'm not even talking about picture quality, I mean scene selection, editing, music, ect.).
Batutta
Major Contributor
Well just because you've seen a lot of movie or books or trailers doesn't mean you'd know how to put one together because there is craft involved. I've listened to a million pieces of music. Pretty sure I couldn't write a song that even passed the competence test, because I know absolutely nothing about the craft. If I put the time in, I'm sure I could make something that was thoroughly average. Most people aren't willing to put the time in, probably because their first efforts are so discouraging.
But it's not just not having the craft to make it...it's about recognizing that you don't have it yet. You say you couldn't write a good song, but let's say you couldn't, yet still thought what you did write was just as good. That's what I'm talking about.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I think you're speculating on something that has too many unknowable variables. Sure, people could be deluded into think their terrible indie trailers are actually good. Or they could know they aren't that good, but put them out anyway because it's the best they can do and not showing it isn't a viable option. And then there's the problem of defining what is good again.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
No disagreement here as far as we see it as a combination of those factors - but for me the hierarchy is exactly the other way round. People can be very competent in or about writing but lack the talent to actually write really good or even averagely. Editors in Publishing may have a mountain of competence and will help a writer tremendously in making his book better but will never become writers themselves because the lack "it". And if they are lucky they realize this early enough. Call it the Mozart / Salieri connex.
I have worked some time in my first years in the business as a cameraman but soon found out that I lack both "the eye" as other things needed to be really at least average in that field. Same did apply to editing. But I found that writing and later directing where my turf. And was happy then to have learned the basics of both the other professions. So, yes: The learning bit is dearly needed, a lack of talent is deadly.