Movies Film directing vs writing - Which one is more important?

[BisexualMMA]

Jaws has a strong story? All it's about is 3 dudes who go out on a boat to hunt a shark that ate some people.

There is all of the conflict within the town, there is working against the mayor, there is the dynamic between the three on the boat and the conflict between Quint and Hooper, there is Brody overcoming his discomfort with water, there is the revelation of Brody's history and obsession...

 

[BisexualMMA]

To me scripts are pretty basic. And to my knowledge most undergo changes once filming begins. Without the director creating an appealing look and feel, or pulling the performances out of the actors, or adding the score, you're unlikely to get a good movie. Whereas give a good director something simple and he can still make something great. Pretty sure Die Hard's original script was nothing brilliant and that it was being re-written barely faster than it was being filmed.

I'm not sure what Die Hard's script was at the outset, but by the end it was McClane working on his marriage, the entire subplot with Ellis, fists with your toes paying off with the obstacle of lacerated feet, all of the steps and intricacies of Gruber's plan, the relationship with Argyle, working against another obstacle in Paul Gleason's police chief, and so on.

Offhand The Wraith really is the only movie I can think of where the director rescues it from having virtually no story with the look and soundtrack and whatnot.

Sure there are all kinds of pretty simple action movies. I mean there really isn't much there with Commando. But stuff that will get called simple by some in here is what I would call economical or else I would challenge the allegation of it being all that simple (e.g. Jaws and Lethal Weapon).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm not sure what Die Hard's script was at the outset, but by the end it was McClane working on his marriage, the entire subplot with Ellis, fists with your toes paying off with the obstacle of lacerated feet, all of the steps and intricacies of Gruber's plan, the relationship with Argyle, working against another obstacle in Paul Gleason's police chief, and so on.

Offhand The Wraith really is the only movie I can think of where the director rescues it from having virtually no story with the look and soundtrack and whatnot.

Sure there are all kinds of pretty simple action movies. I mean there really isn't much there with Commando. But stuff that will get called simple by some in here is what I would call economical or else I would challenge the allegation of it being all that simple (e.g. Jaws and Lethal Weapon).

The Wraith with Charlie Sheen? That movie is at best mediocre even as a kid who liked everything.

Don't think I was clear with the Die Hard example, but let me try again. There's a fuckton that goes into a movie. The script is only one aspect. It doesn't scout locations, create the wardrobes, cast the actors, light the shots, choose the cameras, decide which takes are better than others, choose the score, know when to keep or omit adlibs, recognize the best way for an actor to play a character, or decide which scenes ultimately flow best and which to leave on the cutting room floor. It simply provides a blueprint for that which is built.

The director is in charge of all those things, including whether or not rewrites are in order. The director making good decisions with all of those things can more easily overcome the script than a great script ensuring bad direction still produces an excellent movie. From my experience people will make a point of seeing movies with certain actors or directors, but I can't think of a screenplay write whose name puts asses in the seats. Closest we get is movies adapted from books (eg. Stephen King years ago).

 

[BisexualMMA]

The Wraith with Charlie Sheen? That movie is at best mediocre even as a kid who liked everything.

Don't think I was clear with the Die Hard example, but let me try again. There's a fuckton that goes into a movie. The script is only one aspect. It doesn't scout locations, create the wardrobes, cast the actors, light the shots, choose the cameras, decide which takes are better than others, choose the score, know when to keep or omit adlibs, recognize the best way for an actor to play a character, or decide which scenes ultimately flow best and which to leave on the cutting room floor. It simply provides a blueprint for that which is built.

The director is in charge of all those things, including whether or not rewrites are in order. The director making good decisions with all of those things can more easily overcome the script than a great script ensuring bad direction still produces an excellent movie. From my experience people will make a point of seeing movies with certain actors or directors, but I can't think of a screenplay write whose name puts asses in the seats. Closest we get is movies adapted from books (eg. Stephen King years ago).

The Wraith is almost a non-story. As to look and soundtrack it's an 8/10 on its worst day.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything else you're saying. It's just that when I think of movies I like, virtually all of them hold up at the writing level.

Stephen King is an interesting one because his results on screen are all over the map.

Dolores Claiborne was quite a good book and a mediocre movie in no small part because the screenwriter added all kinds of extraneous subplots.

Misery was a pretty good book but an excellent movie because the screenplay excised all of the fat from the book.

Carrie was a very good book but put in the hands of a magnificent director that took it to whole new levels with the way it was filmed and acted.

Dreamcatcher was a mediocre book and a dog shit movie.

Anyway...for a while I would watch something if David Mamet wrote it, until he became inconsistent. I would watch anything Cameron Crowe had written. And the same from a handful of writer / directors. But I agree that not many movies are sold to the public on the strength of their writer.

 

[I Fusion I]

Screenplay is more important than plot. Look at Fury Road, it’s just a long car chase but it works well.

 

[moreorless87]

Screenplay is more important than plot. Look at Fury Road, it’s just a long car chase but it works well.

Although really theres not a great deal on the page their either I would say, its a film built more on the visuals and the performances.

 

[RayA]

Well obviously you want both, but a well written but poorly directed movie may come out flat and boring, or as a jumbled up, hard to understand mess.
On the converse, a poorly written, well directed movie may come out as a sparkly, polished turd that may feel like a guilty pleasure, but at least it's still entertaining.

Think of a presentation with thoroughly researched and enlightening subject matter, presented by a stuttering, monotone, boring dork. Vs an extremely charismatic and funny presentor, presenting which color is best.

Just woke up, so my brain can't come up with examples.

 

[Greyscale]

I suppose they are like communicating vessels and equally important. A genius director can make a decent film out of paltry source material, but a bad director can (and, in most cases, will) kill a genius story or screenplay with his lack of vision and skill.

 

[Boxingfan998]

Writing is the centerpiece and foundation of any media. Film, videogames, etc. Without good writing, it is essentially B media for the mass idiotic crowd.

Any discerning man will see good writing when they see it. Its what makes the entire difference.

Also, writing doesn't have to be complex to be good. It doesn't have to be Nolan style writing. With films, it just has to be efficient and follow the classic pattern. Introduction of characters, setting, climax/danger, resolution, etc.

Look at most Spielberg films for instance, they have basic but writing that works. A classic example is Jurassic Park. The script is ridiculously simple but it works and allows for an entertaining ride. It wouldn't have been necessary to write something more complex as it would distract from the dinosaurs themselves.

But again, stellar writing usually produces gems. You have a bunch of older films with stellar writing and very basic cinematography, that blow newer films out of the water.

Cinematography is important though. Look at Leni Riefenstahl's films. Lots of them have basic scripts but the filming itself is astonishing and provokes deep emotions. I'm especially awed by Olympia, her film on 1936 Olympics. Amazing visuals. So you also have cinematographic virtuosos but they are rare.

Here is snippet of movie I mentioned, with Ramstein music.

 

[Danger Dave]

In terms of films, or TV series.

Do you prefer; great directing or great storyline? Remember that ok directing with good storyline is never more than an 8 in my book meanwhile great director and flawed storyline can make up for a good film,

Which one is more important for you?

films always suck. directors think giving their own creative twist makes a book better. it is why the most epic series of all time is not created and if it was they would cut its balls off. Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer

 

[moreorless87]

Writing is the centerpiece and foundation of any media. Film, videogames, etc. Without good writing, it is essentially B media for the mass idiotic crowd.

Any discerning man will see good writing when they see it. Its what makes the entire difference.

Also, writing doesn't have to be complex to be good. It doesn't have to be Nolan style writing. With films, it just has to be efficient and follow the classic pattern. Introduction of characters, setting, climax/danger, resolution, etc.

Look at most Spielberg films for instance, they have basic but writing that works. A classic example is Jurassic Park. The script is ridiculously simple but it works and allows for an entertaining ride. It wouldn't have been necessary to write something more complex as it would distract from the dinosaurs themselves.

But again, stellar writing usually produces gems. You have a bunch of older films with stellar writing and very basic cinematography, that blow newer films out of the water.

Cinematography is important though. Look at Leni Riefenstahl's films. Lots of them have basic scripts but the filming itself is astonishing and provokes deep emotions. I'm especially awed by Olympia, her film on 1936 Olympics. Amazing visuals. So you also have cinematographic virtuosos but they are rare.

Here is snippet of movie I mentioned, with Ramstein music.

Honestly I think the primacy given to writting generally tends to be a bit questionable, perhaps because critics themselves are primarily writers.

Writters are arguebly more disempowered than they should be in cinema but ultimately I would say its a visual medium and directors generally tend to be those in overall control of films.

The two areas really arent going to be cut and dry seperate though, beyond directors writing scripts the righting process may also be were a lot of visual ideas are created as well.

 

[Boxingfan998]

Honestly I think the primacy given to writting generally tends to be a bit questionable, perhaps because critics themselves are primarily writers.

Writters are arguebly more disempowered than they should be in cinema but ultimately I would say its a visual medium and directors generally tend to be those in overall control of films.

The two areas really arent going to be cut and dry seperate though, beyond directors writing scripts the righting process may also be were a lot of visual ideas are created as well.

In all visual & 3D media (films, videogames, etc), writing is indeed taking a back-seat, most of the time.
Lots of people, whether film viewers or gamers, won't give a shit about writing 99% of the time. As long as its entertaining with lots of pretty visuals (and gameplay in the case of games), it's pretty much fine.

But I guess, because I love solid writing, I'm a sucker for solid writing and really notice when its masterpiece level. It immediately sets itself apart.
If you're a gamer, a good example would be the Legacy of Kain videogame series, and the game called Vagrant Story.
Both have incredibly solid, even masterpiece level, stories, that came to be because actual talented writers wrote the script.
Nevermind the gameplay (which was basic in both games), the games were amazing based on story, and memorable.

I guess in film that writing is kind of less important, because visuals give the joy not really the writing.
But what I will say is that solid BASIC writing is still necessary, just like in Jurassic Parc.

When the writing is abysmal then you really notice it, it makes a film terrible. And Hollywood is riddled with that. How many times have you just screamed at the screen and wondered WTF the characters were doing in that scene because it made no sense? That's bad writing for you.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Honestly I think the primacy given to writting generally tends to be a bit questionable, perhaps because critics themselves are primarily writers.

Writters are arguebly more disempowered than they should be in cinema but ultimately I would say its a visual medium and directors generally tend to be those in overall control of films.

The two areas really arent going to be cut and dry seperate though, beyond directors writing scripts the righting process may also be were a lot of visual ideas are created as well.

I'm shocked writing is winning this poll so handily.

Makes me wonder what films the people who voted that way would say are great, in spite of the directing, simply because the writing was so amazing.

 

[djacobox372]

Every movie is born with the storyline, without the first building block there is no movie..

Naw, some great movies have little or a very simple/non-original story: Pulp Fiction, Aliens, original Star Wars, Predator (sherdog GOAT movie).

A movie can be great without a good story, but a movie can't be great without a good director.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I'm shocked writing is winning this poll so handily.

Makes me wonder what films the people who voted that way would say are great, in spite of the directing, simply because the writing was so amazing.

I don't know but I guess maybe something like Glengarry Glen Ross. My Dinner with Andre. Twelve Angry Men. None of this was in spite of the directing, but the directing took a back seat and let the words, dialogue and/or story drive the experience.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't know but I guess maybe something like Glengarry Glen Ross. My Dinner with Andre. Twelve Angry Men. Fail Safe. None of this was in spite of the directing, but the directing took a back seat and let the words, dialogue and/or story drive the experience.

Having seen (that I can recall) only Glengarry, I'd say the acting carried that movie. "It's wet out there tonight." and "Fuck the Machine!?" isn't exactly mind-blowing dialogue. The Baldwin brass balls scene was excellent writing though for sure.

 

[revoltub]

Naw, some great movies have little or a very simple/non-original story: Pulp Fiction, Aliens, original Star Wars, Predator (sherdog GOAT movie).

A movie can be great without a good story, but a movie can't be great without a good director.

Pulp fiction and aliens have bad writing?

 

[BisexualMMA]

Having seen (that I can recall) only Glengarry, I'd say the acting carried that movie. "It's wet out there tonight." and "Fuck the Machine!?" isn't exactly mind-blowing dialogue. The Baldwin brass balls scene was excellent writing though for sure.

There was a movie called The Limbic Region about 20 or 25 years ago. It's just Edward James Olmos and George Dzundza, mostly sitting in a car and one is a cop that was after the other who was (possibly) a serial killer and got away with it. It's more or less like a play and the acting is certainly very good...Olmos always brings the intensity, but it's all back and forth between these two characters about that shared history.

Then there's something like Frailty with Bill Paxton where the acting has to be on point to sell the story but at the same time it is very contained, adding $50M to the budget wouldn't have really changed anything, and as long as the three main actors don't faceplant then the story and characters are conveyed well to the audience.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Pulp fiction and aliens have bad writing?

Pulp Fiction and Aliens are both revered for their dialogue, and the plots are no slouch either.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There was a movie called The Limbic Region about 20 or 25 years ago. It's just Edward James Olmos and George Dzundza, mostly sitting in a car and one is a cop that was after the other who was (possibly) a serial killer and got away with it. It's more or less like a play and the acting is certainly very good...Olmos always brings the intensity, but it's all back and forth between these two characters about that shared history.

Then there's something like Frailty with Bill Paxton where the acting has to be on point to sell the story but at the same time it is very contained, adding $50M to the budget wouldn't have really changed anything, and as long as the three main actors don't faceplant then the story and characters are conveyed well to the audience.

Haven't seen Limbic Region. Sounds interesting.

Frailty was great!! Agreed that throwing more money at it would have added nothing. But I was asking about a movie being great because of the writing, in spite of the directing. Paxton did a quality job of directing as far as I can tell. The movie looked good, flowed well, and all of the acting was on point. Movies like Toxic Avenger were poorly done, but were good because somehow it was so bad we liked it, not because the script was great. What's a movie with a great script and subpar directing that was still great?