Let's finally settle this which is more important to make a good movie a good director or a good writer ?

Let's finally settle this which is more important to make a good movie a good director or a good writer ?

Good director. Both Nolan and Snyder were stuck with Goyer.

80% good writer

20% good director

But the dark knight was actually good.

You're a total pleb and don't understand film if you think a writer is more important.

A good director can't turn a bad script into a good movie.

A bad director can still make a good movie if the script is good enough.

That's the point.

You'd think that, but it doesn't actually work that way.

A good editor

But a good writer is the better of those two options

There was absolutely nothing unique about Seven until Fincher made it the stylistic thriller it is now known to be.

>A good director can't turn a bad script into a good movie.

False.

I agree. But film is still a visual medium. A writer is obviously very important, but transferring a film from the page to the screen and creating something that reflects your own mind's imagery is what film is all about. 50 directors can read the same script and each can perceive it differently. A screenplay can only imply so much for staging, blocking, cinematography and editing. There's no spontaneity in the script once the words are committed to the page.

You can build a beautiful house on a shitty foundation but how solid is it gonna be?
If the foundation is weak it can't carry the house properly. If the foundation is strong but the house is shit, well, at least the foundation is strong.

Writing > directing

Plebs.

A good director can take shit and mold something interesting out of it.

Scripts are literally just like guidelines for scenes of a story. It doesn't matter how good those guidelines are if you don't have someone capable to put it to film.

That's a good point. I always wondered how writers felt seeing their creations come to life, if it was me I would feel insanely protective over it. Also I would love to see two different directors handed the same script and have them each make a movie.

>A good director can take shit and mold something interesting out of it.

Let's hear some examples, I'm genuinely curious.

I think screenwriters receive their money with the realisation that the movie they envisioned is not the one that will be made. You'd lose your sense of ownership pretty fast. A lot of writers don't even visit the set.

Screenwriters have to accept that their work is 99% of the time modified. Scripts are like a house foundation, you build over them. If you are protective over your scripts, you'd have a much nicer time being a novelist.
Movie making is a collaborative process requiring countless compromises, if you're not a teamplayer you shouldn't be there doing this writing job to begin with.

But that's a shit metaphor. You don't the defining quality of you movie to be dependability.

Film is visual communication. That is the foundation of the industry. Those that think writing is more important lack a basic understanding of the industry.

...

Mostly writer, but a bad director can ruin anything.

>A good director can't turn a bad script into a good movie.

retard

Go back to your capeshit general or whatever the fuck it is you people do.

DOP>Director

>A good director can't turn a bad script into a good movie.
Go back to Sup Forums. You clearly don't undertsand the medium.

bad narrative bad movie

Well done for confirming yourself as a plotfag retard.

A film with good narrative that's without interesting visual cues and ideas is boring.

It's like you don't understand the medium at all.

>A good director can't turn a bad script into a good movie
thats literally and utterly wrong.
And if you factor in the fact, that a director can turn a great script into shit flick, everybody should know that the director is more important. Only a layman would think otherwise

>Film is visual communication.

And what is being communicated? A story. The visuals should be built upon the story, not the other way around.

how fucking stupid can you be?

go watch sunshine, victoria, stargate, only god forgives, or sucker punch.

actually don't. you're too much of a fucking idiot. stick to interstellar or gravity. maybe you can learn the right lesson for the wrong reasons.

or you can try pic related and calibrate your opinion towards saying its bad despite the technical elements, since you'd probably have to pretend to get the story to praise it. you clearly aren't smart enough to get it if you are the type of person who thinks bad narrative = bad movie.

pic related leads to my next question for your retarded ass; bad prose = bad book?

i cant believe im falling for this shit but its 6am and i got nothing better to do. still, 8/10 bait

Please help me "understand the medium".

kill yourself honestly...

The "story" is often not found in the screenplay.

A screenwriter can only offer so much. It is one step. The director oversees everything else. Film is an evolutionary process. Some of the greatest scripts ever written are unrecognisable from what eventually makes it in the final cut of the film.

Narrative is only a part of filmmaking. Tone, style, symbolism, subtext, visual cues are all up to the filmmaker.

>go watch sunshine, victoria, stargate, only god forgives, or sucker punch.

I don't know who's trolling who anymore these days.

I'm curious as to how many of you actually read screenplays, actually I'm pretty sure I know.

It is visual. Which you don't seem to get. Narrative is important but is only one facet of the process.

Film is distinguishable from literature because a person has control over what we see. That's the power of film and the point of the medium.

Visual communication.

See how much nicer it is to have a civilised conversation without hurling childish insults?

what are they communicating visually though?

I'll give you a tip it is usually summarized on the back of the dvd/video

...

>Tone, style, symbolism, subtext, visual cues

Give me some movies with shitty stories where those things make the overall movie great.

Great argument.

depends on the director, depends on the writer, depends on the movie.

this is Sup Forums, not reddit. get used to people not being very polite

movies are not purely about the plot. A movie can be great with barely having a plot

>A bad director can still make a good movie if the script is good enough.
See: Clint Eastwood.

See – I’m not perfect either :-) We all have our triggers. The most important thing is just to try to be good hearted, stay true to yourself, and live your life without trying to hurt others. Let others be themselves. Try not to be a dick. And try not to stereotype and generalize so much. There's always been people who were free thinkers, empathic/sensitive, a bit "different" from the herd,... Its not a Millennial thing, it’s a human thing. Seems simple enough, right? But this is Sup Forums AKA Bizarro Land, so I’d be surprised if anyone understands. I’ll probably just get called “pretentious” lol Yet still I try for some reason...

Depends on what you look for in movies. If you think story, ideas explored, themes, etc are more important, then writer > director.

Like what movies?

I'll give you a tip: quite often the contents of the summary on the back of the DVD is not in the script.

I'm guessing you don't read many screenplays?

Screenplays are simplistic and celebrated for being so. They are devoid of flowery language and artistic flourishes. It's a guideline that filmmakers impart their vision upon. Not the other way around.

A screenplay does not beget tone, atmosphere, style, cinematography, colour grading, editing, staging, blocking ect ect.

all of them.
it is a visual medium

>synopsis=narrative

Right.. a guideline of a narrative in which the film make imparts his vision upon..

so the narrative is still the bed rock behind it all..

>all movies aren't about the plot

you might have brain damage..

The Thin Red Line, The Shining, Under The Skin are great examples.

There's obviously many, many more.

No.

There's a reason that both books and film exist.

Better Call Saul is probably the best example of good directing and terrible writing

>tv show

lmao at your life

>movies are not purely about the plot. A movie can be great with barely having a plot

It really depends on what you call a writer.
A lot of good directors take part in the writing process, or re-write the screenplay as they are going to adjust it to their vision, so that kind of makes them writers, even if someone else is credited for most of the work that went into the screenplay.

Then you have stuff like the Planet of the Apes, where you could ask if the writer is the writer of the book, or the writer of the screenplay, since, let's be honest here, the book was incredibly retarded in many aspects, while the movie was fantastic.
It was about a news reporter who decided to go on a 200+ year voyage, just so he'll be able to report on it first when the voyage is over. A fucking reporter. Who has no guarantee the language itself will be the same when he gets back, let alone if anyone will be interested in that shit when he gets back.
And then he takes 2 weeks in a cage to figure out that maybe drawing some symbols in the dirt would get his captor's attention.

Those are all movies with a solid narrative beneath the visuals.

>you share a board with these people

you might have problems with your reading comprehension

> where those things make the overall movie great.

Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. The original story is some pulp trash that he deliberately picked to direct in order to test his skills. The film is a lauded masterpiece

nice argument

Hitchcock used mediocre/undergone books and turned them into 10/10 classics and I think Kubrick did something like that too.

On the other hand, movies that only have good writing for them are not using the medium to its potential and fall short.

All of the books Kubrick used seemed pretty well praised unless I'm forgetting some.

The Shining doesn't have a better plot than any straight-to-DVD haunted house b-movie.

Kubrick famously gutted King's story preferring a psychological, visual film.

And it's just as annoying in videogames when they value their plot/cinematography instead of what makes them a different medium. The fucking gameplay.

The birds, Vertigo, Psycho, Spellbound. Anything by Hitchcock.

Most of them weren't really blockbuster books. Lolita and ACO were seen as unadaptable, and everything else before The Shining was generally eh tier.

Kubrick wasn't ever all that much about the books themselves, necessarily. He was interested in using established IPs that he could get the rights to for cheap, and would be easier to secure financing for.

They can make something that's good great but they can't make something shitty great. Which is what I asked for.

>They can make something that's good great but they can't make something shitty great.

Well now that would lead us into the discussion of what is good and what is mediocre, but neither of us has read any of the undergone books used by the masters.

As for bad directors, they probably can't make a great movie even if the writing is good. Because you know, everything that shows on screen depends on his shitty skills.

How do you go about arguing with someone that's retarded?

Someone who thinks film is purely about plot is a retard.

We're on Sup Forums, you twat.
It is just as capable a format as feature film.

Couldn't be more wrong.

81% good writer

19% good director