Which of these do you think is the most important?

Which of these do you think is the most important?

Other urls found in this thread:

erbpfilm.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(film)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Director>Producer>Writer>Actor

Writer>Director>Actor>Producer

Writer > Director >> Actor >>> Producer

Director>actor>writer>producer

Producer>*

Director, no question. A director can turn a shit script into a good movie, get a good performance out of a mediocre actor, and argue against a producer's bad decisions.

without the producer no script gets picked up and funded, betawriters

Writer > Director > Actor and the Producer is not needed at all

Writer>Producer>Director>Actor

The artform wouldnt exist without the script. Without money, the art wouldnt be created.
Without a director, the producer/writer's vision would not be put to film.
Actors are tools of all of the above. No creativity is involved in acting whatsoever. They read lines and make faces.

without script there ain't no movie

all are equally important

Tell that to indie filmakers.

Producers are the cancer that is killing Hollywood

I'd say the Director is the most important person in terms of actually making the movie. But producers are the people who have the power to absolutely fuck over a good production. The bigger the budget, and the more corporate investment the bigger the producer's role becomes.

Literally anyone can be a producer, you need one but any one will do, the same can't be said for any other role. All four are absolutely necessary, but the producer brings the least to the table.

Indie filmmakers are their own producers in that case.

Name ONE bad script that turned into a good movie

Director

I probably should have asked, "Which is the most important in order to make a great movie."

Batman the dark night
Jurassic Park
Mad Max Fury road( has not script but it is a masterpiece)
Etc etc

Director > Producer > actor >Writer

Gladiator. Also, not a script, but with The Shining, Kubrick took what was essentially a mediocre horror book for plebs and adapted it into one of the greatest horror films ever made.

wtf is this joint shit lmao
the script is the soul of the film

Didn't Gladiator basically have no script going in?

That's the problem with the whole thing though, making a movie isn't like writing a novel, you can make the whole thing by yourself in a dark room and then just sell it to someone. To even get off the ground you need all the elements in the OP, making a great movie needs the same crutches (interest from a producer, time and effort of literally hundreds of people, time just generally, consistent cash flow etc etc) that a shitty movie needs.

kek no

were the actors told what to say and how to act?

Yes? It has a script
No? Its a malick film.

Is gladiator a malick film? No. It has a script.

>based off a comic book
>based off a literal novel

b-but the writing doesn't matter!

The original script was shit, Ridley Scott and Russel Crowe basically rewrote the whole thing as they were making it.

sure but if the idea sucks you won't get a great movie out of it; you need a great writer and a great director, or possibly the same guy doing both, to have kino

Director > Actor > Producer > Writer

It's cinema, not theater or books. Learn your place, keyboard monkeys.

Yep and you need a producer willing to stick it out for what will undoubtedly be an expensive project and an actor with actual talent who can deliver the performance you want otherwise your great script and great directing is wasted.
Kino requires all four, dogshit requires all four, in equal measure.

A movie without a good writing is guaranteed to be awful. A good writer without director, actor, or producer leaves you good book.

>script is dogshit
>no matter how good everyone else is the film will be dogshit

>muh script

Yes, there must be some kind of script but it's not that important and it doesn't have to be "great writing". It's a fucking blueprint.

Does the blueprint dictate what the actors say and do when in front of camera?

Yes, but they can be changed by the director and/or the actors.

Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That's by definition a script.

A film without a script would be like that guy who follows people around harassing them with a camera.

Yes, but the director and/or the actors can write the script by themselves. Hence no need for a writer.

The director and the actors are the writers.

Are you retarded?

A director is not a writer nor is an actor. Is bus driver an athlete?

Acting requires they make it believable. It's an important and difficult skill by itself, just not involved in the technical aspects like the others are.

No, the director does that. If a line is bad, the director can ask the actor to say something else, or approve an actor's choice to change it. It's the director who blocks the scene, dictating what the actors do in front of the camera. If the director doesn't like the ending or an element of the plot as it is written in the script, he can change it. Hell, you can even change a film's story, tone or pacing as far into production as editing, which a smart director will ensure to have control over with final cut. Sure, if you have a good script you also have a solid foundation to build everything on, but if you insist that writing is more important than directing in filmmaking, you have no idea how filmmaking actually works.

Every Tarantino movie is "good" even though the script is shit.

>without script there ain't no movie
That's very true but you don't really need a writer (at least not a good one) for a script.

Depends on the movie

/thread

Does the bus driver play sports?

Am I being trolled or are you legitimately fucking stupid?

Without a script there is no movie. Unless you are malick.

Every slielberg directed by spielbergo

Yes you do retard, anyone who writes the script is a writer. Just like anyone who produces is the producer or anyone who directs is a director.

I think you are the retard in this case, mate. Andrei Tarkovsky is not a writer, he is an filmmaker. Writing is not that important in cinema.

Unless you're Malick, or Goddard or countless other examples. Sure you need a script as a general rule, but a director's work is way more important in how the final product will turn out. As I've said earlier in the thread, you can have a bad script made into a good movie by a good director.

I will also add, as a counter example, that a bad director can make a good script into a bad movie, showing once again how important the director is to the overall process.

Harry potter confirmed kino again

Yea, much like anyone that posts shit is a shitposter.
But when talking about IMPORTANCE, the writer is at the bottom of the list.

>Andrei Tarkovsky
He wrote the scripts for his films and directed them.

None of the options listed in the op were "Filmmaker".

What exactly are you arguing? You arent even lucid, let alone cohesive.

Nope.

Ok, so lets remove all WRITING from the movie.

What do we have?

Tarkovsky is such a meme.

what a rebuttal.

Filmed improv.

comicand book aren T a script, are you tard?

Depends on the type of movie. Go read some scripts for like some old action movie you remember fondly. They are....not good. It was usually a combination of all the elements together that made it good.

If it's a drama, then I'd say the writer is more important.

No one here really knows what a producer does, so it's hard to say. Based on my limited of knowledge from knowing a few people in the entertainment industry, a producer (regular producer, not executive producer) varies between being really important and not that important. If it's someone that found sort of an unknown script and had a vision of what it could turn out to be, and then gets together a cast and crew based on that, then obviously they're a huge part of things. But, they could also just be someone who doesn't give a shit and is a producer by title only and they just hang everyone out to dry.

I wouldn't put him at the bottom of the list. I would say he's second to the director. If you have a good script with a good director, many other flaws can be forgiven. You have tons of indie films with terrible actors who get by on interesting story and creative direction. Likewise, a lot of indie or no-budget films don't even have a producer. They're definitely at the bottom of the list. Producers are a necessary evil.

Ok, Give me examples of organic filmed improv where the director does not dictate any blocking or utilize any setpieces.

Don't you have somewhere to be korinefag?

Let me break this thread down in the form of this post.

Without writing we have pure improvisation from the actors with the director having little role in dictating (said dictating becomes a script) the producers would still be paying the actors and the director, but would have little to no input as the creative drive would be purely within the actors hands.

Without directors we would have a script that dictates what action is on screen. The producer would be paying for the actors but would not be dictating or directing anything. The actors would set up a camera, memorize the lines and blocking in the script and just go.
It would be similar to a stage play.

Without actors, the film would have no interpersonal conflict and would be nothing but landscapes.

Without producers, there is no money. no script gets selected. No movie gets made because of this.

Any film made by Duplass brothers.

But Mark Duplass has a Best Screenplay award for Puffy Chair.

>Without producers, there is no money. no script gets selected.
That's blatantly false. A lot of indie movies are made without a producer, where the filmmakers raise the money themselves.

yes shitty indie movies

In that case the indie movie filmmakers are acting as the producers.

...

erbpfilm.com/

Yes, but they wouldn't primarily identify themselves as such. For example, if an indie filmmaker was introducing himself at a festival, he would probably refer to himself as a writer/director even though he might have some of the producer's duties as well, as opposed to Jerry Bruckheimer, who is exclusively a producer.

Ok, cool website, your point?

Stop moving the goalposts.

If the person writes the script they are a writer.
If the person directs the film they are a director
If the person funds the production they are a producer.
If the person is in front of the camera reading the script they are an actor.

But there are times where you have something like Snakes on a Plane. Which is carried by the actor. Joss Whedon wrote Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a serious movie. It was the director that decided to take a more comic tone with it. A writer can write any number of things and producers and directors can interpret that or impose a tone that completely changes what's intended. There are so many movies at this moment being given the go ahead based on the popularity of characters from other media and they just find someone to write the script. Like what seems to be the case with most of the DC movies. No doubt a well written script can make a good movie. But it actors and directors are the main draw. Genre's or concepts are being promoted before a director or writer is even attached.

No argument some really great films are because of the writer, just the core of the story was there, the lines on the page were brilliant, no doubt. But as things work today when it comes to getting a movie made. Writers are on or around the bottom of the totem pole.

So what you're asking for is a movie without a writer or director or any general idea of what they're shooting? Fine you got me. I don't know any.

But I know Coherence had no script.

Its the website of erbp. A PRODUCTION company.

Take away one element and it ceases to be a movie or play: the actor is the most important element whether you faggots like it or not.

>Coherence

Are you implying the jury read the screenplay (which doesn't exist) before giving him the award? Fucking retard.

A static landscape shot is a movie. A shit movie but a movie.

Sicario
Fury Road
Inland Empire
Kooyanisqatsi
The Revenant
Tree of Life

Remember, film is a visual medium.
Story is just one element of the whole.

Where in the fuck are you getting this deranged notion that Puffy Chair didnt have a script?

I'd rather watch actors improv-ing on stage than watching a a landscape. And you?

>If the person funds the production they are a producer.
You don't seem to know what a producer actually does. They don't fund the film themselves, although they can raise funding from a studio(or are employed by them) or independent investors. Producers are basically like accountants, coordinating between the studio and the various departments, which is why they become more necessary the bigger the production. They're also often hired by the studio to keep a leech on the production and make sure that all involved are making the film the studios want to make according to their market research, like in the case of Marvel movies.

Writer

Your personal preference for stage improv has no relevance to the question in the OP.

You should sage if you are making an off-topic post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(film)

>Byrkit came up with the idea for Coherence after deciding that he wanted to test the idea of shooting a film "without a crew and without a script".

pro·duc·er
>a person responsible for the financial and managerial aspects of making of a movie or broadcast or for staging a play, opera, etc.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(film)

>Byrkit added, "...instead of a script I had my own 12-page treatment that I spent about a year working on. It outlined all of the twists, and reveals, and character arcs and pieces of the puzzle that needed to happen scene-by-scene.

This is a script. Calling a script a "12 page treatment" doesnt make it not a script.

Just because the actors didnt have scripts doesnt mean the movie was unscripted.

Nowhere in that definition does it say they fund the film themselves. It's actually saying basically the same thing I was saying.

...

In case you are the same guy stating that no producer was involved with Primer

Even writers don't think they are the most important.

The same script can result in far different movies depending on the director and the whole cast and crew.

You take a line like "user goes to work with his car".
That can take 2 seconds or 2 minutes in the movie depending on the director.
There are so many options of how to interpret one single line.
A line like "I don't know what you are talking about" can be delivered in countless ways.

And the script never says which framing and composition to use, how to make the set design, how to design the foley sounds, how to edit the movie etc

It is just one piece of the puzzle

Yes, he was "producer" in the sense that he used his own money to make the film. He basically proved that producers are useless, that anyone can be a "producer", because they do nothing of substance for a film. They basically find money for the movie to be made and then try to interfere with the production to make it more diverse, or whatever their market research tells them will sell, until nothing but a soulless mess remains.

EDITOR >>>> writer>director >actor >producer