Captain Craig wrote:
Obviously Christopher you carry a closer opinion on such things being a writer.
Opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a documented fact. You can find plenty of evidence to support it. It's simply the nature of feature filmmaking in Hollywood, a consequence of the way it's structured, that the people who get screen credit for writing a movie may have very little to do with the final content of the film. That's why there are so very many cases of the same screenwriter being credited for both awful films and wonderful films (like David Goyer on the Blade
films vs. the Nolan Batman films, or John Logan writing both the Oscar-winning Gladiator
and the poorly-received Star Trek: Nemesis
-- although I actually liked Nemesis
I don't disagree with you that things get altered from screen to page that can be outside the screenwriters control. That interpretation of page then translated to direction of an actor can at times not be fluid. I feel this was part of what happened with the one of few lines that Whedon wrote in the first X-Men film "lightning hits a toad..."
If you're citing Blade
films as awful I'd just disagree and I also think Nemesis
is overly bashed(some it deserves but overall).
I just disagree that it's not unwarranted or undeserving to look at a screenwriter as you would any other person in the process-director, producer, composer etc.. and say "Do I like your prior work?", "What have you done lately, was I impressed?"