Tv blame the writers, Movies blame the director?

[Sketcher]

Something I've noticed over the years is that when a television series or episode is liked or not liked, the audience and critics tend to rest the overall blame on the writers of that show. Now when it comes to movie, I've observed the overall blame for a good or bad movie goes to the director. Why is this? No one really seems to look at the director of a TV episode and take him/her into consideration.People seem to know more about the writers of a TV show than the directors, where when it comes to movies it appears to be the opposite.

 

[Trekker4747]

With a TV series the writers have much more "control" over what happens to and with the characters, further the writers are pretty much the same week-after-week. Movies are different, with movies normally a script is "bought" by a producer who gives it to a director to do with it what he wishes.

Very different mediums.

Now, while it's true that on a TV series one week a director may do something different with the characters than the director the week before or next week did, still, the story and arcs are very much in the hands of the producers and writers.

Two completely different structures on who is responsible for the actions of characters on the screen.

 

[milo bloom]

Due to the nature of TV production, there are often several episodes being made at the same time, and the directors sometimes merely act as hired guns for each particular episode, though you can sometimes see certain director's fingerprints in the presentation. The writers are really the one moving the show forward.

Movies are simply more under the direct control of the director, though there's always exceptions of course. They get more of the credit and conversely, more of the blame.

 

[selina]

If the movie or the episode is a good one, the credit goes to the director. If it's a bad one, the writer gets the blame. It usually doesn't matter if it's TV or not. Unless someone gets nominated for an Oscar or wins an Emmy. In that case the winner will be praised either way .

I wouldn't say that I know more about writers than directors when it comes to TV. Quite often it happens that the writer is the same person who directs. Maybe because we are interested in Sci-Fi and Fantasy we recognize a name quicker. It's a small world after all. As for the critics, I can't imagine that no one takes the director of a TV-episode into consideration.

 

[Hunter X]

Bad writing definitely gets blamed just about as much as bad directing in movies, especially in the case of movies where a director is less known. If it's a big name director, like Spielberg or Nolan, doing a bad movie then we blame them because we know they have the clout in Hollywood to get a bad script changed.

However, the head writer of a TV show, known as the showrunner and is often also the show's creator, squarely gets the blame when a TV show goes awry. These people pretty much always start out as writers, though they may also direct the occasional episode of their own show.

Credit almost never goes to the director in a TV show, even if that show has a go-to director that ends up having a hand in just about every major episode. I'll give you examples:

Lost - Whether you praise or tear apart the finale, who gets the credit/blame? Damon Lindeloft/Carlton Cuse or Jack Bender?

Battlestar Galactica - Who's name do people praise or curse episode after episode? Ronald D. Moore or Michael Rymer?

Do people tune in for the latest Aaron Sorkin show or the latest by Thomas Schlamme?

Joss Whedon tends to direct whatever he writes nowadays, but he didn't get his start directing episodes of Roseanne. He was a writer, and that's what he's most known for.

It's just the way TV works, for reasoned explained fairly well by Trekker and Milo Bloom.

 

[Christopher]

^Yep. Writers are the power in TV, but are virtually powerless in feature films. In films, writers are seen as merely hired contractors whose job is to put the director's ideas onto paper. If a writer doesn't do what the director wants, the director will bring in a new writer who's better at following instructions, or will hire a dozen writers to write a dozen scripts and then stitch together a shooting script out of fragments of them all.

Here's a tale that illustrates the relative power of directors and writers in feature films. There was a screenplay making the rounds a few years ago called Nottingham, about the heroic Sheriff of Nottingham using medieval crime-solving techniques to track down a terrorist band in Sherwood Forest that preyed on innocent rich people. It was an innovative twist on the Robin Hood premise and everyone in Hollywood loved it. But then Ridley Scott got hold of it and had his own very different ideas about what to do with a Robin Hood movie, and in order to achieve his "vision," he hacked away everything that was distinctive and original about the screenplay and replaced it with the ordinary, uninspiring Robin Hood film that came out and quickly flopped earlier this year. (Or so I gather; I didn't see it, because it didn't look interesting.)

That's why you don't blame the writer when a movie is bad. Because writers have no power to get their way in the film industry, while directors have effectively absolute power.

The main exception is when you get writers into positions of authority like producer or director. This is particularly true with writer-producers or writer-directors from television who go into movies. This is why Serenity was true to Joss Whedon's vision whereas the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer was such a bastardization of it: because he got to direct Serenity. It's also why Orci & Kurtzman's Star Trek script is so much better and more coherent than their Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen script: because they were producers on Trek and were working with a director and executive producers who came from TV and were used to respecting writers' input, whereas on RotF, they were just hired help brought in late in the process to slap some dialogue in between the big action set pieces that Michael Bay had already put together on his own. Granted, that's an extreme case because the writers' strike was on for the first part of that process, but it shows that the writers are less central to the operation in that franchise.

 

[stj]

The person(s) primarily responsible for a movie is the producer(s.) He sets the budget, hires the writer, the composer, etc. A collective enterprise like movie making requires a reasonable budget and basic management skills to be a good movie, and a schlocky producer will turn out a schlocky product. A good script in a cheap production is ignored by all but a minority of movie goers. In television, many of these functions are routinized, and a lot of the remaining responsibilities devolve upon the show runner.

The primary creator is the writer. It is common for movies nowadays to treat the writers as disposable commodities, paying for multiple drafts, demanding rewrites for specific reasons, or possibly hiring a writer to write a single scene upon demand. Movies made like this are bad movies. (I don't know of any exceptions, anyhow.) If the director were in fact the main creator of the movie, messing with the writers wouldn't be such a surefire prescription for artistic disaster. Creatively, the cinematographer, the art director, the composer and the film editor are all more important than the director. This is why the directors' oeuvre has no unifying themes or pattern of development. (Except for Alfred Hitchcock. Possibly Akira Kurosawa?)

Basically, the director as director is the foreman on the set. As such, he or she has the best opportunity to do a crappy job and mess up the script. It is now common for directors to do cinematography or art design or editing (and occasionally composing even.) But the practice of selling the director's edition shows that it is by no means a universal practice. Many movies have two directors, with a second unit filming. No one is ever foolish enough to attribute a significant creative role to the second unit director. The question is why they attribute one to the first unit director.

There are practically no notable directors who didn't learn moviemaking in one of the creative jobs in moviemaking, such as writing, cinematography, art design or acting. Generally, the creative directors are engaged in the writing process, being co-writers. But a director who did nothing but direct but has a record of achievement in film? Martin Scorsese might be the only candidate.

Technically, the director tells the cameraman how to frame the shot. Since modern cinematography relies on much equipment, like tracks for the camera, an improvisational approach as in the early days when the likes of D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein did do creative work. In fact, one technique of modern cost control is storyboarding, which basically lays out the shots for the director.

Improvisational movie making is completely different. The director then is in fact the primary creative authority.

PS The problem with focusing on the relative power of director and writer is that an artistically successful movie is mainly the product of the writer, even if the director takes credit for it. Also, the director as such is still the guy on set who says, "Action!" & "Cut!" The director has little creative input, but enormous practical effect on execution of the script. This asymmetry means he can often be plausibly blamed for screwing up filming the script but can't be praised for doing the main creative work. It may not seem fair but there it is. On the other hand, the insistence on talking about the directors means ignoring the writers' contributions. Which to my mind, is part of Hollywood's problem in making good movies, especially since the demise of the studio system has turned production from a corporate science back into an amateur art.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There was a screenplay making the rounds a few years ago called Nottingham, about the heroic Sheriff of Nottingham using medieval crime-solving techniques to track down a terrorist band in Sherwood Forest that preyed on innocent rich people. It was an innovative twist on the Robin Hood premise and everyone in Hollywood loved it. But then Ridley Scott got hold of it and had his own very different ideas about what to do with a Robin Hood movie, and in order to achieve his "vision," he hacked away everything that was distinctive and original about the screenplay and replaced it with the ordinary, uninspiring Robin Hood film that came out and quickly flopped earlier this year. (Or so I gather; I didn't see it, because it didn't look interesting.)

Damn. Well maybe someday someone will find it in their heart (and pocketbook) to make the non-boring version.

I didn't see it either. Looked extremely standard.

 

[Trekker4747]

That sounds like a very interesting take on Robin Hood as well. I didn't go see the new RH movie because, simply, I'm tired of the Robin Hood story, and I'm even more tired of Russel Crowe. I'm tired of big battle scenes, dreary and dank England forests, I'm tired of battles with John Little in rivers, ugh. I'm just tired of it!

That story from the otherside? With TSoN trying to stop a band of "terrorists" acting out under his watch? Sounds immensely more interesting.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Film is a director's medium. While there are projects that are producer-driven and the director is simply the set foreman (a situation akin to television), that isn't the case with most films, certainly not those made by established directors who have final cut. These days an A-list director will have creative input into every element of the film through pre-production, production, and post-production. He'll have story meetings with the writer/s to shape the script, he'll regularly supervise and give guidance to every major department from costuming to special effects to music to film editing.

Most directors sit alongside their editor as the film is cut, most sit in on the scoring sessions and ask the composer to make changes if there's something they don't like, most sit in and supervise the sound edit and the final color correction. The role of a major film director is far more expansive than just being the set foreman. They are seen as the primary creative force behind a film because that's exactly what they are.

Most top directors also produce their own films, although they'll have other producers to handle the nuts and bolts of keeping track of the budget and to facilitate the logistics of production.

Television is a producer's medium, and most television producers are also writers and writing is usually the path to becoming a producer. Writers work their way up the ranks with the final goal of becoming an Executive Producer with showrunner status.

The writer's medium is the stage where plays are usually the product of a single writer whose words are then usually sacrosanct (at least in the case of the great playwrights).

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, but a lot of movies would be better if either a) more directors were writers or b) more directors treated writers as partners rather than hired help. A lot of movies are strong when it comes to acting, editing, and other production values but are lacking when it comes to coherent storytelling. Because that's a writer's job, and people who aren't writers can't do it as well, no matter how routinely they assume they can.

And as that column I linked to pointed out, the problem is that directors today have too much power and nobody to check it. It's never good to be in a position where you're so powerful that nobody is able to tell you when you're making a mistake.

 

[Marc]

Technically, the director tells the cameraman how to frame the shot. Since modern cinematography relies on much equipment, like tracks for the camera, an improvisational approach as in the early days when the likes of D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein did do creative work. In fact, one technique of modern cost control is storyboarding, which basically lays out the shots for the director.

But it's the director who gets to chose the shots and chose how they will be filmed. It's also the director who tells the actors how he wants actors to give their performance.

It's why Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen were like blocks of wood in the Star Wars Prequels yet both have proved elsewhere they can give a very good performance and much of that is attributed to the director.

IOW I think you're selling directors very short.

Also do the Second Unit directors work purely on their own instincts or does the 1st Unit director provide input on what he or she wants? After all the risk is that you could end up with 2 very different styles of filming which would be very noticable to the audience.

 

[Trekker4747]

...It's also the director who tells the actors how he wants actors to give their performance.

It's why... Hayden Christensen [was like a block] of wood in the Star Wars Prequels yet... proved elsewhere [he] can give a very good performance and much of that is attributed to the director.

I must've missed the movie where Christensen showed any kind of performance worth mentioning.

Now, Liam Neeson, OTOH....

 

[Christopher]

It's why Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen were like blocks of wood in the Star Wars Prequels yet both have proved elsewhere they can give a very good performance and much of that is attributed to the director.

And that's a perfect illustration of how unwise it is to let anyone have too much power, to be too much of an unchallenged auteur. George Lucas has gotten so used to getting his way in everything that he didn't realize he wasn't the best person to script or direct the SW prequels, and so what we got was a self-indulgent mess. Everyone needs someone who can say "no" to them, to keep them honest and rein in their excesses.

 

[Marc]

...It's also the director who tells the actors how he wants actors to give their performance.

It's why... Hayden Christensen [was like a block] of wood in the Star Wars Prequels yet... proved elsewhere [he] can give a very good performance and much of that is attributed to the director.

I must've missed the movie where Christensen showed any kind of performance worth mentioning.

I believe it was called "About A House".

 

[Trekker4747]

Yep, I've been saying this for 10 years or better now, Lucas' big problem with the Pre-Trilogy was that there was no one working under him who had the balls to say, "No, sir. That's stupid." Instead they said, "Yes, sir. It's a great idea to have a broad caricature of an island-native who speaks like the bastard child of Michelle Tanner and Wayne Campbell with a healthy dose of retardation mixed in. Oh! And have him step in shit and get his mouth numbed by an electrical arc! Fans will love that! Need another footrub, sir?"

 

[Marc]

Yep, I've been saying this for 10 years or better now, Lucas' big problem with the Pre-Trilogy was that there was no one working under him who had the balls to say, "No, sir. That's stupid." Instead they said, "Yes, sir. It's a great idea to have a broad caricature of an island-native who speaks like the bastard child of Michelle Tanner and Wayne Campbell with a healthy dose of retardation mixed in. Oh! And have him step in shit and get his mouth numbed by an electrical arc! Fans will love that! Need another footrub, sir?"

And others have been saying it for longer c.f Harrison Ford's "you can write this shit George, but you can't say it".

 

[Harvey]

I must've missed the movie where Christensen showed any kind of performance worth mentioning.

Life as a House or Shattered Glass are both good showcases of what he can do as an actor. The CGI-filled excesses of the Star Wars prequels and Jumper less so. I haven't seen anything else of his work.

 

[Aragorn]

A lot of movies also suffer from studio executives who feel like they need to be another chef in the kitchen. One obvious example is the movie Basic with John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. Not that the original script was probably any good, but it knew what the story was, what the twists were, who was on what side. Then someone says make that guy a good guy instead. Then someone else says that character shouldn't be dead, keep him alive. So all these parts get changed, but what connects them are previous versions of the script, and thus the twists no longer work, the newly added surprises don't make sense, and in the end studio interference results in a big mess. Or Brett Ratner taking over for Bryan Singer.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Feature films are a director's medium, while television is a producer's medium. On a feature project, the director is basically the boss. In television, the producers are the ones in charge. Obviously, this isn't always the case -- if Steven Spielberg is the film producer and a no name the director, the project is goig to eb thought of as more a SS project -- but this is generally the case. So yes, in features the buck usually stops with the director, while in TV it stops with the producers (and the head produicer is often the head writer).