Can SOMEBODY explain to me please

[Smithy]

What is meant by “creative differences” between a director and a studio?

I’ve never really understood how a director has that much input when they’re directing a script that’s already written (in this scenario let’s assume they haven’t got a writing credit)

Like for example the new Doctor Strange has lost its director because he wanted to make a the franchises first horror film, but how can you make a film that isn’t a horror film on paper... horror?

It’s just something that’s always confused me and I’d like an answer right now!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/b0ea2105d9b70d6e5b442daf0caa4301/tenor.gif?itemid=10938378

[Marsh.]

Because a written script can be "adapted" many different ways visually. The script dictates dialogue (although that often gets changed on set) and story, but the director is responsible for all departments and their creations to make that script come to life and driving the overall "vision" of the project.

:smug:

I think in script issues too, on a film the director is higher ranking so can usually dictate changes (I think). Whereas on, say, a TV show the director is largely bound to the script and the writer has more power.

[Smithy]

Because a written script can be "adapted" many different ways visually. The script dictates dialogue (although that often gets changed on set) and story, but the director is responsible for all departments and their creations to make that script come to life and driving the overall "vision" of the project.

:smug:

But it dictates setting and action sequences too, so I don’t get how you can argue with it?

It just doesn’t make sense loov

[Marsh.]

On another note, I can't wait for Doctor Strange 2. Thoroughly enjoyed the first one after going into it with no expectations.

[Marsh.]

But it dictates setting and action sequences too, so I don’t get how you can argue with it?

It just doesn’t make sense loov

Not always. I think a script will dictate that there is an action sequence, which results in Character 1's death or injury or some other story driving result, but the actual circumstances of the "sequence" and what occurs within it will be worked out by the director and the co-ordinators.

[Oliver_W]

A director can bring a lot to how a film turns out - the two different Omen movies have virtually the same script, and they have completely different "feels" and atmospheres. The Disney remakes could be another example, although they're usually different mediums.

A director will (generally) make decisions about every aspect of the film. Like, George Lucas would give a rough description of what he wants an alien to look like, and then choose out of a couple of different designs based on that. While another director might not care too much, and leave it to the designer. Lucas was a bit of a control freak, the "average" is probably somewhere in the middle.

Big Studios usually have a very clear vision of how they want their films to look. MCU is basically a cookie cutting machine, and the Disney Star Wars movies have a very "written by committee" feel. They know exactly what they want, and they just need a director to come in and do the leg work.

Which is why I don't get why the hire directors with "visions" - how many directors have Disney Star Wars fired :laugh: s'why they tend to stick to boring studio hacks like JJ Abrahms and Joss Whedon.

[Oliver_W]

Also a director can make a boring scene interesting - in Psycho, when Janet Leigh is sitting and speaking with Norman, it got more intense and creepy as it went on, because we could see the taxidermy birds and whatnot. It could easily have been shot as them just sitting down talking.

[Smithy]

Not always. I think a script will dictate that there is an action sequence, which results in Character 1's death or injury or some other story driving result, but the actual circumstances of the "sequence" and what occurs within it will be worked out by the director and the co-ordinators.

Well I read some Buffy scripts and it was all there kick for punch!

[Smithy]

Also a director can make a boring scene interesting - in Psycho, when Janet Leigh is sitting and speaking with Norman, it got more intense and creepy as it went on, because we could see the taxidermy birds and whatnot. It could easily have been shot as them just sitting down talking.

But in the script it will have said X & Y are in room A full of taxidermy birds, no?

[Marsh.]

Well I read some Buffy scripts and it was all there kick for punch!

Were they actual scripts or transcripts? :think:

TV works different. :D I heard that movies are a director's medium, television is a writer's medium.

[Marsh.]

But in the script it will have said X & Y are in room A full of taxidermy birds, no?

But a change in creative choice can mean the difference between a scene that pretty much ignores the birds and one that makes them prominent in the scene by having lots of shots of them or including them in a large proportion of the frame. Can completely change the tone of a scene.

Did you not do media studies? :nono:

[The Slim Reaper]

But it dictates setting and action sequences too, so I don’t get how you can argue with it?

It just doesn’t make sense loov

Baz luhrmann and the RSC didn't treat Romeo and Juliet the same way creatively.

[Smithy]

Baz luhrmann and the RSC didn't treat Romeo and Juliet the same way creatively.

They had a different script hen

[Marsh.]

Baz luhrmann and the RSC didn't treat Romeo and Juliet the same way creatively.

:hehe:

Yeah, but tbf, I think he means how can two directors treat the exact same script differently.

Baz Luhrmann's R&J was vastly different from Shakespeare even at script level.

[Smithy]

Were they actual scripts or transcripts? :think:

TV works different. :D I heard that movies are a director's medium, television is a writer's medium.
Yeah actual scripts :hmph:
But a change in creative choice can mean the difference between a scene that pretty much ignores the birds and one that makes them prominent in the scene by having lots of shots of them or including them in a large proportion of the frame. Can completely change the tone of a scene.

Did you not do media studies? :nono:

No bitch I did Latin and Greek! Our school didn’t do media studies

[Marsh.]

I did media studies at school and film studies in college. ugh. :flutter: Loved it.

In another life I'd have been a film maker.

[Smithy]

Your career in gambling was just too tempting a calling?

[Marsh.]

:joker:

[Shaun]

not the artpop fan not understanding art </3

[Smithy]

It’s pronounced ARTPOP sweetie

[Oliver_W]

But in the script it will have said X & Y are in room A full of taxidermy birds, no?

Well sure, but like Marsh said, they could either be used as set dressing and nothing more, or they could be shown gradually to reflect the themes of the conversation and character beats.

Or maybe the script didn't mention what the room looked like at all, and Hitchcock decided he'd punch the scene up by keeping the dialogue but including the birds.

[thesheriff443]

Porn director, I want you to give me the vision of intense pleasure but a sense of self loathing.

[MTVN]

The Romeo and Juliet film is basically the same script isn't it, he might have done away with some sections but then directors often have that power over scripts

[Oliver_W]

Okay I thought of another example :laugh:

Steve Kloves wrote the scripts for all the Harry Potter films, but how different does 3 feel to 1 and 2? Hogwarts almost seems like a different place! I think I read somewhere the director of 3 was trying to make it "a horror film for kids". Obviously with the content of the story that is easier with 3 than the first 2, but the direction really brought it home.


Then there are directors like Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron ... when Scott made the latest Alien films, he wouldn't have sat around twiddling his thumbs, wondering what's going to be in his film :p he'd have given the script writer a basic outline, talking about the characters or at least the character types, certain scenes he needed it to include...