Quote:
|
Originally Posted by evollove
When the Sopranos was on, especially during the first dew years, I agreed with people who felt it was better than most movies.
Thing is, episodes had different directors.
There are still a few directors I admire, but I think there are a lot of factors involved in a flick other than the director that make that flick good or bad.
Also, is "good directing" really all that important? I mean, is Woody Allen a good director? Of course. He's been doing it over 40 years, so he'd better know a thing or two. He knows where to put the camera, move people around the frame, etc.
But if his script sucks, who cares?
|
I think you're right. There are directors who make films their own (Hitchcock, etc) but most of them have far less impact on how they turn out than a producer does. There's a few high profile auteur directors in Hollywood but they're still more common in the indie and arthouse scene, and even there most aren't as powerful or influential as their reputation suggests. Films are arguably more made by committee now than they were even during the height of the studio era. It's just that now the industry is more keen to market films by their director (directors cuts, etc) than they were then.