All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
He wrote original screenplay for ICONIC movie The Boondock Saints (1999), all production companies where crazy to get his script, but he had one rule, he wanted to direct the movie by himself, even though he never had any experience or FILM school EDUCATION, but eventually he made a movie. My question is, if production company offered you to direct your movie, you would do it, or refused, due to lack of experience?
After watching OVERNIGHT, I wouldn't. I can barely do my own shorts without major hassle. I'll let the professionals do the real work. I'm happy being a screenwriter.
I would. I mean, if you don't have to raise the money yourself or go through the trouble of convincing someone you're up for the job, why wouldn't you? I have some filmmaking experience to go off though. I don't know what my answer would be if I didn't.
Because I had to direct my own shorts for school, I definitely can say I DO NOT want to be director. Producer, maybe, if I can approve everything, but not director. EFF THAT.
From my understanding, the director basically tells everyone how he wants to film the scene. If it's a high-budget film, you'd usually have someone else like the cinematographer do all the camera work for you.
The number one job of any Director is to get the best possible performance from their actors... having a great script with well fleshed out characters helps. What camera angles, movements, lenses to use is the easy part.... I have Directed, and I have written, I have yet to do both in one project. I consider myself a director more than a writer, but my favorite filmmakers tend to be the ones who do both well. All that being said, of course I would direct if given the chance
If someone asked me right now? Mm... I'd love to, but I don't know if I'm at the skill level to actually pull it off, directing-wise.
I do plan on pursuing directing just as much as screenwriting. I think the reason people like Troy Duffy and Quentin Tarantino were allowed to direct their "first" scripts is because they'd made some other projects in the past, meaning they had the skills to pull it off.
That's what I'm going to do (already am). Shoot some smaller things, then when I get something ready, try to get a bigger thing financed.
If someone asked me right now? Mm... I'd love to, but I don't know if I'm at the skill level to actually pull it off, directing-wise.
I do plan on pursuing directing just as much as screenwriting. I think the reason people like Troy Duffy and Quentin Tarantino were allowed to direct their "first" scripts is because they'd made some other projects in the past, meaning they had the skills to pull it off.
That's what I'm going to do (already am). Shoot some smaller things, then when I get something ready, try to get a bigger thing financed.
Agreed. You have to direct something small yourself, but can work on others shorts to pick up lessons and build your confidence before taking the plunge on directing. It's all about building contacts and being proactive.
Yeah - I can see that some wannabe directors want to use the screenwriting angle to make an entrance, but normally you can spot them a mile off.
Screenwriting purists normally produce better material - IMO
But I do think that directing is a hard job, and with a full feature there's a lot of skills - and man-management, to pull together, and it takes a talent to pull it all off. And BTW, it's easier to direct your own work. Directing someone else's vision is where the real skill come in.
Granted, some directors write well, but the writers who direct are top of the pile (Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, all wrote movies before they directed them, so were by definition writers of that movie before being directors of it: thus writers become directors).
Personally, I couldn't direct traffic, but I'd go for a bit of production - and only then because producers don't do anything much, but do get paid obscene amounts of money at the top end. Note no smiley.
Screenwriting purists normally produce better material - IMO
Care to give some examples? Please don't say Aaron Sorkin.
Having skimmed through my DVD collection in reaction to your comments, I found, unsurprisingly, that the vast majority were films by writer-directors. From a writing standpoint, those have always been the works that stood out for me.
With the exception of Charlie Kaufman and maybe the guy who wrote Murder by Numbers and the Salton Sea, I have to admit I have a really hard time coming up with names I can ascribe to particularly impressive writing. I think part of the reason for this is that a lot of the produced screenwriters don't have much to go on by way of filmographies. Josh Olson, just to pick a name out of a hat. A History of Violence, some cheapies I've never heard of, some TV/shorts, and a segment of a DTV animated Batman film. Now, I liked A History of Violence but I can't really say if the guy's all that's good or not based on his output. I could say this about a lot of other screenwriters.
On the other hand, guys like David Koepp, Paul Haggis, etc. have just flat out not done it for me.
Now, I think a screenwriter can be great whether or not they direct (again, Charlie Kaufman) but based on your comments, I would like to pick your brain on the subject a bit.
and only then because producers don't do anything much, but do get paid obscene amounts of money at the top end. Note no smiley.
Not meaning to be offensive in any way here but this statement seems naive to me. Producers are responsible for managing the production. If you think managing creative people is an easy job then you've obviously never done it. On top of that they are also responsible for the budgetary concerns of the production and managing expectations of interested parties. The entire movie sits on the producer's shoulders even though he might not get his hands dirty crafting it.
Not meaning to be offensive in any way here but this statement seems naive to me. Producers are responsible for managing the production. If you think managing creative people is an easy job then you've obviously never done it. On top of that they are also responsible for the budgetary concerns of the production and managing expectations of interested parties. The entire movie sits on the producer's shoulders even though he might not get his hands dirty crafting it.
Well, a production manager is responsible for managing the production and the line producer will manage the costs. Of course, in smaller productions with limited budgets, a producer may fill these roles, but when there's budget, the producer is unlikely to get bogged down in that minutiae. Unless they're a very hands on control freak.
But yeah, it's a bit obtuse to say producers do very little!
I think it varies from production to production. The bigger the production, the more you have special people working on their special thing. In smaller productions like the Hurricane Anthology from last year's October OWC, Cornetto is instrumental as the producer! Without him, this won't happen. Seriously. On the other hand, in my Finders Keepers film, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8GUcYB8Gf4 ) I'm listed as Executive Producer, but to be honest, I didn't do much. So it all varies I guess.
Well, a production manager is responsible for managing the production and the line producer will manage the costs. Of course, in smaller productions with limited budgets, a producer may fill these roles, but when there's budget, the producer is unlikely to get bogged down in that minutiae. Unless they're a very hands on control freak.
But yeah, it's a bit obtuse to say producers do very little!
Even if a producer has staff to do the minutiae, that staff is still reporting to him and he is responsible for managing the expectations of both his staff and outside interested parties. And he would still responsible for hiring and firing the director, writer and stars. He would also be responsible for obtaining investment or financial backing, for arranging distribution and any additional marketing. He's the first person associated with the movie and the last person to finish working on it. It is never an easy job and carries a great deal of responsibility and dedication.
That said there are situations where this title, usually with executive prepended, is given to investors or talent as a perk where they do not have to do any production work. That practice is where the misconception that producers don't do any work comes from.
Even if a producer has staff to do the minutiae, that staff is still reporting to him and he is responsible for managing the expectations of both his staff and outside interested parties. And he would still responsible for hiring and firing the director, writer and stars. He would also be responsible for obtaining investment or financial backing, for arranging distribution and any additional marketing. He's the first person associated with the movie and the last person to finish working on it. It is never an easy job and carries a great deal of responsibility and dedication.
That said there are situations where this title, usually with executive prepended, is given to investors or talent as a perk where they do not have to do any production work. That practice is where the misconception that producers don't do any work comes from.
Well, yeah, we all know the producer wields the final say, I was just addressing the roles of line producer and production manager that were attributed to the producer in your post - just to clear it up. Lots of people I see from reading stuff here do not know the breakdown and I thought that might be misleading. Not clipping your ear.
But we also have to consider the studio pictures where often the producer might not even be the power broker. It might be studio execs, or it may even be the director, if they have a strong enough power base. It's pretty flexible. No one size fits all description of what a producer does can be applied. I mean, you may have a finance-focused producer working alongside a creative-focused producer. And what they do will be very different.
What you are saying is that the production function can be divided up on a film. A producer can have staff that he delegates production function to. I agree with that.
But to clear things up about Hollywood producers, here's an explanation of what a producer does - from Slate Magazine
What you are saying is that the production function can be divided up on a film. A producer can have staff that he delegates production function to. I agree with that.
But to clear things up about Hollywood producers, here's an explanation of what a producer does - from Slate Magazine
Well, I'm sort of saying that, but I'm actually clearing up your first post, which incorrectly summarised the role! What you said, for example, would be akin to saying a football manager is in charge of a player's health, which techincally he would be, but it's actually the physios and nutritionists who are in charge of that - and you're then following up by saying, but they delegate it. Well, yeah, obviously, 'cos they're in charge! But the distinction is what the job role performs! That was what I was clearing up, because if someone read your first post, they may have been confused! That was all!
Well, I'm sort of saying that, but I'm actually clearing up your first post, which incorrectly summarised the role! What you said, for example, would be akin to saying a football manager is in charge of a player's health, which techincally he would be, but it's actually the physios and nutritionists who are in charge of that - and you're then following up by saying, but they delegate it. Well, yeah, obviously, 'cos they're in charge! But the distinction is what the job role performs! That was what I was clearing up, because if someone read your first post, they may have been confused! That was all!
My summary wasn't incorrect at all. Producers are responsible for what my first post states. The fact the some producers delegate does not change that. Producers are managers and managers delegate if they have the budget for it but that doesn't change their accountability for results.
Care to give some examples? Please don't say Aaron Sorkin.
It's sometimes a bummer living in a different time-zone.
Yeah, this was partially said tongue-in-cheek, and there are two sides to it:
First-off, newcomers. I can normally spot directors who turn to screenwriting, vs. writers who turn to screenwriting. A director who wishes to home the skill may well be capable of producing a script as good as any screenwriter-only. Sometimes I think that directors are better off sticking to directing ... sometimes. Those who wish to do both - good luck to them, but they are balancing two different skills.
As for people in the industry. Well this is opinion again. I'll not say Sorkin, because you have. But:
Writers only: Akiva Goldsman, William Goldman, Eric Roth, Purvis & Wade.
Mainly writers: Steven Zaillian, Terry Rossio (& Elliott), Steve Kloves, David Koepp, Roberto Orci (& Kurtzman), Josh Whedon.
Writers & Directors: Christopher Nolan, Woody Allen, James Cameron, Coen Brothers, Billy Wilder, Paul Schrader, Stanley Kubrick.
Now, I'm expecting you to disagree with approx 90% of them, as you're probably into more art-house stuff (I'd never heard of Gayton), but it's all opinion, and it's not a point worth driving too hard.
Not meaning to be offensive in any way here but this statement seems naive to me. Producers are responsible for managing the production. If you think managing creative people is an easy job then you've obviously never done it. On top of that they are also responsible for the budgetary concerns of the production and managing expectations of interested parties. The entire movie sits on the producer's shoulders even though he might not get his hands dirty crafting it.
Hi Michael. No offence taken. I've checked some of the comment written further down, and yes, producers can have a lot of responsibility, and can have an impact of the finished product, so I'm in agreement wit most of what you've said.
But it's also true that occasionally they can be in for a free ride (especially with the exec tag, which is acceptable considering the risk factor of investment).
It is an industry role more important and effective further up the budget line. Anyone who writes, films, and edits to a finished product is effectively a producer of that material. Accepting those who work hard and do an excellent job, the only problem with the role is that, in truth, it can occasionally attract free-riders. That's isn't entirely naive ... but it sometime how the reward system works.
My summary wasn't incorrect at all. Producers are responsible for what my first post states. The fact the some producers delegate does not change that. Producers are managers and managers delegate if they have the budget for it but that doesn't change their accountability for results.
Well it is incorrect, because you basically eliminated the production manager and line producer. But you can think what you think and I'll think what I think.
Well it is incorrect, because you basically eliminated the production manager and line producer. But you can think what you think and I'll think what I think.
So there's always a line producer and production manager on every film? Is that what you're telling me? Of course not, because you know that isn't the case.
Ultimately the producer is responsible for what the line producer and the production manager do, they report to him.
You must feel that the contribution you made to the film you line produced was really undervalued if you want to argue this point so much.
Well, the initial post was regards to features. If you read back in my first couple of posts, you'll see I addressed budget. Regards your slightly catty comments regards line producing, I'm not quite sure what to say. But kinda amusing all the same for the wrong reasons for you! No idea why you're seemingly taking it so personally. Anyway, mate, have a good night.
He wrote original screenplay for ICONIC movie The Boondock Saints (1999), all production companies where crazy to get his script, but he had one rule, he wanted to direct the movie by himself, even though he never had any experience or FILM school EDUCATION, but eventually he made a movie. My question is, if production company offered you to direct your movie, you would do it, or refused, due to lack of experience?
I think a trained director would do a much better job then I. Not that someone out there wouldn't be a prodigy and have a natural inborn talent.
The important thing is, not to be too egoistic. I believe in letting go of some things. Not that I haven't held on to some things myself. Everyone needs to weigh in their own heart what feels right to them.
As long as I felt my story was in place to the best of my ability, I would be grateful to see what flight it would take with talented and dedicated people in all areas.
- I know the script inside and out and there's less chance of it being watered down. - I cannot blame the director for tinkering with the script. - I may be wearing a few more hats, depending on the production/budget. - If you are looking for a fist time director for my script, I want to be considered anyway - I have a clear vision and a great visual eye - I can storyboard
My whole outlook toward Troy Duffy changed after seeing OVERNIGHT. The only thing I see now is ego in every word and every description line. And my comment has nothing to do with this thread, but I tend to get irked when I read his name
As far as your question goes, I'd probably refuse. That way I can blame the director if the film sucks: "I give this dude/dudette an ice-cream cone and they go and drop it on the effing sidewalk. Argh!"
hmmmm.... someone has some anger issues ^^ .... I have no doubt that Troy Duffy probably isn't the most easy person to work with... however documentary filmmakers can be as manipulative with their editing as any reality-show producer.... so I say it's a waste of good energy, spending it on hating someone you've never met. (save if for the ones you do know ) For anger turns to hate, and hate turns.... er... uh... you into Troy Duffy *shrug* I love your ice-cream metaphor
Angry? You got anger from that? I don't hate the guy by any means. He just comes off as an ass. Not just in the doc, but his attitude in general (interviews and articles.) I'll put it this way; he wasn't ostracized for his kindheartedness.
I agree with you on that Goes to show, the only thing that can get in your way of success, is yourself. It was a good doc, a cautionary tale for fellow writers/filmmakers.
Pages: 
Author
Screenwriter or Movie Director
Logged
Locked Board