What will make a film director better? # of films s/he made on books, or # of bo

1. 80

   anusha15posted 12 years ago

   What will make a film director better? # of films s/he made on books, or # of books written on films
   
   A good film indeed gives a lot of work in the aftermath. Books on making, inclusion in top films... So on and so forth. And making a film on a good book has challenges one too many. They director has to face a lot of heat. So what makes a film director good. More films directed based on books? Or more books written on his/her films? None? Why?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Sapphireidposted 12 years ago

   Hello Anusha15,
   
   I'll attempt to answer your question.
   
   Neither of these two options are what makes a film director better. Sure, they can help with things like: Exposure but, for a Film Director to get better they must work on disciplining how they interact with their staff, contractor's and the actors. For if these are not in line the focus on the Film Director is not in good light.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The implementation of planning, execution etc. - the process - is indeed extremely important. Liked your perspective.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Sapphireidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good evening Anusha15,
      Thanks for your reply and appreciating my perspective.
      Respectfully.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Jeffrey Poehlmannposted 12 years ago

   I am trying to understand this question, because it is phrased very oddly, and will do my best to offer a broad answer.
   
   First, there is no correlation between being a good director and whether or not the source material is a book. While it is often accepted wisdom in Hollywood that bad books may well make excellent movies, this is based on the fact that "good" books tend to be very literary, and therefore tend to also focus on the internal lives of their characters; movies, by nature, tend to focus on external lives, plot and action, which is why pulp fiction translates so well to the screen.
   
   In some instances, such as the current "Life of Pi," a book that is widely considered to be a good literary source (also considered generally unfilmable) was completely reconceived by its director and embraced as a great success. Likewise, many books must be re-imagined in order to be filmed. This, however, is often the genius of the writer, not merely the director. Also, examining the work of Kubrick, whose films were mainly literary adaptations, shows that he frequently strayed far from the source (in the case of "The Shining" he actually changed significant elements, while with "Dr. Strangelove" he actually changed the whole tone and meaning). It would be fair to argue that his work in film was completely original in that he made the material his own.
   
   That brings us to the second part of the question, whether having books written about a director makes the director somehow "good" at the job. This basically makes no sense as a question: inclusion in critical books is always good for a director's reputation, however it is a subjective inclusion that has no objective bearing. Terrible directors are appreciated in books. Ed Wood, for instance, has lots of books written about him that will never make his work any good. Write another book about Ed Wood, his films still remain terrible.
   
   So, the short answer: neither making movies based on books nor having books written about a director will make the director any better or worse than he or she already is. The only thing that improves a director is a more focused point of view about the material and a better technical working relationship with crew and cast.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I liked your answer, and information/opinions you embed with it - and that's what the question was intending at. It was an open ended thing, with the none option - which you agreed with, meant to ask the readers state their views.

      replyreport
4. 83

   John Sarkisposted 12 years ago

   Not sure whether you're referring to quality or to successful material?  Maybe not the best way to answer this question, but to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, 'if it's famous and popular it probably isn't of high quality'.  A successful/money making movie has nothing to with good quality material...food for though....

   replyreport
   1. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree till some extent. A commercial failure can be a great movie, but in general would be critically acclaimed at least.
      Another food for thought, how odd, Oscar Wilde is himself famous, though I'm not too sure of extent of his material success

      replyreport
   2. 83

      John Sarkisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Anusha, true...Oscar Wilde is famous, however, mainly posthumously.  All said, some greats were relatively well known in their lifetime: Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart and Beethoven, but they were never wealthy.  Take care, John

      replyreport
   3. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      John, its sad that many good creators do not get due credit or success - the world is not an ideal place. Having said that, I don't agree that there is a rule which would prevent the deserving from getting success and fame. Peace, Anusha

      replyreport
5. 71

   netslumsposted 12 years ago

   Amount of money the film earned. I know, i know, it sounds materialistic. But think about it. James Cameron has a HUGE following of haters, but no one can deny that he makes the films he WANTS to make and still makes billions of dollars on them. That's a TRULY great director. One who makes the films he/she enjoys making and still achieves a huge following. That shows that the director is able to captivate his/her audience with his/her vision. A true challenge achieved by the truly great.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What a great answer. I loved the part "WANTS to make". Making money is one thing, but making it without compromises is another. And when it comes to James Cameron, who cares about books, he will cover up by number of biographies

      replyreport
6. 84

   carozyposted 12 years ago

   I think the better director would have more films based on books.  They would be more enjoyable films.  A director with many books written about his films may have films that are cutting edge but lack mass appeal.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      anusha15posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That was a very different perspective, and indeed good one.

      replyreport