How much responsibility does a director have in a movie?

[Hero in a half shell]

We often contribute the success or failure of movies to their director; Star Wars I,II,III sucks because George Lucas made it crap. Shyamalan's movies have mostly been crap for a while and its all his fault. Michael Bay single-handedly ruined the Transformers. Etc. We also see directors seemingly can influence any part of their movies, Tim Burton always casts Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, George Lucas made the decision to do the prequels in CGI and wrote the scripts, Tarantino/Hitchcock cameo in their movies.

But how much control does a director have over his movie? Are script writers not in control of the script, writing believable dialogue and logical plots, and aren't there other people that are supposed to be in charge of casting actors, finding the proper locations, deciding what angles to film at and with what cameras, wardrobe etc. These people are always included in the credits, so how does a director then get the blame or praise for every little thing in his movie? Does he have the last say in every decision or what?

TLR How does a directors role in a film differ from all other roles; Produder, writers, camera guys etc.

 

[Marter]

It depends on the movie, really. They usually are one of the bigger reasons as to why a movie will be successful, but other factors can play a role as well.

For example, Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical release was terrible, but then we get the cut that Ridley Scott really wanted on DVD, and we see a really good film. The studio screwed his film over initially, and it was their fault it sucked.

Writers often can influence it as well, but the better directors will only attach themselves to projects that have a solid script, or will fix it up after becoming involved, meaning they still are to blame.

Cinematographers are less of a problem, usually. Only lower budget films usually have these types of issues. Hollywood films will almost always have a good enough cinematographer, and again, the director still has influence over them, and often selects them himself.

 

[Velvo]

Pretty sure it depends on the director and what they can get done. If a director wants to change something, I'm sure they can get it changed if they try hard enough.

I mean, a director is responsible for everything that ends up on screen. The cinematographer may want a particular shot, but if the director doesn't think it's right for the mood or whatever, it's his call. An actor may want to deliver a line full of ripe emotion, but if the director wants a robot, he's getting a robot.

Writers are probably pretty hard to sway on rewriting their material, but I'm sure directors have done it.

The director has artistic control, but everyone else has artistic input which lots of times ends up in the film unaltered because a director can't harp on every last thing.

 

[Kurokami]

We often contribute the success or failure of movies to their director; Star Wars I,II,III sucks because George Lucas made it crap. Shyamalan's movies have mostly been crap for a while and its all his fault. Michael Bay single-handedly ruined the Transformers. Etc. We also see directors seemingly can influence any part of their movies, Tim Burton always casts Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, George Lucas made the decision to do the prequels in CGI and wrote the scripts, Tarantino/Hitchcock cameo in their movies.

But how much control does a director have over his movie? Are script writers not in control of the script, writing believable dialogue and logical plots, and aren't there other people that are supposed to be in charge of casting actors, finding the proper locations, deciding what angles to film at and with what cameras, wardrobe etc. These people are always included in the credits, so how does a director then get the blame or praise for every little thing in his movie? Does he have the last say in every decision or what?

TLR How does a directors role in a film differ from all other roles; Produder, writers, camera guys etc.

I'm fairly sure directors can make whatever (depending on the circumstances/producers I guess) changes they wish as they oversee everything. When your boss tells you to find a cast, you find a cast that suits him. (Cast in this case meaning actors and such, not something you put on a broken leg)

Of course what do I know, I'm not in the industry.

 

[nooneisusingthisname]

well, the director is the maximum author of any project, irregardless of how much space he allows for aspects to control themselves, he is ultimately in charge of the film he's making (under, of course, the practical restrictions as dictated by the producers)

as a film student, i've basically learned that on the set, the director rules absolutely, if he tells the cinematographer to pack up and go home, he will yield, the only one above him is the producer, who (by regulations in the actual industry) isn't usually permitted to meddle with the creative things (and if they do, the director can try to get his filmed signed off as an Alan Smithee production)

there are, of course, rare cases where the producers DO completely screw over the director, but all things considered, the film is the director's baby, and they carry it out completely. so if what you're seeing is crap, and the director hasn't made his own cut (case in point: everything by Ridley Scott) it's his fault for being a terrible auteur.

this is not at all the case for TV series (even like HBO series) which are completely controlled by the producers

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Like others have said, it depends on the studio. However, in the most general of scenarios, they are responsible for the vision of the movie. The script may tell the story, but two movies can have the exact same story but be so different tonally that the experience is completely different. (Abre los Ojos vs Vanilla Sky for example) They will have influence over the soundtrack, how the director of photography will light a scene, how a cinematographer will frame a scene, the actor's business, and much much more. Now since this is a collaborative medium, the director will usually take input from those people I mentioned, and the producers will oftentimes come down and make sure that things don't get out of hand to a point where the movie may stop selling seats because of certain tonal changes or character representations.

But seriously, it varies so much that it's almost ridiculous. On an independent production, the director will have the most control they could possibly have, but on a safer studio type of deal, there will be many people along the way that the director has to work with. Film is ultimately collaboration, so it's a good thing. The one that really gets screwed over in the whole deal is the writer.