who is responsible for a movie's artistc failure?

[blackdragon6]

when movies fail artisticly the people behind the movie usually start playing the blame game.the director blames the studio for screwing up his vision,the writer usually says the same thing.the studio blames everybody but themselves.so in your openion who should take most of the blame?

[Grant]

when movies fail artisticly the people behind the movie usually start playing the blame game.the director blames the studio for screwing up his vision,the writer usually says the same thing.the studio blames everybody but themselves.so in your openion who should take most of the blame?

Depends most of the time. But the Producer is the one overseeing the whole project from beginning to end. They buy the script or property, bring it studio for distribution, raise money hire the people to write, direct and star in the movie and market the movie.

So if you want blame one person it's probably best to start with them.

[Forefinger]

I say that the director has the biggest impact on everything from the way the movie looks, to the way the actors act, almost everything. But, they can only work with what they have.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

the producers can take part of the blame but its always the studio that screw shit up.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The director is always the one you should blame. He's the one with the vision, and he's the driving artistic force behind the movie. The buck stops on his desk. Of course, the producers might screw the whole thing up, and studio pressure might wreck a movie, but the director always has the option of using the Alan Smithee pseudonym if he wants to be dissociated from his film.

[Phil Clark]

Movies are such a collaborative effort that no one person can be blamed for it's artistic failure. Everyone contributes to it's success or failure. So everyone should get credit or blame.

[JohnPopa]

Unless the director has final cut it's tough to just say 'it's the director's vision so they're usually responsible.' Producers can cut a movie anyway they want most of the time and history is peppered with movies where what the director shot and edited was not what remotely ended up on the screen.

[cactusmaac]

The director is always the one you should blame. He's the one with the vision, and he's the driving artistic force behind the movie. The buck stops on his desk. Of course, the producers might screw the whole thing up, and studio pressure might wreck a movie, but the director always has the option of using the Alan Smithee pseudonym if he wants to be dissociated from his film.

Auteur theory doesn't extend very well to Hollywood.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Auteur theory doesn't extend very well to Hollywood.
I think it does. There are many disposable directors around, but who remembers their movies? Most of the really memorable movies are made by so-called auteurs, or at least by people who have been given a reasonably long leash.

[ragnarok_2012]

I tend to give most of the credit or blame to the director. I don't blame George Clooney for Batman and Robin. I blame Joel Schumacher. I don't think of the Godfather as a Robert Evans movie, I think of it as a Coppola film.

Though the producers & studio undoubtedly share a great deal of responsibility for the finished product, they always seem so faceless to me.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

Though the producers & studio undoubtedly share a great deal of responsibility for the finished product, they always seem so faceless to me.
wich is why people are so quick to blame the actors or directors,because their not quite faceless.not that i think its right mind you.

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

the studio,yeah directors have been known to screw up movies.BUT the studios are the ones who have the last say so,studios have screwed over meany of directors.

[cactusmaac]

I think it does. There are many disposable directors around, but who remembers their movies? Most of the really memorable movies are made by so-called auteurs, or at least by people who have been given a reasonably long leash.

Michael Curtiz.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Michael Curtiz.
I'm sure it means something to you, but I need more information to understand your point. ;)

[cactusmaac]

He's a guy who directed a bunch of movies which are well remembered today (Casablanca, Captain Blood, Robin Hood, Passage To Marseilles) but he was very much a team player, often relying on co-directors, teams of writers and the studio machine.

Personally I'd say the contributions of the screenwriter, cinematographer and editor are just as important as the director's albeit they don't get much of the attention.

[The Mirrorball Man]

He's a guy who directed a bunch of movies which are well remembered today (Casablanca, Captain Blood, Robin Hood, Passage To Marseilles) but he was very much a team player, often relying on co-directors, teams of writers and the studio machine.

I see. Thank you.

Personally I'd say the contributions of the screenwriter, cinematographer and editor are just as important as the director's albeit they don't get much of the attention.
Except that the director usually has the final say on anything these guys do: if he doesn't like the script, the cinematography or the editing, he can tell them to do it again. The reverse is not true.