@TT my kind of rock-n-roll ain’t about experimentation. It’s about being true to the roots of it all (the blues). Turning it up loud and letting it fly. It’s not about having a classical symphonic orchestra in the studio laying down songs that you’ll never be able to perform live. It’s about being with the people, the fans and sweating it out on a stage. For better or worse.
I'm not even as big a Tarantino fan as most people but he's completely right and the directors I respect the most write all their scripts, and I put them in a separate category from directors whom I also love but who don't write anything.
Writing a script is such a skill of concentration because one must know the angles and tone to describe the scene. My issue is when the hell is McDonald’s going to give me the time to sit and think about the page!
There is a big difference between having a “look” and a “voice”. Fincher has the former. Tarantino comes off condescending here like always but I can’t say he is wrong in that regard. Regardless, I don’t think Fincher gives a damn.
I’m a writer/director myself (3 feature films) but in regards to Fincher and other directors that direct other people’s scripts, you can still have that voice. A director ultimately is the lead creative of the film, so he choose the look and feel of the film and how it is told. If a director likes a certain topic and continues to find scripts that fit that topic, there’s a clear distinction of the director without him/her having to write the script as well. I use Denis Villeneuve (director of Dune) as an example. He only directs but his film discography is very wide and you can still spot his films just by the tone, visuals and storytelling.
It's an interesting topic that borders on the subject of introvert directors vs extrovert directors. The thing is, Fincher's movies always feel like a heavily stylized set of illustrations to some other author's story. When you watch a QT movie you actually get to hear his VOICE because all of the characters talk in QT's vernacular, his sensibilities and rhythms. When you quote a Fincher film, you're quoting Chuck Palahniuk or Aaron Sorkin. Fincher's "voice" turns out to be not a voice at all but a visual primer on how to present information. QT is right, it's a very different skillset. Fincher is world famous at it, but a director-playwright will always have more of joie de vivre in him and an unmatched charisma that introverts don't get to have. I do get a very different kind of pleasure from watching QT's movies as opposed to a Fincher film. And frankly, Mank sucked in a way that Death Proof simply didn't.
@@varvarvarvarvarvar I see where you’re coming from, but that’s literal voice and makes sense because QT writes and directs his films, so it has his voice like you said. But I think it’s also interesting to see a director like Fincher, because he does have a voice and strong one even without writing the script. If you watch Dragon Tattoo, Social Network and Gone Girl, they all have a Fincher tone even though different writers. It definitely gives you that feeling that you’re watching a Fincher product, not all directors can achieve that. For example, James Cameron is an amazing director but if you compare Avatar to Titanic, they have no similar tone or style other than both films being done on an incredible scale of scope.
@@wdb_hb I see what you mean, I just don't think that it's correct to call it a voice though. Kubrick is the closest of the greats to Fincher and he similarly didn't write films from scratch although he always co-wrote the scripts and always made extensive changes. That being said, it always felt that what Kubrick was producing was not a voice but more of a visual philosophy, a sense of vision. People are small in a world full of darkness, and this darkness often spill through humans, but we can and should fight it with small facets of light that we have. But it's never spoken anywhere near like that. The magic is in a carefully constructed movie with impeccable compositions and clever editorial choices throughout. Whereas with Tarantino, it's fair to call what he does a voice because the characters are so strong, and the editorial presence is very outspoken too, his movies are beaming with human personality. You mention Cameron, in my world that only says that Cameron has a stronger voice since he can write a script from scratch and bend the visual sensibilities toward what's best for the story that _he wrote._ He didn't let a vision get in the way of a voice like it happens in Michael Bay movies. I kind of got disenchanted with Fincher after "Gone Girl" because it felt like I was watching the same movie for the third time, and I don't want to rewatch it again because I don't like any of the characters. And I didn't in "Tattoo" and the Facebook movie. But I'm still hyped for what Tarantino will write because I trust him as an editor of his own writing, that he won't put out something that he doesn't feel 100% behind for.
What about Stanley Kubrick? I get what Tarantino is saying, but you don’t have to be a writer to be a brilliant distinct filmmaker. It works for him, but how many directors go done that path where they HAVE to also write the script and the movie suffers for it.
Kubrick co-wrote all of his screenplays and was heavily involved in every single script (except Spartacus), even when collaborating with other writers. He absolutely fits with what Tarantino is saying here in terms of preserving a voice. He didn't just go and shoot scripts that were already written. He spearheaded the projects from the beginning.
Well, he does start off talking about Fincher who simply doesn't write his own films, but the focus of the clip is on directors who start out writing their own films, demonstrate a unique creative voice in doing so, and then lose that creative voice when they choose not to continue writing their own films. Thanks for watching, my friend. Hope you got something out of it regardless.
I don't think it's a binary situation, though. Directors can be a part of the writing process at any time and still be a "writer" on the film. It's not a specific title like "director", not in the collaborative process of making a film. Scripts change during production and filming. That writing process oftentimes involves many people who could all be called "writers". I'm sure the Writer's Guild has its own classifications, but from an artistic perspective it can be quite broad. But films almost always have just a single director.
Did you see Louis Theroux in that new Warrors movie? Or just some randomer who looks like him. There was this whole episode of Panorama in Philly where Louis went to the Ghetto like Hugh Grant in a bulletproof vest and totally tried to reason with the Gangsters yh? So this fat *sshole with a shirt that looks like Margot Robbie thought he was the Brass *sshole on the block but I had a look later and there were mad zo,bie looking nutters all out on the road like they never heard of the Saw puppet and a van all open with hanging ropes instead of seats and the whole thing looked nutty but basically the *idea* of zombies is still conjecture. And the thing is you don't have to care about the *word* conjecture in that situation unless Louis Theroux is there. Anyway I thought he was in Jerusalem.
Hogging up the West Bank is a pride sin. I decided it was vain and acceded. Some people don't really understand the issue like...all over Islam is the same sort of municipal infrastructure from Basrah to Tashkent huh and basically you could leave one and land in a nother and it's homogenous like richbiquity. When you say you want to move to the west bank everyone and their wife is like "...why man? You realise at that point you're south of Jesus' grave?" I was like "yeah whatever!?" The were like "yeah so: Miami. What's the difference? It's crowded and unless Jesus actually *does* want you for a sunbeam and not even in a post ironical context you could let it go? And the crew of Christians, man you'd be hurting their *feelings* I was like 😢 I didn't even know or anything? And I felt like a sh*thead. So I let it go.
He's definitely right. Steven Spielberg is an amazing director, but he doesn't write his shit anymore. Writer/Director movies are the ones I'm drawn to. Mostly because of the the voice he's talking about
Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese, Howard Hawks, Abel Fererra.. none of them wrote they’re stuff. Mostly credited but they were always co-writers.
Sam Witwer said something about this , he said something along the lines of how anyone can look back at a piece of art and say "they should have done this or they should have done that," but real talent is making the decision on the day you need to make it and seeing it through. So between David Fincher and Tarantino, Fincher is a great director but his talent comes from looking at other people's writing and saying how he could communicate it better. Tarantino has to make the entire vision front to back, and it leads to different approaches in terms of how things are executed.
It's like the relationship between editor and writer. Or, with TV singing contests, it's judges and contestants---judges can't sing but they know what is great.
Since I was like 13 I have been coming up with stories I got a shit ton of them I think they were ahead of their time to be honest I don't have confidence in anything except for my movie ideas and still coming up with new ideas and it's not hard it's like kind of a flash in a way like a b and c comes to me beginning middle end and then I just need to put in filler in a way to get to A to B to C that's the way I kind of think about it but I had one shot and I messed it up hopefully I can catch lightning in a bottle twice if I try
@@BlueSageFilms most definitely when I first started writing at the age of 14 or around 14 it was lyrics or what I thought were lyrics then it turned into stories so I figured well let's go back to that so I started writing poems songs raps pretty much whatever comes to my head and then when I come up with a story I just write down the idea but I got to get the full story from my head to paper I did write out my short film. But I didn't write it as a screenplay and like I said it's a short film it could be anywhere from 15 to 10 minutes long I want to make that but unfortunately I need other people at least two other people that are just as committed as me and I don't think I'd put it on RU-vid I think it's good enough for like a film festival. Also I just noticed your name says Blue Sage films have you made films before. I make a lot of RU-vid videos basically just talking about my life and playing MK mobile and sometimes playing Mortal Kombat 11 live streaming I think if I played different games I could get more subscribers but at the moment those are the only games I'm like really kind of addicted to LOL but yeah most definitely an hour a day isn't much but after a month it can be a lot
tarantino is a collage artist is the kind of director who doesnt have any philosophical vision just paste scenes ruminate another artist ideas , i dont understand the hype behind him is he a poet a painter only god knows
@@jakehands well godard was a collage artist himself but his collage is original deep bold to juxtapose good text with good imagery is a sign of a good artist but to take original language like godard vocabulary and to transforme it to shit mainstrem thats painful and thats what tarantino movies a recycling and a perversion of original ideas ................
Barry Jenkins didn’t write moonlight. He rewrote it. This is also very different (according to QT’s rules). We should be weary of the director who claims writing credit on projects that don’t originate with them. I realize this isn’t the perfect example, but Fincher, even if he changes the script, will never claim writing credit.
I hear you to some extent, but Jenkins didn't just claim writing credit -- he was awarded writing credit through WGA arbitration. The original writer was only granted "story by" credit, indicating that the work of his that remained in the script following Jenkins's rewrite did not meet the 33% threshold. You're right that there's probably better examples I could have used, but I chose Jenkins mostly because his movies do have a distinct creative voice, which is what QT was centering on. Rewrites are complicated, and I agree that just because you change a few things doesn't mean you are a writer of the script. But the fact that he has sole "written by" credit I think separates the situation from directors who do a quick pass before it goes into production and then try to claim authorship. Maybe he didn't start truly at a "blank page" with Moonlight, but he still wrote the script.
I think he actually addressed that earlier in the interview before the clip I pulled, acknowledging that it was easier to write with characters who already existed.
@@film_session I did like how QT took that novel and adapted it with his "own characters" and his own style. He kind of gave the story a blaxploitation vibe. That takes more work than a straightforward adaptation.
Definitely. He seems like a guy who can't help but make something his own. I think this clip makes it pretty clear he's not that interested in doing adaptations, but I kind of wish he would occasionally take some preexisting material and make something surprising out of it.
I get much more interest in a film with a written and directed by---(same person). It’s a vision of unique creativity. Even if it’s a weak storyline it’s often better because it’s not a committee decision thing
Also fair to say that people like David perhaps enjoy working on scripts that have already had some initial work done by a proper writer 😛 directing and writing aren't the same skill, after all, and it's fair to say that, like singer-songwriter, it tends to include both high caliber artists, but also artists who crave a lot of creative control over the final product.
In that case Fincher is not a good example because there is definitely a distinct voice in his movies… no matter what kind of script he is working with, you know a fincher movie when you see one. Fincher is definitely on par with any writer/director out there…
Then what about directors like Martin Scorsese,some of his greatest works are scripts that he didn't write.There is a clear voice even after decades. You could clearly say it's Scorsese movie by watching it.
He would be right about Fincher, except Fincher is EXTREMELY picky about the scripts he takes on. The scripts have to resonate with Fincher on a deep level. That's why he doesn't write.
Tarantino is right he is in a league of his as a writer/director because he is creating the idea. Fincher can be as picky as he wants but he’s still looking through a stack if scripts and picking one and that isn’t like staring at a blank piece of paper and starting from nothing. Fincher doesn’t write because he knows he can’t write great scripts from scratch obviously. If he could he would. He’s a phenomenal director and has his own voice in his films but it’s totally different. It’s Apples to Oranges.
@@justinhopper5941so you would you say writing a script js more important than filming the movie and making the script come to life? And Tarantino does both so he's on a different level for sure. Do you think if someone is a writer director and lead actor that would put them on a different level than Tarantino? Let's just assume this triple threat of a person makes movies as influential as Tarantino btw.
Yeah I disagree with this a lot. It’s arguably more notable or impressive that a director’s “voice”, or style or whatever is recognizable and distinct when it’s NOT coming from a script they wrote. It can also show their range as a filmmaker, whereas with Tarantino for instance, his voice is very clear sometimes to a fault, because it’s VERY obvious what his writing sounds like
Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Denis Villeneuve, Michael Bay, etc… are famous directors (not writer/directors) who still have a voice decades later. Take those facts and his comments and form your own opinion.
It depresses me that Shyamalan has apparently gone down this road. Yeah, his original movies were laughably terrible towards the end, but it was still HIS voice.
What I meant about Jerusalem is that it's smaller than the west side of England which is Wales (Team Dragon) and they were given legal permission to devolve to their own native language which is a dialect of Cornish Gaelic totally even different from Scottish!? And they were so happy! Plaid Cymru (who are the racist Welsh nationalist team on site) waved banners like the Irish like "F*ck you buddy!" To the English right? And in London they missed the money huh? This homeless guy was like "this is a bit of a skinny pigeon? Could do with some mushrooms with it ey ey? F*ckers." Yh whatever.
I believe there's a distinct difference between a director's style and their "voice." Folks like Tarantino, Lynch and Wes Anderson have a style that is immutably married to that voice. Other directors whose style doesn't really have anything to say, who are there just to make movies for their own sake, include names like Spielberg, Cameron, and even John Carpenter. Does that diminish the work of anyone I've just mentioned? Fuck no. And I say this as a Fincher fanatic. He's absolutely my favorite director. But he's certainly not a "voice" director. He's just fucking great at what he does.
@@joelmgodleski there makes sense, i'ts hard to have a style in modern time, but i see a kind coeherence in his filmography, all his movies they have a noir/adult artmosphere, like Spielberg and Cameron about pop movies
Oh, Eddie Izzard and his opinion about Clay Pigeons-he threw that yh? What Do I have to say? Throw another one before he kills me with the thin bit? ... Eddie Izzard ey? He's my favourite lemon lollipop. He's a so-daddy , he's a Cold Front Coming. I used to make a list ( this was after i thought about moving to NYC) of people i ought to make ice with witchcraft for if I could. Like...Hitler. The thing about Eddie is his stand up ( i love by the way) is school in the bar. I was suspicious: what next? Only it turned out he was completely cuckoo juice and clearly jolly yeah? So i thought in the name of Picasso i ought to let him continue . Yes! Eddie izzard I thought: twang people into a tree! Bl**dy scientologists think they won the game of life! They lost to this dead guy in a parachute- woe, woe.
Oh yeah, I did have a lesbo anomaly like Eddie's but it's vain to brag so I don't say things like "you know this ho in South London would have aborted her children for my new sweater!? But it was on the bargain rack !?" Isn't that harsh as sh*t? Eddie's so freakishly good-looking he could make anything fashionable he ever wanted like...if he wanted to make a skin tight catsuit out of a Beatles mohair psychedelia someone in town would say "that was FRESH."
Tarantino himself has said he wants to make 10 movies and then retire. If numbers are the qualifier, then William Beaudine is the king. I dare you to name 1 movie by him without googling it.
@@joelmgodleski my point was that his theory of "you make more movies going through already written scripts" with Fincher as an example is just not that solid.
Now I wonder...as hard as it seems to write a script...would it in turn make it easier for u to direct that movie since ur the one that put pen to paper
