https://www.dga.org/Contracts/Creative-Rights/Basic-Agreement-Article-7.aspx
crt+f "one director to a film"
There are loads of exceptions. Not sure of the reason for the rule tho
>Director Elliot Silverstein, chair of the 1978 Creative Rights Negotiating Committee, recalled that "Our concern was that the use of more than one director (and if two why not three or four, etc.?) would lead to the producer becoming an über director and the director(s) becoming messengers. We did not want the Guild's members to be involved in a 'piece goods' profession, blurring individual vision, authority and credit." >As reported in the March/April 1978 issue of Action magazine, the forerunner of DGA Magazine, "The 'one director to a film' provision, new to the 1978 agreement, is aimed at the burgeoning insistence of stars and producers that they receive co-director credit." >In Dialogue on Film, A Series of Seminars With Master Filmmakers: Frank Capra, 1979, a documentary film by the American Film Institute, Capra said, "I believed one man should make the film, and I believed the director should be that man. I just couldn't accept art from a committee. I can only accept art as an extension of the individual." >"A single director is an organizational imperative," DGA Secretary-Treasurer and Western Directors Council member Gil Cates explained. "A film is a complex form involving the integration of many elements. It's a composite from many people — the writer, the actor, the director of photography. I'm sure that what is going on in the world at the time is also thrown in as part of the composite. So I'm not saying the vision has to be generated by one person, but, the best way to have that integration be successful is to have it articulated by a single person."
It works when you break the movie up into segments, as in an epic film, and make it about something everyone can understand.
How the West Was Won had 3 legendary directors, directing different parts of the movie, and it came out great. There was no infighting because they had a shared vision and filmed the scenes they were most suited to based on their experience in the genre.
There was also no single lead actor or actress fighting for the spotlight. The focus of the film was on America. Nobody needed to or could steal the glory from it.
this is probably one of the best rules from an end-product standpoint. movies would be so lesser if they didn't have a unified vision. if only video games had that
and their fans get mad if any strong voice in a game takes credit, "urrr actually it takes a lot of people to make this game so why are you calling it a kojima game??"
Because they are afraid of every person and everything around them that isn't themselves.
Dictators like Stalin and Saddam were so paranoid that they wouldn't even allow themselves to be sedated during dentistry procedures because they feared a coup during that time and ate the pain instead.
It's like a wolf pack: you fought your way to the top, and now you are anxiously scanning for and proactively sabotaging your enemies no matter the long-term cost to the state so it doesn't happen to you.
Dictators are by way of paradox the slaves of everyone around them.
Basically that while a king is restricted by custom in what he can and can't do and seems limited by that, he is actually safe because everyone accepts his rightful place as ruler and is therefore more free than a despot.
Because they are afraid of every person and everything around them that isn't themselves.
Dictators like Stalin and Saddam were so paranoid that they wouldn't even allow themselves to be sedated during dentistry procedures because they feared a coup during that time and ate the pain instead.
It's like a wolf pack: you fought your way to the top, and now you are anxiously scanning for and proactively sabotaging your enemies no matter the long-term cost to the state so it doesn't happen to you.
Dictators are by way of paradox the slaves of everyone around them.
Because the great directors make auteur movies, if they "share" the direction it stops being authorial. Exceptions are when they are siblings or have been working together forever and have similar artistic views. On "normal" flicks like children's cartoons and straight to tv stuff sometimes have more than one director
They are egomaniacs
DGA rules
Some directors leave the guild in order to do this. Robert Rodriguez comes to mind
What is the wording in specific? Seems like a really weird rule and I can't see why it would be in place.
https://www.dga.org/Contracts/Creative-Rights/Basic-Agreement-Article-7.aspx
crt+f "one director to a film"
There are loads of exceptions. Not sure of the reason for the rule tho
>Director Elliot Silverstein, chair of the 1978 Creative Rights Negotiating Committee, recalled that "Our concern was that the use of more than one director (and if two why not three or four, etc.?) would lead to the producer becoming an über director and the director(s) becoming messengers. We did not want the Guild's members to be involved in a 'piece goods' profession, blurring individual vision, authority and credit."
>As reported in the March/April 1978 issue of Action magazine, the forerunner of DGA Magazine, "The 'one director to a film' provision, new to the 1978 agreement, is aimed at the burgeoning insistence of stars and producers that they receive co-director credit."
>In Dialogue on Film, A Series of Seminars With Master Filmmakers: Frank Capra, 1979, a documentary film by the American Film Institute, Capra said, "I believed one man should make the film, and I believed the director should be that man. I just couldn't accept art from a committee. I can only accept art as an extension of the individual."
>"A single director is an organizational imperative," DGA Secretary-Treasurer and Western Directors Council member Gil Cates explained. "A film is a complex form involving the integration of many elements. It's a composite from many people — the writer, the actor, the director of photography. I'm sure that what is going on in the world at the time is also thrown in as part of the composite. So I'm not saying the vision has to be generated by one person, but, the best way to have that integration be successful is to have it articulated by a single person."
It works when you break the movie up into segments, as in an epic film, and make it about something everyone can understand.
How the West Was Won had 3 legendary directors, directing different parts of the movie, and it came out great. There was no infighting because they had a shared vision and filmed the scenes they were most suited to based on their experience in the genre.
There was also no single lead actor or actress fighting for the spotlight. The focus of the film was on America. Nobody needed to or could steal the glory from it.
That's one type of movie. Others work better with only one director.
this is probably one of the best rules from an end-product standpoint. movies would be so lesser if they didn't have a unified vision. if only video games had that
The video game industry's inability to fathom it is why one-man-band indie games continue to be the very best modern devs to offer
and their fans get mad if any strong voice in a game takes credit, "urrr actually it takes a lot of people to make this game so why are you calling it a kojima game??"
>Silverstein
>a israelite working in the movie business
uheard of
Because then they would be directees
Because they are afraid of every person and everything around them that isn't themselves.
Dictators like Stalin and Saddam were so paranoid that they wouldn't even allow themselves to be sedated during dentistry procedures because they feared a coup during that time and ate the pain instead.
It's like a wolf pack: you fought your way to the top, and now you are anxiously scanning for and proactively sabotaging your enemies no matter the long-term cost to the state so it doesn't happen to you.
Dictators are by way of paradox the slaves of everyone around them.
The virgin stressed out dictator vs the Chad relaxed king
It really is a monkey's paw situation: you have the resources to do basically anything you can imagine but can never enjoy anything.
Montesquieu's take on monarchy was a good one.
"What does it profit a man to own the world if he loses possession over himself"
What was his take?
Basically that while a king is restricted by custom in what he can and can't do and seems limited by that, he is actually safe because everyone accepts his rightful place as ruler and is therefore more free than a despot.
based dyslexic
???
Oh shit my bad you're right.
I'm an illiterate Black person.
I don't think gingers are any more or less literate than any other group.
You tried
kek
Is still a good post though
Because the great directors make auteur movies, if they "share" the direction it stops being authorial. Exceptions are when they are siblings or have been working together forever and have similar artistic views. On "normal" flicks like children's cartoons and straight to tv stuff sometimes have more than one director
Directors are inherently selfish, and should have one sole vision for their films to be kino.
They do, for example: Three... Extremes (2004) and Four... Rooms (1995)
if the film is a huge success they have to spend the rest of their life bitterly arguing over who was responsible