2006-07-14 21:05:50 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Interesting question.
Honestly, I give it to the actors... even though I know they wouldn't be anywhere without the crew behind the scenes.
2006-07-14 21:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by bibliophilejmv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends - directors mostly. A film like Saving Private Ryan would be nothing without Spielberg's input but any half decent actor could have replaced Tom Hanks as the leading role.
They say that film is a directors domain, while theatre is an actors medium
2006-07-15 16:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by MrSandman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The WRITER. You can have the best director and the best actors, but without a story...a good plot.....there is nothing an actor or director can do. If the story is good, it inspires actors and directors to also be good, and a really good story can't be ruined by a bad actor.
2006-07-15 05:08:26 · answer #3 · answered by Jenny A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on the movie, sometimes the actors carry the movie and sometimes the director carries the movie. That guy up there also makes a good point by saying the writers, because a good script is essential to a good movie. But if it's an "incredibly good movie" I would say those are the type of movies that have awesome acting and great direction, and of course a good script.
2006-07-15 05:01:05 · answer #4 · answered by thiefofsanity 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think about the story line management. Then I think about how well it is acted. So, basically, the Directors are my most imporatant to give credit to. Although, in some movies, I give a lot more credit to the actors because, sometimes, the movie wouldn't be interesting without them. For instance, Tim Burton is the best director ever but Beetlejiuce wouldn't be funny without Michael Keaton!
2006-07-15 04:16:36 · answer #5 · answered by Brennus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very interesting question that needs to be looked at in more ways than one...
The art of movie making is a directors medium. Without the director, and the quality of the director, there is no movie...it doesn't work.
Which leads us to another question. If the movie is a directors medium and without the director, nothing is possible, why are there two separate awards given out at the Oscars?... One for best director and one for Best Movie.
How could you have Best Picture of the year being afforded one movie and the director of that movie not receiving Best Director. Isn't it one and the same?... Shouldn't the Oscar for Best Picture go to the director of that motion picture, automatically?
A great question for someone to ask...on yahoo answers.
2006-07-15 05:12:33 · answer #6 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the director, because he tells the actors how he wants the scene to look like...and the actors simply do want he wants. Although without actors who are convincing enough, the director cannot get the shot he wants.
2006-07-15 04:11:41 · answer #7 · answered by monavyas15 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I give all the credit to the writers. No director or actor can save a terrible script, but a writer can and least write good jokes, tell a story ect.
2006-07-15 04:12:47 · answer #8 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the director-obviously+because the movie is obviously conceptualized by a book, but the director draws an outline in his mind and countinuosly fills the blanks with the actors. so yes, the director is who you give credit to.
2006-07-15 04:14:49 · answer #9 · answered by mellissa l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definitely the actors. the director may be good, but, he would be nothing without the director, you know?
2006-07-15 04:07:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋