How much of an effect does the script have on how good a movie is?

[Fin!]

Ok, here's a question I propose. I was reading the Collateral screenplay yesterday, a movie I thought was pretty damn good and one of the best of its respective year. The script was also very good. The way it was writtten made it very interesting. Though it did include camera angles and such which I think enhance a screenplay but it's a big no-no.

Back on topic. Now, I think that movie is pretty well acted with Cruise and Foxx both acting tremendously well. I was reading the dialogue and found myself interpreting the characters a bit differently but then I rewatched the film and paid close attention to Cruise's take on Vincent and it was amazing the level he brought to the character that I hadn't imagined when I was reading it.

I guess my point is. The script is just a script until the actors bring it to life. And it's amazing to see how things turn out. Do you think the script is a major factor in a movie's appeal? Or do you think it's the natural abilities that the respective actors bring to it?

[NikeeGoddess]

an interesting and compelling story is a must for the script to be great. less than great scripts can be improved by the actors, directors, special effects, animators, etc... involved in the production. there are so many factors that go into making the movie great. a less than perfect script can be greatly improved by these factors. and a great script can be ruined just as easy.

ie - notice how an actor might get an Oscar nomination from a not so great flick. people recognized her talent over the story itself.
and
War of the Worlds might get a nomination for special effects but, no one is raving about the acting in this story. and since TomCruise did such a great job on Collateral then why didn't he do such a great job in WotW? it's those factors

[icerose]

But in the same respect you take a lousy script with cheap cheesy lines and it is going to sound cheap and cheesy even with great actors and such. So a script can also ruin a good story and the potential for a great movie IMO.

Sara

[nganok]

Ok, here's a question I propose. I was reading the Collateral screenplay yesterday, a movie I thought was pretty damn good and one of the best of its respective year. The script was also very good. The way it was writtten made it very interesting. Though it did include camera angles and such which I think enhance a screenplay but it's a big no-no.

Back on topic. Now, I think that movie is pretty well acted with Cruise and Foxx both acting tremendously well. I was reading the dialogue and found myself interpreting the characters a bit differently but then I rewatched the film and paid close attention to Cruise's take on Vincent and it was amazing the level he brought to the character that I hadn't imagined when I was reading it.

I guess my point is. The script is just a script until the actors bring it to life. And it's amazing to see how things turn out. Do you think the script is a major factor in a movie's appeal? Or do you think it's the natural abilities that the respective actors bring to it?


I think the actors especially good ones can make a lousy script at times better and vice versa. Originally Tom Cruise was to be directed by Robert Redford in "A Beautiful Mind". That movie would have had a totally different appeal and style if Akiva's characters were played and directed by these two.

[preyer]

some of the script will be changed on the fly, too, right? watching 'project greenlight' this season had both writers in fairly extensive writing sessions throughout the movie process. then the focus groups got their hands on it and an additional scene was added. of course, the writers were involved in it, but ideas were bandied around the table from everyone. it would be very difficult for me to watch a director ruin my ideas with ones of his own i thought were lame, or so see the project not get the right actors or funding.

ever watch a cheesy horror flick and think, 'ya know, this movie really isn't *that* bad. put some decent actors in there the director didn't pick-up from a bar ('hey, baby, wanna be a movie star?'), tweak the script, get a director who knows which end of the camera is which ('look, if you jump into my scene with that clippy-clop thing one more time.... aaand-- go! i mean, action!'), and a budget of more than $1,247, and this could have made millions'? the director and production people have a responsibility to have a vision, too, beyond the writer's, and low-budget or not, especially for horror, and great things can be done. i've said it a hundred times, the star wars prequels would have been *vastly* better had george lucas only a third of the budget. he'd have been forced into better storytelling. or cut jar-jar. either way is a win-win to me. it typically takes production values better than the mood music being recorded on a casio keyboard bought on sale from toys 'r' us, though. still, a lot of movies are edited on personal computers, so it's hard to understand why low-budget has to so often look so awful.

i was watching 'bram stoker's way of the vampire' last night, a cheesy low, low, low-budget horror flick, and i thought it could have been a decent movie as good as 'underworld' were it done a bit (i.e. a lot) better. evenso, as it was, the movie's otherwise enjoyable-ness was ruined by the worst sound production you've ever heard: you know the type, where the music and effects are loud as possible while you can barely hear the dialogue, one of those deals where you have to watch the movie with volume control in hand (those piss me off).

so many things can go wrong, i think it's just a good idea to be glad it sold, expect the worst and hope for the best. if the movie fails, chances are it's as much fault as everyone else involved as it is yours. i mean, it only goes through a hundred damn people before it gets released, what's stopping them from making changes that they think will work?

i agree, redford would have given us a very different movie than howard (?). on the flip-side, i think just about any competent director could have done 'scream.' and what could have scorcese done any better with 'maid in manhattan' (other than forget what decade he's in)?

[Rock]

It takes a good script to get good actors/actresses to work on the project of making it into a movie. If big name actors don't think the script is any good, then they don't take on the part. Also - the "memorable lines" (like: "go ahead, make my day") don't come from bad scripts. The script you read with camera directions would have to be a final/shooting script that the director has added his ideas to it. If you look at a lot of these "low-low-buget" movies, you will see that the director/writer are, most times, the same person.
Just my 2 cents...... have a good day writing.

[GonnaBeFamous]

Ok, here's a question I propose. I was reading the Collateral screenplay yesterday, a movie I thought was pretty damn good and one of the best of its respective year. The script was also very good. The way it was writtten made it very interesting. Though it did include camera angles and such which I think enhance a screenplay but it's a big no-no.

Back on topic. Now, I think that movie is pretty well acted with Cruise and Foxx both acting tremendously well. I was reading the dialogue and found myself interpreting the characters a bit differently but then I rewatched the film and paid close attention to Cruise's take on Vincent and it was amazing the level he brought to the character that I hadn't imagined when I was reading it.

I guess my point is. The script is just a script until the actors bring it to life. And it's amazing to see how things turn out. Do you think the script is a major factor in a movie's appeal? Or do you think it's the natural abilities that the respective actors bring to it?


If it's spec script then i'd say it depends a lot, but if its production script usually the actors/directors bring it up or down by a star at MOST, IMO. Actors and directors can only do so much.

[GonnaBeFamous]

some of the script will be changed on the fly, too, right? watching 'project greenlight' this season had both writers in fairly extensive writing sessions throughout the movie process. then the focus groups got their hands on it and an additional scene was added. of course, the writers were involved in it, but ideas were bandied around the table from everyone. it would be very difficult for me to watch a director ruin my ideas with ones of his own i thought were lame, or so see the project not get the right actors or funding.

ever watch a cheesy horror flick and think, 'ya know, this movie really isn't *that* bad. put some decent actors in there the director didn't pick-up from a bar ('hey, baby, wanna be a movie star?'), tweak the script, get a director who knows which end of the camera is which ('look, if you jump into my scene with that clippy-clop thing one more time.... aaand-- go! i mean, action!'), and a budget of more than $1,247, and this could have made millions'? the director and production people have a responsibility to have a vision, too, beyond the writer's, and low-budget or not, especially for horror, and great things can be done. i've said it a hundred times, the star wars prequels would have been *vastly* better had george lucas only a third of the budget. he'd have been forced into better storytelling. or cut jar-jar. either way is a win-win to me. it typically takes production values better than the mood music being recorded on a casio keyboard bought on sale from toys 'r' us, though. still, a lot of movies are edited on personal computers, so it's hard to understand why low-budget has to so often look so awful.

i was watching 'bram stoker's way of the vampire' last night, a cheesy low, low, low-budget horror flick, and i thought it could have been a decent movie as good as 'underworld' were it done a bit (i.e. a lot) better. evenso, as it was, the movie's otherwise enjoyable-ness was ruined by the worst sound production you've ever heard: you know the type, where the music and effects are loud as possible while you can barely hear the dialogue, one of those deals where you have to watch the movie with volume control in hand (those piss me off).

so many things can go wrong, i think it's just a good idea to be glad it sold, expect the worst and hope for the best. if the movie fails, chances are it's as much fault as everyone else involved as it is yours. i mean, it only goes through a hundred damn people before it gets released, what's stopping them from making changes that they think will work?

i agree, redford would have given us a very different movie than howard (?). on the flip-side, i think just about any competent director could have done 'scream.' and what could have scorcese done any better with 'maid in manhattan' (other than forget what decade he's in)?


ROFLMAO, I hope you write comedy scripts.

Now that you're mentioning scream ,you know the actor that said his momma is going to be mad at him at the end of scream(bad with names), that guy was great and perfect for the movie. Every other actor in that movie sucked even the main character. Couldn't stand any of them. But the movie was awesome because of that one guy. It would have been 2 stars without that guy, but became 3 because of him. :)

[Joe Calabrese]

In a one to ten rating system:

A "10" script can become a "1" if the directing, acting and/or filmaking sucks.

A "1" script will never be anymore than a "5."

It's easier to ruin something great than to make something great out of crap.

Filmmaking is the challenge, like Baking, of having the best ingredients, in the right proportions, cooked the right amount of time and eaten by those you enjoy that type of cuisine.

That's my take on it.

[bison]

That's why they say the script is simply a blueprint for a movie.
How well could a house be built without a sound blueprint? But, if the blueprint is the best ever designed and you have lousy carpenters putting it together............
I think the actors are still King in a visual presentation however. The written word has to be second in importance.
Had I been Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird, spoke the same lines as Peck, etc., it wouldn't have been what it is.

[maestrowork]

A script is the blueprint of the story, and how it flows, etc. Without a good script, there won't be a good movie. However, an actor can often rise above the material and bring life to a mediocre story. That's why we spend big bucks on talents. Notice what Julia Roberts did for "Pretty Woman" -- a pretty run-of-the-mill romantic comedy... and it made her a superstar.

That said, I think all aspects of filmmaking is important: direction, production design, costume, acting, editing, cinematography, writing... they are all important ingredients. Can you say "egg" is the most important ingredient in making a cake? Or is it the butter? Or the sugar? Or the flour? Or the baking?

[fedorable1]

Another good example that I'm aware of is the film Unleashed, starring Jet Li and Morgan Freeman.

To me, the script was rather flat. Dialogue was pretty uninteresting, and at some times annoying. The story didn't make a while lot of sense. The acting was about average.

However, the cinematography, choreography, and originality of the film made it very entertaining to watch. It was still a very well-done and will-directed film, in my opinion, but the script itself was very bland and uninteresting.