In movies the director has the most control.
In the theater the writer has the most control.
On TV the producer (Show Runner) has the most control.

It is my opinion that making a film is a collaborative process and
it isn't a "vs" situation at all. I'm not say there are no artistic and
personality conflicts on movies, I'm saying the process is shared.
I suspect no director could make a good movie from a bad script
without major rewriting to make it a good script. I know from
experience that a poor director can make a bad movie from a good
script.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

In French the director is called the "ralisateur," literally the "one who realizes." It is the director's responsibility and condition to actually realize a film, and as such they would have ultimate power in the "shaping up" of the film (that is of course taking things like budget and deadlines out of the question).

There's a semi-famous situation where the Writer is in a dispute with the Director who is claiming to be the "auteur" of the movie. The Writer throws a pile of blank pages at the narcissistic Director and says, "Direct this!" and walks away.

For my money, NOBODY can claim absolute ownership over a movie. There is an "idea" which generally comes to a Writer. How well that "idea" is represented on paper in words depends on the skill of the Writer. He may or may not get it "right" by representing the full potential of the "idea" in words.

In the same way, the Director is not infallible either. Along the way, numerous people get their opinions in the mix so that the pure "idea" can get contaminated with the selfish desires of others. An Actor may want a bigger part or "better" dialogue. A Director may impose his desire for some shots where they are not appropriate for that particular idea. A DP may push for various choices out of personal creative desire or purely logistical concerns. A UPM may put the kabosh on a Technocrane that the "idea" calls for, out of financial concerns.

There are a host of influences that collaborate to threaten the purity of the original idea from blossoming into it's full potential.

So, a Director may not always be "right" just as the Writer may not also. Unfortunately for audiences, they only have one choice of what to watch when it's all said and done and what they watch may or may not be the "best" incarnation of that pure idea.

Egos, politics, finances.... all exterior forces impinging on the idea that could be a truly entertaining story.

I've heard many people outside the industry wonder why and how such bad movies get made. I have to remind them that (in most cases, anyway), no one sets out to make a "bad" movie. It just gets to that point along the way and there is a point of no return when too many resources have been expended to just fold and say "forget it." When the project is "going bad," those in charge do their best to just get it done and out and do their best to salvage what they have.

Who's fault is that? It could be anyone's. Directors are not infallible. Neither are Writers. Or Executives or Actors or anyone else. With any luck, a team is assembled who work well together so that everyone is working toward the same goal. The IDEA is the hub of the wheel and all the people are just cogs in that wheel that make the machine work. When one cog thinks it's better or more important than the others, the machine won't work as well or at all.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

The only time I've heard of a writer having more power over the director was the case of Basic Instinct. The screenplay went up for auction and sold for 3 million. It was bought and they attached Paul Verhoeven to direct. Verhoeven started changing things and the writer Joe Eszterhas didn't like it. Eszterhas said he'd take his name off the movie leaving Verhoeven to explain why the studio paid 3 million (a record at the time) for a screenplay the writer didn't want to be associated with. Verhoeven caved and filmed the movie without a change.

Normally producers demand changes, bring in other writers, other producers want changes. The Actors have their demands and then the director changes things himself. In a normal situation the original writer is long forgotten by the time the director is around.

RJSchwarz

It's a sad but often true fact that when it's a great film, the director takes credit, but when it's a bad film, the screenwriter is blamed.

The heirachy of the film industry is such that the Director is considered the visionary. The Producer has rank over the Director, but will only pull this if they foresee an issue that will affect how the film is made, promoted, or sold. The writer may well create the idea, the story, the characters, the theme, etc - but ultimately has no power in the hierarchy. Everyone contributes to the film, however, it is this heirarchy that determines who has the power make or break the project.

Directors do not generally make a movie purely from the script as it comes in, but rather, will give a scriptwriter detailed notes on what they want changed. The scriptwriter may also get notes from the producer/s, investors, actors, script editors, someone's wife's personal trainer 😉

As the writer has no power in the process, I don't believe they can be considered accountable if the film is bad. If it was a crap script to begin with, the producer and director wouldn't have picked it up to be made, or could have put another writer on. Rather, perhaps it is a crap script precisely because the director and/or producer meddled with the writing process rather than letting the writer get on with the job. Sometimes notes given are contradictory and nonsensical, or simply not the right thing for inclusion.

But when it comes to knowing exactly who to blame for a crap film, again,there are further power dynamics that come into play. If an A list actor is hired, they may well outrank the Director, even to the point of potential Directors being "auditioned" by the actor before they agree to the film. In a situation like this, it is only too human for a Director to turn in to a yes man rather than confront the actor with an off performance.

Whereever people are, social politics will be involved, so without inside knowledge it's impossible to know exactly who is most to credit or blame.

***
For case studies and advice on innovative ways that indie filmmakers plan, finance, distribute, build audience and monetise their projects, stop by my blog - and contact me if you want your project profiled. http://yetanotherstrugglingwriter.blogspot.com