A someone someone Film

BlitzKrieg

Just curious about something...

Finished watching Gattaca there a second ago (great film) and i noticed that the credits went...

A Andrew Niccol Film

Now I'm curious if there are some sort of rules in the union that enforce the change from directed by... to stating the film *belongs* to the director/producer. And if there are what are the requirements.



Is it awarded if the person in question is responsible for a certain percentage of the material? For example Andrew Niccol directed and wrote Gattaca, therefore the material is essentially his.

Or is it a financial situation, if the person in question fronted the largest portion of the budget (in smaller indepedent films) or is responsible for enlisting all the elements (ala Bruckhiemer) that come together to form the film.


I use to believe it was something the studios did as both a form of advertisement and as a brand of quality, that directors who achieve a form of 'authorship' and celebrity status would recieve this credit as a sign of respect. (Most obvious would be Steven Spielberg)




Does anyone know the factual reason, or is it a combination of the above?

legologic

Never thought about that

looked it up and a few of the answers you seek are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGA_screenwriting_credit_system

Miguel_Sanchez

Okay - slightly off topic but just had to add this:

I hate it when people who are starting off making shorts think that it will give them an air of professionalism or something if they put up a 'A Film by John Doe' or 'A John Doe Film' title at the start.

It just smacks of pretension and ego to be honest.

If it's a feature or if the director has somewhat of a back catalogue behind him then I can see it being ok. But the first or second low-budget short by Irish directors too often have these sort of titles at the start and it really makes the director seem like a tool.

<end rant>

Anam

Whats even worse than this is Spike Lee refering to his films as "A Spike Lee joint"

*cringe*

Miguel_Sanchez

Anam wrote:

Whats even worse than this is Spike Lee refering to his films as "A Spike Lee joint"

*cringe*

Yeah but at least he has a reputation and a back catalogue of films to his name so in some way he can get away with doing that. Did Spike Lee start off making shorts? I'm not sure - but if he put A Spike Lee Joint on the first one he made then I'd call that annoying too.

You have to earn pretension - it's still pretenious but at least you have something to back it up.

Paligulus

Anam wrote:

Whats even worse than this is Spike Lee refering to his films as "A Spike Lee joint"

*cringe*

Lol!!

BlitzKrieg

I hate it when people who are starting off making shorts think that it will give them an air of professionalism or something if they put up a 'A Film by John Doe' or 'A John Doe Film' title at the start.

in some cases thats needed cause the credits would look stupid otherwise.

for example, at the end of some of my shorts i put 'a John Doe Film' simple because if i did out full credits it would look like this:

Directed by john Doe
Written by John Doe
Edited by John Doe
Director of Photography John Doe

Starring John Doe


So i cut it down to A John Doe film because it saves time (taking theory number 1) and it is pretty much my film when i did all the positions.


Though having it at the start would look stupid agreed (unless they have done something specific with the ending and dont want credits there)

Miguel_Sanchez

BlitzKrieg - good point.

It's when it's at the start of films I was talking about alright. And if you do everything in your film then I suppose you are entitled to the credit 'A John Doe Film'.

A lot of directors however think that it's them and them alone that have made the film despite a huge amount of work being put in by producer/DP/editor/sound designer etc.

humanji

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I use to believe it was something the studios did as both a form of advertisement and as a brand of quality, that directors who achieve a form of 'authorship' and celebrity status would recieve this credit as a sign of respect. (Most obvious would be Steven Spielberg)

Well a large part of it would be advertisement based on a big name producer of director (or both). Speilberg and Bruckheimer are brand names so they'd help sales. At the end of the day, it's the studios who have the power to decide how the credits are displayed.

humanji

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

BlitzKrieg - good point.

It's when it's at the start of films I was talking about alright. And if you do everything in your film then I suppose you are entitled to the credit 'A John Doe Film'.

A lot of directors however think that it's them and them alone that have made the film despite a huge amount of work being put in by producer/DP/editor/sound designer etc.

I think it's just people who assume that their short film is going to be the launching point for their careers and that Hollywood will ring as soonas it's first showed. It's sad really. In my films we always put it up as the production company film and then have the crew credits after it. Actually I've even been involved in a couple of films where I've asked them not to put me in the credits! :eek:

BlitzKrieg

Actually I've even been involved in a couple of films where I've asked them not to put me in the credits!

why?

mike65

Wow, they must have been very bad or porno!

If a talent does several jobs, he/she should use anagrams of thier name for each position.

Mike.

BlitzKrieg

If a talent does several jobs, he/she should use anagrams of thier name for each position.

i'll remember that for future reference...

humanji

mike65 wrote:

Wow, they must have been very bad or porno!

If a talent does several jobs, he/she should use anagrams of thier name for each position.

Mike.

Well, I wish they were porno! lol

mike65

Or use a clever homage a la John Carpenter.

Mike.