Dying? No. Only growing. Shifting focus, but all boats rise.

Shit movies are flying off the conveyor belt like hotcakes. This is because they make money. It's a good thing. Yes, some brilliant directors and actors will pursue mind numbing piles of shit simply for the money, but these actors and directors also get funding for their shit pet projects that every once in a blue moon produce something we love.

So ya, I don't think the priority of the movie industry is to make good film, but when the industry grows, we all benefit.

I didn't like avatar very much, but I was supper excited to see what other people will be able to do with the tech paid for by vision-less, heartless bastards.

>>122
I mean, it's possible (albeit rare) for an auteur to survive inside of a studio system these days, but I was more focused on the growing distance between the director and the camera. To me that feels like a novelist dictating a book through a game of telephone.
I agree with what you said, especially with Avatar. I'm also looking forward to some projects Doug Trumbull is working on, which, if the hype holds true, will change everything.

I do agree with you on the point of a director losing control of actual camerawork, but I think that it has changed because guys like the DP and cinematographer are there to help the director so he/she isn't the only one that needs to see what the camera see's anymoe.

>>127
But given that film is a visual medium, it only makes sense that the guy in charge of the work of art should be the guy in charge of the camera.

>>128
Yeah, but then the schreiber *theory* fucks it up for us.

I have mixed feelings towards auteur theory. On the one hand I totally believe it is disingenuous and narrow-minded to let the director take all the praise. Historically the director is merely in a managerial role anyway - telling people where to stand and being responsible for bringing in the expertise of others (cinematographers, costume designers, set designers) - an auteur "director" is only really an auteur when he steps out of the director role and takes on other jobs (writer/director, cinematographer/director). The fact is very rarely does a film get made where there is one sole creative voice on a film set and the things people commonly praise the director for are things that on the whole would have been delegated to other people. The most pure auteur would do everything himself, and as such most auteured films would necessarily be very low-budget, indie ones. So as the OP implies, studio films cannot really be seen as auteured (though "committee-made" may be somewhat of a loaded term). But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with accepting that film-making is a collaborative artistic medium. Why should it matter? The end product is what counts.

On the other hand you can't actually *deny* the existence of auteurs. It's quite clear that certain film-makers have a distinctive style and are able to express themselves as individuals. And, if I'm honest, these are my favourite film makers - the ones whom I get the most out of. Perhaps it is the romantic notion of the "artist" like a painter or a poet - the idea of the "genius" rather than the film itself which draws us to them. It may very well be (at least partially) an illusion because film-making IS a collaborative venture, but the thought that an auteur can exist seems to make the art more exciting.

>>128
A composer doesn't play every instrument in a symphony.

Well, Paul Thomas Anderson seems to be going pretty strong (and looking fine as ever). And Woody Allen is still chugging right along. The quality of his output is a bit up and down, as it always has been, but he's as prolific and singular as ever. Tarantino, Aronofsky, and, on a much smaller scale, Lucky McKee. And Rian Johnson seems like he could go either way. He's got some auteur tendencies but I could also see him turn into a bit of a commercial schmuck.

Then there are the bad auteurs, like Uwe Boll and that other Paul Anderson, Paul W.S. Anderson. Their movies are shit, but I think they still fit into the singularity-of-vision requirement to qualify as an auteur.

Here, I even found a picture of PTA looking all thoughtful and auteury.

I always felt auter theory was the bullshit director's used to claim others' work for their own.

SAGE has been used.

I wouldn't say that it is dying, but it is definitely weaker than it was when film first started. The way I see it the director should be the cinematographer as well to fully achieve the vision within his head. When you add so many people outside of him or her with a hand in the vision it changes what he see's. Yes, their job is to make the directors vision more accessable, but why not just leave it to him and let him control the camera fully. Hell most movies these day's even have second unit directors who basically direct separate scene's the director can't get to which makes no sense to me.

As for the studio's growing involvement. I think these CEO's and financiers are forgetting they aren't the one making the movie. A prime is example is Prometheus. The studio heads forced ridley scott to make changes in editing and while filming for both time and money. That isn't right. It ruins the whole movie and the final product becomes less than it could have been.

To be honest, most of the time when people meddle with the director's vision it's for the better. Sure, there are exceptions and there are directors who are fantastic at what they do. But most of the time the director is to focused on mentally fapping to his own "genious" to realize that what he wants to do isn't working.

George Lucas is a prime example of this. The original Star Wars trilogy didn't end up anything like he wanted it to because of executive meddling and he was complaining about it all the time during the production of the first one. Then he got his hands free to make prequals and remakes and they turned out shit because no one was there to stop him and say "Lucas, I understand what you're trying to do, but it's just dumb".