Such a shame about the director not grokking how that layer could have made the whole even richer and deeper. Jaws is also a good example of movies being a director's medium. In that case, the director's tenacity was a great thing. I never tire of its production story, and there's another good retelling today at mentalfloss: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/132538

Two more words. "Brother Bear" My four year-old got that! Still, as you say - pick your battles.

Too many scriptwriters think like novelists. Heck, I even started that way. The screenplay though is a different beast altogether, more like bastard child of a play and a short story. At the end of the day, your job is to find words that conjure clear images in the mind of another person so they can go out and take pictures of that. A screenplay without a director is scrap paper.

"After our next draft, the director hires another writer who excises the reincarnation theme." Scott, is this standard practise? If a director does not like what you're doing, he can actually hire another writer to rewrite/finish/insert a time-traveling goldfish if he wants? What about contracts? What about the fact that this was your story, your baby, your script? How does it work?

Scott, As an aspiring animation writer (aiming for the TV field), do you know how many kids shows use dreams/visions to incorporate deeper, heavier themes? ALL OF THEM. Well, I'm exaggerating, but not but much. I'd say 75% of them. Avatar, Legends of Korra, Rugrats, Rocko's Modern Life, Phineas and Ferb... heck, the entire premise of Hey Arnold. It's pretty surprising how little most people understand how kids think or act to watch they see on TV.

It may be the norm in the industry at this point, but it doesn't have to be that way... "I want screenwriters to have the same relationship to the movies that they write, as playwrights have to the plays that they write. It's that simple. I want us to end the festival of self-loathing that we're in. ... I want us to take our rightful place as the authors of what we write. I hear all the time that film is a director's medium -- I don't know who first said it, but I promise you it was a director, and they pulled it out of their ass. It is no more a director's medium than television or plays. I have been incredibly lucky because the film directors that I've worked with... have been fantastic collaborators. I've never felt like they were hopping in the shower and they've left the cash on the night table. They've been fantastic collaborators. No one, no one, no one greater than [David] Fincher, who made it clear through his actions, not through his words, but through his actions from the first day, that we were partners on this ["The Social Network"]. And I love that, and I want that for everybody because it's no less than what you deserve when you write a screenplay that becomes a movie." - Aaron Sorkin I couldn't agree more.

That's utterly incorrect: a novelist would've won that battle. My first novel was bought by the publishing equivalent of ... I don't know. Someone big. And intimidating. First thing she said to me: "This is your book. I'll give you my opinion, but you're the writer." Scott's story is confusing. His conclusion is 'movies are a director's medium,' but his story is, 'movies are a director's -property-'. The two things are not the same. Also, he rejected all my loglines, so fuck his bear cub.

Jay, when a movie studio acquires the rights to a novel, it becomes their property. Depending upon the renown of the book such as "Harry Potter" or "The Hunger Games," the studios may choose to hew closely to the novels as possible in order to satisfy fans of the book. Also depending upon the personalities and attitudes of the execs and director involved, they may be inclined to listen to or care about the author's opinion. But at the end of the day, it is their property and they can do with it whatever they want to. For a brief list of novelists who discovered this to their chagrin, go here. As to the distinction between "medium" and "property": The director does NOT own the property [unless, of course, they have obtained the rights to the material]. A studio hires a director and at some point, no matter how much control a studio exercises in development and pre-production, the director goes off and makes the movie. The studio can fire the director and there is always the issue of who has final cut. Still it is the director who makes the zillions of choices that go into the production of a movie. This is in contrast to TV where writers are much more in control of the narrative content and directors are hired hands. In that context, I think the use of the term "medium" still stands. Re the bear cub: Her name is Aggie, she lives on 10-acre wilderness compound in Canada with her trainer Mark Wiener. She starred in this commercial. You can learn more about her here.

Obviously there are writers such as Sorkin who command a certain amount of respect. At the end of the day, how that translates into what happens on a movie set is pretty much entirely dependent upon the director. In the case of the The Social Network, Fincher embraced Sorkin's vision of the movie and that is an example of a fantastic synergy between writer and director. However that is not the norm. One need only look at the negotiations that go on every 3 years between the WGA and AMPAS about issues such as screenwriter involvement in pre-production, screenwriters being allowed on the set, screenwriting credits, and so forth. This all goes back to a critical choice screenwriters made decades ago: When they gave up the copyright to studios when the studio acquired the writer's original material. With that choice, writers gave up that pivotal leverage. Compare Hollywood to the theater where a playwright's words are pretty much sacrosanct.

Scott, Again, yes, I indeed know that is not the norm, but I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, and I do know of at least some directors/producers besides writers who feel movies would be even less of a risky bet quality-wise at least if things were more like how they are in TV or just giving the writer(s) as much input in the direction of a project as the director(s). I just applaud Sorkin's stance on the matter, and hope perhaps somehow, someday, things might be able to change or start to shift in more favor of the writer(s).

Here are two reasons why it's a directors medium... Writers can be replaced. Directors get MOVIE STARS! If you write a kick ass script, studio sends it to Angelina Jolie, who thinks it's a kick ass script... the first thing she'll ask is "Who's directing?" And she's got a list of directors who she'll work with, or might like to... a short list. Without one of them, no Angelina. Studio pulls it off, gets one of Angie's directors... who thought it would be great if your lead character had a robotic arm. And it's a civil war drama... Guess what? You can say why you think it's a bad idea, and if he disagrees, then you are going to bite the bullet and try to make him happy or they'll pay someone else to do it. Cause he keeps the star happy. There are a number of other reasons... I feel for Scott, but am curious if he would really want the director shooting an ending for your movie which didn't get? The chances of that working out well seem to be slim. It's painful cause that sounds like a great ending. But not to him...

"which he didn't get" Sorry it's late...