My ignorance is vast, but I figured I should ask anyway lol. If you have the same screenplay, how can the final product end up that different?
I (naively) tend to equate it to an architect creating blueprints (developing the screenplay), then the builders following those plans to construct the structure (production). Obviously shot selection, pacing, performances, blocking, tone, etc. can compound over time, but is there way more of a butterfly effect in directing than I’m aware of?
Also, is a director less of a project manager and more of the actual creative output? If so, where does the handoff between the writer/producer and the director usually lie? At what point does the film really become “the director’s version” of the screenplay rather than just the screenplay being executed?
And on the flip side, when people say a director “doesn’t know his ass from his elbow,” what actually makes a director bad or just average? Is it usually bad execution of otherwise good ideas, fundamentally weak creative instincts, poor communication with cast/crew, or trying to push boundaries in ways that just don’t land? What separates an average director from a genuinely great one?