| re: to be honest | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:07 am EST 01/26/18 | |
| In reply to: re: to be honest - BruceinIthaca 09:36 pm EST 01/25/18 | |
|
|
|
| To paragraph one: Yes, I do know what the rules of the award are (as I think I mapped out myself, and objected to)... and I fully object to them, that's part of my point. I don't think it should make any difference if a song is written for the piece when it was being produced on stage first or in film first... if it was written for Camelot it is Camelot. Camelot is a film - an original film, not a remake of the same material that was previous made into a film. The Best Adapted Screenplay award doesn't consider how much of the screenplay is new dialogue and inventions of the adapting screenwriter, they just give the nomination/award to whichever movies that qualify as "based on other source material" had what seem to be the strongest scripts. So if a screenwriter can be nominated for scenes and characters and plots and moments created by and written by a playwright for the play, why can't the actual songwriters be nominated/win for their songs? Afterall there are no *score adapters* who create scores specific for the film but based on the stage musical. It's all nonesense. I feel it's very clearly logical that if this piece is original to that format, and not a remake of that same material in that format, it should be eligible for the awards of that format. Camelot as an original stage musical should be eligible for stage awards for new shows, and when it is a film it should be eligible for film awards for new films. If I revive Camelot on stage it shall on be eligible for production and acting awards, and same if I remake it for film unless the screenplay (or the book) has been rewritten and is vastly different. Paragraph two: Yes, I agree. But this is why I think that unless the play's script has been altered significantly in its adaptation for film, the playwright should get sole credit or at the very least shared credit for the screenplay. (to compare, the director and editor often do a lot of creative work in the edit room to change the movie, sometimes drastically, from the original shooting script... and the director and producer often do a lot of work with the writer to get the script where they want it before shooting... and yet, the director, editor, nor producer take or share screenplay credit with the writer unless they actually co-wrote it or re-wrote it substantially before shooting. There are legit union rules about all of this that are very specific even to how much someone has to have contributed to a script to get credit consideration) A playwright adapting their work for film does not get taking out of eligibility for Best Adapted Screenplay because they are taking scenes, dialogue, characters, plots, etc that were not originally written for the film. So why should songs be different? And especially in a musical where the songs, and indeed the *lyrics* are a massive amount of the screen time and the words in the screenplay. For stage, the Tonys award Best Book AND Best Score for the songs, music and lyrics. For movies the have best screenplay, pretending that the "script writer" wrote the script when the reality is the lyricist wrote a substantial amount of the words used by the characters to express emotion or dialogue or move the plot, and often the most significant words to the movie... but they only have "Best Song" (one song, not the entire score of songs) or "Best Score" for the music *underscoring* the film. THIS IS INSANE. Also, I'm not sure why my approach wouldn't satisfy all. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: to be honest - BruceinIthaca 09:36 pm EST 01/25/18 |
| Next: | re: to be honest - Michael_Portantiere 12:00 pm EST 01/26/18 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.022628 seconds.