FORUM

by **lammy** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:59 am

between a director and an actor?

Is the money the thing?

I mean an actor has to be in direction of his act and a director has to know how to act-then how come Jim has not wanted to be a director...is it the money? :roll:

by **fluffy** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:24 pm

The director is usually not involved in acting.......they decide how the filming is gonna be handled angles, lighting etc.............they are basically the boss..................they have a lot of technical knowledge .........and they are skilled at managing the actors and getting the best from them......
like an orchestra conductor...............

fluffy :wink:

by **lammy** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:36 pm

I knew that but it didn't answer my question.....

Do they get paid less? Is that why Jim doesn't want to be a director? They do profit from what the movie makes.

Jim can pay the actors from his pocket and then he will get it back when and if the movie does well...wich I am sure it will-

He should go for it- :wink:

by **thecablegal** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:57 pm

If Jim were a director, we wouldn't be able to watch him. He's a performer, hence why he acts.

by **lammy** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:13 pm

Hello-if he were to direct we'd be able to see how he thinks through his performers-

I'd go watch any movie directed by him...it would be a step foward not backwards- :wink:

by **quirky** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:30 pm

Maybe the man knows his limitations and has no desire to direct.

by **thecablegal** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:30 pm

lammy wrote:Hello-if he were to direct we'd be able to see how he thinks through his performers-

I'd go watch any movie directed by him...it would be a step foward not backwards-

I wouldn't watch a movie Jim directed. I'm not THAT into him. Theres nothing interesting about an actor who directs

by **KC8t80** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:48 pm

i am sure that he has thought about it but either hasn't come up with a good idea for a film or doesn't plan on doing directing 'til he is done with acting.

by **fluffy** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:01 am

sigh.............perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...........lol..............who knows??..............

i love him in front of the lens........... :wink:

fluffy

by **xmassmurdere** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:34 am

my drama teacher told me that the producer handles the money and the actor is well....the actor. the producer can also fire the director

by **mav** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:48 am

Maybe directing doesn't excite him.
It would be interesting to see how he would direct though... it has to be something original.

by **xmassmurdere** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:00 am

genius i am...grr.. well er the director is in charge of camera, angle, choreography..yah..
directors can also act in their movies
clint eastwood did in million dollar baby

by **lammy** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:06 am

Are we really that shallow that we do not want him to direct? It would be a master piece-

He could even write his own movie.....why is it so hard for him?

I have plenty of ideas and stories if he needs any...I might not have a masters in story making but I can hold my own...

I feel really bad cause you guys just want to see him instead of watching his direction/directing a movie-

I am really dissapointed-really! I thought you guys would back him up in anything he did?-

by **jims_lost_daughter** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:42 pm

th e director directs the actors, tells them what to do sort of, make the film good you know. and actor.. um acts. lol

FORUM

Can someone tell me what is the difference?

Can someone tell me what is the difference?

Who is online