It's hard to think of many movies above the crap level that are not "execution dependent". An "execution independent" script has to be so good it works as a bad production.
The reverse is more likely. Action movies today are quite often great executions of a mediocre script. Especially action movies, most of which don't hold together if viewers have enough time between the explosions to think about the plot and dialogue.
I think you're taking it too literally. The assumption is that even a script that's not very "execution dependent" needs a competent crew. Just maybe not an absolutely stellar crew.
That is not the meaning used in the article. Of course any script can be messed up with a sufficiently bad production. The question is if there is a high risk that a competent disaster-free production will still lead to a bad movie. "Babe" is a great example - it could very easily have been a ridiculous movie even in the hands of a competent director. But somehow it worked.
I was thinking of Twilight. Was the choice of actors, location, fight directors etc. relevant to the success of the movie?
Or was it down to the plain jane Mary Sue the viewer could inject themself into that a sexy vampire was in love with for no real reason? (And in the sequel, a sexy werewolf is also in love with Mary Sue for... ...reasons?)
Like, I feel you could've cast this movie entirely differently, or had a different director, and so long as SexyWishFulfillment McVampire was good looking enough, you'd make bank, so long as you catered well to the demographic watching this dross.
Till that point urban fantasy romance really focused on adult women, and thus had enormous amounts of graphic sex, violence, and BDSM.
Twilight was a story about a teenage Virgin, and a chaste vegetarian vampire. It was so safe reading even fundamentalist religious parents would let their kids enjoy it.
I think the typical action movie has a list of more than 5 directors that could make it "good enough".
Your bar of "works as a bad production" is way to high.
I don't know if you follow sports, but one stat that is commonly used involves comparing a player to a hypothetical "replacement player" -- basically the level of player that any team can guarantee they can get without having to pay lots of money. Note that a replacement player is not a bad player; they are good enough to get paid to play at the highest level! Plus there are regularly players getting paid to play at the highest level that play worse than the hypothetical replacement player (these players are probably not going to be playing much longer).
So "execution dependent" is a film that would work with a "replacement level" director managing a professional, experienced film crew. Not a "bad" director.
You might say generic rom-coms, or a retread of a Shakespearean play have proven to be consistent and execution independent.
Good point. There are lots of theater pieces which merely need competent actors to be OK. The bar for a successful movie today, though, is higher. Viewers expect very high production values to justify the overpriced popcorn.
Interesting. I wonder if the concept is also applicable to startups. I would love to do a startup that wasn't execution dependent. But how would one know?
Assuming at least two of the components are "idea" and "execution," if you start with a definitely super bad idea, you'd get an execution-independent (bad) outcome.
Buffett, on execution independence on the downside
> when a management with reputation for brilliance gets hooked up with a business with a reputation for bad economics, it's the reputation of the business that remains intact.
JDR, on execution independence on the upside
> the best business in the world is a well run oil company. The second best business in the world is a badly run oil company.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadThe reverse is more likely. Action movies today are quite often great executions of a mediocre script. Especially action movies, most of which don't hold together if viewers have enough time between the explosions to think about the plot and dialogue.
Comedies, maybe. They're more script-driven.
Or was it down to the plain jane Mary Sue the viewer could inject themself into that a sexy vampire was in love with for no real reason? (And in the sequel, a sexy werewolf is also in love with Mary Sue for... ...reasons?)
Like, I feel you could've cast this movie entirely differently, or had a different director, and so long as SexyWishFulfillment McVampire was good looking enough, you'd make bank, so long as you catered well to the demographic watching this dross.
Till that point urban fantasy romance really focused on adult women, and thus had enormous amounts of graphic sex, violence, and BDSM.
Twilight was a story about a teenage Virgin, and a chaste vegetarian vampire. It was so safe reading even fundamentalist religious parents would let their kids enjoy it.
So it found a huge, until then untapped market.
Your bar of "works as a bad production" is way to high.
I don't know if you follow sports, but one stat that is commonly used involves comparing a player to a hypothetical "replacement player" -- basically the level of player that any team can guarantee they can get without having to pay lots of money. Note that a replacement player is not a bad player; they are good enough to get paid to play at the highest level! Plus there are regularly players getting paid to play at the highest level that play worse than the hypothetical replacement player (these players are probably not going to be playing much longer).
So "execution dependent" is a film that would work with a "replacement level" director managing a professional, experienced film crew. Not a "bad" director.
Television medical dramas or other formulaic TV might also fit the bill. They're not immune to execution flaws but they have a clear winning formula.
Good point. There are lots of theater pieces which merely need competent actors to be OK. The bar for a successful movie today, though, is higher. Viewers expect very high production values to justify the overpriced popcorn.
> when a management with reputation for brilliance gets hooked up with a business with a reputation for bad economics, it's the reputation of the business that remains intact.
JDR, on execution independence on the upside
> the best business in the world is a well run oil company. The second best business in the world is a badly run oil company.