XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: notonyourlife@no.no.no.no   
      
   On 2020-04-29 9:14 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:   
   > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >> Alan Baker  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Feel free to disagree, and I didn't say that having a good script would   
   >>> guarantee a good movie.   
   >>   
   >> My point is that not only was it not a “guarantee”, but that there   
   doesn’t   
   >> even seem to be a *correlation* that would suggest the opposite (bad script   
   >> -> bad movie) might possibly be true.  It just isn’t useful to have that   
   as   
   >> a post hoc rationalization for a flop.  Studios could save soooooo much   
   >> money if they could accurately classify loser scripts before the production   
   >> process goes any farther.   
   >   
   > IIRC, Ring Lardner was given the script credit for /M*A*S*H/ --   
   > despite the fact that the actual dialog was mostly, if not entirely,   
   > ad-libbed by the actors.   
   >   
   > I'm not saying any script from Ring Lardner could be a bad script, but   
   > if the actors ignore it and make up their own dialog, what does it   
   > matter?   
   >   
      
   You're going to have to provide a little support for your claim that the   
   "dialog was mostly, if not entirely, ad-libbed by the actors."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)