|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 5, 2020 14:25:50 GMT
Pacing and editing.
|
|
|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Sept 5, 2020 14:41:49 GMT
A good script is important but it's the actors chosen for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 5, 2020 17:28:02 GMT
To me it's undoubtedly the writing. That's an easy place to lay the blame, and I understand the argument. To be sure a strong screenplay can only make for a better movie, of course. However, 100% of the time, I assure you, it's the direction. A so-so director can take a brilliant screenplay and make a fucked up movie based on it, and a brilliant director can take a so-so script and still make a brilliant movie. Why? Because movies are a visual medium, not a literary medium. You want something brilliantly written, go read a novel. You want a brilliant movie? Follow brilliant directors. Case in point: Watch some of the movies you think are masterpieces and try to follow it by story alone. You'll see a good number of those movies actually have a pretty slim script. Almost all of Stanley Kubricks movies have scripts that are barely there. There's hardly a script at all in 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of the best movies of all time! One studio actually shot down E.T. The Extraterrestrial in favor of Starman because of the script. We all know how that turned out. Mad Max: Fury Road barely has a story and maybe 20, 30 lines of dialog! But in reverse, most truly good directors suggest you watch your favorite movies with the sound off. Why? Because you can still see and understand the story, even without sound. Movies are a visual medium, so if the director cant tell a movie with sights alone, no screenplay can save it.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 5, 2020 18:17:47 GMT
To me it's undoubtedly the writing. That's an easy place to lay the blame, and I understand the argument. To be sure a strong screenplay can only make for a better movie, of course. However, 100% of the time, I assure you, it's the direction. A so-so director can take a brilliant screenplay and make a fucked up movie based on it, and a brilliant director can take a so-so script and still make a brilliant movie. Why? Because movies are a visual medium, not a literary medium. You want something brilliantly written, go read a novel. You want a brilliant movie? Follow brilliant directors. Case in point: Watch some of the movies you think are masterpieces and try to follow it by story alone. You'll see a good number of those movies actually have a pretty slim script. Almost all of Stanley Kubricks movies have scripts that are barely there. There's hardly a script at all in 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of the best movies of all time! One studio actually shot down E.T. The Extraterrestrial in favor of Starman because of the script. We all know how that turned out. Mad Max: Fury Road barely has a story and maybe 20, 30 lines of dialog! But in reverse, most truly good directors suggest you watch your favorite movies with the sound off. Why? Because you can still see and understand the story, even without sound. Movies are a visual medium, so if the director cant tell a movie with sights alone, no screenplay can save it. I think you make a good point. But I wasn't talking about the script. I'm talking about plot, plot advancement, and dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 5, 2020 23:02:37 GMT
Radioactive sand.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 1:35:17 GMT
That's an easy place to lay the blame, and I understand the argument. To be sure a strong screenplay can only make for a better movie, of course. However, 100% of the time, I assure you, it's the direction. A so-so director can take a brilliant screenplay and make a fucked up movie based on it, and a brilliant director can take a so-so script and still make a brilliant movie. Why? Because movies are a visual medium, not a literary medium. You want something brilliantly written, go read a novel. You want a brilliant movie? Follow brilliant directors.Case in point: Watch some of the movies you think are masterpieces and try to follow it by story alone. You'll see a good number of those movies actually have a pretty slim script. Almost all of Stanley Kubricks movies have scripts that are barely there. There's hardly a script at all in 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of the best movies of all time! One studio actually shot down E.T. The Extraterrestrial in favor of Starman because of the script. We all know how that turned out. Mad Max: Fury Road barely has a story and maybe 20, 30 lines of dialog! But in reverse, most truly good directors suggest you watch your favorite movies with the sound off. Why? Because you can still see and understand the story, even without sound. Movies are a visual medium, so if the director cant tell a movie with sights alone, no screenplay can save it. David's Lean's Ryan's Daughter - 70' got critically panned, (it was still relatively successful) for its lack of story painted over a massive canvas. Hello! That was the point. Lean told much of his story visually, by conveying the imagery within the emotions of the characters. Nature and the environment were just as much a major character as anything else. I found it sublime and I even knew this when I was 8yrs old and saw it at the cinema in 70mm.
Even Blade Runner - 82', doesn't have much of story, yet that packs a stunning visual sci-fi wallop and where most of the substance lies, which is reflected in the style.
I wasn't talking about the script. I was talking about plot, plot advancement, and dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 2:03:14 GMT
I wasn't talking about the script. I was talking about plot, plot advancement, and dialogue. Then you are talking about the direction. Plot\Story\Dialog is all an aspect of the script, which comes down to the same thing. Credits for writing can often separate a story credit from screenplay credit. That doesn't change the point I was making about film being first and foremost a visual medium. Any killers in the presentation largely comes down to the director, regardless of what the quality of the script is regarded as. No. The plot is written. The director may have something to do with plot forwarding. But the dialogue is writing. I never said the director wasn't important. Everything is important. I just think bad writing (plot, plot forwarding, dialogue) is the most common thing that ruins movies. (And TV shows also.) |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 6, 2020 3:01:42 GMT
Then you are talking about the direction. Plot\Story\Dialog is all an aspect of the script, which comes down to the same thing. Credits for writing can often separate a story credit from screenplay credit. That doesn't change the point I was making about film being first and foremost a visual medium. Any killers in the presentation largely comes down to the director, regardless of what the quality of the script is regarded as. No. The plot is written. The director may have something to do with plot forwarding. But the dialogue is writing. I never said the director wasn't important. Everything is important. I just think bad writing (plot, plot forwarding, dialogue) is the most common thing that ruins movies. (And TV shows also.) I think the confusion here is that people are comparing visually told stories with bad scripts. 2001: A Space odyssey doesn't have a bad script, it has a script written for a visual movie. There are movies with actual mediocre scripts that are made into good movies by the director as a visual artist. Ridley Scott's directing skills often make up for the less than good scripts/messy scripts he works off of imo. There is no overcoming bad directing and that is why I consider bad directing the biggest issue. You can't separate the directing from the acting imo, since a major part of directing is directing the performances. Even when the writer is also the director, he can still overcome his own faulty writing with his skills as a director. A great example of this is The Shining mini-series. The bad directing completely destroys a script that could have been made into a good movie. The directing is much worse than the script in this case. Another great example is The Great Gatsby (2013). The plot and dialogue are perfecting good, but the director fails to tell capture the essence of the story and dialogue in an effective way. Bad acting, bad cinematography, forced cgi, bad music, etc. ruin the story and the dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Sept 6, 2020 3:27:59 GMT
I could see others butchering the writing. But regardless of who responsible, it's still the writing. Yeah but even then directors and actors don't always follow the script 100%. A weak script can be remedied with the right director and actors. Remember this scene from the Godfather? It wasn't actually in the script (the actor playing Luca was so nervous about acting with Brando that he messed up his lines), but Coppolla liked it so much he left it in: I think the nervousness and meekness shown in that clip has forever lent itself to the character of Luca Brasi. It fit so well that Don Corleones most loyal dog would be so nervous to actually speak to him on such an occasion. It just made so much sense and fleshed out a character that has about 10 minutes of screen time. Conversely Corleones comforting grin while Luca fumbles his words tells us, the audience, that Corleone is a nice man to those that are kind to him and we immediately like him for it and begin to understand how Luca could be so loyal. I think anyhow.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 3:31:19 GMT
No. The plot is written. The director may have something to do with plot forwarding. But the dialogue is writing. I never said the director wasn't important. Everything is important. I just think bad writing (plot, plot forwarding, dialogue) is the most common thing that ruins movies. (And TV shows also.) I think the confusion here is that people are comparing visually told stories with bad scripts. 2001: A Space odyssey doesn't have a bad script, it has a script written for a visual movie. There are movies with actual mediocre scripts that are made into good movies by the director as a visual artist. Ridley Scott's directing skills often make up for the less than good scripts/messy scripts he works off of imo. There is no overcoming bad directing and that is why I consider bad directing the biggest issue. You can't separate the directing from the acting imo, since a major part of directing is directing the performances. Even when the writer is also the director, he can still overcome his own faulty writing with his skills as a director. A great example of this is The Shining mini-series. The bad directing completely destroys a script that could have been made into a good movie. The directing is much worse than the script in this case. Another great example is The Great Gatsby (2013). The plot and dialogue are perfecting good, but the director fails to tell capture the essence of the story and dialogue in an effective way. Bad acting, bad cinematography, forced cgi, bad music, etc. ruin the story and the dialogue. I agree with most of what you are saying. But you using 2001:Space Odssey as an example, I think is you using an exception to dispute a rule. Certainly there are going to be all kinds of exceptions. And yes, a bad director can ruin any movie. But in my experience, the most common reason a movie is not entertaining, is bad writing. Not bad script. But bad plot, plot forwarding, and bad dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 6, 2020 3:33:16 GMT
What do think is the biggest killer of a movie?
A power failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 6, 2020 3:43:11 GMT
I think the confusion here is that people are comparing visually told stories with bad scripts. 2001: A Space odyssey doesn't have a bad script, it has a script written for a visual movie. There are movies with actual mediocre scripts that are made into good movies by the director as a visual artist. Ridley Scott's directing skills often make up for the less than good scripts/messy scripts he works off of imo. There is no overcoming bad directing and that is why I consider bad directing the biggest issue. You can't separate the directing from the acting imo, since a major part of directing is directing the performances. Even when the writer is also the director, he can still overcome his own faulty writing with his skills as a director. A great example of this is The Shining mini-series. The bad directing completely destroys a script that could have been made into a good movie. The directing is much worse than the script in this case. Another great example is The Great Gatsby (2013). The plot and dialogue are perfecting good, but the director fails to tell capture the essence of the story and dialogue in an effective way. Bad acting, bad cinematography, forced cgi, bad music, etc. ruin the story and the dialogue. I agree with most of what you are saying. But you using 2001:Space Odssey as an example, I think is you using an exception to dispute a rule. Certainly there are going to be all kinds of exceptions. And yes, a bad director can ruin any movie. But in my experience, the most common reason a movie is not entertaining, is bad writing. Not bad script. But bad plot, plot forwarding, and bad dialogue. I understand what you are saying and I disagree. You seem to have missed my point with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was defending you using that as an example of what your are not talking about, because people keep bring up movies that are told visually and thinking that is the same thing you are talking about. You are talking about movies with less than good dialogue, dumb stories etc. correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 6, 2020 3:56:07 GMT
Executives, advertisers, promoters, moneymen etc.
But an artist has responsibility too. As Dennis Hopper once said about 'The Last Movie', {paraphrasing} ["they gave me final cut and I cut my own throat/].
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 4:02:44 GMT
I agree with most of what you are saying. But you using 2001:Space Odssey as an example, I think is you using an exception to dispute a rule. Certainly there are going to be all kinds of exceptions. And yes, a bad director can ruin any movie. But in my experience, the most common reason a movie is not entertaining, is bad writing. Not bad script. But bad plot, plot forwarding, and bad dialogue. I understand what you are saying and I disagree. You seem to have missed my point with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was defending you using that as an example of what your are not talking about, because people keep bring up movies that are told visually and thinking that is the same thing you are talking about. You are talking about movies with less than good dialogue, dumb stories etc. correct? No. I'm talking about movies with bad plot, bad plot forwarding and bad dialogue. Especially when everything else --- including the script and story --- is good. I don't think "2001:Space Odyssey" is your typically constructed movie. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 6, 2020 4:03:49 GMT
I understand what you are saying and I disagree. You seem to have missed my point with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was defending you using that as an example of what your are not talking about, because people keep bring up movies that are told visually and thinking that is the same thing you are talking about. You are talking about movies with less than good dialogue, dumb stories etc. correct? No. I'm talking about movies with bad plot, bad plot forwarding and bad dialogue. Especially when everything else --- including the script and story --- is good. I don't think "2001:Space Odyssey" is your typically constructed movie. Forget it.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 4:48:54 GMT
No. The plot is written. The director may have something to do with plot forwarding. But the dialogue is writing. I never said the director wasn't important. Everything is important. I just think bad writing (plot, plot forwarding, dialogue) is the most common thing that ruins movies. (And TV shows also.) So it is about the writing then, which you opined in your open post, then you said it’s not and now it is again? Whatever it is, it doesn’t change my stance behind the writing, be it dialog, story, plot advancement, theme being all interchangeable within a script and what a decent director can make out of it regardless of its quality. The intelligence behind the script, all aspects, would need to work in conjunction with the directors vision and even if they don’t have lofty aspirations, it can still come together if made with skill and excellence. People are going to see different things in a film regardless and depends on what they connect with. I never said it was not. It's always been the writing. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Sept 6, 2020 5:04:53 GMT
I never said it was not. It's always been the writing. I am seeing the script as the entire entity containing the dialog, plot development and overall theme\story. I am getting the impression that you see writing and script as mutually exclusive so not getting completely what you are driving at. The script is writing and the writing is script. What else can it be? No, not mutually exclusive. But I know what directors, actors and producers first are presented with, is not usually exactly representative of the end result. |
|
avocadojoe
Sophomore
@avocadojoe
Posts: 367
Likes: 159
|
Post by avocadojoe on Sept 6, 2020 18:27:08 GMT
A bad story is number one, but I would say other factors that can kill a movie are: Bad casting--if you don't think the actor is right for the role, or not interesting to watch, doesn't matter how good the writing is Bad score--can be really distracting Bad sound--sound is actually more important than great picture quality IMO. Bad editing--bad pacing etc Pacing can be a killer. Can keep a good movie from being a great movie. IMHO, the wedding scene from The Deer Hunter is overlong and pulls a potentially great movie down to good. I kept saying "get on with it, get on with it". That and the epic error of NOT filming the hunting scenes in the area where the movie takes place.
I liked the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter. |
|
avocadojoe
Sophomore
@avocadojoe
Posts: 367
Likes: 159
|
Post by avocadojoe on Sept 7, 2020 2:02:19 GMT
I liked the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter.There is an extended wedding sequence in The Godfather. I prefer the one in The Deer Hunter. I find it more relatable and interesting. It really gives the viewer a chance to get to know these characters and unfolds leisurely, yet with narrative purpose. The Deer Hunter I find is one of the best intimate American epic dramas ever made. A superb achievement and while it was criticised for not being an accurate take on the Vietnam War, the film is so much more than just Vietnam. I've never been a big fan of "The Godfather". There is a grandeur about it and I wouldn't call it boring, but I can take that movie or leave it. I like the second one even less. I do agree that TDH is about much more than Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 7, 2020 7:22:03 GMT
It being boring.
|
|
