-Visuals (including editing)
-Music and sound
-Story and dialogues
-Actors' performances
Use percentages to represent how important is each one of these categories for your enjoyment of a movie.
25% faggots need not apply
-Visuals (including editing)
-Music and sound
-Story and dialogues
-Actors' performances
Use percentages to represent how important is each one of these categories for your enjoyment of a movie.
25% faggots need not apply
>visuals
20%
>music
20%
>story and dialogue
30%
>actors
30%
-35%
-5%
-30%-35%
-25%-30%
Music I generally don't notice unless it's bad.
>visuals
20%
>music
30%
>story and dialogue
40%
>actors
10%
40
10
25
25
-Visuals (including editing)
30
-Music and sound
15
-Story and dialogues
30
-Actors' performances
25
story and dialogues is the least important in a movie, unless of course it's so shitty it becomes offensive
I'd say they are all equal but I'm certain cases you can have some be 100% or some be 0%
Have you seen The Man from Earth? That movie is literally:
>visuals
2%
>music and sound
1%
>story and dialogue
90%
>actors
7%
but still it's at least a 9/10 movie.
Visuals 15%
Music 10%
Story and dialogue 40%
Acting 35%
A film should be the equivalent of a stage play in everything, except for taking advantage of the larger potential for scene changes.
Visuals: 15%
Music and sound: 10%
Story: 50%
Acting: 25%
Even being a musician, nothing is more important than a powerful story. Doesn't matter who's acting or how pretty it is. Great, original stories are one of the world's scarcest products.
>music and sound in same category
>story and dialogue in same category
No thanks.
>visual (inc. editing)
15%
>music
10%
>sound
5%
>story
20%
>dialogue
30%
>actor's performances
20%
>images
33.33%
>sounds
33.33%
>words
33.33%
the aesthetics on this picture are burning my retinas. WHAt THE FUCK user?!
Gona go against the grain and say
>Visuals
65%
>Music and sound
15%
>Story and dialogue
10%
>Actor's Performances
10%
A film is primarily visual, cinema itself was born to record and replay, to "hold a mirror up to nature" - and no matter how far we go and will go in the medium, that will always be the core. Maybe it's my preferences playing up, but I do think that a story is an accessory (as, more radically, actors are). Think about films like Brakhage's movies or Leviathan: they are great and not a single narrative unfolds (though there's an argumet to be made for them creating ever new narratives inside us); for a less extreme example, think about Tetsuo: The Iron Man or German Expressionism (kind of, depends on the way you look at it) or the whole Giallo genre.
50%
15%
5%
30%
>Visuals
30%
>Music and sound
30%
>Story
25%
>Acting
15%
This is ten percent luck
Twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure
Fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name
I agree in principle and generally like films for their visuals the most, but there's also plenty of less stylish films that focus on acting and story that I enjoy. so I'd say:
>visuals
45%
>music
5%
>sound
10%
>story
20%
>dialogue
10%
>acting
10%
this is difficult, if you neglect any one of these it can ruin a movie
>-Visuals (including editing)
20%, important, requires some effort
>-Music and sound
10%, if you have no decent music you can simply not play it, seems like a worthy sacrifice
>-Story and dialogues
40%, crucial, a movie is a story after all
>-Actors' performances
30%, corny actors can ruin movies
>visuals
15%
>sound
40%
>story
40%
>acting
5%
>visuals
40%
>music
10%
>story and dialogue
45%
>actors
5%
These are general guidelines, but not set in stone.
For exemple I feel that the visuals and music in most of Dario Argento's movies COMPLETELY make up for the shit dialogue and pretext story.
As for acting, I dunno. Doesnt really bother me. If the rest of the movie's compelling enough I can suspend disbelief enough that it doesnt matter.
I'm not one to watch"performance movies"
> Visuals, Editing
45%
> Music and Sound
30%
> Story
08%
> Performances
17%