|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jun 14, 2017 20:26:56 GMT
Of these two, which is a more important aspect for you?
Personally, visuals insight a more immersive experience and are a more helpful means of investing within a film's world and surroundings. Story is only pivotal depending on what the film is going for, but not a necessary tool towards making a good one. Not saying storytelling shouldn't criticised at all, however, but it's still a secondary factor to imagery.
|
|
thedanger
New Member
apply yourself
Posts: 5
Likes: 11
|
Post by thedanger on Jun 14, 2017 21:50:30 GMT
images are needed to make a movie. if you have only images, you can make a movie out of them, be it good or not. if you have only a story, there's no movie there, just pieces of paper wishing they were something more. movies that focus inherently on telling their story and going away usually come off the other way as dull and uninspired, with few exceptions. at least for me, movies with memorable imagery are those that stick in my mind. in a lot of movies i won't even remember the story apart from the overall plot points, but only the images and the sound and what they made me feel and think about. filmmaking is movement, color, faces, forms, montage. story comes later, as far as where film really is relevant goes.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jun 14, 2017 22:06:41 GMT
Oh honey, it's imagery... as in what I might be wearing... or not wearing.
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Jun 14, 2017 22:58:05 GMT
Story
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 14, 2017 23:45:38 GMT
Story, though great imagery / visuals help of course.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jun 14, 2017 23:59:41 GMT
There's no hierarchy for me. It's what you use, but how you use it.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 15, 2017 0:03:34 GMT
What separates film from literature is the fact that it's a visual medium. The visuals aren't detached from the story, they are the story.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 15, 2017 0:19:44 GMT
Definitely story. I've seen a lot of shitty movies with great visuals and great movies with boring visuals. Of course, "story" is very broad. Not every film needs to have a complex plot but it needs to have some form of inherent narrative depth. The Revenant and The Fountain are two examples of films that anchor their indulgent visual narratives on profoundly underdeveloped stories, resulting in products that come off as undercooked and pretentious. Imagery alone is hollow. Zack Snyder is proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by bobbystarks on Jun 15, 2017 0:22:30 GMT
Yeah, imagery. That's the whole point in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 15, 2017 0:34:15 GMT
Yeah, imagery. That's the whole point in the first place. That's like saying "paper" is the point of books. The point of cinema is to use imagery to tell stories. Imagery doesn't define its purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 0:49:26 GMT
Difficult question. Imagery + sound are basically what film is. They create the story, characters, morals, dialog, etc. I don't really think they're very comparable. Imagery is an absolute necessity; otherwise you don't have a film. But a film can survive on a good story alone, while not having particularly interesting imagery. While on the other hand, a bad story almost guarantees a bad film.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jun 15, 2017 0:50:39 GMT
For me, it's most ideal when the two work in tandem with each other. I live for good storytelling, for engaging narratives, settings I can become swept up in, and characters I can live with and relate to for a couple of hours. But a film that just focuses on story is incomplete, and does not fully realize the potential that cinema offers that other media do not. In film, imagery is not just necessary to enhance the story, but to tell the story. However, I think that story takes priority, in the sense that the images that a filmmaker decides to produce should be the result of a predetermined story, and not the other way around.
In terms of impact, great stories and great images stick with me equally. Generally, my favorite movies are those that balance their focus on those two essential elements and are able to move me visually as well as form a connection with their characters and storylines.
|
|
thedanger
New Member
apply yourself
Posts: 5
Likes: 11
|
Post by thedanger on Jun 15, 2017 2:10:16 GMT
Yeah, imagery. That's the whole point in the first place. That's like saying "paper" is the point of books. The point of cinema is to use imagery to tell stories. Imagery doesn't define its purpose. no, that's like saying "words" are the point of books. which isn't right per se, but without words there are no books. and words aren't just used to tell a story, like images also aren't just used to tell a story.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 15, 2017 3:12:25 GMT
To me, imagery doesn't imply pretty. If a director uses imagery without any attached narrative, and it's used to bring up a certain mental picture, or this idea, or this degree of notion, or some intangible with a strong sense of feeling.... that's what imagery usage in films is to me. A pretty looking thing isn't necessarily imagery use.
Two of the most major classics in history are Casablanca and The Godfather - which most people probably agree are simply kick-ass stories. But I think even those have moments were imagery use overshadows some other form of content. However, I do agree that the stories are the primary driving force of those two, and even outside of the narratives, it's the setting that's particularly appealing.
Personally, I tend to initially latch onto the way something looks, and often don't overcome that (i guess you can apply to that people too), but it's all about every aspect coming together for me.
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Jun 15, 2017 4:06:36 GMT
Story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 4:18:04 GMT
Both go highly hand-in-hand for me. Neither are more important than other, a film cannot exist if only one aspect of the two is present.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jun 15, 2017 6:16:08 GMT
Both go highly hand-in-hand for me. Neither are more important than other, a film cannot exist if only one aspect of the two is present. A film can exist without a story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 6:42:44 GMT
Both go highly hand-in-hand for me. Neither are more important than other, a film cannot exist if only one aspect of the two is present. A film can exist without a story. I considered the word "story" more in a "it is trying to show an idea, or a purpose, what have you" way, than a narrative. P.S how'd you know Joaquim, DeepArcher etc? were you on some other forum previously?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jun 15, 2017 7:42:07 GMT
I would be more likely to enjoy a film with a riveting story and uninteresting visuals, than I would a film that's visually arresting and has a boring / crap / cliched story.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jun 15, 2017 8:13:28 GMT
That's like saying "paper" is the point of books. The point of cinema is to use imagery to tell stories. Imagery doesn't define its purpose. I don't think the purpose of cinema is to tell stories through imagery/visuals. There are numerous films that have no story to them (Bunuel's The Phantom Of Liberty, Raul Ruiz' Mammame, most avant-garde/experimental films, ect.) that have a purpose and achieve an interesting result. Cinema is a means of communication, through which the director transfers his thoughts, ideas, fears and experiences to the audience and he is the one that decides the way that communication is to be achieved (through a story or not). Story is definitely a very important part of cinema, but not a necessary one. On the other hand, visuals/imagery is an integral part of cinema and no film can be made without it.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jun 15, 2017 8:19:55 GMT
Oh honey, it's story... as in like why am I naked and eating an apricot... on a Presidential private jet... during rush hour?
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 15, 2017 10:50:34 GMT
A film can exist without a story. I considered the word "story" more in a "it is trying to show an idea, or a purpose, what have you" way, than a narrative. P.S how'd you know Joaquim, DeepArcher etc? were you on some other forum previously? Game of Thrones board on IMDB. They know me from there too.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 15, 2017 10:58:06 GMT
That's like saying "paper" is the point of books. The point of cinema is to use imagery to tell stories. Imagery doesn't define its purpose. I don't think the purpose of cinema is to tell stories through imagery/visuals. There are numerous films that have no story to them (Bunuel's The Phantom Of Liberty, Raul Ruiz' Mammame, most avant-garde/experimental films, ect.) that have a purpose and achieve an interesting result. Cinema is a means of communication, through which the director transfers his thoughts, ideas, fears and experiences to the audience and he is the one that decides the way that communication is to be achieved (through a story or not). Story is definitely a very important part of cinema, but not a necessary one. On the other hand, visuals/imagery is an integral part of cinema and no film can be made without it. Well communication of thoughts, ideas, fears, and experiences is what I meant by "story," which I admitted is a very broad term. Essentially what I'm saying is that the substance of your communication (story, narrative, whatever you want to call it) is more important than the medium through which you communicate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 13:17:59 GMT
I think it ultimately comes down to story. Because the images themselves tell a story.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jun 15, 2017 15:00:23 GMT
A film can exist without a story. I considered the word "story" more in a "it is trying to show an idea, or a purpose, what have you" way, than a narrative. P.S how'd you know Joaquim, DeepArcher etc? were you on some other forum previously? Yeah, but ideas, emotions, themes, can all be expressed sorely through a film's visual style - hell, that IS the visual style. It's what the images invoke in the viewer. Not necessarily along the lines of visual storytelling, more like a visual experience, the sense of being transported within multiple moving paintings. I know Joaquim, oneflyride, catrician, Comicman, Piku all from the FG board (Film General, the superior board), and also know DeepArcher and Tommen from the GOT board. Posted on MA infrequently, too. Mister_Buscemi_V was the last name I had on IMDb, but I was also under many Buscemi incarnations (Mr_Buscemi, Mr_Buscemi-2, etc)
|
|