|
|
Post by Pavan on Jun 15, 2017 15:02:06 GMT
Images tell a story. So it's all about a story, whether you tell with the help of dialog or imagery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 15:22:05 GMT
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) the visuals, if being presented in a manner which don't make any sense to the human mind (the plebbish ones at least  ), are merely slideshow without any story behind it. As for invoking feelings, yes, imagery would be more important, merely the audio for a movie won't invoke half as much feelings as compared to if we watch the movie without audio, an image would contain much more to the moment (a picture speaks a thousand words, after all)(yes, I'm a boring pretentious person lol) And welcome aboard!☺️☺️  |
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jun 15, 2017 15:45:57 GMT
Well, both is important and it also depends of the type and specific demands of a film. But in the end films always should tell a story. Imagery is extremely important, but it's used to tell the story. So I'd say the story is the most important thing of a film.
Of course in great movies both works together perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jun 15, 2017 17:40:38 GMT
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. I certainly agree with this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 19:45:10 GMT
Silly question. It's how they (and other aspects of the film) come together that's important.
|
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jun 15, 2017 19:45:41 GMT
On honey, it's imagery... A picture is worth a thousand words... and some of the ones I have on my phone would just leave you speechless!
|
|
eliuson
Junior Member
Posts: 273 
Likes: 55
|
Post by eliuson on Jun 17, 2017 1:53:19 GMT
Imagery, easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jun 17, 2017 5:28:20 GMT
Story hands down. A lot of crappy films today are made with impressive visuals, but if the story is trash, I don't care to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Jun 17, 2017 6:36:09 GMT
Images themselves can tell a story. Films like The Tree of Life don't have a conventional narrative, but it'll be wrong to say that they are made up of just random shots and have no story. The imagery and story needs to be strong enough to engage the viewer. The story you're telling should be worth someone's time, whether told conventionally or entirely through visuals.
Also, welcome to the MA board Buscemi!
|
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jun 17, 2017 8:02:53 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? Oh honey, it's story... the premise is set and suddenly we have a tense political thriller... with a story the audience are immediately hooked and are asking important questions like, 'Is she doing stuff for apricots now? I wonder what three apricots will get me? Is she going to do the whole Senate for a fruit basket?... |
|
), are merely slideshow without any story behind it. 
