• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

films: Most important element of a movie

D

DemonsFall

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
418
What do you think is the most important part of a movie? The story, the acting, the photography, the characters, the dialogue? Even though it's all of these things together that make the movie what it is, what part do you think is the most important?

For me, I would say that it's mostly about the story. Even if a movie is badly made, if it has a good story, I'll usually enjoy it.
 
For me, i think it depends on what type of movie it is.. Action, Drama, suspense, etc..
 
Id say its really depends also, but if a movie has really interesting/crazy characters Ill usually love it. Even if it has like no story or character development. Like Fear and Loathing, Jesus's Son, Spun, etc.
 
I don't think there IS a single element that is most important. You need a balance of at least some decent elements to make a worthwhile movie IMO.

In order for me to consider a movie worthwhile, it must be either A) thoroughly enjoyable or B)provide positive insight about life in some way. And achieving either requires at least 2 solidly good elements.

Consider The City of Lost Children for example; it is neither thoroughly enjoyable (at least not for me, as I don't enjoy other's pain and suffering) nor does it provide positive insight. Thus, even though it is beautifully portrayed with fantastic cinematography, it ultimately serves no purpose because the movie as a whole serves no purpose.
 
Dialogue is important to me...it can set the scene, develop characters, move the plot. I tend not to watch action flicks but when I do intense dialogue is not what I expect. Kinda like porn...don't need the yappidy yap there either.
 
that's a bit hard to say... kinda like "what's most important your tongue, your ears, or your eyes?"

still we all have our personal preference and for me my sight is extremely important to me. so id say photography, that is how the films shot. why- basically because i think that even the most simple and mundane of things can appear amazingly interesting and beautiful, depending entirely, on the way they are perceived and captured by the filmmaker.
 
the purpose of the film.

with the above in mind, 99% of widely released films today are nothing but self indulgance and decadence.
 
The acting/casting. Take a crappy plot, and put great actors and you have a good movie.

i.e. Cast away...Tom Hanks made that movie. Had it been any one else I don't think it would have been as good, or so well received.
 
wanderer21 said:

i.e. Cast away...Tom Hanks made that movie. Had it been any one else I don't think it would have been as good, or so well received.
Click to expand...

You crazy! Wilson made that movie! Especially his gripping death scene.
 
tough question.

probably the overall thematics or "idea' of a film. if a film has an interesting, thought-provoking and well-presented idea to it, i'm generally going to enjoy it.

if it's presented badly though, things can get pretty horrible pretty quickly (ie. the matrix reloaded). so i guess i'm saying that if you've got a good enough idea, then you're half way there, but it's still easy enough to bugger things up.
 
a sharp looking film w/ a great score can make for weak/minimal plot imo.

i would've been the first person to dispute this claim until i saw lost in translation. not really much of a plot but as far as the senses go it's a total knockout:)
 
^^ agreed, i loved the way that it was shot and your right the soundtrack was awesome too. and i think the minimal use of dialogue was what actually gave the film real depth in the end.

another movie that i think is just sensually amazing and that i love is kill bill. plot wise its just a simple revenge story yet its shot so well that i could go back and watch it numerous times.

i definitely think that in the end its the directors vision, the way that they choose to present a story that is the deciding factor. however of course, to make a great film you'll always have to have a good balanced mix of the two to start.
 
drEaMtiMe*@# said:
^^ agreed, i loved the way that it was shot and your right the soundtrack was awesome too. and i think the minimal use of dialogue was what actually gave the film real depth in the end.
Click to expand...

the fucked up thing is that i totally hated punch drunk love based on the it's lack of content. and most people who defended it used the same argument that i just used for lost in translation as a significant film.

live and learn
 
nb.
When answering, I took the question at face value. That is (to me) "most important element" means just that, not "most important element to assure my enjoyment".
Now although art does reflect life, it also influences it. Cinema has been the preferred medium of the masses for decades and individual pieces can reach millions (if not 10's or 100's of millions) of viewers.
Now I think the ideas expressed in films have a greater influence on society than many may believe.
That's why i said the purpose of the film is the most important element.

But this doesn't assure my personal enjoyment. The most important elements for my own personal enjoyment is consistancy. That is, a solid story that doesn't rip off the audience with cheap tricks, cliches or break it's own rules. Deus ex Machina, anyone?
If any of the other elements listed above are lacking, a film can still stand with other strengths, but when a film isn't consistant, an otherwise flawless film would still be ruined for me.
 
Left to Right said:
Now although art does reflect life, it also influences it.
Click to expand...

That's one of the most quotable lines I've read around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top