Is cinematography the most important thing?

Is cinematography the most important thing?

Attached: 05b3ef586e3eba8be38c0dffbea8f558.jpg (1186x1920, 272K)

>tattoos
ew

An interesting and engaging story/script is the most important.

Script, direction, editing and acting are. People will put up with a movie that looks like shit if all those are well done.
The prettiest thing on Earth isn't going to resonate with anyone if those other things suck.

Your cinematography won't be worth shit without a good script. Cinema is a synthetic artform for a reason, there isn't just one "most important thing" that will save your movie from sucking 100% of the time.

looks swollen

Narrative/Story is overrated. Film is an audiovisual medium first and foremost. Not to say we need to disregard the story, but what's happening now is we reward terribly made film just because it have a "cultural impact" or "social relevancy"

Story isn't cultural impact or social relevancy, you absolute brainlet.

>Not to say we need to disregard the story, but what's happening now is we reward terribly made film just because it have a "cultural impact" or "social relevancy"
Shitty films have always been rewarded with popularity or awards at their time of release. These films still get forgotten because they're shit. Go back and look how much garbage was the highest earning film in its year of release or won best picture at the Gaycademy Awards.

Editing is

Original song is the most important thing

>Two pairs of pantyhose
HNnGGgGgggggggg

What movie is this from?

It’s certainly more important than script. One quick way to spot a film brainlet is that they say stuff like “looking pretty can’t save a weak script” or “all style and no substance”.

>cinematography and script
>not equally important
I'd bash your head in with a mallet, you absolute waste of space. And yes, looking pretty can't save a weak script.

Tell that to Malick you blind philistine

>malick
>weak scripts
Ah, I see now. I share this board with retards. Malick's classic scripts are all rock solid, nigger.

>good story = social relevancy
How the do you even come to this conclusion? That literally makes no sense.
Either slightly above average bait or you are retarded.

How can I smell pusy like this?

w your nose you FUCKING retard.

So The Last Jedi is a good movie?

black man's cum.

Attached: 1539156245398.webm (1080x1920, 2.91M)

Cinematography is the most important thing in movies.
Style IS substance, movies are a visual medium with no interactive features, therefore what you see is the most important, whether it's coherent or not is just auxiliary bonuses.

Depends on the movie and the filmmaker’s intent. Depends on the filmmaker as well. I’m sure Refn is a lot more likely to agree than, say, Kevin Smith. It’s worth noting that some respected directors sometimes eschew conventional plot or narrative, or strip them down, but no director worth his salt would accept subpar cinematography. Film is after all the art of moving images.
It’s definitely a lot more important than plebs would give it credit for. Fantastic cinematography may not save a weak script, but it’ll at least make the film memorable. A terribly shot film will on the other hand greatly dull the impact of its script, no matter how good.

Lotta film student cringe ITT desu

>how dare you actually talk about the medium instead of just posting feet and nigger threads
Yeah, man, fucking cringe amirite? Also, if you think this is film colledge level discourse, then boy, are you retarded.

Can you even imagine this hulking titan mating pressing such fragile little white woman? For hours? Just imagine the screams.

Name a good movie with bad writing and decent cinematography.

Editing is the most important thing in a film, anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Which movie is better?
Good script poor cinematography
or
Poor script good cinematography
you need both brainlets

So you can just dismiss it as a bad movie, or say that the writing is good? It could work the other way round too. You name a good movie with bad cinematography and good writing, I’d say that the movie is actually bad or the cinematography is actually good in an unorthodox way or something.
Film, like most art, is a subjective medium. Different people value different things in it.

Most of Terrence Malicks work

Hayley butte is rare and precious

Attached: wn1e72bih5v11.jpg (1080x1349, 135K)

Most films at least meet basic competency when it comes to cinematography. It's the script, score, acting, editing that breathes life into the production.

It’s a lot easier to define bad cinematography than a bad script. ITT some anons are saying Malick’s scripts are weak. I don’t think they’re BAD, they’re just unorthodox. Plenty of arthouse films are the same, their scripts might be seen as “weak” if you look at them the same way you would examine a mainstream film’s script.
Whereas when a director doesn’t give a fuck about cinematography or the technical side of the film, it’s pretty obvious.
For that reason it’s actually a lot easier to find films with “decent scripts and bad cinematography” than the opposite, because the latter type of film will typically have a lot more fervent defenders.

Is that Hayley Williams?

Soul is.

It cant be that rare right???????
right?

Is that the chick from paramore? I though she retire.

I disagree completely. “Basic competency” is fine if you’re aiming for mediocrity, but great cinematography is absolutely part of what “breathes life” into productions. I would argue in fact that the script is the skeleton which the other elements bring to life. Without them, you’re just left with a skeleton, with them but with a bad script, you have a lot of bluster but nothing underneath.
Find me a great - not okayish, great - film with bad cinematography. I don’t think you can. There’s a reason that people post cinegrids or 3x3s when talking about how great a film is. Excellent cinematography elevates a film to something truly memorable and special, it speaks to viewers in a way no other medium can.

Brainlet here, can someone explain cinematography to me. It's not just pretty visuals is it? Doesn't it have something to do with how well a film's visuals communicate the story?

Yup. Good cinematography shouldn’t just look good, it should work in concert with the other technical elements of filmmaking (music, editing, etc) to communicate the film’s themes and narrative. Basically, each shot shouldn’t be there for no reason, they should be helping to tell the story.

>Find me a great - not okayish, great - film with bad cinematography.
Pink Flamingos

I'm not dismissing the importance of cinematography. It's a big deal. People were rightfully pissed when that portion of the Oscars was not going to be televised. A lot can be communicated visually. Though let's compare Star Wars films. Visually The Last Jedi is the best SW film. But it's writing is abysmal. I'd much rather watch Return of the Jedi (which looks quite bad most of the time to be honest).

Attached: ROTJ.jpg (1200x800, 300K)

Pink Flamigos was deliberately shot to look crappy and tasteless though. I also don’t know if I’d call it great.
You have a point with TLJ being an example of a great-looking film with a bad script turning out horrible, although I think that while TLJ has many good-looking shots, it fails to have good visual storytelling, which is a key aspect of cinematography. Many of the striking shots are just peppered in to look cool. You’d probably say I’m moving the goalposts here though.

>although I think that while TLJ has many good-looking shots, it fails to have good visual storytelling
Can you elaborate more on this? Or at least give an example of a film telling a story through its cinematography. Preferably another SW film for the sake of consistency.

Almost any Fincher flick

>Or at least give an example of a film telling a story through its cinematography
Literally every single great film ever made.

2001
Mirror
Lawrence of Arabia
Blade Runner
Citizen Kane

The Last Jedi

Off the top of my head, the very first shot of ANH. The tiny rebel ship, juxtaposed against a massive imperial ship angling down towards it and slowly advancing across the screen.

No it's editing.
Anyone who disagrees with me is a pleb cuck btw.

Attached: 1550857467658.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

consistency of composition is the most important thing

Uhhh no sweaty, it's sculpting in time.

Attached: andrei-tarkovsky-1024x786.jpg (1024x786, 334K)

Based.
I think it should be called film assembly really.
Also editors should be billed next to directors, the impact they have on the final product is far too large to ignore.

Most directors work on the editing too and have the last word in it.

People post grids because its shortform for talking about films. You look at the picture and see what movie you're talking about.

Mirror should really be essential viewing for all of Yea Forums.
I read somewhere that when Malick started editing Thin Red Line, he had hours of footage, no real story, everyone had no idea what he was doing, and he wouldn’t even have the sound on while editing; he’d just listen to Green Day CDs instead.

Yeah, and that’s because it’s cinematography that sets a film apart from its peers, makes it instantly recognizable and memorable, and sticks in the viewer’s brain.

this

Yes

Attached: 7dc9c035d8ca88718012fc1733e2553d.jpg (960x960, 118K)

As an excerciseI've rated a few films that Ive seen in a few different categories (cinematography, audiography, direction, story, acting, and some more)
The result was that direction was the category that correlated the most with my overall rating, and therefor one could reach to the conclusion that is what I find most important. Good direction often means a good movie. Cinematography on the other hand, that is not always true.

Attached: Spreadsheet-for-tv.jpg (1920x1458, 1.02M)

now this is the autism we needed

What the fuck? How long did this take you?

Congratulations, you spent countless autism hours to finally discover that directors are what tie everything together into a good film.

Someone mind explaining me what happen here?.....

Based mentally-ill poster.

when your voice doesn't seell, take off your apnts and prance around in panties
SLUT

i love you man

Now when I'm used to the process it only takes between 10 minutes to give a film an acceptable rating in this way. Naturally it takes more time if I give a damn and find the film I watch interesting enough to read up on it and review parts of it.

If you wondering how long it took for the whole thing I'd estimate it be some hundreds hours. It's like a journal, a process of saving your critic in a easily accessable way.

That is not the only use I've had of it.

Lmao

>focus and depth seperate from perspective
>audiography separate from soundtrack
>realism and premise
>editing separate from pace
What other categories do you have?

dude can u upload it. i rly need it

what got deleted?

You're INTP right?

(white) casting

Attached: 7294dd689517dd32407b5b38a625e1df.png (750x1334, 1.06M)

I don’t think INTPs have the focus and drive for this kind of autism. Sounds more INTJ.

Hayley Williams from paramore doing something that's unknown to me.

>muh modern astrology

Damn she looks like my ex except her hair is better.

Umm

I doubt your ex looked that good