Is cinematography the most important thing?

Is cinematography the most important thing?

Attached: 1560847606666.jpg (1080x1350, 234K)

Attached: 1561478971050.jpg (221x250, 8K)

Every single filmmaking element is important.

You can have the best cinematography in the world, but if the acting is garbage the film will be garbage.
Same with the script, not even the best script on the planet will result in a good film if you give it to a shitty director.

Visual/audio narrative is what is important, and that is achieved by the combination of every element pushing the same vision and forming a whole.

Is this one part of an artistic medium that consists of a ton of different shit working in concert the most important? No, you dumb fuck. No single part is the most important. You think its the most important because you can take screenshots and make little collages that you think exhibit your KINO taste in AESTHETICS. But really you're just a fat fucking retard without a brain.

YES!!! ITS NOT IMPORTANT WHAT KIND OF STORY YOU TELL, BUT HOW!!!

depends what you look for in the movie.
I prioritize script and acting. if those two are weak, movie is trash by default to me.
film is a visual medium after all, so you could argue cinematography is one of the more important aspects.

Cinematography>script>acting

Attached: c4be94a136b2a66d8d33366b60ec2202b937b40f9163ed08c41bd36c0fcaa231.jpg (600x685, 50K)

yes, almost nothing else matters, maybe script a little bit

Direction > Script > Editing > Acting > Cinematography

There's the hierarchy of the big 5.

It's more important than the script, for sure. I've seen plenty of well-shot movies with pretty much no script that I enjoyed. Don't think I've ever seen, enjoyed or bothered remembering a movie with decent writing but awful audiovisuals.
Cinematography, by the way, is not just "WOW PRETTY PICTURES" that look good in photo collages.

The final redpill is that sound mixing is the most important part and if that is shit than the entire film is automatically shit.

Scriptfags are the worst.

Pretty much this. It's funny how direction of all things is usually left out in these threads. I honestly think most of the retards on this board still think that the cinematographer and the director are the same thing.

Okay Nolan sorry to inform you but you're fucking trash at all five

Saying that direction is most important is like saying that the music is the most important part of an album. Everything falls under direction, most directors (unless they're kevin smith) work very closely with their DPs for every single shot to achieve their desired results.

Ah yes, because when Nolan makes a flick he puts so much serious effort into directing and the script, lol

good enough image and sound with composition and aesthetic ideas its already a film.
shits like script and relatable characters are plebeian cope, bagage from the theater leaches.

All the directors do is yell "action" and "cut". How are they more important than people who do the actual technical and artistic work?

What a fucking stupid argument.

People don't even know what cinematography means. They confuse it with photography.

Photography in motion, bam.

look at this absolute mental midget lmao
I sincerely hope you're merely baiting

Because they are the overseer. A good director can identify the strengths and weaknesses of a crew, cast and the subject matter and make adjustments to compensate. They have to oversee everything and a good director can be worth two of those other things provided he knows what he's doing.

Only the script usually isn't in the hands of a competent director. He takes equal responsibility for everything else. Avengers had an excellent DP but because Whedon was the director it looked like vomit. The best actors in the world would be in a lot of trouble if they got a director who didn't know how to direct them.

One of the many reasons I fucking hate those 'cinematography' collages that retards post.

More than he does in the cinematography and editing, that's for sure. That's the saddest part.

>Only the script usually isn't in the hands of a competent director.
Ever seen a great scene and then discovered later it was never in the script?

Execution is what matters.

Scripts are mere starting points for the director to then execute his narrative. You can have the same exact script and make 20 extremely different films out of it, execution is what matters.
Almost every great film ever made is great because of it's execution and not the script, from 2001 to Blade Runner. Even most Tarkovsky films have a pretty simple script if you take it just as an on-paper story, but because of his great non linear poetry-like execution they are considered as some of the best films ever made.

Attached: The Sorcerer (1977) BDRemux 1080p.mkv_snapshot_01.01.57_.jpg (1920x1080, 210K)

Yes, and that's why BvS will always be a league against marvelshit.

this capeshit schizo still brainfarting how his favorite pile of dogshit is better than this other pile of dogshit

I said "usually". Anyway that only furthers my point that direction is the thing that ties everything all together and it's pretty silly to be trying to rank it compared to other elements of film. Of course direction is the most important, no one would fucking think otherwise.

/thread

it’s like a boomer ranting and raving about his dodge being better than a chevy

can you explain how you "study" the direction within a film? I can understand focusing on the cinematography, and even the editing or acting. But how much further can you break down a film? If you're focusing on the script, are you literally just listening and waiting to see if you love or hate the next bit of dialogue?