Style over substance

This will always be the worst criticism ever. Do people forget film is a VISUAL MEDIUM?

Attached: fashion-style-style_over_substance-egg_timers-eggtimers-arguments-jco0022_low.jpg (800x816, 100K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/nL6DxEiQo8k
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

you're supposed to turn your speakers on user, theres sound too

What does that even mean? I don't get it, seriously.

t. refn

Based digits and based reply holy shit

A Scanner Darkly, for instance.
Cheap rotoscopy filter over the whole fucking movie to make it appear as if it were a cartoon. Mediocre (at best) plot, cinematography, acting etc.

I also don't think the two are separable. I used to hear this be said about Proust a lot, and when I finally started reading him, I realised there was a lot of substance to it, and I couldn't see how one would separate style from substance.

As far as cinema is concerned, style IS substance; it's not a literary medium, though it can contain words, obviously, but it doesn't have to, and it shouldn't be subservient to words.

Most criticism is glorified opinion.

Style is substance

>Mediocre (at best) plot, cinematography, acting etc.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Try telling me this scene isn't one of the best in cinema history, try:

youtu.be/nL6DxEiQo8k

This scene, I thought, might herald my own future. And it did.

HOW TO SPOT A BRAINLET PLEB

>only able to discuss literal plot points and the logical order of the narrative of a film
>every film has a singular universal "deep meaning" which you have to "get" to understand it
>"The writing is the most important filmmaking element!"
>thinks that empty pretty pictures means "good cinematography"
>"I don't find this part of the narrative plausible or realistic, therefore the movie is SHIT!"
>treating a film like a puzzle which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to get it
>"Who cares about editing, framing and composition sound and whatnot if the 'story' isn't great."
>a film is either utter dogshit or a masterpiece, there is no inbetween
>"the acting in this film is not naturalistic, there the acting is SHIT"
>considers heavy use of direct symbolism as a positive factor
>using "boring" and "nothing happens" as arguments ever

Fucking based.

Editing framing composition can be summed up as visuals. Visuals are just one part that makes a movie good.

When a film maker puts something in the movie because they think it's cool, even if it doesn't contribute to any central theme or message. The one that jumps to my head right away is the hologram elvis fight scene in blade runner 2049. Does that scene serve any purpose other than being cool? Would the movie have suffered if it had been cut out? Is there any part of the plot or conclusion or character development that would be lost of the scene weren't there? Does it relay any kind of emotional, contextual or philosophical information? No. It's there to be cool and for no other reason.

Its visual, just not entirely visual like illustration is. Truly great film is more than the sum of its parts, and presentation is one of those parts.

fuck off hippie
linklater is overrated

This. Absolutely this.

The next step is to realise that everything you listed is basically what autists do. Seriously. The main problem with this board is that it's autists trying to understand movies that aren't designed for autists.

Autists are like players who max out everything in tier 1 but never move on to other tiers. So they are efficient at doing extremely basics things at levels nobody cared to max out because moving on to higher tiers made more sense. Max out a superior tier.

The result is 90% of this fucking board.

Autists literally can't read faces, so they have no idea who is a good actor or not; their opinion on anyone's acting is actually what they think of the actor per so. Easily verifiable.

>he thinks this has anything to do with being a hippie
Autism, not even once.

Films can have both style and substance. Drive and The Assassination of Jesse James are two accessible alternatives with great style and substance. Then there are films that are heavily skewed towards style like Terence Malick or Charlie Kauffman films (or Wes Anderson I guess if you are a pleb who enjoys his shit flicks). Films like that can still be great but the ones that are great still have some substance either in the form of an interesting narrative or an artistic value that makes you think.

Then there is irredeemable truly "style over substance" trash like Only God Forgives where the movie does not make you think nor offer a coherent plot. The director is so focused on stylish, drawn out scenes that he forgets to present any kind of message or interesting narrative.

TLDR: Style over substance can be a valid criticism but most plebs use it to criticize good films they are too dumb to understand.

>inb4: you didnt understand Only God Forgives

Based

it's worse than autists, it's casuals who don't know anything about film besides netflix top recs and whatever gets advertised on tv
seriously current Yea Forums is what Yea Forums would be if everyone never read anything past the harry potter movies

Nothing is worse than autists, and not, it's not just casuals, it's autists who are casuals (because they can't understand anything higher than the list you provided).

"Casuals" don't come to this place to discuss anything, trust me.

linklater makes movies filled with hippie tier philosophy that only a normie would think are profound

They're an endless supply of pretty things to look at. If your movie doesn't have any meaning behind it, then you've wasted an opportunity and the viewers time.

t. brainlet pleb

>"Casuals" don't come to this place to discuss anything, trust me
casuals in this context are all the tourists from other boards who use Yea Forums to shitpost and discouraged anyone remotely interested in the medium to post good threads

Never seen any other film by him, but you sound like a moron who didn't realise he didn't write the movie and that it is based on a novel by Philip K. Dick. Thinking Dick was a hippie is serious autism.

Easy test of your faggotry: name 5 movies you think are profound, just so we get to see what your references are.

this

>all the tourists from other boards
The autists who post here post throughout the day and night. They're home here.

The purpose of a medium is to carry a message, you retard.

There is no such thing as style or substance. They are buzzwords for people who don't know how to communicate.

It's created such a problem that a lot of reviews/critiques I read say shit like "wow the cinematography is good, but the plot sucks!" and I feel like they don't know what's actually wrong with the film or even what they liked about it.

>a lot of reviews/critiques I read say shit like "wow the cinematography is good, but the plot sucks!"
Yet, that applies to the Last Jedi very well. The cinematography is good but the plot sucks. What now?

t. retard
There's literally nothing more brainlet than chalking up the whole of a movie to a single element of said whole. You can also break visuals into further and further subcategories but those elements are still broadly apart of one. I don't see the issue with this.