What makes a good movie or TV Show?

[supermike80 2,111]

Wife and I had this discussion last night.   When a movie or TV show is good, what % of that success would you attribute to the writers, actors, and director.

I was thinking 50% writing, and 30% actors and 20% director.

 

@Fnord   You're a movie guy, interested in your take.

[MikeMatt 447]

100% boobs

[Mr Fantasy 90]

2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

I was thinking 50% writing, and 30% actors and 20% director.

I’m thinking 60 writing/20/20 although I may be overrating acting 

[Fnord 2,607]

3 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Wife and I had this discussion last night.   When a movie or TV show is good, what % of that success would you attribute to the writers, actors, and director.

I was thinking 50% writing, and 30% actors and 20% director.

 

@Fnord   You're a movie guy, interested in your take.

It depends on a lot of factors. A really great acting performance can turn a meh movie into a must-watch. Whiplash comes to mind. The movie was just ok but Miles Teller and JK Simmons were so fantastic it's practically a must-see.

Then you have films with an amazing script, but they go off the rails due to bad direction or acting or studio meddling. Since I don't read scripts, I can't really speak to this, but I've heard that the Kenneth Branagh version of Frankenstein was one of those. I saw the movie but can't remember anything about it, so it clearly wasn't real memorable. The script by Frank Darabont, who is a great and prolific writer, is widely hailed as being fantastic.

Then you have some great movies with meh scripts that are saved by direction or acting or both. Armageddon is a great example. The premise is completely absurd, Aerosmith and the shlocky romance between Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler are awful (that fockin animal cracker scene might be the most abysmal thing I've ever watched), but damn if it isn't a fun watch. Any of Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi, and Billy Bob Thornton alone are usually enough to salvage a movie, so having all three saves the film from stupid scripting and Michael Bay's unending need to make a cut every 1.6 seconds.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,671]

 Depends on the genre. I would say writing is fifty percent, acting thirty percent, production ten percent, and imaging ten percent. It plays like a book. Writing and imagery. Or even a play. Timing.

[weepaws 3,381]

Many variables to the question, each their own, could be the story, could be the acting, could be the the scenario.  

[supermike80 2,111]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

It depends on a lot of factors. A really great acting performance can turn a meh movie into a must-watch. Whiplash comes to mind. The movie was just ok but Miles Teller and JK Simmons were so fantastic it's practically a must-see.

Then you have films with an amazing script, but they go off the rails due to bad direction or acting or studio meddling. Since I don't read scripts, I can't really speak to this, but I've heard that the Kenneth Branagh version of Frankenstein was one of those. I saw the movie but can't remember anything about it, so it clearly wasn't real memorable. The script by Frank Darabont, who is a great and prolific writer, is widely hailed as being fantastic.

Then you have some great movies with meh scripts that are saved by direction or acting or both. Armageddon is a great example. The premise is completely absurd, Aerosmith and the shlocky romance between Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler are awful (that fockin animal cracker scene might be the most abysmal thing I've ever watched), but damn if it isn't a fun watch. Any of Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi, and Billy Bob Thornton alone are usually enough to salvage a movie, so having all three saves the film from stupid scripting and Michael Bay's unending need to make a cut every 1.6 seconds.

Typical liberal reply.  Whole lot of rambling, and fails to answer the question

[MikeMatt 447]

6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Typical liberal reply.  Whole lot of rambling, and fails to answer the question

I already answered the question- boobs. Tatas. Breastages. Titties. 

[Fnord 2,607]

11 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Typical liberal reply.  Whole lot of rambling, and fails to answer the question

Well, I'm not Roger Ebert or a USC film school grad, and you called on me, so piss off.

The answer is, there isn't one, IMO. I think it's silly to just assign a % to what each is worth. But because you're needy, hereyago:

98% script, 1% acting, .5% directing, .5% studio execs. There's your secret formula.

[Fnord 2,607]

A great script can produce a bad movie. A bad script will almost certainly not produce a good film. A good director can take a meh script and make the movie good, same with acting. So I'd say 45% script, 30% acting, 25% directing.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,953]

27 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Typical liberal reply.  Whole lot of rambling, and fails to answer the question

No shitt. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,953]

It’s cool when Netflix goes back in history and makes all the prominent people black. 

[patweisers44 866]

Ted McGinley

[supermike80 2,111]

40 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Well, I'm not Roger Ebert or a USC film school grad, and you called on me, so piss off.

The answer is, there isn't one, IMO. I think it's silly to just assign a % to what each is worth. But because you're needy, hereyago:

98% script, 1% acting, .5% directing, .5% studio execs. There's your secret formula.

Listen you---if you think the question is silly, then don't answer.  Jeez.  

[Fnord 2,607]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Listen you---if you think the question is silly, then don't answer.  Jeez.  

I answered your question. I just felt like giving you some shlt beforehand.

[TBayXXXVII 2,677]

6 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Wife and I had this discussion last night.   When a movie or TV show is good, what % of that success would you attribute to the writers, actors, and director.

I was thinking 50% writing, and 30% actors and 20% director.

 

@Fnord   You're a movie guy, interested in your take.

Can this be relateable to a football team?

Director = QB: The person in the scrum, calling the shots

Script = HC/OC: The one who puts the game plan together for everyone to follow

Acting = Team: The supporting cast

 

I'll say Director = 70%, Script = 20%, Acting/Cast = 10%  

 

In a sense, that could work towards @Fnord description...

What if your cast is the best part?  I mean, when you look at Nothing But Trouble with Candy, Akroyd, Chase, & Moore, you look and say "How can this movie not be great?", well... it sucked!  But, you could have a movie like anything with Adam Sandler where the script completely sucks, but every movie is hilarious.

I don't really follow specific directors, to be honest.  I watch a trailer, I look at what they're doing, I see where they're going and that tells me if I want to watch it.  I don't care what the movie is about, I don't care who's in it, and I don't care who the director is... just put together something that looks entertaining.