supermike80 2,112 Posted yesterday at 11:43 AM 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Fantasy 92 Posted 23 hours ago 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fnord 2,611 Posted 21 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,671 Posted 20 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 3,382 Posted 20 hours ago Many variables to the question, each their own, could be the story, could be the acting, could be the the scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 2,112 Posted 19 hours ago 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 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 19 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fnord 2,611 Posted 19 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fnord 2,611 Posted 19 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,956 Posted 19 hours ago 27 minutes ago, supermike80 said: Typical liberal reply. Whole lot of rambling, and fails to answer the question No shitt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,956 Posted 19 hours ago It’s cool when Netflix goes back in history and makes all the prominent people black. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 2,112 Posted 18 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fnord 2,611 Posted 18 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TBayXXXVII 2,677 Posted 18 hours ago 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,348 Posted 12 hours ago 11 hours ago, MikeMatt said: 100% boobs You must think the geek club is amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,348 Posted 12 hours ago The mist important thing is that one of the characters has lots of caffeine and starts screaming about Lake Titicaca. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,956 Posted 12 hours ago Landman season two sucks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 10 hours ago 1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Landman season two sucks Eh. Episode 3 showed promise. Ep 01and Ep 02 were terrible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,956 Posted 10 hours ago 1 minute ago, MikeMatt said: Eh. Episode 3 showed promise. Ep 01and Ep 02 were terrible The unpredictable has become predictable. And the music sucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 2,112 Posted 10 hours ago 9 minutes ago, MikeMatt said: Eh. Episode 3 showed promise. Ep 01and Ep 02 were terrible Yeah. Agreed with HT on the first 2 but ep 3 was mo bettah 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,956 Posted 10 hours ago 10 minutes ago, supermike80 said: Yeah. Agreed with HT on the first 2 but ep 3 was mo bettah The crazy wife act is played out. It’s just a diffent version of Beth from Yellowstone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,465 Posted 10 hours ago A good plot. AI: A good plot requires a strong narrative structure with five key parts: exposition (introducing characters and conflict), rising action (building tension and complications), climax (the highest point of intensity and turning point), falling action (conflicts begin to resolve), and resolution (tying up loose ends and concluding the story). Other essential elements include compelling characters, engaging conflict, and an immersive setting that all work together to create an emotional connection for the reader. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,501 Posted 10 hours ago Vince Gilligan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 9 hours ago 1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said: The unpredictable has become predictable. And the music sucks. Yes and yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 9 hours ago 1 hour ago, edjr said: titties My man pots and pans Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 9 hours ago 58 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: The crazy wife act is played out. It’s just a diffent version of Beth from Yellowstone. It really is played out. Show would be so much better without the two bimbos. I never saw Yellowstone but that’s what I’ve read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 9 hours ago 48 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said: Vince Gilligan. Not same realm as Breaking Bad. Not yet and I don’t see it happening. Had potential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,501 Posted 9 hours ago 1 minute ago, MikeMatt said: Not same realm as Breaking Bad. Not yet and I don’t see it happening. Had potential. I'm currently watching Better Call Saul-haven't checked out his new one. But BB and BCS are some of the best television ever made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,671 Posted 7 hours ago The prize from the backside Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeMatt 448 Posted 7 hours ago 2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said: I'm currently watching Better Call Saul-haven't checked out his new one. But BB and BCS are some of the best television ever made. Ive been meaning to watch Better Call Saul just haven’t gotten around to it. Going to start one of the Dexter reboots next. Now that im up to date with Landman. Week to week which I hate doing. Usually wait and binge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
supermike80 2,112 Posted 1 hour ago 8 hours ago, MikeMatt said: It really is played out. Show would be so much better without the two bimbos. I never saw Yellowstone but that’s what I’ve read. Yeah but the daughter is hotttttttt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites