If film is a visual medium, then why do most people prioritize writing and characters?

If film is a visual medium, then why do most people prioritize writing and characters?

dumb frogposter with feces for brains

Talkies ruined this format.

Film is the natural evolution of theatrical plays, which heavily relied on great actors and characterization.

because people who dont have autism like to engage with human characters in various emotional situations.

because you need to activate the audience's visual/aural/social/emotional almonds

forgot pic

...

I know a lot of the fucks here are gonna get mad at you for posting a frog and using such provocative wording to piss off people instead of sincerely trying to start discussion, but your question is absolutely relevant.

People focus on character performances because it's the most familiar element: it's what you do as a human, read others' expressions and analyse the tone of their voice to figure out what they're feeling and respond in an appropriate manner. Unsurprisingly, hack directors who make garbage use closeups of crying actors as a crutch because that's the only way they know how to evoke emotion in the audience. The visual language of film goes to waste on this idiots.

have you met the plebs that still go see blockbusters in theaters? these people need all motivation and story spelled out to them in the the most clear and concise phrasing. otherwise they begin to reject whats onscreen and will go on to tell people that "oh it was boring."

summer blockbusters and capeshit really are a blight on film. pandering to the masses has put the medium in a state of entropy

...

Because people are massive turbo plebs.

Because they watch 2 GB YIFI rips on their uncalibrated 21" monitors.

>black shirt changes to blue
immersion ruined

lel

>It's a bad movie
>Why?
>There was a plot hole

Because "most people" don't understand a thing about editing, production design, color grading, set pieces, framing and composition etc

It's much easier for a normie to discuss the narrative because it's the only thing they can form actual sentences about (though most of the discussion is just about the logical order of things or is it plausible in real life, which has little to do with the quality of a script)
Maybe they will say "it looked pretty" or "that was directed well" and that's it, without actually being conscious of what exactly was the reason why it looked good to them in the first place.

That's why most arthouse movies are denied by the public because "most people" can't comprehend a visual experience on it's own.
They need the convenient linear real world progression in a movie to be able to enjoy a movie as it is.

You shouldn't prioritize one above the other, a good director should know how to balance the visuals with the writing, unless he's a pleb like Hack Snyder.

Because it's most people.
Most people are only capable of surface level comprehension in whatever medium.

Most people don't talk about chord progressions or the production itself when listening to music, they talk about the lyrics and maybe "a cool riff" and that's it.

>it's a bad movie
>Why?
>it was boring

dropped

100% this

This, also why normies are obsessed with "twists" and if they predicted them or not, as if it's hard to predict a fictional movie. See: all the redditors on this very board.

>without actually being conscious of what exactly was the reason why it looked good to them in the first place.
There's nothing wrong with this though.