Writing vs. Visuals

Which one do you think is more important, and why?

is this thread kino?

writing for adults, visuals for kids

You'll probably have better luck at Reddit.

Visuals.


> The Mona Lisa and Starry Night are for kids.

writing - for layman plebs

visuals - patricians with a firm understanding of mise en scene

>are visuals more important in a visual medium

What do you think?

it depends on what you're trying to make

take any other retarded questions to reddit please

Visuals for fun, writing for boring important DRAMA.

What are you trying to convey?

That's a false equivalency. The Mona Lisa and Starry Night are paintings, filmography is a storytelling art.

>mise en scene
I've read about this several times, and I still don't understand what it means.

What should the distinction be?

Mise en scène means the arrangement of scenery, props etc.

Not that guy, but as a rough outline: writing for ideas, visuals for emotions.

there is no one unilateral distinction, and even "should" is problematic. situational/10 senpai.

its art. i think you're doing too much thinking with the wrong ideas about how to go about this, and not enough feeling and understanding.

watch more and live a little. you'll know.

I don't see what's special about that, but maybe I haven't seen any movies with good mise en scene.

The main thing is symbolism.

It's a schmancy way of saying the feel of the shot.

I can agree with this.

>watch more
What would you suggest? I just finished Eraserhead.

See, I have a lot of trouble with deciphering symbolism.
Maybe I'm not cultured enough because I never pick it up unless it's stupidly obvious, like Man of Steel.

The feel? You mean the emotion a scene evokes?
I'm not good at picking up social cues very well so it's all lost on me.

fair enough. I mistook op's meaning. Shitty cgi instead of good writing appeals more to kids was my point

baudrillard pls lol

thought about giving you a small list that would move around the spectrum (its not so 2d btw, obviously. you cant just lock in on visuals/writing and ignore editting, pacing, performances, sound, etc.. cmon now.) but desu you could probably watch this trilogy and get most of the way there. all great for slightly different reasons.

Should I watch this whole thing in order?
I was just going to watch In The Mood For Love, which I already have downloaded.
And you're right, performance and pacing is very important too.

>not knowing Sup Forums is reddit for 4 years now

you should, but you don't have to to get the general idea/thrust of each, which is part of the brilliance imo especially since they are all not the same, although the themes are similar and there is overlap; the weight and importance is shifted.

itmfl is great and a technical masterpiece with a lot of clever shit, but 2046 is way more ambitious and existential in form, style, subtext, etc. days is a good movie too but kinda pales in comparison, it sets up pieces that get used later very well though.

If you can achieve the intended message or effect of a scene with visuals alone, then I think you should do it, but it really depends what is being made. I would ask myself what being a film uniquely offers the work I'm trying to create.

Strong writing is important too, but well written films usually know when to restrain themselves on the word count. Show, don't tell etc. etc.

Alright, man, thank you.
And you think this well help me understand/appreciate visuals more?

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
this is exactly what i needed to read, user, thank you.
Deep down I knew this, but it didn't really click until reading your post.

bump

At least in terms of short films, writing every time. Did anyone see Thunder Road? Best short film I've seen in a while, simple look but great writing and acting. Works wonders. i'm not the writer/director i swear

>Thunder Road
What's it about?

>filmography is a storytelling art
Nice fucking meme. Cinema has many more elements to it. I had to learn overviews of entire national histories just so I could understand movies.

Not just emotion. The sense of time period. The aura of luxury, business, military, home, etc.

Writing is important but it all depends on the director's skills, you can have the best script in the world and still have a shit movie out of it if the director is someone like Zack Snyder.

its a full circle really
>visuals for plebs
>writing for pseudopatricians
>visuals for actual patricians

i know its only been like 2 seconds but fuck it.

underrated post. so, so fucking true.

its a little simplistic to put it that way. As what really matters is the ability of the filmmaker.

Both are equally important if you really want to win the Best Picture award or even come close to being remembered.

However, without a good story, the movie will flop in general. Its like reading a good book. You don't need pictures. If the book is good, it will provide you enough detail about the world and its surrounding for you to visualize. So in a nutshell, a movie is only as good as its story because a movie is essentially a visual take on the story itself. Without a good story, it will only be images without meaning.

Writing is always more important. Good writing + good visuals = classic. Good writing + bad visuals = theatre. Bad writing + good visuals = Nicolas Refn.

Writing, and the atmosphere complements the translation.