Film is a visual medium

>film is a visual medium

WRONG

Film is a storytelling medium. You can't name a single good film that has good visuals and a shitty plot.

Mad Max Fury Road

The holy mountain, the cell, videodrome...

I said "good film"

>You can't name a single good film that has good visuals and a shitty plot.

Beyond the Black Rainbow

Also story and plot are two different things, but both are a part of "storytelling"

michael bays career

...

Even if you're a narrative-fag, characters matter more than plot. The point of plot is just to reveal character.

kek

Holy Mountain has a lot to say.

Have you ever considered that maybe you're just a little too stupid for such films?

Neon Demon

...

Samsara

pleb
pleb^2

I'm actually glad you said that. This board's obsession with The Neon Demon and Batman vs. Superman are two excellent examples of the alleged "patricians" who care about visuals more than plot being completely wrong and totally idiotic. Because both of those movies are garbage.

Videodrome rules. Explain why it has a bad plot? The main characters dissent into madness is paced so well, i felt intrigued the whole time.

Batman V Superman had terrible visuals

wew lad

or even better, Baraka

checkmate atheists

Koyaanisqatsi

Yeah gotta dissociate yourself from those sane people

Only God Forgives, Prometheus.

Un Chien Andalou
Russian Ark
Man with a Movie Camera

Visuals aid in the storytelling.
Great cinematography is like reading a book where the author is excellent at being descriptive of the settings.

Yeah I bet you listen to podcasts for the sound effects too

Not 'completely wrong and idiotic'. Some people 'need' strong characters and premiere-kino dialogue to bond with a film, while strong visuals and/or music speak to the more visualo-spacialism/autistic-minded.

That is why some people watch Movie A and say "This is shit", while others say "this frame composition speaks volumes about Moby Dick and the Tetragammaton."

>Film is a storytelling medium.

What a narrative fueled plebeian you are, I bet you like to argue about literal plot points thinking that you are "discussing" a film.

Also there is a difference between the written and visual narrative.
The visual narrative is the most important element, the narrative told through framing, composition and performances, where the written narrative should just be used as a device to deliver those images.

Perfect example for that is any film by Tarkovsky, the focus is practically entirely on the visual narrative and the plot is just a tool for the visuals.

2001: A Space Odyssey, considered as one of the greatest films of all time, has almost no expository dialogue and the majority of the movie is exclusively visuals and audio with no hard written narrative.
The movie simply couldn't work without those exact images and cuts between them.

All in all, the written narrative is just one filmmaking element of a whole and a film simply can't work if the other elements are ignored.

Nice troll thread, dipshit.
As if anyone can actually be this ignorant.

A movie without a strong plot but great execution of all the other elements (recent examples would be Fury Road, Sicario, Revenant) can still be quality films where movies with a strong plot but bad execution of all the other filmmaking elements (for example The Man From Earth) simply can't be quality films, no matter how "deep" the plot is.

If all you have is a good story, why would you make a film? Shouldn't that be a book then?

Huh. How about Koyaanisqatsi? Wouldn't say it's a shitty plot, but the story is driven entirely by the visuals.

Chronos.

Not sure if you're a troll or an intelligent pleb who is trying to form all his opinions about film based solely on exposure to pop culture.