What kinds of films do YOU want to make?

[Paul Bruening]

Hey guys,

 

This is probably the worst place to proclaim that cinematography is not as important as story. Fact is, most viewers don't have the first clue about what a DP does or can recognize most of the efforts of a DP. Sure, they can spot cheap when they see it. But, the rest? Well, the image can enhance the impact but it can never save a stinking script, bad direction or hammy actors.

 

At the same time, bad picture can definetly harm any production. A DP must treat his job as if it were the most important aspect. He has to make his best effort. Let the other key people worry about their jobs.

 

My favorite example of story vs. picture is The Gods Must Be Crazy. This movie had "cheap" all over it like white on rice. Yet, it was such a charming story that no viewer noticed or cared.

 

Just a thought.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

This is probably the worst place to proclaim that cinematography is not as important as story.

But is anyone going to disagree? I doubt it.

 

Fact is, most viewers don't have the first clue about what a DP does or can recognize most of the efforts of a DP. Sure, they can spot cheap when they see it. But, the rest? Well, the image can enhance the impact but it can never save a stinking script, bad direction or hammy actors.

Cinematography only helps tell the story better. When you think about it... cinematography is one of the least important aspects of a film.

 

I'm not attacking cinematography (since as I want to become a DP myself) but, honestly, what is the significance of it? I hate to say it as much as you do to hear it.

 

I've found that as long as the cinematography was shot with high quality equipment, i.e. 35mm, and with half a descent camera operator, the story and acting are all that matters.

[Tim J Durham]

But is anyone going to disagree? I doubt it.

Cinematography only helps tell the story better. When you think about it... cinematography is one of the least important aspects of a film.

 

I'm not attacking cinematography (since as I want to become a DP myself) but, honestly, what is the significance of it? I hate to say it as much as you do to hear it.

 

I've found that as long as the cinematography was shot with high quality equipment, i.e. 35mm, and with half a descent camera operator, the story and acting are all that matters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Daniel,

You need to watch "Days of Heaven".

[David Mullen ASC]

The trouble with making gross generalizations is that there are all kinds of films. Some are driven by their sparkling dialogue & performances, some by their intricate plotting, and some by images, music, and sound effects, etc.

 

Saying that cinematography is not as important as story is like saying that the flute player is not as important as the symphony that the composer wrote -- but if the symphony requires a flute solo, then the flute player takes on greater importance!

 

Movies are like symphonies -- of course the writing of the score matters the most, but there are moments when one instrument or another has to take center stage. In a movie, acting & dialogue may take center stage, but there will be moments when the editing, music, cinematography, etc. each step up to carry the themes of the movie for awhile before they step back again.

 

Story matters but the storytelling also matters, and cinematography is an important element in visual storytelling. If story was all that mattered, then an elementary school's production of "Hamlet" would be as good as any professional stage production of that play. Obviously the skill of the people involved in the production will make a difference in the quality of the final experience for the audience. So story matters the most, but it can fail as an audience experience if the storytelling is inadequate. However, which elements in the production matter the most is sort of material dependent. You could get away with shooting "Clerks" in DV today, with lousy production values, but not "2001". But does that mean that "Clerks" is a better story, has a better screenplay? Or just that "2001" gets part of its value from how it was executed? Or "Days of Heaven" for that matter...

 

I remember this same discussion with Denis Lenior, ASC, who said something to the effect "sure, story is important, but don't discount the sensual pleasure of the image as part of what can entertain and emotionally engage the viewer during a movie."

[Mike Lary]

Filmmaking is a visual storytelling process. Claiming that story is more important than cinematography, or vice versa, is ridiculous. No film can be great if either element is lacking. A great story with mediocre or unmotivated cinematography falls short of being a great film - it's just a decent film with a great story. If the story is mediocre, I don't see much difference between watching a film and hearing someone tell me a story, except there are pretty pictures in lieu of hand gestures. In either case I'd rather read a book - if it's a good story, I can appreciate the crafstmanship of the author and let my imagination create the visuals.

[P.W. Shelton]

I think films are a delicate balance of many different elements. Unlike most movie goers though, I think most of us here are much more critical when it comes to movie viewing. The films I personally enjoy the most are the ones that marry all of these elements together and everything just gels. From the Performances, story, camera angles, lighting and direction, all of these things matter to me. One movie I can think of in particular is Carol Reed's The Third Man. The Photography, the acting and especially the music really tie everything together. Even though Orson Welles appears for mere minutes on the screen, I'm mezmerized when he pops up. Having said that, Films don't have to be technically perfect or flashy. For instance I really liked My Dinner With Andre. It won't appeal to everyone but I still love the dialogue and the premise is simple, two friends who haven't seen each other in a long time eat dinner together and that's it, that's the whole movie. I just love the cinema in general, doesn't matter what it is. I love sitting in the dark, waiting, watching the curtains unfold and kicking back and taking it all in.

Edited September 12, 2005 by P.W. Shelton

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I think we're talking about the wrong kinds of film here... I'm talking about the kind you might see an advert for on BBC2, the kind of film teenagers go to see at the cinemas.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Paul Bruening]

Hey guys,

 

I apologize if I stepped on any toes. I never intended to propose that cinematography doesn't matter.

 

My perspective is from never having enough money to get a symphony together in the first place. I am obliged to grade departments in order of greatest effectiveness. That's why I have to put importance on the things I can get the most impact from at the least cost.

 

I agree that truly great movies are great, in large part, to their great cinematography.

[David Gottlieb]

I believe Film is the combination of over a dozen factors, and while Cinematography may especially appeal to most here (including me), for every dull movie with exciting cinematography you can find an amazing movie with minimalistic cinematogrpahy. If the story can hold up, the cinematography can only enahnce it. Very rarely does it distract from the story, but it's almost like comparing Ozu to Kurosawa. Ozu had amazing characters and stories, and almost never moved his camera - it's by no means a negative example of cinematography, but rather a simple and effective minimalistic approach. On the other hand Kurosawa's movies, despite having amazing stories and characters, also had amazingly lush and complex cinematography. Something as simple as walking through the woods in Rashomon becomes an ingeniously choreographed scene, and Ran relies on its striking visuals to compliment its story at every turn, greatly enhancing the story. While an amazing story will be remembered in any format, on film a cinematographer has the chance to make someone not only remember the story but also the visuals that accompany it. The cinematographer is an interpreter, if you will, translating the story to a visual medium and interpreting the director's vision correctly. Watch 'City of God' again if you need a reminder of how memorable cinematography can enhance a story beyond the synopsis you read on websites and into a visual experience. Great cinematography is only fantastic to watch if the story and a host of other things hold up. As important and impacting as it is, it very rarely can hold an entire movie together. The style can overpower the substance (Kill Bill) but not unless the substance can support the style. You could build a mansion, but if it's on a weak foundation, no matter how impressive it may look it won't hold up. It IS essential to the filmmaking process, but I think we should remember its place in the overall process.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I just recently had a long conversation with a good DP friend of mine on this very subject. You always hear that the most important thing is script and direction, the rest can be either bad or good and it won't really matter, and so on.

 

I beg to differ. Name a couple of top directors since the beginning of film history, and you'll see that they were all extreme visualists. Let's see:

 

Orson Welles

Stanley Kubrick

Francis Ford Coppola

Ridley Scott

Alfred Hitchcock

David Fincher

Terence Malick

Steven Spielberg

 

I can think of very few true classics that aren't visually impressive or groundbreaking. As a director you have to maybe not master visuals, but at least be able to have the taste to know which good collborators to use or to tell a bad shot from a good one.

[Tim J Durham]

Name a couple of top directors since the beginning of film history, and you'll see that they were all extreme visualists. Let's see:

 

Orson Welles

Stanley Kubrick

Francis Ford Coppola

Ridley Scott

Alfred Hitchcock

David Fincher

Terence Malick

Steven Spielberg

 

David Fincher?

 

That reminds me of the old Star Trek. Whenever it would be Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty and maybe ensign Schwartz going down to the planet surface you always knew Schwartz wouldn't be making the return trip!

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Hello all,

Maybe I am a bit late for this topic, and I ve read only the last posts here,

But as for the topic's question what kind of films I like to make, my prefferences goes to action, aviation movies (like the aviator, or pearl harbour).

''Speed'' also was something that liked a lot.But I like Spike Lee's cinematography , yes maybe this is something I would have like to do.

Also romantic stories like Malena, or cinema il paradiso.

 

As for the last posts, that have the really old and classic question, script or image?

I have to say that as cinema is an art that contains all the other arts in it, (music, painting, dance, architecture, poetry,acting), wich also means that if you don't have all this ingredients blended and mixed together as a whole, then u will spoil the recipe.

 

It is like watching a movie and say: very nice music!

 

Wich means something didn't worked so well? :) .

Directing all this arts, needs artistic knowledge, experience and guts.

 

Dimtrios koukas

[Adam Frisch FSF]

David Fincher?

 

He's the new Kubrick, didn't you know?

:P

 

No seriously - the man has done two classics already - Fight Club and Seven. That's more than most

directors can hope to acheieve.

[Tim J Durham]

He's the new Kubrick, didn't you know?

:P

 

No seriously - the man has done two classics already - Fight Club and Seven. That's more than most

directors can hope to acheieve.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, ofcourse, and I rather liked "Fight Club" but was it a classic? I think that's a stretch (MY opinion, which is no more valid than any other) and I detested "Seven", so did my wife.

 

"Seven" was the antithesis of entertainment for me which doesn't necessarily then mean that is has no value to other viewers, but then you have to look for some other reason to consider it. Is it some sort of social commentary? I've watched films that were just as depressing but had some social or historical criticism worth listening to- such as "Schindler's List" or "Titicut Follies"- but what might that be with "Seven"?

 

Should I consider it purely as visual art? I didn't enjoy looking at it (to put it mildly) although I thought the opening credit sequence was fascinating right up until I realised what exactly was being shown, then it cascaded downhill. Really, for me, it was like watching maggots devour a dead bird. It nearly made me sick. Do I want to hang that on my wall?

 

I'm no doubt in the minority as far as this film goes having read so many comments here and elsewhere hailing it.

 

But beside all that, there is the opportunity to directly compare Fincher to one other name on your list (who really does belong on that list) and that's Ridley Scott. When "Alien" came out, it was something completely new. Not just the visual style (which was note-perfect) but also the performances from the actors. When, before this film, did you see actors actually realistically SELL the fact that they were confronted by something totally unknown- alien- and it's implications in a realistic way?

 

You can see and feel them come to the realisation of what, exactly, they are up against and the dread builds absolutely. These characters are not the sort of macho automatons from all subsequent "Alien" films. They are fully developed characters with a full range of emotions and reactions and when they start dropping I felt it. This not just a function of a great cast, it is also a director who knows what he's doing. THIS film is a great film and what I'd call a classic. It is the very top of the genre, if you can even contain it within any one genre.

 

Then take a look at "Aliens 3" (I just watched it a week ago) which Fincher directed and it is basically the same film, atleast the same scenario, and isn't even a shadow of the original. The one-dimensional characters are right out of a comic book and from the start there is no suspense because you know they are all meat. The whole thing is window dressing and just made me wish I'd spent the time re-watching the original. Still, it was his first film.

 

He's only made four films so far and I liked two of them. But to put him in THAT company... come on! There are lots of "newer" directors that I'd list above him. I'd put Joel Coen FAR above him among others.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Well, I'm with you on Alien - no quarrel there. But I don't think Alien 3 is a bad movie at all. In fact,

over the years it has grown on me so much that I now consider it better than Aliens. The only truly awful film in that series was the 4th installment. That was horrendous.

 

Well, you're in a minority there when it comes to Seven. What I like about Fincher's movies is that they're sort

of Nietszchean - he just resonates with me about how cynical and power-hungry man is. He has this observational, cold outlook - just like Kubrick had. That's what I like.

 

I'd put Michael Mann there on that list, too. And Friedkin.

[Nate Downes]

Then take a look at "Aliens 3" (I just watched it a week ago) which Fincher directed and it is basically the same film, atleast the same scenario, and isn't even a shadow of the original. The one-dimensional characters are right out of a comic book and from the start there is no suspense because you know they are all meat. The whole thing is window dressing and just made me wish I'd spent the time re-watching the original. Still, it was his first film.

 

Depends which Alien 3 you speak of, the producers cut or the directors cut. I watched the DVD with the directors cut, and was in absolute shock over how restructured it was. While unfinished (there are segments where they never cleaned up the audio, where the fx were rough, etc) it did show a lot of promise over the producers cut, and I've become a real fan of it.

[Guest razerfish]

Story is the master that all else must serve.

 

Someone mentioned the great directors as being "visualists." He failed to mention that many of them were also great writers. I'll take a great writer/director over a great "visualist" any day.

 

Just to hammer home my point. Most Hollywood movies coming out of the studio system are well made. They have good direction, decent acting, the sound is clean and clear, good cinematography, decent production all around. It tends to be a professional product. Yet most movies aren't considered good. Why is that? Because we expect decent production values as a given. We go for the storytelling. That's what we truly judge the film on.

 

And to further beat a dead horse, all of those great directors made a few stinkers. Why? It's not because they were poorly directed. They weren't. It's not because the DP or sound guy messed up. It's because they didn't have a quality story as the foundation, and there's little you can do when your story stinks. I think Spielberg's last three movies (before WotW) have stunk, but they were very well directed. I just didn't like the stories. There are hundreds of examples (thousands really) of good production value movies that aren't considered any good because of the story they told.

 

How many movies that have great cinematography but terrible stories are considered good?

Edited October 23, 2005 by razerfish

[Boone Hudgins]

Story is only a piece of the puzzle like everything else. It's important, but it all adds up. A movie with a great script, but bad actors, flat direction, no visual continuity, and bad splices, would it be watchable? And besides, great scripts are ruined by directors with no vision all the time.

[Guest razerfish]

Story is only a piece of the puzzle like everything else. It's important, but it all adds up. A movie with a great script, but bad actors, flat direction, no visual continuity, and bad splices, would it be watchable? And besides, great scripts are ruined by directors with no vision all the time.

 

Wrong. Story is the puzzle, not a piece. All the rest are pieces of that puzzle. What great scripts were ruined by directors with no vision? Can you be specific? And aren't you making my point by saying this? A bad director ruined a great story. I think that's easily possible. But how many terrible stories have been saved by great direction? I'll argue zilch because they're still terrible stories. Which leads me this conclusion: story is king. Everything must serve the story. You can't take a single "piece" and substiture it in that sentence because it falls apart. You can't say: acting is king. Everything else must serve the acting. Because lots of great acting is done in boring, stiff films. [go see Two for the Money for an example. Pacino acting his heart out on a story that put me to sleep] Hell, porno could be considered good if only you had great actors, right? Not. Same with any other element you might want to put in there. Only "story" works.

 

And on a final note, to paraphrase Woody Allen, "it doesn't matter how good the director is if the script is poor." Truer words were never spoken.

[Boone Hudgins]

I never said that "acting is king." In fact, I believe the movie is king. Whatever best serves the movie is important, and that's usually more than one thing. "Good story" is subjective anyway. Your script can have perfect structure, the most satisfying ending, every scene a classic, and the most beautifully eloquent dialog ever printed, but that may not work with the tone of the movie. If you read the script to Seven and say, "This is amazing; this is the best comedy I've ever read," great story, but great for the movie? Sure, story is crucial, but so are visuals, otherwise we may as well be reading or listening to the radio (both of which are great media, but have different needs). The idea isn't that great direction can cover bad storytelling, but that it's entirely possible for them both to be top notch, so why not try for that? Why sacrifice direction for story when you can have both. It is possible. And you only have to look Mr. Frisch's list to see a group of directors that have done well as visual storytellers, few supposed "bad eggs" notwithstanding. And by the term visual storytellers, I mean people who can tell a story visually, not concentrating on the visuals to tell the whole stories.

 

An example of a good story turned bad movie recently would be Suspect Zero. The original screenplay was very well received by some that read it, but it had all of these ideas tacked on to it that just made it silly. What started out as a very tight procedural thriller suddenly had all of these "twists" thrown into the mix in an attempt to make a better story, but it didn't work. It was good because it was simple, but it became overwrought in its cleverness because "it was a better story." At this point, one has to ask the question, what is this nondescript word "story" referring to? Is it the script? Is it the concept? Is it the hook (that piece of the movie that fits in the tagline?) Plenty of unwatchable movies have had an interesting plot gimmick, and plenty of good writers have turned out some pretty horrible stuff--and it's usually not their fault--and it's not always an attempt to serve the visuals.

 

One only has to read the book Monster: Living Off the Big Screen by John Gregory Dunne to learn how a very interesting story about Jessica Savitch was turned into the movie Up Close and Personal, which was not a great movie from a writing, directing, or acting standpoint.

 

And the biggest upset of all is The Great Gatsby, which I believe to be one of the greatest stories written, but has been turned into at least two flaccid, worthless movies. The 70s version apparently even had a nice script written by Francis Ford Coppola, and was fairly close to the novel admittedly, but was directed with no visual flair (and way too many wannabe literary visual symbolism) by Jack Clayton, and was acted flat and off-key by Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. A great story that has yet to become a great movie after 80+ years.

[Mark Allen]

I would like to direct an epic fantasy film.

 

I have a science fiction trilogy (from which I borrowed a lot of the feeling from for the little short I directed www.leastlikely.com) it has a story like lord of the rings (has nothing to do with "least likely").

 

But for as many meetings I've had with different studios this year, it looks like my first film will actually be an indie which is in the horror genre - but not the slasher type.... more like "The thing" with less gore.

 

I also feel like I could do a good "Jacob's Ladder" style movie with bending reality. And I have one project being considered by a studio which is a movie like American Beauty. I wrote it over 10 years, it's very personal yet... has a bit of a genre throughline.

 

I don't mind genre movies though. I think the genre can act as a vehicle and whoever you are comes out in the the interactions between characters. this isn't usually how they are done though... but they could be. Hitchcock was great at using the genre as a medium for his communication.

 

A note about silence in movies. I was on the cover of DV magazine many years ago because of a little project caled "The Shapemaker." Because of the cover I got some meetings - but the movie has no dialogue - it's set in a future where fear of punishement has led people to stop expressing verbally at all. Well, that seemed cool to me and made the movie very visual - but every meeting I had ended with "Can't they just say a few words?"

 

This entire last year while I was being sent to meet studio execs by my manager, he wouldn't even let me talk about this project. :)

 

But after I have a couple hit films... just you wait... The Shapemaker will come to life. :ph34r:

[Mark Allen]

Story is only a piece of the puzzle

 

I think story is a part of everything. When you think of every aspect of what you're creating, you are thinking "What is the story there?"

 

When you are talking to your set decorator and she's asking you what you want want for this living room shot. You have to think about the story... what are you conveying about these people? Who lives here? How does where they live tell their story? When a prop maker is distressing a hero prop, he's doing it because it tells the story about the character who is using it.

 

I believe as a director your job is to know how to share the core story and break it down for every moment for everyone who needs to know (including the cinematographer) such that each of these people can understand the purpose of this moment and then bring their skills to the table to help you convey the story of this moment which builds to tell the story of this scene which is a block of the story of the movie.

 

The story is where the drama is and the drama is where desire is.

 

 

Now, when I was starting out just out of college I had this crazy idea that I wanted to make movies without stories. Just visuals - a montage of images. I'm not sure why I was so story-rebellious, but it really hindered me for a few years. It may have been my own insecurity and fear of not being able to tell as good a story as someone else. I actually did sell one script in that time but I labled it "Hollywood" and almost scoffed at people's interest in it. Well, eventually, I realized what story meant in a different way - and in a way that meant something to me. I realized that everything I wanted to do with movies WAS telling story - even if it was just a montage of images - those images and their juxtoposition were going to tell a story. Story is hardwired into our brain. That's why we have dreams - we're making stories out of flashes of memories and thoughts.

 

If anone is interested in waxing philosophic about story in cinema, I actually have a little discussion group about story here: cinemastory.tribe.net if anyone is interested in chatting about story there. It's not heavy in traffic, but it is very specific in purpose.

[Wendell_Greene]

"With a good script, a good director can produce a masterpiece. With the same script, a mediocre director can produce a passable film. But with a bad script even a good director can't possibly make a good film. For truly cinematic expression, the camera and the microphone must be able to cross both fire and water. The script must be something that has the power to do this" - Akira Kurosawa

[Boone Hudgins]

I just want to make it clear that I do not believe that story isn't important. You can look at anything I write and see that writing is important to me. But it never ends at the story; the story is the beginning. The story is the acorn, and the completed film is the sprawling oak. Great writing, great directing, great cinematography, great sound design, great editing, and the like, should be able to all come together to make a great film. It's at that point that one aspect of filmmaking becomes as important as another.

 

A good script is the best place to start, no doubt, but you can't underestimate the hands it goes through before it gets to the screen. A cinematographer or editor or actor can be a storyteller, even if he had nothing to do with the writing of the script, because the masses don't go buy the screenplay, they go watch the movie. I very much like that Kurosawa quote (a man that most likely forgot more about filmmaking than I'll ever know), because it reminds you that a great script with a mediocre director (and more) cannot produce that masterpiece.

 

Now after all this talk, I feel as though I have to go out and actually be great. Dang.

[Guest razerfish]

I never said that "acting is king." In fact, I believe the movie is king. Whatever best serves the movie is important, and that's usually more than one thing. "Good story" is subjective anyway. Your script can have perfect structure, the most satisfying ending, every scene a classic, and the most beautifully eloquent dialog ever printed, but that may not work with the tone of the movie. If you read the script to Seven and say, "This is amazing; this is the best comedy I've ever read," great story, but great for the movie? Sure, story is crucial, but so are visuals, otherwise we may as well be reading or listening to the radio (both of which are great media, but have different needs). The idea isn't that great direction can cover bad storytelling, but that it's entirely possible for them both to be top notch, so why not try for that? Why sacrifice direction for story when you can have both. It is possible. And you only have to look Mr. Frisch's list to see a group of directors that have done well as visual storytellers, few supposed "bad eggs" notwithstanding. And by the term visual storytellers, I mean people who can tell a story visually, not concentrating on the visuals to tell the whole stories.

 

An example of a good story turned bad movie recently would be Suspect Zero. The original screenplay was very well received by some that read it, but it had all of these ideas tacked on to it that just made it silly. What started out as a very tight procedural thriller suddenly had all of these "twists" thrown into the mix in an attempt to make a better story, but it didn't work. It was good because it was simple, but it became overwrought in its cleverness because "it was a better story." At this point, one has to ask the question, what is this nondescript word "story" referring to? Is it the script? Is it the concept? Is it the hook (that piece of the movie that fits in the tagline?) Plenty of unwatchable movies have had an interesting plot gimmick, and plenty of good writers have turned out some pretty horrible stuff--and it's usually not their fault--and it's not always an attempt to serve the visuals.

 

One only has to read the book Monster: Living Off the Big Screen by John Gregory Dunne to learn how a very interesting story about Jessica Savitch was turned into the movie Up Close and Personal, which was not a great movie from a writing, directing, or acting standpoint.

 

And the biggest upset of all is The Great Gatsby, which I believe to be one of the greatest stories written, but has been turned into at least two flaccid, worthless movies. The 70s version apparently even had a nice script written by Francis Ford Coppola, and was fairly close to the novel admittedly, but was directed with no visual flair (and way too many wannabe literary visual symbolism) by Jack Clayton, and was acted flat and off-key by Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. A great story that has yet to become a great movie after 80+ years.

 

You're contradicting yourself at every turn. Suspect Zero isn't a very interesting story. Apparently, you feel, that it was at some point, but after it was re-written? someone re-imagined?, it became a big mess. That tells me you don't think it's a good story. Perhaps the original script was good in your opinion, but it was changed and screwed up along the way. Happens all the time.

 

Catwoman and Electra have strong visuals, great sound, good production value, yet they stink as movies. Why? Because the stories at their core are boring, trite, stupid. And Catwoman was written by the guys who wrote The Game, one of the best thrillers in the last 10 years, IMO. Halle Berry won an Oscar a few years earlier, so we have to assume she can act, yet the movie is terrible. Could more visuals have saved it? No. What about the acting? As I said, Halle Berry is an Oscar winner. What could have saved it then? Production design? Nope. Costumes? No, they had a nifty costume. What about sound? Nope, sound was professional. The cinematography? The DP also did The Fifth Element, not exactly an amateur I'd say. Nope, that wasn't it. How about the story? Bingo. If the story was good in the first place, at least it had a shot. A better story could have saved it. None of the other elements except "story" could have saved that turd.

 

All of those other elements contribute, and some can destroy, or elevate, to a degree, but without the foundation of a good story, it's like shuffling chairs on the Titanic. Thinking otherwise is folly.