The average movie is vastly more likely to have great photography and great effects than to have a great script. It's not entirely clear why, because visual arts are just as difficult as storytelling.
Show this thread
I suspect it may be that visuals are protected by a high technical barrier to entry and are more likely to be delegated to pure artists, whereas scripts, being by nature more accessible, are subject to various pressures and approval filters from non-artistic decision makers.
-
-
A subtle and pernicious form of the bike shed effect.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think it has more to do with the audience. Great scripts are rarely great to everyone. You exclude audience with every great line because of intellectual frictions. Effects are more universal. Mandalorian s2 is a prime example here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do you think quality of photography/effects is as controversial as quality of a story?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's also about oversight. The people in charge are "story people" and can somewhat ignore criticism and advice. Effects people are hired guns and have to pay attention to all notes received, or else. Effects are always overseen and iterated on, while story only sometimes is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A good story is NP, hard to create but easy to recognize. Good visuals are formulaic and in P.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.