Will content be king? Or will pretty pictures reign supreme?

Michael Anthony Horrigan

Michael Anthony Horrigan

More Cowbell Pictures
Personally, I hope it's a combination of the two. :)

For me though... it has always been about the content. A movie can look beautiful, but if the story doesn't work... it just doesn't matter.

On the other hand.... I find that a movie shot on a cellphone could win as long as the story captivates me.

I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

Luckily in the past we've had some winners that not only looked great, but also had a great story to tell as well!

Cheers,

Mike
 
Well for my sake I sure hope it's content and the teary eye effect ;) can't have too much camera tricks for a doc but I do go crazy with my macro lens for some upclose pics from a yearbook from the 40's
 
well I have a great story if i might say so myself (kinda biased, i wrote it) and descent pictures...so i'll go with story over picture but picture is part of the judging thing
 
I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.

:)

- Mikko
 
As a partial answer to the question, how about looking at the winners of the last four fests. Do you think those were primarily won on frame or story? Don't cop out and say "both" unless you really mean it. I'm truly interested in what people think has been the recipe for success up til now.
 
mikkowilson said:
I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.

:)

- Mikko
Click to expand...
Usually.

Sound is a no-brainer. Unless it's a Silent film.
If people are talking and you can't make out what they're saying... the movie is dead. I assumed that the sound would be there. Now music is something different entirely... but let's stay on track. ;)
 
Mark Johnson said:
As a partial answer to the question, how about looking at the winners of the last four fests. Do you think those were primarily won on frame or story? Don't cop out and say "both" unless you really mean it. I'm truly interested in what people think has been the recipe for success up til now.
Click to expand...
Is it a cop out if I already declared my answer to your question in the first post?? Long before you asked it.


Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Luckily in the past we've had some winners that not only looked great, but also had a great story to tell as well!

Cheers,

Mike
Click to expand...

^ Generally, I believe this has been the case. Especially for first place. Maybe one or two pretty ones slipped in the top 3 on occasion but generally I believe what I said above to be true.

Now, can you answer your own question? Just curious.
 
Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.
 
mikkowilson said:
I find that those who have taken the time to wirte a really good story, generally have no problem producing good pictures AND SOUND to tell it.
Click to expand...
Among our DVXFest entrants, that's pretty much true. But I'd argue that it's not necessary -- look at "Battle At Kruger." Fascinating story, hideous handheld camera work on a home handycam with an onboard mic. But it's just great...

So content trumps pretty pictures!
 
kurtmo said:
Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.
Click to expand...

Great points.

If I may add, it's also nice to have the 'visually appealing' shots be intertwined with the story. For example, if I can cut out a beauty, rack focus, shot on an object, and plot advancement doesn't suffer, then I find it hard to justify keeping the shot in the movie. (but I'll store the clip for my demo reel :) )
 
Last edited:
kurtmo said:
Tell a story - A film has gotta have a point for me or there is no point at all. It needs to tell a story that I or someone else will care about.

Interesting characters - The film needs to have engaging characters that we understand their motivation and care about. In a short this can be a really rough task.

Consistency - The piece needs to make sense. Motives, actions, props, characters and settings need to fit the story. The end result should be a natural consequences/organic feel. Mood fits in here, too.

If it does all the above, then I better be able to hear it well and be visually appealing.
Click to expand...

I might be in trouble, because some of my favorite films don't do these things at all...:)
 
Barry_Green said:
Among our DVXFest entrants, that's pretty much true. But I'd argue that it's not necessary -- look at "Battle At Kruger." Fascinating story, hideous handheld camera work on a home handycam with an onboard mic. But it's just great...

So content trumps pretty pictures!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you there.

The success of YouTube is all that's needed to demonstrate how how much content has on quality.


My comment was more in line with the 'fests though, as that seems to be the topic at hand.

- Mikko
 
Mark Harris said:
I might be in trouble, because some of my favorite films don't do these things at all...:)
Click to expand...

agreed. i'm more likely to vote for the filmmaker that submits a flawed entry, but still expresses their unique point of view, builds its story on a foundation of character, doesn't get caught up in "plot", demonstrates an assured intent for the medium, takes risks, and takes a big dump on the idea of trying to emulate mainstream, hollywood conventions -- something with its own signature, a developing voice.

that being said, i have pretty high expectations for good|sam.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
and takes a big dump on the idea of trying to emulate mainstream, hollywood conventions.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with this more.

I also think that we need more movies that are not always wrapped up in a pretty little bow.
I personally love movies that leave you wondering and asking questions. Movies that leave you to fill in the gaps.

Thankfully... we're seeing a few of those on occasion lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top