Should you judge movies based on visuals or story?

The fact that Avatar just won best drama at the Golden Globes got me thinking: what defines a great movie? Is it the spectacular visual effects and cinematography, or should a movie also have an original and engaging story? Personally, I felt Avatar was really lacking in the story department, but was revolutionary when it came to CGI. I think you could argue that Cameron has really advanced filmmaking from a visual standpoint. That being said, I'm not sure that's enough to warrant a best movie nomination.

Just curious what others think. I can completely see the argument that in a visual medium, style can be just as important as substance. Then again, as an aspiring writer and a bit of a bookworm, I personally find story to be one of the most important things I look for in a great film.

I judge only based on story.
Eye-candy is nice of course but with no story behind it then it has no meaning.

I couldnt really say, but then again, movies MUST have a plot besides nice visuals, you cant just bump a movie using special effects. Check how the original star wars trilogy had much more succes even in its rusty effects than the amazing head crushing battles of episode 2 and 3.

Check that review on episode 1 that was posted on a thread right here, its funny and true.

Originally Posted by ALZU

I couldnt really say, but then again, movies MUST have a plot besides nice visuals, you cant just bump a movie using special effects. Check how the original star wars trilogy had much more succes even in its rusty effects than the amazing head crushing battles of episode 2 and 3.

Check that review on episode 1 that was posted on a thread right here, its funny and true.

LOL, yeah those reviews are hilarious and I've responded to that thread.

But let me play devil's advocate. In some ways, Avatar is a revolutionary film visually speaking. I now have some idea what it must have felt like to see the first "talkie" or first film in color.

Or, compare filmmaking to another visual medium like painting. I'm not a huge fan of Picasso, but I do respect him for creating an entirely new style of art.

Picasso is art?.... nnot by my standards but anywho. On topic, take Citizen Kane for example, lauded as the best movie of ALL TIME, OF ALL TIME! (had to do that) when I saw it I found the story to be completely predictable and well, nothing new really. However the camera direction,the acting and the direction made it a great movie in my book.

Originally Posted by JerichoOnlyFan

when I saw it I found the story to be completely predictable and well, nothing new really.

I take it you watched it in 1941.

Story.
What the point of a movie if it got no story.

No, I saw it in 2004, hopin go to be mindblowed by an epic story which I found to be common at its best. Great movie tough.

Well yeah, my point is that you can't watch a movie 60 years after it was made and knock it for a "done before" story, not even beginning to grasp how many movies it inspired since then.

They're both important.

I judge both depending on which is best.

For example, I liked 2012 (all visuals, piss-poor story) but also like old, pre-animation or digitalisation films which by necessity focus on story, and I further like things such as Tarantino which are ofcourse ridiculously story-based.

Oh well, I dont know how were the movies before, but it wouldnt be fair if I judged it how it was back in the days. I can only judge it in my own environment, which is kinda sad actually. Anywho, we must remember a balance between looks and story, I would like to bring forward Spirited Away, an anime movie that mixes both of this elements in a beautiful way.

Jericho, you really do have to take a movie and judge it within the context of when it was made.

Of course you were underwhelmed. How many movies have a non_linear narrative plot? How have come out following a character that you sort of have to put the pieces together yourself? How many with deep focus photography? How many have copied the crane shot in through the skylight? ALL of these examples were brand new when the movie first came out. I mean, until Citizen Kane, all non-linear films were mostly of an avantgard or expressionist nature. Well's was the first to use it to tell a full story. And the fact that he was able to do it an not create something utterly confusing speaks volumes for his success.

It still hold plenty of water in a story telling sense. I mean, the whole breakfast sequence where you see the table get longer and longer to reflect the distance in their relationship. The way the movie is shot does as much to tell the story as anything. Also, the script and story in superb. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what Rosebud is, a giant McGuffin by the way, and your learning the life of this very misunderstood man through the stories told by others. And, in the end, its still left up to the audience to decide who Kane was.

With the glaring exception that there is no way the nurse could have heard what Kane's final words were, the movie is told in a nearly perfect way. And more so, the fact that its so copied (remember, it was the first in many ground breaking ways) shows just how influential the movie really was.

As for the OP, I think story is key, but you also need good characters. If no one cares about the character, then no matter how good the story is, your going to lose your audience. Something like 12 Angry Men I think is a good example. Just 12 guys in a room trying to decide if a man is guilty or innocent. You never meet the accused in any real way, and the story is simple, do they vote guilty or not. What makes it intriguing in the strong characters that you want to see how they react effect each other. There's nothing visually amazing by that movie, the cinematography is average, but I find it riveting.

Yes I mentioned that it amazed me on the technical effects and camera effects, and acting, directing and what not, yet however if we see things only on it´s context how can it be named best of all time? I personally love the scene that its seen through a crystal ball, I love it, and yet the story didnt blew me away. Acting great, visuals great, directing awesome, techniques uber awesome, and yet I was disappointed by the story.

Jericho: Fair enough. Just needed to point out that what it was doing was indeed ground breaking and not 'common' when it was made.

I will grant the fact that, after 60 years, there may be films that now exist that may bump it from the 'best of all time' standing. However, it is still a pivotal film the pantheon of films that have led us to modern story telling. I just get a little crotchety I suppose since i went to film school and remember working in a video store in the late 91' and having a couple of kids tell me that they refused to see Alien because it was an old 70's movie. Many younger viewers don't like Alien honestly because its slow and you never see the monster and that sort of story telling has been done before. When, just like Psycho, it had people on the edge of their seats and terrified when it first came out.

I mean, my friends and I always say, 'Man, wonder what the people who ran out of the theater during the train movie would think of this?' Meaning, our expectations and observations change as we experience more. So, we must always judge a movie, and its place as 'the best' by when it came out.

Regardless, and i do tend to ramble, a good story is timeless, just look at the old Chaplin silent films like, The Kid, or movies like 'Casablanca'.

Oh the Kid, now we are talking, awesomeness, and Casablanca its just a movie that I always enjoy watching. Both great movies. And timeless as you said it.
I would like to mention Early Disney, some of their movies had a great marriage between animation and history.

Can a movie be great without a stunning story? No.
Can a movie be great if it's not visually stunning? Yes.

I'll always judge movies on story first. There are a billion movies out there that have good graphics, but graphics alone is boring. If I want graphics, I can just play my XBOX 360, and even on that developers often put a lot of effort into the storytelling.

Avatar won because of the hype, the epic, the director, and the amazing visuals. It goes to show that storytelling is prized less and less.

Hollywood just loves the big event movie. Story doesn't matter as long as it's big drama with romance and action. They love cliches and Cameron is a master at utilizing them to create these big event movies. The same way they circle jerked over Titanic 12 years ago they will do now with Avatar.

As a fan of Gilliam and Jarmusch, I'm think I'm obliged to say that storytelling is overrated

That's not to say I'm a big fan of gimmicks like Avatar, far from it. Graphics and visuals are two different things.

There's particular aspects of the film medium that you can exploit, some of which are visual-oriented and some of which are narrative-oriented. To name a few: non-linear narratives, immersive as well as contrived visual environments, different camera perspectives and unannounced plot elements, rapid change in musical and visual cues, and plain human expression. If the unique qualities of the film medium are not being exploited properly, you might have a great story, but that alone will not make a great film.

A monologue from Jarmusch's latest:

Are you interested in films, by any chance? I like really old films. You can really see what the world looked like, thirty, fifty, a hundred years ago. You know the clothes, the telephones, the trains, the way people smoked cigarettes, the little details of life. The best films are like dreams you're never sure you've really had. I have this image in my head of a room full of sand. And a bird flies towards me, and dips its wing into the sand. And I honestly have no idea whether this image came from a dream, or a film. Sometimes I like it in films when people just sit there, not saying anything.

A nice ballance between visuals and story is allways nice, but I can be entertained by "90% special effects/9% female eye candy/1% story and acting" movies