Poll: Which is better?

[tigermilk]

Can't I just have mediocre groups of both? Y'know, like 90% of Hollywood?

90% of Hollywood films have medicore scripts, really? Good answer though.

OT: I would rather a good script to be honest.

 

[Kaymish]

yea good script that way no matter how bad the actors are you are eventually going to get a sequel with a bigger budget right and im not sure even the worst armature can ham up a seller script too badly given enough takes and some half way decent editing by the producer (me)

 

[Conza]

Ooo, its close! I'd say good actors though, they are what the audience knows the work through, and generally, I'd just veto bad screen plays and writting and add better ones myself, and as a director/producer, film makers often do that.

 

[kasperbbs]

Neither? Well perhaps i could forgive a comedy with good funny actors and a bad script, since most comedies are like that anyway.

 

[MindBullets]

A bad script can be tolerable, or even entertaining, if it's presented well enough, through acting, music, CGI, whatever. Doesn't make it a great film, but it's better than the alternative.

Hell, look at Avatar. Plot was nothing special but it was still fun to watch because of how immersive and impressive it was.

 

[Brandon237]

A bad script is beyond help. A crap story is no fun! Even action movies need something to keep it going. Spiderman 3, despite having good (or decent at least) action, was a snore-fest. I almost fell asleep.

Good script, bad actors. Most actors aren't great in lower budget films anyway

 

[Chewster]

Neither because both result in mediocrity, otherwise known as James Cameron.

That's right, I went there.

 

[Trivun]

Hah, I can beat this thread, and you can do absolutely nothing to stop me, because that would mean disallowing my own real skills, which wouldn't be realistic. I happen to be a pretty good writer, particularly of dialogue, and I'm also something of a filmmaker myself. So I'd simply hire good actors, and write the script myself, which means we get good actors AND a good script. And as far as costs go, I'd be happy to do it for free assuming I'm still being paid my director/producer/whatever-I'm-doing salary...

 

[icyneesan]

Good script writers. My porno demands it.

 

[Shirokurou]

Neither...

 

[Marter]

Bad script + good actors = Camp film.

Good script + bad actors = So much wasted potential.

The former wins, in my eyes.

 

[kurupt87]

Bad script + good actors = Camp film.

Good script + bad actors = So much wasted potential.

The former wins, in my eyes.

I was having trouble putting that into words but, yes this.

Note to self, do not forget the power of literary equations.

 

[Slipped Mind]

I went for bad script, good actors. Mostly because I love a good bad movie. If the movie could be good, but the acting lets it down, everyone's just in for nothing but horrific disappointment. However, if the acting is good but the script is bad, it can make for a good bad movie. Some are quite hilarious.

 

[standokan]

I hate it when actors F up a good story, though I like it when actors make the initially bad story look better.

 

[veloper]

I read it as bad script/good acting.

Good actors can ofcourse fall flat on their faces with a terrible script, but then many (most) entertaining movies already have bad to mediocre scripts.

 

[Octopusesgarden]

Well let's see, I like good actors/bad script. But I also like bad actors/good script. But which is better? There's only one way to find out....FIIIIIGHT!

Look up harry hill if you don't get it.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I would probably prefer the good script/bad actors thing really, unless the actors were truly awful.