style over substance
- Thread starter teto29
- Start date
Too much style over subtance these days.
If i had to choose it would be substance over style. Why? Zack Snyder vs Michael Cimino. Cimino hands down.
But i always say, why cant we have both? Ppl have done it in the past, they still do (though less)
If i had to choose it would be substance over style. Why? Zack Snyder vs Michael Cimino. Cimino hands down.
But i always say, why cant we have both? Ppl have done it in the past, they still do (though less)
Well I'm just starting out but I would say that style comes with experience. Knowing how to work a camera and where to put it, is all part of style. Substance can be thought up in a story, where as style takes practice. Substance is more important though, so I choose to be that. But that's me.
Last edited:
Both desire time, and practice.
"Substance" is a tangible visual word. It exists. "Style" so it would seem, does not. Already we favour the former. But there's a meeting point, most will say "Style" is within every film-maker. It can't be learnt.
We're in a generation where everything is documented and analysed. "Style" has taken initiative. We now have movies labelled as"Eye-candy". Movies that brandish an often perculiar, or worldly aesthetic. Stunning, but no substance. I don't believe this. I think there's an incredulous amount of naivety in the statement. Those perturbed by the certain "lack of" are being blinded by the "Outlandish Style" they're so hoping to discredit.
So, for me, the lines are blurred. Inevitably, the two will be questioned if one appears more prominent than the other. But it's subjective. Massively.
Can both be learnt? I believe they can.
Would I prefer one over the other? No. I don't think it's possible.
"Substance" is a tangible visual word. It exists. "Style" so it would seem, does not. Already we favour the former. But there's a meeting point, most will say "Style" is within every film-maker. It can't be learnt.
We're in a generation where everything is documented and analysed. "Style" has taken initiative. We now have movies labelled as"Eye-candy". Movies that brandish an often perculiar, or worldly aesthetic. Stunning, but no substance. I don't believe this. I think there's an incredulous amount of naivety in the statement. Those perturbed by the certain "lack of" are being blinded by the "Outlandish Style" they're so hoping to discredit.
So, for me, the lines are blurred. Inevitably, the two will be questioned if one appears more prominent than the other. But it's subjective. Massively.
Can both be learnt? I believe they can.
Would I prefer one over the other? No. I don't think it's possible.
If the Op is asking which one is PREFERENCE, then definitely substance, or at least in equal portions.
If the Op is asking which one each individual is right this moment in their filmmaking career, then I'm definitely style as mentioned. Too often young filmmakers try to add substance and it comes off as pretentious and unfounded. That stuff comes with age.
You don't see many young filmmakers handling content like older, seasoned filmmakers. Lars Von Trier, etc.
I'm great at acting my age in writing, or less than. Haha. So yeah, style, and maybe in ten years more substance I hope!
If the Op is asking which one each individual is right this moment in their filmmaking career, then I'm definitely style as mentioned. Too often young filmmakers try to add substance and it comes off as pretentious and unfounded. That stuff comes with age.
You don't see many young filmmakers handling content like older, seasoned filmmakers. Lars Von Trier, etc.
I'm great at acting my age in writing, or less than. Haha. So yeah, style, and maybe in ten years more substance I hope!
So you're saying if you're young and just starting out, you should choose style over substance? That probably won't go real well at the film festivals for the critics. If you're a young filmmaker trying to break into the business, which script would you choose from to direct, if you had the choice? The Shawshank Redemption or Mortal Kombat? Which is more likely to be better in most audiences?
Last edited:
Everyone's got their own path and I haven't suggested a single thing to anyone. That's just my path.
I realize that an unwatchable movie is an unwatchable movie, no matter how great the content is. So, I focused first on learning how to make something watchable and interesting, and by telling basic stories that everyone understood.
Film Festivals and Critics? Well, the former will take something more competently strung together with less substance over something that's unwatchable but rooted in heaps of substance. And, critics? They don't really dictate sales in any way shape or form.
See: Transformers franchise.
As far as style goes, see Edgar Wright and his path toward "big leagues". I'm not saying he's ALL style, but his style is fairly recognizable and as an auteur, that's part of why he's a recognized and working director. He has his own very distinct style. That's what I believe.
Mortal Kombat, easily. Why? because I understand the content. It's stupid, brainless fun, geared toward my demopgrahic. And, it'll sell. Which means I'll be able to make another movie regardless of how bad it is.
However, Shawshank Redemption is one of my top three favorite movies, right beside GHostbusters and Primer (there're a lot of difference in each). I know for a fact that I cannot handle mature content like Shawshank right now in my life. I am too young and it would come off very pretentious, sappy, or more than likely have the incorrect tone.
Again, though, that's just my path having been doing this for a while. Style is much easier to cultivate than substance, which comes with age.
Last edited:
I think that all filmmakers starting out in the business should be 100% substance over style.
Style suggests that you have an established look and feel to your movies and that is something that you acquire over time and through working out what looks right and what looks crap. If I see a beginner filmmaker talking about how they 'wanted to bring their own style' to their short film I start to smell BS.
Style gets recycled even more than substance. If you focus on the latter you'll, eventually, achieve the former.
Style suggests that you have an established look and feel to your movies and that is something that you acquire over time and through working out what looks right and what looks crap. If I see a beginner filmmaker talking about how they 'wanted to bring their own style' to their short film I start to smell BS.
Style gets recycled even more than substance. If you focus on the latter you'll, eventually, achieve the former.
Oh okay. I'm much better when it comes to substance, and character development. I showed a script to a proofreader, and she said that it was a much more darker, deeper story, and personal struggle for an action film. I wouldn't know how to give it as much style, if I directed it into a film this early in the game, because I have to learn all that, but the substance just came to me when writing. But everyone's different.
Is there such a thing as Substance without Style, and vice-versa?
Every narrative works under a certain Style. Iconography within the Genre. Format. Decades of visuals. Style is the portrayal of Substance, and content.
I can't help but feel the two are within every production.
There is always Substance, whether it's interesting or not, is subjective. But what can't be mistaken is that it will always carry a "Style".
Every narrative works under a certain Style. Iconography within the Genre. Format. Decades of visuals. Style is the portrayal of Substance, and content.
I can't help but feel the two are within every production.
There is always Substance, whether it's interesting or not, is subjective. But what can't be mistaken is that it will always carry a "Style".
Absolutely. To impose one's own way of thinking on everyone else is egotistical, but, most filmmakers are just that! haha. You sort of have to be, anyway, so no harm done. And not saying that YOU did, but most people will when they just start off.
If you talk to producers and directors that are beyond this stage, they'll always tell you to walk your own path and believe in what you do. I've had the privileged to sit down with some pretty great producers and it's always been the same story: do what you want, not what people think you should.
I'm not that good at writing stories that are like Shawshank, and that's what I consider substance. However, material like Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim? That's up my alley (another Wright reference, yes) and to me, they're both great movies, but are slightly unbalanced on style and substance.
I'm okay, as well, if anyone disagrees! That's just my thought.
Substance is the core of a longterm career, indeed. I'm still sort of fresh, so I feel like it's more important to my career to make sure that I can sell what I do. I'll also mention that I started in camera department, so I'm naturally more interested in the visual narrative at this moment, but have been more concerned than ever with a great story after my first feature.
Different paths! =]
Kinda agree here, as well. Perhaps there's a confusion on the general idea of Style? I may be off-base as well, I consider style the culmination of visual and audio in regards to a specific Director and/or Producer.
Which isn't limited to just where to place camera, etc.
I might be wrong, though!? Haha. I oft am.
Some directors do the opposite when they age, and go from substance to style. Robert Rodriguez had bad style on El Mariachi, with poor video and very very poor audio. Yet in in the sequels, he goes for much for style, and throws a lot of substance out the window. But a lot of sequels tend to do that. I'd say concentrate on substance for your movie first, then style. If you are also writing it that is. Some scripts are written without a hint of substance and all style, and there may not be much a director can do to save it.
Last edited:
I think substance can come from watching other movies. Watch Seven and Saw, and you'll see which one has more substance, and get an idea maybe how to get substance going in a stylistic movie.
semantics error.. the two are NOT mutually exclusive. PTP hit it already. What ever you do will have a style, and what ever you do will have substance.
Style is the result of the myriad decisions made along the way in portraying a story. Story is substance.
To illustrate, try this thought experiment:
Imagine the WORST story you've ever seen in a movie, got it? Good..
now... assign your FAVORITE director to make that movie, one limit, your chosen director can not CHANGE THE SCRIPT.
Will the movie\story still suck?
Style is the result of the myriad decisions made along the way in portraying a story. Story is substance.
To illustrate, try this thought experiment:
Imagine the WORST story you've ever seen in a movie, got it? Good..
now... assign your FAVORITE director to make that movie, one limit, your chosen director can not CHANGE THE SCRIPT.
Will the movie\story still suck?