I suspect your all right to one degree or another. If all the production components, scripts, actors, camera, ect. is top notch then is easy to make a good film. If one has weak spots here and there then the others can make up for it.
I also suspect that if you don't have a good script to start with then the others don't have anything to work with or the means to make up for it.
Weaknesses can be hidden if there are enough strengths to fill in the void.
Maurice Navidad wrote:
It's never "easy" to make a good film. You can trainwreck it at any stage. If you want to see how a film project that has EVERYTHING going for it fails, read the book "The Devil's Candy"
about the making of "The Bonfire of the Vanities", and you can literally watch as all the little decisions add to to make a supposedly sure-fire hit became a gigantic bomb. (The book is also valuable because it's a rare journalistic look at how a film is make, from greenlight to release).
Well said, Maurice. There's plenty o f bad stuff out there, some of it made by some of the best in the business. Take "Ishtar"...on second thought, don't. One strong area won't make up for a substandard area, but you are right about the script. If you don't have a good script, even if everything else is great, you'll end up with nothing more than eye candy. If you compare Exeter's "Savage Empire" to "The Tressaurian Intersection" I think you'll see what I mean. Sure, the Exeter crew gained a lot of experience the first time around and put it to work, but the biggest difference IMHO is a professional quality script.