I was just puzzling this over with a mate recently....

There are 2 main types of filmmakers i know, there are some who think visualy, this meaning that they have an idea for a great shot or a great effect and work a story round this, and then there are some that do it the opposite way thinking about the story line only before even recognising the need for some visual touches.. i was just wondering which type are we all at the moment???

Story first, visual approach to suit the story.

That's the short answer and I think it's to do with the fact that I come from a radio and theatre background.

The longer answer is that a director needs to be both a good storyteller and gifted visually.

There is an even longer answer, but today I'll give the shortest answer

What kind of filmmaker are you?

A good one :lol:

I would have to say that I'm a bit of both. For example, I have two ideas for features that I'm thinking about developing. While they both have a bit of story info to them, the first is just story idea at this point, whereas the second is 90% visual. I only have a vague idea of what the story will be for the second one thus far, BUT I know how I want it to look.

For our projects we have typically developed the basic story concept first -- then we allow the details of the story to take shape as we visualize the scene in our heads. Thinking visually gives us the story nuance, but not the story itself.

PS: My 100th post! Now I'm regular (I mean "a" Regular)! yee-hah

There are other ways too, not just visual, or story. Often times ideas are developed around a character (though you may relate that to story). Like Clive said, it's more complex.

I think it's to do with the fact that I come from a radio and theatre background.



Hey thats cool, i have been starting to get into "Radio theatre" myself...... its not quite that same as radio or theatre, but your comment just reminded me!


There are other ways too, not just visual, or story. Often times ideas are developed around a character (though you may relate that to story). Like Clive said, it's more complex.

sorry i should have elaborated i bit more, by story i meant pretty much everything that was not totally visual, meaning plot, charahcters, a peice of dialouge..... things that arent special effects or cool camera effects. but you are right it is more complex than just visual and story alone!


- Walt

more visual i would have to say but i will leave it all up to you after i finish this short.

I always felt that both of these 'types of film makers' (vision/'story') were synonymous.
I think perhaps you have seen these two types of film (if they are different, i think they are the same) as end results, when rather they are a means to another end. That is the true end of film, I believe. That is the end that through the film, the maker is trying to evolve some kind of intellectual (as opposed to physical, after all films touch you they don't physically touch you) relationship/partnership with the viewer. Trying to elicit some form of response, or make some kind of point - whatever it is - they are trying to form a bond with the viewer that goes beyond 'story' and 'vision' and, in my opinion, actually makes them means to this end, rather than just ends in themselves as films.
Thus I believe that the vision/story dichotomy is a false one, as it fails to take into account the true end (or perceived result, desired for by the maker) of film.
I have not got the experience of film that most of you have, I have only made college films, but in all my works (literature, plays etc) I always believed this to be the ONLY kind of film maker/artist in general.
If I am in some way, in your opinion, misguided than please tell me, as I am desperate to further my understanding of this issue, as I believe it will be they key to my downfall or success in my life as creative engine.
always desperate to learn, Nique Zoolio.

It is possible to be right in the middle. I feel that would define me better than one or the other. Some projects come from a story idea, some from a visual idea, some from a character, some from a snippet of dialogue, etc. Of course, immediately following the initial idea, the other side of the story/visual equation kicks in.

Poke

It is possible to be right in the middle. I feel that would define me better than one or the other. Some projects come from a story idea, some from a visual idea, some from a character, some from a snippet of dialogue, etc. Of course, immediately following the initial idea, the other side of the story/visual equation kicks in.

Poke

Why is it, when given an A/B option people inevitable go for C ;)


I jest poke. Its a costumer service gripe. I understand that that there is grayness, however I am curious about that initial idea. Is it, for you, more often than not a visual idea that sparks the process or is more often the story elements.

I have a difficult time answering this question since I have yet to actually make a film, however I have written three shorts over the course of the past several months. One was created around a visual. I had an interesting visual idea and created a story to incoorperate that idea. The other two were character driven. I had an idea about a character and then I tried to find an interesting visual way to explore the character. So if this trend were to continue I would have to place myself on the story first side.

I'm a writer so visual... er, uh, story.

But seriously, story, though I always like to include cool visuals -- something the audience has never seen before and hopefully makes the go "whoa." But, visuals come from the story. I think a good and well-known example is the E.T. moon shot. Though, I suppose Speilberg could have had the visual and found a way to put it into the script, so, basically, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Why is it, when given an A/B option people inevitable go for C ;)


I jest poke. Its a costumer service gripe. I understand that that there is grayness, however I am curious about that initial idea. Is it, for you, more often than not a visual idea that sparks the process or is more often the story elements.

I have a difficult time answering this question since I have yet to actually make a film, however I have written three shorts over the course of the past several months. One was created around a visual. I had an interesting visual idea and created a story to incoorperate that idea. The other two were character driven. I had an idea about a character and then I tried to find an interesting visual way to explore the character. So if this trend were to continue I would have to place myself on the story first side.

I've actually had a visual in my head which inspired a story. So, I guess I'm going with option C as well.

I see stories in my head, no I'm not trying to go for the vauge c answer. I'm visual. I think of a scene or a shot or a character then I build a story around that. Sometimes I ponder the "what if" factor and get a story line that way, but mostly it's visual.

for me storyline first, then visuals

there are some who think visualy, this meaning that they have an idea for a great shot or a great effect and work a story round this, and then there are some that do it the opposite way thinking about the story line only before even recognising the need for some visual touches.

It's all about the story, no matter which way you cut it.

You can have the greatest effects in the world, and still have a garbage story. (Hello, Matrix 2 & 3, Star Wars 1 & 2)

If the story itself is good enough to hold its own, any effects on top to enhance it are just the icing on the cake.

:cool:

I would have to agree with you there.... story is a big thing in film, without it you just have somebodys cool effects reel and thats it, but i wonder if the basis of a visual ( say for instance someone has a cool idea where a shot gets the camera to fall from the sky right into the depths of a small worms hole.....) can provide the inspiration for a great story, or if it will just be a cool shot with a worm hole.... if u get what i mean....

- Walt

Visuals then story - I get one moment in my brain and then I can write a whole story around that moment.

I was just puzzling this over with a mate recently....

There are 2 main types of filmmakers i know, there are some who think visualy, this meaning that they have an idea for a great shot or a great effect and work a story round this, and then there are some that do it the opposite way thinking about the story line only before even recognising the need for some visual touches.. i was just wondering which type are we all at the moment???

well, there's another type that - i dont think - has been mentioned yet. thats the character driven filmmaker. the character drives the story, which then drive the visuals.

thats my train of thought anway...

yeah that one was meantioned, and so lets add that to the question, i cant say i am too good at doing charachter based films, i think i need to work on that.....

-Walt