Would you rather watch a movie with good actors, story but terrible cgi/props or a movie with average actors, meh story but terrific cgi?

[Lookingforthetruth]

Good actor, storyline and movie pacing. However, terrible special effects.

vs

ok actors, meh storyline but amazing special effects.

Movie with good actors, storyline but bad special effects

Movie with ok actors, meh storyline but amazing special effects

[nightdrot]

This one is not a close call. Good acting wins by a mile.

My example would be the two movies about the battle of Midway Island. Both called "Midway." (I am a history movie fan. See also "Tora! Tora! Tora!" and "Patton" for other examples.)

The 1976 "Midway" movie was, by today's standards, primitive in terms of the special effects. Yet it starred figures like Charleton Heston, Robert Mitchum, Henry Fonda, Glen Ford and Edward Albert. As a friend of mine likes to say, you could practically smell the Aqua Velva.

It was a fantastic movie. Compelling. Dramatic, and in the bargain historically accurate.

Fast forward to 2019. Another movie called "Midway." It had all the latest cgi and other special effects. It starred Ed Skrein, Luke Evans, Woody Harelson and Mandy Moore. Not bad actors, but hardly the firepower of the 1976 movie - and it was about as compelling as watching someone read a book.

It just did not work. As a history movie, you basically know the historical events. What matters is how the historical figures are played in the movie and the 2019 movie - for all its' visual glitz - flatlines.

My suggestion: Try watching both movies sometime - one after the other. It makes the case for acting over special effects and hopefully will be a lesson to current producers and directors who seem to come out with movies that are all glitz and no substance. Which is probably why movie attendance - beyond the advent of new technologies - is down.

[John_Doesnt]

The best movies are some of the oldest movies with 0 CGI. Like the movie Waterloo, far better than the POS that Marvel keeps regurgitating for you kids.

[hahahmm]

But they thing is that people who can write a good story tend to work with people who know how to put it on the screen in a way that it looks good, regardless of budget. In other words the director & producer are smart enough to limit what they try on screen based on the budget or to skip trying to tell a story they can't afford to tell. So I don't think you will often find a really good story with really sucky props & CGI.

On the flip side of that we have a mountain of movies today with big budgets and absolute trash/filth for story.

[reds-noro]

Whoops, voted on the wrong one. My favourite movie being Monthy Python and the Holy Grail should give you a good idea of what I value in a movie.

[AviatorTom]

I'd rather watch a movie that's entertaining, don't care who the actors are, how good the plot is, or what the special effects are. Just entertain me.

[Sixgunsound]

The Matrix cost all of 5 million dollars to make but is one if the most important movies of my lifetime.

[DizzyDesii]

I personally enjoyed Love & Thunder but i’d like to skip cgi all together

[asphaltrhymes]

I need the good special effects, it's a visual 👀👀👍😋

[Sasahara]

Good actors and good story but bad special effects. The only really awfull effects in Flash was those "cameos" near the the end. Rest were passable.

[exitseven]

I thijnk a good story beats good special effects.

[Nikki1989]

I would rather watch movies with NO cgi.

[Wise4myage]

Good actor, storyline and movie pacing. However, terrible special effects.