Poll: Which is better?

[RatRace123]

Let's say you're making a movie, it doesn't matter what the movie is about or even if you have any desire in making one, you're just making one.

Unfortunately while managing your film's potential budget you realize you only have enough money to hire a team of skilled script writers OR a group of skilled actors. Let's assume that in this situation, you're not allowed to write or act yourself.

You need to choose which aspect to focus on, in doing so you get a hugely inferior version of the other one.

So, having to choose between those two options, which one do you think you could work a better movie from?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Skilled actors.

I mean, we're making porn, right?

 

[DJDarque]

If the script is terrible no amount of good acting will make it better.

Good script, bad actors.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

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

 

[SilentCom]

Skilled actors.

I mean, we're making porn, right?

LOL, good movie.

If I were to make a real movie (non-porno) then I would probably go for good actors. The reason being is that at least good actors will attract an audience and they would probably be more willing to improvise as to compensate for the bad script. A good script really wouldn't do much good if the actors can't act it out.

 

[.No.]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

 

[Vault101]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

take a third option...ha! good thinking!

 

[RatRace123]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

Nope, they have to follow the horribly written and paced script, the studio demands it and you're bound to their wishes. They are allowed to act out the dialogue anyway they choose, so they could absolutely ham it up if they felt like it.

 

[cheywoodward]

Either way the film you're making won't be a good one by the standard definition so I think that making it one of those so bad it's good films is the best possible option, and out of the two options you gave I think that a good script and bad actors would make for a funnier film.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

take a third option...ha! good thinking!

How about a fourth option? Bad actors AND bad writing! Perhaps you could then hit the "So bad it's good" mark

 

[kuyo]

I'd skimp on both writers and actors, spend the remaining money on drugs for both (and myself), and call the resulting mess a comedy.
It could be the next ROOM!

EDIT:

LOL, good movie.

This is what I'd name it.

How about a fourth option? Bad actors AND bad writing! Perhaps you could then hit the "So bad it's good" mark

Shit, I was ninja'd

 

[DefunctTheory]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

take a third option...ha! good thinking!

How about a fourth option? Bad actors AND bad writing! Perhaps you could then hit the "So bad it's good" mark

If we can improvise, then I say we just hire Bruce Campbell, kick the budget down to 400 grand (Including his salary), and have an AWE INSPIRING film?

[sub]Admit it, I just won the thread, TWICE[/sub]

 

[.No.]

Would it be possible to have great actors, and throw out the script and just have them improvise?

Nope, they have to follow the horribly written and paced script, the studio demands it and you're bound to their wishes. They are allowed to act out the dialogue anyway they choose, so they could absolutely ham it up if they felt like it.

What if I just tell the studio that it's following the script, and release it with them improvising?

 

[RatRace123]

What if I just tell the studio that it's following the script, and release it with them improvising?

They have deathbots watching the production cycle... all the time.
In fact, that's why you got such a measly budget, most of their money went towards deathbot construction.

 

[Blemontea]

Even good actors have been known to do a bad performance with a bad script and if the director is bad at his job.
Point to Good Script/Bad Actors

Just dont get Tommy Wieso into the mix and it has a chance of making a C+ movie with a safe return.

 

[mornal]

Good script / Bad actors.

The movie will fail, but at least someone could see it and say "That could be awesome" and remake it with better actors.

 

[aba1]

If the script is terrible no amount of good acting will make it better.

Good script, bad actors.

this is more true than people realize a good script is far more important that acting

actors get wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more credit than they deserve especially considering there a dime a dozen and you can get incredibly skilled actors for next to nothing the only reason company's don't is cause people are stupid and will see a movie based on a actor alone even if the movie terrible (cought)expendables(cough)

 

[.No.]

What if I just tell the studio that it's following the script, and release it with them improvising?

They have deathbots watching the production cycle... all the time.
In fact, that's why you got such a measly budget, most of their money went towards deathbot construction.

It would have to be an insanely expensive, multi billion dollar movie if the got deathbots. Otherwise, deathbots would already be made and they could buy them for cheaper. Still, it would have to be expensive as hell.I would probably pay someone (with my own money) to hack the robots to just go along with what I say. Or kill the studio heads, as they seem pretty evil.

 

[Toasty Virus]

How about a fourth option? Bad actors AND bad writing! Perhaps you could then hit the "So bad it's good" mark

The "Oh Hi Mark"

Aww yeaaah.

OT: Good Actors, they might do the script some good, or something.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

A good actor can work around a bad script. Sadly not many actors are that good.
Still Bad Script/Good Actors.