Who do you trust to bring entertainment to the screen?

[Damon1281]

For me, I go with the actors involved. Directors only warn me what not to see. How about you?

[mwynn]

[Martoto]

"Trust is a hard thing to come by these days. Why don't you just trust in the lord?"

To answer your question. ..... Eh?

[drush9999]

All of the above surely

[filmbuffTX]

I go by the premise first. If it interests me I’ll see it regardless of who the cast is or who directed. Secondly, I go by the actors. Thirdly, director.

[wallendo]

The story comes first.
Everything else is there to support the story.

[DR Herbert West]

Director > Plot/story > Actor(s) >Writer(s) > Producer(s)

[Rzzzz]

Plot/story. Most of the great actors are dead....

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

Most of the great actors are dead....

Yep.

[Josep5349]

My electricity provider.

[Al_The_Strange]

Going along with the assumption that "entertainment" equates to a magical and sublime combination of experience and storytelling...

There are directors I admire, no doubt, but I feel more and more that many of them couldn't care less about the scripts they direct. They become so focused on the experience of the film (such as the visual aspects--whether spectacle or artistic style--the pacing, the blocking, the production), as well as their own ideas, symbolism, and even themselves, that they often rely too heavily on storytelling cliches, shortcuts, ex machinas, or just plain style-over-substance.

As an amateur writer who's always being told what a good story should look and read like, I find it flabbergasting that teams of professional storytellers will build their multi-million-dollar projects on unpolished or flawed scripts that fall back on conveniences, cliches, or too much tell-don't-show techniques. Most of the time, it shows no respect for their audiences, treating them as idiots who won't notice or care about their films unless information is spoon-feed in between all the 'splosions. If this kind of experience was entertaining before, it isn't now.

To be fair, directors can be ingenuous when they do care. I think Lucas always had his mind in the right place and Spielberg always had his heart in the right place. Kubrick had the literary know-how to make stories click, even when he alienates audiences with his style. I appreciate the attention David Fincher puts into his plots. I like how Denis Villeneuve makes his mysteries so pointed. Zemeckis' latest films seem to focus on characterization so well. Films by Scorsese, Tarantino, Guillermo Del Toro--they're all worthwhile. But when directors become indulgent--including these guys--then holy crap, it's like anything goes.

Producers, I trust even less. After hearing the horror stories behind many promising projects, where producers butt in and micromanage films to their liking, it just ticks me off to think about. Kurt Wimmer could have probably gone far if he wasn't locked out of the editing room for Ultraviolet. Those X-Men Origin films might have turned out decent if Wolverine wasn't a mess. Can you imagine how Brazil would have turned out if they really released the "Love Conquers All" version in theaters instead of the actual theatrical cut? *shudders*

Actors? Total wild cards imo. Sure, their star power matters and becomes a main draw for many movies and franchises, but even those experiences still need substance for them to shine. Just about all of them have as many flops under their belts as hits, so it's not like I'll wander into the next Robert DeNiro picture expecting greatness on the merits of Heat--it could turn out like Dirty Grandpa for all I know.

But you know what most great films have in common? Good scripts. Good writing will make an actor or actress compelling as they act out a well-written character. A good plot and story layered beneath the director's vision will make it all the stronger. When it all works, a producer shouldn't even have to worry about how it turns out. I can't say that writers are perfect all the time (it's kind of weird how bad scripts become movies while good scripts become buried in slush piles all the time).

Tell me a good director is behind the camera, I'll be enthused, but it's more like cautious optimism. I kinda stopped caring about who's in front of the camera, and I really don't care about which producer's name is on the line. But if I know a good writer is behind a movie (like, say, Alex Garland, Paul Schrader, David Koepp, Tarantino), I will definitely want to see it. I put my trust in writing.

[EvaDK]

What I've learned during these last 10 years, is that a lot of film gems can be found in the peripherals of the film industry; low-budget to mid-budget films that don't get all the media attention and PR budgets of big-budget star-driven films.

You usually need to do a bit of legwork yourself to find or discover them, but it is often worth it.

[Bugg]

For me the quality of the storytelling counts more than the story itself. Too many great stories have turned into shit movies because of poor direction, acting and various boneheaded production choices. I'd rather watch a 50 Shades or Twilight movie directed by David Lynch than War and Peace directed by Michael Bay.

[Cremildo]

Most of the time, it's the director. I love cinema because I'm interested in how an artist interprets life and the world and frames them within the screen, and while the director doesn't make the movie all by himself as filmmaking is inarguably a team effort, he's the one who steers the ship.

[imsounoriginal]

Plot/story and Writers kinda go hand-in-hand, no?

But Directors win for me.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Plot/story and Writers kinda go hand-in-hand, no?

But Directors win for me.

Any Director worth paying attention to imposes his or her self on the development of the story and the script.

[MifuneFan]

There's rarely a single factor that gets me to see a movie. I do think there should be an option for critical praise, and/or good word of mouth because that undoubtedly helps many people. If a movie wasn't on my radar, and lots of people (on here for instance) are talking about it, then I'm more inclined to check it out.

[Hazel Motes]

Director.

Followed by great trailers.

Followed by overwhelmingly positive critical reception

Followed by genre. I will see almost any horror film that gets a decent theatrical release.

There are very very few living actors I will see based solely on their name being attached.

Daniel Day Lewis, Joe Pesci.

To a lesser extent Michael Shannon.

Thats about it.

I never have and never will see a film because of who the producer is. Even the times when the producer has somewhat intrigued me, it was only a piece of the puzzle in regards to why I saw a particular film. James Cameron and John Carpenter come to mind, and both ultimately let me down.

Plot and subject matter rarely put my ass in a seat on that basis alone. Unless its a documentary, or a movie about something I love, like professional wrestling.

[MifuneFan]

Off the top of my head, these are probably the only directors that I'd almost certainly see their films just based on their names. Most, if not all are auteurs unsurprisingly.

Denis Villeneuve
Martin Scorsese
Bong Joon-ho
Taika Waititi
Guillermo del Toro
Christopher Nolan
Alfonso Cuarón
David Fincher

[Bumblefeet]

Alan Smithee.