I think you need all of them to make a good film/show, I’m most drawn to something with nice visuals.

You need all of it to make something good

Replace cast with just - acting

Good looks

Story > Actors > Cinematography

Storyline definitely more appealing to me. Great storyline and ok visuals will always be superior to Great visuals and ok storyline. I'm not so bothered anymore about who the actors are just that they are good

Cinematography IMO, there are movies where the plot doesn't do much for me but I'll still watch them because of how they look

Just love images man

depends on the type of film and period it was made. i can't generalize like that. for late film noir it's usually mostly storyline and acting while in other films story could mean jack s*** to me really.

story > cinematography > acting but they are all important

Actors can elevate a s***ty story
Not the other way around

Cinematography>actors>story

Acting ≥ Story > Cinematography

If the acting ain’t good I ain’t really gonna be invested in the story. Once the acting makes me believe, I’m am then engrossed in the story. As far as cinematography, sure I appreciate well shot films, and scenes specifically, but it can’t save a movie from being mid for me.

If it’s an action movie, action set pieces > story > acting

story is king baby

Good written story comes first then cinematography reflects on the atmosphere and moodiness. Lastly the acting translated from the story to create an engaging dialogue.

Story for me

You can have the cleanest visuals but if the story is trash it’s basically just a mind numbing action movie for Cinephiles

Story>Acting>Cinematography

If the story isn't interesting or slightly entertaining 9 times outta 10 I won't even finish the movie.

Cinematography, then editing

Story is most important I think or maybe more so the writing. Film can be beautifully shot, but if I don’t care about what happens I’m not gonna like it. I don’t really notice the acting except for when it’s either really good or really bad.

story for sure

there are amateur films with amateur actors and amateur camera work but the story is so good that nothing else really matters. stories are everything, you go back to dawn of time as our ancestors passed down stories that captivated us for thousands of years.

it's the story man, always will be.

Theme

It's simple. Would you rather watch Pulp Fiction or a generic Marvel movie?

Pulp Fiction cinematography is pretty basic but the story is engaging. It's 2 hours and a half long and it feels like much less.

A Marvel movie looks good but I usually force myself to watch until the end.

Marvel movies look generic af lmao

Yeah I mean. Any boring super hero movie that people hype up for the visuals.

I think it depends on how much acting or dialogue is in a scene. But I also think the distance between decent and great acting isn't that wide whereas s*** acting and okay acting are farther apart.

I'd put story above anything because a great actor can't save a s*** story. It's the foundation.

But look at Revenge of the sith. The scene where padme and anakin are crying because they know what's to come. The acting in that moment is great. It's visually great as well as the story.

As far as capeshit Spiderman II and Batman V Superman kill it visually and the acting ain't bad at all. The only difference is one told their story better.

So I'ma say Story>Cinematography > Acting