In your movie what's more important?

To ME...Editing and Tech are key....the writer of my film, Bill Parker: The Movie http://www.billparkermovie.com has written a great script that i only have to take notes on...i put importance on editing and tech because they are what I do...and I get creative control there...

I think all of those elements are key of course, but I think one can appreciate a movie if it has a GREAT story and subpar everything else, although it will be difficult if the acting or direction is really awful.

"Roger Roger"

Dont mean to sound repetitive, but as great as camera work, lighting, and editing are, if you dont have a good story, you dont have squat. I have been reviewing shorts at www.triggerstreet.com for about two weeks now. I cant tell you how many slick, 35mm movies Ive checked out, that had no story worth viewing. From mobsters squirting eachother with squirt guns (shot on 35mm, what a F***in waste) to a stupid, sappy movie that looked beautiful, but was the whole,"Girl dumps guy, so guy kills himself, blah, balh, blah." Looks great, but nothing there. ( kinda like super models LOL) So, might look good, but you have a better shot at "making it" if you know how to tell great stories. Hell, a good D.P. will make you look good, but its up to you ( as a director) to tell a good story.
R. M. McWhorter

And you shall know us by the trail of dead.

You can get away with having a crappy story as long as you have an interesting way of telling it. Look at Wong Kar-Wai and Lars Von Trier and even Paul Thomas Anderson. These filmmakers don't really tell great stories but they tell them in a unique fashion.

And look at mercutio ping and xuxa fandango and pillufio granada!

Well I agree, and dis agree at the same time. Sometimes, a story is made great, simply in how it is told. "Hard Eight" wasnt a spectacular story (Man finds guy hard on luck, helps him get into crime business, and becomes father figure, then, is revealed to be murderer of mans real father) Nothing special there, but P.T. Anderson has an intresting way of telling the story. Great actors, and fantastic circumstances, mixed with his amazing visual style made for a great story. Point is, unless your P.T., and you can weave fantastic dialouge, coupled with an ability to draw out fantastic performances, then your going to fall flat. There is no excuse for not comming up with an intresting story, thats all.
R. M. McWhorter

And you shall know us by the trail of dead.

This question being asked is not very easy to come up with a simple answer. All aspects are important. It should really be more of a matter where the film is focusing more attention. In which case, yes, I agree that the story should be the focal point. However, I believe the factor of acting would be a close second as you can have the most intriguing story/plot in the world, but if your actors/actresses can't pull it through to convey to the audience what to feel, what to relate to, etc., the story's worth would be shot.

Story, of course. It all starts with the story.

I mean, can you expect Academy nods from acting in a cheerleading flick? Or, are performances even a bother in documentaries? Editing in a long 5 min crane/steadicam shot? What for? …. What about direction in those improvisation films? The director says go, the actors have a plot-gist and practically come up with the rest. Yea, definitely the story.... Right?

Or, whoops, did I mention dialogue/character-based films? Yea. Those are movies too.

So, really, SUBJECT is the most important determining factor here, guys. The results can't be polled.

Poll Question:
In your movie what's more important?

Ok, MY movie... I pick Music. None of the above. Haha.