CTO? Is talking about anything other than how the VFX were produced, and people are listening to him? End Times Hollywood edition to be sure....

That guy totally does not understand the first thing about movies. I call myself a technical cg artist but unlike him I know it's all about the story.

Studios may have been able kite along on the power of spectacle (namely 3-D) when it was new, but now audiences are over it. We've seen all the tricks and spectacle for spectacle's sake is starting to feel so last decade....

One other thing -- I'm sick of people trotting out these lists and not using the only accurate one, the one that shows the B.O. adjusted for inflation. That's the only real way to compare over a century of releases, 'cause we all know how the value of the dollar changes over time. Here's that top 10, and, while there's certainly spectacle, there's a lot of good story, too:

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,610,295,700 $198,676,459 1939^

2 Star Wars Fox $1,419,613,200 $460,998,007 1977^

3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,135,050,500 $158,671,368 1965

4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,130,579,000 $435,110,554 1982^

5 The Ten Commandments Par. $1,044,070,000 $65,500,000 1956

6 Titanic Par. $1,022,916,700 $600,788,188 1997^

7 Jaws Uni. $1,020,788,200 $260,000,000 1975

8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $989,359,600 $111,721,910 1965

9 The Exorcist WB $881,232,300 $232,671,011 1973^

10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

I read this and I think back to an earlier post by you, Scott.

You mentioned how a movie had done well because its story helped create word of mouth which kept it strong in its second week. That film was Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Now, I have to ask anyone that's seen the film: Why did you go watch it?

Is it because of story or because of spectacle?

Like, really think about it. I'd challenge anyone that says story because no one knows what the story is about until they see the film (or read the script before hand). So, you bet your hand on how the movie looks. Maybe not the majority of the people that visit this site, but definitely a majority of the movie viewing audience.

I think the exec is right. Tentpole movies are about spectacle, not story. Spectacle draws the crowd in the first weekend.

However, if he thinks story doesn't matter at all (which I don't see him say at all) then he'd be wrong because much like we saw with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, story will keep the audience coming back for more.

I'll bite - I was going to skip RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES but decided to see it based on the good reviews. And if the story had been crap, I don't think it would have gotten good reviews based on pure spectacle.

I was thinking about seeing TRANSFORMERS because, y'know, worst case scenario is I'll see a terrible movie but at least it'll have huge robots fighting and the Ingenue-de-jour's ass - however, in the end, that wasn't enough and I didn't go see it. And now that I've missed my chance to see it in 3D and Imax, I probably never will.

So with me, story trumps spectacle... but I probably don't have the same taste as the majority of the American audience.

I suspect that the success of Alice in Wonderland might possibly have had something to do with the fact that the original STORY has been beloved for generations. I know that's why I bought a ticket.

A good story is always worth telling, AND seeking out.

People will back that up with money. I think the top ten speaks to this.

Also, someone needs to re-examine their copy of Poetics.

Maybe someone should tell said exec that if storytelling were more a part of contemporary cinema, the number of theatergoers wouldn't be stuck at miserable 2005 levels (remember that monstrosity of a year?).

Also, Alice in Wonderland, as Caitlin aptly put it, descended from a literary classic. Let's not forget the monstrous success of Avatar, either. That baby stemmed from the mind of James Cameron, who employs the tried and true three act structure in his films.

If it were true that spectacle is the sole draw and story is unimportant then The Island would have been a hit and 40-year Old Virgin would have failed in the theaters but found an audience on DVD.

I'm sure there are several other examples.

Sage comments all around. Carlos' point -- spectacle drives first weekend B.O., story thereafter -- is an interesting one. We can't discount the impact of The Visual Pop And Wow on attracting an audience. However that is all pretty much Sizzle And Surface. So if there's little or no story at the core of the movie, little or no emotional resonance, the psychological journey of the main characters is pretty much ignored or handled in a flimsy, surface-level way, then it's probably more than likely the movie won't have great 'legs' and sustain business for any length of time.

Which reminds me I need to post Part 2 of that comparison of Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Cowboys & Aliens. Both had spectacle. One had a much more successful and compelling psychological story at work than the other, a big contributing factor to the former's B.O. and critical success, and the latter's limp B.O. performance.

Here's the bottom line: No matter what the Disney CTO says, whether true or not, I don't see how good storytelling can hurt a movie. It can only help. So why deride it? Why not embrace it and try for it in all cases? In CTO language, spending resources on developing a good story is a way of maximizing the potential revenues of any movie, including tentpole films, especially their longevity as a title in a studio's catalogue.

And isn't there an argument to be made that paying a screenwriter, even a million bucks, for a good story is less expensive than pouring all your resources into CGI and such?

@Nick: Yes, but even if you dump millions into script development, there's no guarantee the writers will nail the story. I've recounted this story before when one of the Producers of Forrest Gump told me that the studio had hired three A-level writers to adapt that book, each turning in a draft that wasn't satisfactory. Then they turned to Eric Roth. He read the book. The scripts. Then came back with this: There's no love story. You need to make Forrest and Jenny the the emotional touchstone and throughline for the script.

Imagine paying at least $1M to three top writers who worked on FG and did not hit on that idea. Without the Forrest-Jenny subplot, you have no story, at least one worth telling.

As I said in the OP, stories are mysterious, even mystical in nature. As much as we try to wrangle them into being, they are organic entities. And again, this goes to the heart of what the Disney CTO was saying. 'Spectacle,' at least in his mind, is more along the lines of widgets, something tangible and easy to know and reproduce. 'Story,' at least in my armchair psychologist interpretation of the dude's comments, scares him. So he wants to believe spectacle is more important than story.

In a way, I don't blame him. Left-brain dominant people oftentimes can't wrap their head around the organic, sometimes chaotic nature of story. The subtext in the dude's comments is fear and risk, and story does not lend itself well to living with either, at least in a business sense.

Andy Hendrickson is being a vainglorious dick. If there was any truth to his spurious view, then domestic tickets sales would have risen since 2005 as tentpole pictures have become more and more packed with more and more special effects. The fact ticket sales haven't risen means the only way to grow the business is with better stories.

DeafEars makes the fine point that a good story creates good word of mouth, and that's what gets us to line up and pay our (not always) hard earned money.

Just got an email from a screenwriter re the dude's comments. The thing that struck the screenwriter most was the irony that here is someone at Disney crapping on Alice in Wonderland. An early Disney movie. Several theme park rides at Disneyland and Disney World.

My guess is dude chose to talk about Alice because it was a Disney movie, that way he wasn't dumping on the supposed quality of a story from another studio.

Of course another irony: Love to see dude at a company party with Pixar folks. Try out that "spectacle over story" angle on them and see how that plays.