What is better, a good story or a story well-told?

He assumed that the reader would acknowledge that latter is superior, which it is. Take The Sound and the Fury for example. The bare plot of the book is pretty simple, and nothing groundbreaking or incredible. However, the way Faulkner tells it makes it a masterpiece. A true master storyteller/writer/etc. can elevate the mundane to the sublime. Similar to how Wordsworth says the great poet finds the universal in the particular, such that a great poem is, in his opinion, a not-so-great story told in a great way.

One might argue that a "good story" must necessarily be well-told in order to be good.

Personally, I think "good stories" are better than stories well-told. With a well-told story, you might get some good feels and deeper understanding of the self, but an originally good story will fill the reader's head with grand ideas and help them push the boundaries of what's possible in storytelling.

a bad story well told can still be made good
but a good story thats poorly told will ruin it

A story well told, because a good story badly told become good with the filter of your imagination which is an abstraction that makes it a well told story.

>attend lecture (motivational speech) given by Adam Elliot, animator of Mary and Max
>screening of his shorter, Oscar-winning film Harvey Krumpet
>describes the general low animation quality of his film but attributes the film's success to the strength of its writing
>repeatedly says "the most important thing is to have a good story well told"
Does it really fulfill the latter criteria if it's objectively a shitty use of the medium? Why don't you say the important part is a good story? Reee

A well-told story is a good story.

Do you actually think you're asking a smart question?

I'd go so far as to say that a poorly told story can't be good. I'd rather read Pynchon's shopping list than whichever James Patterson novel fans have convinced themselves is the best.

The best parts, used averagely? Note that the result might not be average.

Or average parts, used to the utter best that one is able to use them? Note that this won't necessarily be the best overall (e.g. best Olympic ever from a small country vs. average Olympic team from normally dominant country).

I would say the first is better because it gives the audience to work with on their own (that is, fanfics and drawing different conclusions/resolutions than the author). On the other hand, if the second option doesn't lead to a particularly great experience....well, there's not much you can do because you yourself have admitted that it's almost impeccably well-done for what it is.

I don't understand. A story can only be good if its told well.

Perhaps. I think you're using the word "story" different from how OP is. Maybe you're thinking of "story" as being interchangeable with "work of literature", whereas I think OP just means "story" to mean whatever can be understood from a description of the plot.
If I'm wrong and you actually mean the latter when you say "story", one possible counterexample that comes to mind is "The Most Dangerous Game". Aside from being an interesting premise, it's ripe for existential/philosophical subtext, but if iirc it mostly just turned out to be an adventure short story. Still a good "story" even if the execution doesn't fulfill its potential.