Slashdot Mirror
The Perfect Formula For Box Office Success
Julez writes "According to icLiverpool, the formula for creating the "perfect" film has been discovered by a UK academic. The research will be used to assess the potential success of possible film sponsorship deals.
Apparently, the perfect feature must have: action 30pc, comedy 17pc, good v evil 13pc, love/sex/romance 12pc, special effects 10pc, plot 10pc and music 8pc
"
Special effects 10pc?
Episode I and II clearly messed up the forumla.
Blatent Product Placement
Oh, by perfect film, does he mean in the perspective of the film-goer vs. the film financiers? oops
Anyone else feel that the Matrix Reloaded Heineken commercial just makes the Matrix franchise appear "cheap"?
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
...Actors. Big name actors, big name actresses, pop stars, pop starlets, etc. are all going to have a harder time getting those lucrative contracts to be in a new movie now. Their influence on the movie being "perfect" doesen't even show up.
Imagine that.
-Rusty
You never know...
that other time. Those British people attempted to find the funniest joke. But the joke wasn't funny. What they found was a joke that would be funny to everybody and anybody. There is no joke that would be hilarious to everyone, so the funniest joke is one which everyone can at least slighly enjoy. I mean, even though I didn't laugh out loud the joke did amuse me. I wish I remember what the joke was and had a link to the site, but oh well.
Anyway this seems to be the formula for a movie that will please everyone, much like the joke. I think that the relatively small amount of plot reflect the intelligence of our society. 10pc of society want plot 30pc want action. That's the way this has to be interpreted. So if you make a movie with this formula it wont be a smash super hit like Star Wars or Matrix or LotR. But it wont suck. People who see it will say "that was an ok movie".
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?
;) is measuring how to make a successful movie - not a quality one. Forget Lord of the Rings and look at Charlies Angels, Fast and Furious, etc. *shudder*
Not really. Remember, this "study" (and I use the term loosely
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
1. You read and are a registered member of Slashdot, therefore your intelligence is likely at least 40 points above the average population.
Really? Is that so? This is nothing but unfounded arrogance and propaganda. You fancy yourself well ahead of the curve (doesn't really matter whether you've been tested or not, so please don't tell me your score) and as such like to believe that all those who share your interests are well ahead of the curve as well. What makes you think that there is a correlation between being able to read and sign up on a website and intelligence? Not to mention the fact that the so-called Intelligence Quotient only measures logical problem solving and mathematical insight, a very tiny fraction of what could reasonably be considered intelligence. Or, as it has been put glibly many times before: It only measures your ability to do well on IQ tests. At a guess I would say that it is probably likely that the Slashdot crew would average above the norm on IQ tests (maybe 120 or so) seeing as a large proportion are programmers and that is a field where logical problem solving is an important skill. But what we are talking about here is appreciation of the arts. I won't argue that this may be a function of intelligence, but it is certainly not a function of the IQ type of intelligence.
2. This "successful movie formula" is geared for the masses, i.e., people with an IQ of approximately 100 or so.
IQ is statistically defined such that the mean is exactly 100.
I know that this post sounds dangerously like a flame, but the spreading of this IQ propaganda really irks me.
lysergically yours
Oh come on, if a movie isn't 40pc plot it is not worth watching.
I completely disagree. Different films/works can work for different reasons. Some can work entirely without plot, and instead rely simply on character development and/or other methods.
The Thin Red Line is one such example. No plot, very little character development -- just characters "reflecting" for more than two hours. It works, in its own way, regardless. Jaws is an even better example. The plot is simply "Shark terrorizes beach community" -- the power of the film comes from an intense atmosphere and mood - not plot.
To use another mainstream example, the film GhostBusters was at its best when it was unconcerned with plot - when it just followed these characters through their daily lives as they, of all things, trapped ghosts. The film did not get its energy from the unnecessary and predictable "save the world" plot tacked on.
The best Bret Easton Ellis books work similarly. "Less Than Zero" and "American Psycho" have minimal to not plot, yet are very good, fascinating books.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
... What?
;) It was a decent action movie.
Relax man, I liked Lord of the Rings, I assure you. Put down the pitchfork.
My point was simply that this study was trying to determine why certain movies succeed and why others do not -- not determine what makes a quality movie. What makes a quality movie, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. You cant scientifically calculate what makes a film quality -- but you can determine which elements combine to make commercially successful, widely-loved films. Make sense?
And for the record, I am entitled to my opinion.. and ranking Fast and the Furious as the 114th best movie makes me cringe. That is all. Thank you.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Actually, I think the LOTR movies fit the formula perfectly. In fact, many of the changes from the books to the movies work towards these ratios.
*action 30pc - lots of action here. The movies focus on the fighting even more than the books. In fact, the movies even add fighting scenes that were not present though could be reasonably inferred (the attack by worgs in TT). I'd say Peter Jackson achieved this.
*comedy 17pc - "never toss a dwarf", "second lunch" , etc. I don't remember reading these lines. So, the movie script defintely inserted some comedy.
*good v evil 13pc - pretty obviously present in both the books and movies.
*love/sex/romance 12pc - lets add a bigger part for Arwen. And here's a crazy idea - let's make a love triangle with Eowyn to boost the love angle. Clearly some mass-appeal whoring going on here.
*special effects 10pc - lots of special effects in the movies. Check.
*plot 10pc - I'm not sure how plot is measured according to the study, but it is worth noting that the movie cut out a lot of the "talking" bits, such as the Council of Elrond. The "plot" of the movie interesting, suspenseful, but is also pretty straightforward (note, I didn't say bad). It's not the Brothers Karmanzov.
*music 8pc - the music in LOTR is dramatic and excellent. I'd say they got this point licked.
So how does LOTR break the mold of the ideal movie of the study again?
.... Lord of the Rings' plot is dismal.
A lot of nonsense that unless you are a fan of the books will explain very little about what is going on...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.