Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Perfect Formula For Box Office Success

Posted by Hemos on from the and-for-my-next-trick,-lead-into-gold dept.

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 "

7 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. pc? by Efg� · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would one use "pc" instead of "%", which is shorter and less confusing ?

    No, seriously, that's a real question. Is this some local usage in some part of the world?

  2. Bollywood? by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    How about the Bollywood flicks? They have a pretty standard formula complete with the songs, the dance in the forest, the wet sari, and the big fight. The plot comes much lower on the priorities than the music.

    Between Bollywood getting slightly better and Hollywood shovelling out drivel, it seems that there'd be more money in the Bollywood offerings.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  3. Nothing new by kinnell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe this is the first academic research of it's kind published, but I think it's clear that Holywood has had a good grasp of "the perfect movie formula" for quite some time, just like the music industry has "the perfect pop record" well understood. There are of course exceptions where genuine quality counts, but I'd be prepared to bet that the majority of low grade blockbusters churned out by the big studios come fairly close to this formula.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  4. Academic idiocy at its "best" by guacamolefoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article didn't really dig into what the research said, so I am somewhat hesitant about the title of my response, but...the fact that the article is scanty never stopped an intrepid Slashdotter from running his mouth, so away we go...

    The "perfect film" is obviously highly subjective. From a sentimental standpoint, perhaps it is something like Casablanca. From a producer's standpoint, it may well be "Deep Throat" or "Behind the Green Door" with their respective cost to profit(!) ratios. Artistically, it could be whatever floats your boat. I'm partial to Empire Strikes Back or Unforgiven as my favorite films.

    Statistical analysis of elements contained in films is only useful to the extent that the elements are cohesive, well-executed, etc. This all reminds me of the assinine film from the eighties about the robot that wrote a love song based on analysis of popular music, resulting in a meaningless spouting of bubblegum phrases.

    Besides, the research only looked at top-grossing films. How much money a film earns is not necessarily a proxy for how "good" it is. It is frequently the result of pimping and media hype. It is quite possible that some of the films which were top grossing lost money (even under sensible non-film industry accounting methods) and were terrible.

    The reference article is total fluff coverage and is highly instructive from a media analysis standpoint. You get no analysis of the underlying research. It in fact smells like a press release copped from some idiot researcher which was dumped almost unchanged into a "news" story. The percentage of shit that appears in newspapers that is derived in this exact manner is frightening -- it gains the imprimature of "news" instead of PR and there is no value-added journalism component. Journalists of the world, hang your heads.

    Whew. Had to get out my morning rant. I feel much better now. Get me some coffee.

    GF.

    --
    Lots of petrified grits
  5. Get over it by clary · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?
    Not at all. I watch movies for the eye candy and adrenalin. What I want to think, I read a book.

    By the way, LoR has plenty of both, as well as plot...bonus.

    --

    "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

  6. Re:Good grief! by watzinaneihm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Somebody notice that while most of the "good" movies are well balanced and sticks to the plot of the article, the most succesful ones had an overdose of one element or another or were missing one of those? (Well except Titanic that is)

    --
    .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
  7. Been Tried for Real by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the mid-late 90s, a couple of the Hollywood studios put some serious dollars into trying to build a predictive model of film success. Problem is, they couldn't make it work. They could make the model match _prior_ outcomes, but getting it to correctly forecast the success of _future_ films was well-nigh impossible. The project was scrapped, I believe. Given how incredibly valuable a working model like this would be, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea keeps making a comeback.