×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Perfect Formula For Box Office Success

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-for-my-next-trick,-lead-into-gold dept.

Movies 397

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 "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

397 comments

Snake? SNAAAAAKE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944074)

OMFG have yuo seen teh MEtal Gear Solid 3 trailor its called solid snake 3 teh snake eater which is an iron because he is codename snake his real name si David and in the beginning of teh trailor he is eating a snake AND HE HISSES! then its like metal gear vietnam and Mister Konami-san knows that the battlefield of teh futar si not the deserts of todays war but teh jungle in indonesias i wrote a letar to Konami-san and said to leave solid snakes mulet hair out of teh squal and use my hair insted its cool it parts in teh middal SNAKE looks like John RAMBO but his name si David and at one points in teh trailor the gard dogs are chasing him and he is like ho no fuck this in japanesees and the dogs are chasing him AND HE JUMPS PUT OF TEH WATERFALL!!!1`~ this trailor is rated 5 stars by me and yuo can get it from e3 boot 1117 or from special freee subscribar service fileplanet.coms

1st poast?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944076)

BOOSE!!

shows what i know (4, Funny)

loveandpeace (520766) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944080)

i always thought it was an equal mix: The Destruction of Property, The Defiance of Authority, and The Removal of Clothing. Someone got paid for this? I'm in the wrong business.

but what's better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944175)

(a) a perfect movie project

OR

(b) sex with a mare?

Re:shows what i know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944218)

Hmm, TRC, DoP, and DoA? Sure that's not the Tooth Root Cracking Depth of Penetration of the Daughters of America?

How about 100% porn? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944083)

How about 100% porn?

Re:How about 100% porn? (1)

s.a.m (92412) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944242)

Funny thing is how the porn industry generates more revenue than the box office!

Re:How about 100% porn? (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944284)

so does the computer games industry, the oil business, the car industry etc etc etc

what was your point?

Where Lucas got it wrong (5, Insightful)

jedigeek (102443) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944084)

Special effects 10pc?

Episode I and II clearly messed up the forumla.

Re:Where Lucas got it wrong (2, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944217)

Lucas got it wrong because he thought he'd bake a cake that was advertised as delicious marzipan and sprinkles, not telling anyone that it had a dog turd baked into the centre of it.


That was the problem with the prequels. Great CGI used excessively and lousy script, acting, direction and everything else. I don't blame the actors for their wooden performances, after all it must be be impossible to deliver a natural performance when nearly the entire film is shot on bluescreen. Perhaps if Lucas bothered to spend more time on the other things he might make a better film for once. I don't hold out much hope for episode three. I wonder if people will even bother queueing for it it this time.

Re:Where Lucas got it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944282)

until you can make a movie of your own with comparable success, shut the hell up. and don't give me any of that comparing with the original trilogy crap, either. the dialogue isn't really that different - tell me leia looking at a wall and saying "star destroyer" isn't different from any of padme's droll lines. it's your ability to enjoy movies that's changed - not the movies themselves. i hate people like you. i can see you and your worthless friends in a parking lot after the care bears movie discussing how fake the effects were, or pointing out inconsistencies that a three-year-old could figure out. drop dead, asshole.

Quick! Tell George Lucas! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944088)

He sure fucked up the first 2 star wars, but maybe the third one won't suck ass like hemos in a truck stop men's room?

Good grief! (4, Funny)

Keighvin (166133) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944089)

Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?

Gee, I guess that means the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is a tremendous flop, doomed to failure; it's got the whole thing backwards!

Re:Good grief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944122)

I thought so. I'm amazed such rubbish managed to gross the money it did.

Re:Good grief! (1)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944142)

Of course they are an insult to people with intelligence. Were we supposed to believe that people with no experience could hope in a space ship, and fly in with a few weeks training?

Re:Good grief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944144)

LotR could do with a plot --- it's a pity they didn't use the one found in the book.

Re:Good grief! (1)

jmccay (70985) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944151)

I would have to agree with you. I haven't watched most movies for years because there wasn't much of a plot, and they gave away most it in the trailers and commercials! I guess that just means I will save a lot of money.
I wonder what a movie costs in Britian? It can't be that much if they are all going to crappy 8% plot movies.

Re:Good grief! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944161)

Remember - This is based off of the top grossing films in the UK. The US population demands more substance. (The Brits will gobble down just about any piece of swill won't they.)

Re:Good grief! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944253)

The US population demands more substance.
+5 Funny

Bollywood? (3, Interesting)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944191)

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.

Re:Good grief! (5, Insightful)

TheWickedKingJeremy (578077) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944229)

Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?

Not really. Remember, this "study" (and I use the term loosely ;) 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*

How about.... (1)

EABird (554070) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944094)

How About Story 80pc Just a thought.

Re:How about.... (2, Insightful)

bastardadmin (660086) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944183)

/*Sarcasm begins*/
What? And make people think?
That's crazy talk. Next you'll be expecting them to start reading books again. And that could lead to thinking, and no one wants that... /*Sarcasm ends*/ /*Comments added for the humour-challenged*/

Until of course (1, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944095)

The people get sick of the same ol' crap, and stop seeing the films.

Which happens.. (2, Insightful)

Nijika (525558) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944233)

Apparently there was a point in the early 70's where this formula was "Musical, 100pc", and then everybody got sick of them and stopped going. This caused a chrisis in the film industry, and Martin Scorsese, Coppola and a variety of others were given a break.

It'll happen again, it always does. I hope they use this formula, because it'll spawn another chrisis just like the one in the early 70's after everybody gets their fill of our generation's "Paint Your Wagon".

for which audience? (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944100)

plot only 10pc? Is this Idiots-only recipe?

Re:for which audience? (0, Flamebait)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944168)

No, it's a Brits only recipe. Geezah, it's like well good when you go to the movies an' see a formula film, init? You don't hafta think, and then you can go listen to garage music and down ten Carlings. Big up yourself!

Whahhh? (1)

saden1 (581102) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944108)

10pc for plot? Oh come on, if a movie isn't 40pc plot it is not worth watching.

Re:Whahhh? (0, Flamebait)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944187)

I believe the article is making reference to how to create a movie that will be appreciated by the masses. The majority of movie-goers don't need that much plot as evidenced by the majority of swill that gets released and does well at the box office and the quality films that can barely make a profit because they're a bit too "talky."

What about the plot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944112)

plot 10pc

Like there's no lack of a good plot in most films already.
sad :-(

Just in the perfect Slashdot Artical. (5, Funny)

Neck_of_the_Woods (305788) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944114)


38% Windows bash.
22% Linux worship.
16% Katz bash.
13% OS penis messuring.
8% punctuation correction.
2% spelling correction.
1% comedy.
1% math correction.
1% sig.

Re:Just in the perfect Slashdot Artical. (2, Funny)

dsplat (73054) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944174)

16% Katz bash.

Well, if this is true it explains the decline in quality in recent years. I haven't seen Katz bashed in ages.

Re:Just in the perfect Slashdot Artical. (5, Funny)

djward (251728) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944184)

Actually, halve all of those numbers - it's not a perfect article until its been duped.

Re:Just in the perfect Slashdot Artical. (1)

cgh4be (182894) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944210)

Okay, here's my 8% punctuation correction and 2% spelling correction:

Just in, the perfect Slashdot article (notice the comma)

measuring (not messuring)

Article (not Artical)

Re:Just in the perfect Slashdot Artical. (2, Funny)

KingRamsis (595828) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944297)

You missed the trolling sauce ingredients :
1) First posts
2) goatse.cx and tub girl
3) in soviet russia jokes
4) imagining a beowolf cluster of those
5) beautiful ascii art made by some retards
6) oh yeah and Taco, Hemos and CowboyNeal trolls
7) the infamous "it is official XYZ is dying"
:-)

Don't forget: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944117)

Harry man dressed as a plumber: 15%

Housewife that answers her door in lingerie: 15%

Cheesy sound track: 10%


Money Shot: 60%


There are some movies that get rated R. For everything else, there's XXX

Hmmm... (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944124)

I guess that leaves out A Beautiful Mind... [amazon.com]

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Dossy (130026) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944287)

"A Beautiful Mind"? You mean "Math Club" right?

Ed Norton would have made a better John Nash than Russell Crowe ... and Brad Pitt would have been a cuter imaginary college roommate.

Talk about recycling scripts in Hollywood ...

-- Dossy

Perhaps not perfect (5, Insightful)

cuvavu (111503) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944127)

I think that rather than creating the "perfect" film, this will create the safest film - one that will make money and be like by the most people on average.

I feel that if this is taken too seriously, it will kill creativity and churn out only repetitive titles, rather than the current 1%-5% originality that exists in major motion pictures today

Re:Perhaps not perfect (1)

revery (456516) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944195)

Have you been to the movies lately? They've been taking this seriously for the past 20 years (at least)

oh, and don't get me started on the music industry...

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:Perhaps not perfect (2, Insightful)

Build6 (164888) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944277)

rather than creating the "perfect" film, this will create the safest film

I think from the perspective of the execs funding movies, the "safest" film is the perfect film... .

Hmmmm (3, Insightful)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944131)

How can you gauge how much of a movie is "plot" when the entire construct *is* the plot?

-psy

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944150)

Maybe they just surveyed 1,000 monkeys instead of using any reliable method.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944160)

Excuse me?! Are you really a film goer? 100% plot is a book... Now, experimental films can easily run on very little plot and still be amazing. It entirely depends what you are looking for.

Re:Hmmmm (2, Funny)

Surak (18578) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944215)

Err...apparently you haven't actually watched any recent 'Star Trek' films. I'm *still* trying to find the plot in Insurrection. ;)

Oh! (5, Funny)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944133)

Oh! So -that's- why Kangaroo Jack sucked. I get it now!

Next time, we give the kangaroo a gun, add Satan, and make sure there's a steamy sex scene.

Re:Oh! (4, Funny)

kinnell (607819) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944240)

I for one am looking forward to "Kangaroo Jack 2: Attack of the Satanic Nymphomaniacs"

Missing element (4, Insightful)

curtisk (191737) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944134)

it appears this academic has missed a crucial piece of the equation in these modern times:

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"?

Re:Missing element (1)

valisk (622262) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944203)

Its sad but very true in our high power consumer society of today, the current UK hoardings advertising Reloaded seen from a distance look like a series of Prada adverts, it's really only the images of HK MP5s etc that give the game away

Re:Missing element (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944270)

Anyone else feel that the Matrix Reloaded Heineken commercial just makes the Matrix franchise appear "cheap"?

What, you mean in a way that the videogames, comic books, cartoons, action figures and Carrie-Ann Moss dipped in latex do not?

Re:Missing element (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944296)

Anyone else feel that the Matrix Reloaded Heineken commercial just makes the Matrix franchise appear "cheap"?

It is already cheap if you can refer to it as a franchise and the second movie hasn't been released yet.

I am only hoping that they made a good movie in spite of all of the complete selling out that I have seen already. The movie doesn't need hyping, or over-the-top marketing. It *should* stand on its own, like the first movie did. But I realize that the movie industry will not be satisfied until it sucks the life out of everything worth watching.

BAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944135)

I am thinking this MUST be a joke. Believe it or not, these kinds of scales are used in the movie business. This is the reason we sometimes get crap that horribly flops. This is also the reason why movies like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" are considered high risk ventures.

i think the saddest commentary here ... (1)

dlasley (221447) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944140)

is the fact that the perfect movie has only 10pc plot, and the only thing that rates lower is the music. seems a sad reflection on the industry as a whole.

the poll there on the site for the best movie doesn't seem to follow that sentiment, which is very encouraging - at least the viewers want something more than 10pc plot!

Span This Study Over Time (2, Interesting)

doctechniqal (516085) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944146)

Carry this study further: determine the ratios of the elements of what made for a "perfect film" for each decade since the birth of motion pictures. This would shed light on how audience tastes have evolved and where they might be going.

Eureka!!! (4, Funny)

EChris (24069) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944147)

(Reuters) Further research also produced an Instant Film Generation Algorithm (IFGA). The Perfect Film Formula (PFF) was then programmed into the IFGA and the scientists were delighted to see Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope produced spontaneously.

Viewers of the IFGA/PFF results were astounded and enthralled until someone realized that popcorn hadn't been figured into the PFF. The project was scrapped.

Chris

Re:Eureka!!! (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944285)

I think that Eric Blair AKA Goerge Orwell beat you to this idea :)
In "1984" there is a maching that automatically creates movies based on a standard algorithm. Every movie is a different mix of the same things. Made for the masses. Quite creepy actually....

8pc music? (1, Funny)

gunnarstahl (95240) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944148)

That means that in a 90 minute movie you have 7.2 minutes where you don't see anything, just some black screen with music in the background?

Re:8pc music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944159)

Credits usually last 7.2 minutes ;)

Re:8pc music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944198)

Yes, and for another 20 minutes its nothing but a black screen and ESP induced plot, so before you see the actors, film, or special effects you're brainwashed with crazy storylines.

SO FUCKING STUPID

age difference (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944153)

is it just me or does it bother people that there is always a very young girl with a very old man? like for example sean connery and catherine zeta-jones in entrapment... and people are so used to it they dont even notice it but when its a older woman with a young boy (1/1000 chance) people are like ewww gross (like harold and maude)

imdb link to both harold and maude and entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944202)

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0067185 http://us.imdb.com/Title?0137494

Re:age difference ... speaking of CZJ (2, Interesting)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944289)

Speaking of Catherine Zeta Jones - I think the movie Chicago proves this whole ratio thing wrong. It was an EXCELLENT movie 60% music 10% plot 10% Comedy 10% Action 10% sex/romance

Here's the actual formula for a good movie:

Great visuals (set designers, hair dressers, costuming)

Great visuals (Special effects to a level of realistic integration)

Great talent (not just actor clout, but role accuracy)

Great music (john williams, danny elfman, or james newton howard, or fosse) Background Music made Jaws scarey, background music made the first Star Wars and Gone With The Wind emotional. and ...

MEMORABLE writing (good writing has memorable lines) Remember Looney Tunes are only a masterpiece of cartoon art because of the lines each character were noted for (+ all the other elements mentioned)

Arnold Swartzenager and Keanu Reeves CAN make great movies under this formula. Total Recall .... Matrix

There's no certain percentage.

Music? (1)

iworm (132527) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944156)

8% music? So for 8% of the film, the screen must go blank and play tunes only? Or can we have music during, say, the action as well? Or comedy during the sex...? Or...? Or is this formula just a load of tosh?

Re:Music? (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944265)

> So for 8% of the film, the screen must go blank and play tunes only?

Well, the scientist is a huge Stanley Kubrick fan and used 2001 for his research exclusively. And since he also has a monkey fetish, the first part delivered for him on the action and sex accounts as well.

pc? (4, Interesting)

Efg (22790) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944158)

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?

Re:pc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944206)

Cause pc is metric ya dumbshit.

Are they assuming too much? (2, Interesting)

viking099 (70446) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944165)

I've walked out of movies where the acting was so horrible that it totally invalidated what pleasure I may have gained from the rest of the movie.
Additionally, what about camera work? I almost got motion sickness from movies like "Behind Enemy Lines" and "The Blair Witch Project".
I think that they are putting the cart before the horse in a lot of ways here by just analyzing the statistical makeup of the movie.
They're forgetting to take into account that most of those huge movies have the acting required to let you forget that you're not watching a movie, but experiencing a story.

100 pc ? (1)

jvervloet (532924) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944169)

The fact that the percentages for the 7 `essential elements' add up to 100 pc, looks very strange to me. Does it mean that every second of a movie can be classified into one of these categories ? I wonder which criteria they are using for this.

This is a direct rip off of the Flintstones (2, Informative)

jj_johny (626460) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944180)

There was that episode where Barney and Fred (in P-31) [topthat.net] write a song and analyze what needs to be in it to be a hit. I would not be suprised if this is just a hoax.

um, hype? (2, Insightful)

DrWhizBang (5333) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944186)

Living in North America, i don't think you can discount marketing as a true driver. Any movie will be a success with the correct marketer behind it.

Only testing blockbusters (2, Insightful)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944188)

I'd like to see the gross earning stats on all of these movies, as well as movies that really bombed. I'm sure there are some real bunkerbusters out there that met this fantastically depressing formula.

This can't be good for... (3, Insightful)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944190)

...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

Text of Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944192)

Action the major ingredient for perfect film

May 13 2003

Daily Post

THE formula for creating the "perfect" film has been discovered by an academic.

To create a hit movie directors need to combine seven essential elements in the right proportions to ensure they have success, according to university lecturer Sue Clayton.

Her research has revealed that the blueprint for a perfect feature must have: action 30pc, comedy 17pc, good v evil 13pc, love/sex/romance 12pc, special effects 10pc, plot 10pc and music 8pc.

The study was based on detailed analysis of a cross-section of the highest grossing films in the UK in the past 10 years, ranging from Brit-flicks such as The Full Monty and Notting Hill to big budget blockbusters like Die Another Day and Titanic.

Ms Clayton, who is a movie director and screenwriting lecturer for the University of London and the British Film Council, was commissioned by diet Coke to carry out the research in order to better understand what the British public love about popular movies.

The research will be used to assess the potential success of prospective film sponsorship deals.

Toy Story 2, a Disney Pixar production, was the film that had the closest match to the blueprint. The animated tale grossed more than £44m at the UK box office.

Nothing new (3, Interesting)

kinnell (607819) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944196)

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.

This is like (4, Insightful)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944205)

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".

Here it is (4, Funny)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944254)

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.

He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"


http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/03/joke. fu nniest/

Funniest joke... (4, Funny)

jpkunst (612360) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944267)

Search Google for "funniest joke", first item [laughlab.co.uk] that comes up is the joke in question.

A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn't seem to be breathing, his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator, in a calm soothing voice says: "Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: "OK, now what?"

JP

Profit != Quality (2, Interesting)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944211)

You can get a lot of people to see a movie if you hype it enough, or people may just see it anyway because they're bored, but it should be noted that just because your film made money, doesn't mean it was good.

I hope filmmakers don't fall into any sort of rut when it comes to filmmaking despite findings like this, because the movies I most remember and enjoy are ones like Momento, because they are so different and force me to think about the world and how I percieve it. Moreover, what people like changes. Certainly most of the 80's movies I liked, I would scoff at nowadays.

Suffice to say, I won't be seeing 2Fast 2Furious or whatever.

THIS JUST IN (0)

splint3r (315106) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944213)

... Another academic just found out why 100pc of this formulae is 50pc crap and 50pc nonesense.

The most average movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944216)

You can't just pick the best parts of different movies. This would make it the most average movie. And there is no target audience.
This is similar to taking the best features of beautiful of women and putting them together. This have been shown that the result is a very average looking face.

Academic idiocy at its "best" (4, Interesting)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944220)

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.

Three cheers for this study! (2, Insightful)

Oxygen99 (634999) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944246)

Hurrah! At last someone recgonises that if there's one thing we all need in these times of artistic bankruptcy its more films of the quality of XXX, Die Another Day and Titanic. Wow, I can't wait to see the latest blockbuster with its contractually obliged 30% action and 12% sex. I'm literally tearing my eyeballs out in anticipation of the orgasmic visual feast that awaits... What does the world need more than XXX 2 with added snowboarding Vin Diesel?!

Seriously. Jesus... What more can I say? This is just going to provide more evidence to the production houses responsible for the cinematic toxins that clog up our screens every weekend that their formula is not only economically but artistically valid, providing even less incentive to produce movies requiring anything other than open eyes to watch. Great.

Incidentally, I'm not a great nostalgia freak, but one or two examples aside, haven't films got much, much worse over the last year or two or what?

This reminds me of filthy's mib2 review... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944251)


It's just a calculated cash in by director Barry Sonnenefeld. He sat down and said "What did people like about the first one?" The answer was how original and new it was. So Sonnenfeld decided "Okay, then, let's imitate that."

Well, nobody expects film-marketing to know something about numbers, so i guess they will like it (the simpler it is the better the formula must be).

Fools! Only one thing is needed: (1)

Universal Nerd (579391) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944252)

Female Full Frontal Nudity.

Think Mystique without the makeup and Famke taking a shower, XXX-Men, theaters full of horny guys.

Note the source... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5944261)

The article was originally quite extensive and full - but as it's from Liverpool, most of it got pinched.

Somthing Similiar (1)

MimsyBoro (613203) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944266)

There was a similiar machine in 1984 wasn't there? Although there is the famous saying(I vaguely remember this one too): You can never lose money underestamating people's intelligence still you got remember: We Aren't THAT stupid!!

The Perfect Formula For Slashdot Stories (2, Funny)

zulux (112259) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944292)

Xulux writes "According to icBloodyWankers, the formula for creating the "perfect" Slashdot Story has been discovered by a UK pompus-git. The research will be used to assess the potential success of possible Slahvertisements(TM). Apparently, the perfect story must have: troll 30pc, childish humor / potty words 17pc, Nazi MS Users v Commie Linux Users 13pc, pr0n/goatse.cx/ASCII-porn 12pc, 'special' spelling 10pc, grammer 10pc and Katz 8pc "

Ebert: aim at teenage boys (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 10 years ago | (#5944293)

Roger Ebert at the Boulder 2003 World Affairs Conference said the US market is driven by opening weekend momementum. And it is the teenage boys who have flexible schedules and disposable cash to see films on the first day. So you make action movies, maybe with a bit of teenage angst. Thats why you'll see mostly "comic book movies" from May 1 to Sept 1 in the USA.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...