Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Matt<>Broon, May 13, 2003.
Taken from here - http://www.btopenworld.com/news/ente...769582,00.html
12% sex/romance in Toy Story 2? O_o
This guy need 14.5% of an ass kicking, and then he can f#*k himself for 19.3% of the time.
How about 25% great direction, 25% great acting and 50% great writing?
Hmmm, I wonder which 10% of Toy Story 2 was deemed to be special effects?
When is Ms. Clayton's next film coming out? According to my research there's a 5% chance I'll go see it.
First of all, no shit there are formulas, there have been since the beginning of film.
Second, even those formulas fail. I would like to see the detailed research results GRAPHING box office income to the error level (or distance from perfect) for many films.
Of course, that error measure requires a method for MEASURING, meaning how do you score each scene to get the percentage totals, something several posters have already noted.
And if that is too subjective then you already run into a terrible skewing of the data. There is no way the scorer can not know the films being scored, nor be oblivious to their BO record. So how does the scorer keep from counting a certain 10 minutes toward one category over the other in some sort of bias.
Finally, nice formula, now how exactly do you mix them. I mean do you start with the 17% comedy scenes or do you mix them in, and if so then when and in what order?
Really the "formula" given is completely worthless at this point, even if it works. The structure simply isn't explained enough.
And as George already said, good luck using the formula without good acting or good writing.
Frankly, when you look at it what Ms. Clayton has basically done is to show that great films aren't one dimensional (and without the graphs comparing BO hits to BO failures she hasn't really even proven that). Gee, that's some new info to us isn't it?
This is a non-story of the worst kind...sadly its probably her 15 minutes of fame.
I looked Ms. Clayton up on IMDb and notice that she has directed two films plus one for TV, the last, The Disappearance of Finbar has a 1996 date. I looked at the review in the NYT, and it had a mostly positive review.
But one can only ponder what she has been doing in the seven years since this film appeared? Doing frame-by-frame research, presumably.
This article is 100% BS
10% special effects? What qualifies as F/X anyway? Does matte painting and blue screen qualify?
I wonder if, while making a movie, it might be wise to cut a joke or 2 to make sure not to get past 17%?
Worth a good laugh at least
Watch out Simon, you're about to go above the ideal 53% sarcasm in this thread.
On the old "Movie Show with Chris Gore" on FX, Mr. Gore revealed the formula Jerry Bruckheimer uses. His films contain a combination of the following ingredients:
Big name cast
Lots of special effects
One other item I can't remember
Bright orange poster
Each element is worth approximately $40 million in box office. ARMAGEDDON had all 5 and made $200 million. THE ROCK lacked the brigh orange poster and therefore stalled at around $150 million.
I'm guessing that there's a 71.6% chance that Warner Brothers will tap her skills to helm the "new" Superman.
99% perspiration, 1% imagination.
I think Goldfinger is a good example of this formula. And it's a damn good movie!
Tom, not just any prison, a federal pound you in the ass prison!
did this lady say anything important? i must have missed it
i wonder why i haven't heard of this director with the perfect formula that she hasn't put into use yet.
Probably the most ridiculous conceit in all this is that these elements can be seperated in a meaningful way.
was Toy Story 2 the most perfect film?? that thing doesn't make any sense...