What is Digg?51 Comments
- jayjayjoni, on 11/08/2009, -1/+45lots of money + big ***** + cgi ***** explosions - coherent plotline = Transformers 2
- JoeCool1986, on 11/08/2009, -0/+28I'd rather see ANYTHING than 10,000 Hannah Montana films.
- kinerry, on 11/08/2009, -0/+28No, it knows the formula to what has already been attempted.
Nothing can spot the next trend, or the next major film if it deviates far enough away from the norm.
Also, what is popular is not always what is good. I'd rather have me 1 "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "The Matrix" than 10,000 Hannah Montana films. - fragMasterFlash, on 11/08/2009, -6/+23Nickleback sucks.
- HyperJack, on 11/08/2009, -0/+10I think you mean slow motion bouncing *****.
- sekander94, on 11/08/2009, -0/+8Did anyone else scroll through, looking for a single line with a mathematical formula?
- shanidachine, on 11/08/2009, -0/+6lots of money + good director = good movie
lots of money + uwe boll = ***** movie - robwhite1979, on 11/08/2009, -2/+6It sucks that these studies will spawn even more crap movies. Yeah, sequels are good when they continue the original story, but if the 1st movie is meant to just set up a sequel then you movie people can suck it. I love seeing movies on the big screen, but I'm not an idiot and I can spot a shill from a mile away... How about making one good movie (eg: Star Wars, it's a 3 act idea that was worth it) instead of making an "act 1" movie (eg: Spiderman, made to sucker you into seeing part 2)? It's like music albums that contain 1-2 good songs and a bunch of filler; yeah, I have to keep buying that bands albums to get the good stuff but I still feel ripped off. Originality is not something to be fearful of, it's something to be proud of! Please (commercial studios) start making good movies that we only want to see once but are willing to pay for, or else suffer the wrath of bittorrent the same way the music industry is (like it's not already happening to you, psss!).
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4Hollywood has been using a formula to crank out sequels for years.
A good sequel needs something new, not just a copy of something that was already successful.
Examples of good sequels: Terminator 2, The Dark Knight
Examples of bad sequels: Terminator 3, Pirates of the Caribbean II and on
Good sequels have new, substantial content. Of course, acting helps, budget helps, but the Pirates sequels prove to me that it's all about original stuff. - anoriginalname, on 11/08/2009, -1/+5Pfffffff! That's a simple calculation to me.
Good Original Story + Great Actors + Good execution + Money = Even more money - rocknog, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Superhero movies are actually well-suited to sequels, in my opinion. After all, the characters often have decades of adventures to cover, so it's not like the material is lacking. Besides, every first superhero movie has to be an origin story, because you can't assume that your audience is already familiar with the character from the comic books.
I mean, look at Batman Begins vs. The Dark Knight. Both were good films, but The Dark Knight was clearly superior, at least in part because Batman Begins had already explained the origin story, so the movie could really focus on the conflict between Batman and the Joker. - rushover, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Damn, movies like G.I. Joe and Catwoman could have used this formula.
- desertDenizen, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3Did you enter a contest to see how many non sequiturs you could pack into one comment, or did you just not actually read the article?
Incidentally, there are lots of statistically valid marketing techniques to spotting trends. The problem in the motion picture industry is that the models aren't very reliable until there is audience test data, but by then the expense of production has already been incurred. But the marketing and distribution expenses haven't, and sometimes these are more than the cost of producing the film (easy to see why at $2000 per print). When films test badly, they go straight to video and can still sometimes make money.
Anyway, this article is limited to modeling sequels only. Your first point would have been correct had you omitted the "no" at the beginning. Your second point is egregiously incorrect (see above). Your third point, while accurate, in no way contradicts anything said in the article so far as I can tell.
I wouldn't normally point all of this ***** out except that you're getting dugg up pretty fast, which makes me wonder if anybody read the article. Yes people, trends can be spotted, at least early enough to make calculated decisions regarding marketing investments. Regarding certainty, you have a choice: timely or accurate, but rarely 100% of both. - inactive, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3Big *****? Where?
- kinerry, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2...no one will take risks if they follow crap like this.
Nothing new will emerge - alwilson, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2I don't know about you guys, but I can spot a poor idea a mile away. Don't need any math to see that certain ideas suck. How often do you see a trailer or read about a proposed treatment and say to yourself, this going to suck big time and it usually does.
- kplo, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Profit!
- kinerry, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2wrong
- rushover, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2(if they were sequels that is, either way, those movies sucked so much)
- Minyall, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Ahh, art for arts sake is thriving well I see.
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2I know this isn't your point but honestly I had a hard time getting through Eternal Sunshine. I mean I got it, I'm pretty sure I understand how I was supposed to "feel" and all that, but it was just hard to take. What did you like about it?
- kd1s, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Oh great - more formulaic movies. And they wonder why movie attendance is down. I'll tell you why, keep producing crap, and sequels of crap and we're not going to pay $10 or more per ticket to sit with a bunch of boorish idiots in order to see your 'art'.
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Guys, this formula is supposed to tell you how much money the sequel will procude, not if it will be any good.
I'd like to see more predictions, though, to see if this formula actually works. - aptanalogy, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2That's what I thought after what happened with your mother last night.
- andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2I liked that it was hard to take and made you think - not only about the plot itself, but through that: about love, memory of love and whether it's worth it to forget or remember. Sometimes movies aren't all happy endings and easily definable characters.
I don't even mean that in a snobbish way. I love mindless entertainment films like Crank and Die Hard 4 as much as the ones where you have to concentrate, but you did ask what I liked about it. - disappointed, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1This only suggests how much a sequel will earn. Sequels are never risks anyway.
It also doesn't prevent people from arguing that although the numbers don't look good for their project, they have something special that the numbers don't account for.
Hollywood is already resistant to taking risks. This just formalizes what they're already doing. - waqanezzer, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1No I haven't, though I would love to. No matter what their quality of study is, do you really think that movies are gonna work according to some formula? I don't think so!! Most of the theory they have come up with (which is clearly mentioned in this article) is pure common sense. You don't need to do the math for that!!
- cfuse, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1I thing the fundamental issue is whether there is enough in the base story to warrant its continuation. Unfortunately, whether a sequel is made or not is primarily a financial decision these days.
- darrellcskinner, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1this guy did *points thumb at self*
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1Mediocre story + mainstream actors + CGI explosions + something nostalgic/something based on a comicbook + money = $$$$$$$$$
- waqanezzer, on 11/08/2009, -1/+2Oh that would be great. Just do the MATH and there you have it, a box office!!. now they are gonna come up with more crap thinking this formula would really work!!....BTW who really are those so called 'mathematicians' came up with this BS in the first place?
- consonance, on 11/08/2009, -1/+2Have you seen the paper? Have you seen what their formulas look like? Until you even know what their research says (you have to remember that the news media is not a collection of academics), you are in no position to judge the quality of their study--and neither am I for that matter.
- krispykreams, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1So you're saying math helped you realize that you shouldn't ***** up a good franchise? Sounds like common sense to me. But what the ***** do I know.
- inactive, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1@andyroo
Yes I did ask, and I was hoping someone would answer. I work very hard to actually listen to others' opinions and consider them. So thank you. - Malarie, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1Basinc Instingct triumphed because of ({I}).
- BotchaMcCoola, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1Probably a routine linear regression model. Despite their simplicity they do perform well.
- ChestRawkwell, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1Ever wondered why Spider-Man 2 triumphed and Basic Instinct 2 bombed?
Anybody could have guessed that *****. - mKdiR, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1I think you mean Nickleback nicklebacks.
- sivyr, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Have you ever heard of extrapolation? Maybe it's not dead-on accurate, but I'd rather have a model to give me something better than ballpark figures to make decisions on my multi-million dollar investment.
Perhaps this model doesn't handle everything new and different, but that's not what it's for. It's for sequels. How many sequels have you seen that are markedly different from the original title?
I wonder why that could be... Perhaps because they were big money-makers before, and following the same formula could be successful?
Gee, what a shock. - andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1(Meant to reply to rocknog - copied the reply here to a reply to the comment above)
- andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1There could easily be a superhero film where there isn't the origin story first. In fact, I'd love to see a film where it dove right into the action, without flashbacks to explain the history, and just took off from there.
Just like most films.
You didn't see how John McLean became so embittered with life in Die Hard 1, you worked it out and were thrust straight into the action where it was explained without having flashbacks to the breakup of his marriage, how he wasn't suited to his wife, etc.
How is that any different from how a superhero film could be? - andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1= PROFIT!!!
- numsai, on 11/09/2009, -0/+0A good sequel needs something new, not just a copy of something that was already successful.
- Spacejack, on 11/09/2009, -0/+0This article starts off asking if we ever wondered why Spider-Man 2 did well and Basic Instinct 2 bombed. No, I think it's safe to say I never wondered about that.
- Stoyanov, on 11/08/2009, -1/+1Hell yeah.
/lol - Spacejack, on 11/09/2009, -0/+0They're really better-suited to television than movies altogether. That's if you're talking about the traditional Marvel-ish soap opera model, from which most of the superhero movies have come.
And:
"you can't assume that your audience is already familiar with the character from the comic books."
No, you can't assume that. But there is a strong tradition in drama called "in media res" which audiences have continuously accepted for many, many years. It's tantalizing to be baffled at first. - gnarnia, on 11/08/2009, -4/+4MATH DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!
- aptanalogy, on 11/08/2009, -3/+1I'd rather Hannah Montana films. You?
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is