Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta scott adams. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta scott adams. Mostrar todas las entradas

lunes, 28 de abril de 2008

Scott Adams, crítico cinematográfico

Los dibujantes de cómics pueden tener desconcertantes habilidades en el campo de la reseña cinematográfica. Quizá a alguien se le ocurre algún otro ejemplo, pero yo pensaba sobre todo en Scott Adams, el padre de Dilbert, que analiza una película diciendo cosas tal que así:

For example, I want to know if a movie has a happy ending, even at the risk of ruining the surprise. Is the arc of happiness something that starts high, dips for dramatic impact then ends on a high note? Or does it start high and just keep dropping until the movie ends and you want to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills? So I recommend an arc description, such as this example:

Arc: High – Low – High

I also want to know the star power. Recently I watched I Am Legend with Will Smith. I enjoyed it only because Will Smith has star power. Even some unknowns have star power. So show me the star power rating, maybe like this:

Star Power: 9

Next, I need to know the mumbling quotient. How many times do you have to turn to the person next to you and ask “What did he say?”

Mumbling Quotient: 7

And how long is this movie? Can my bladder make it all the way or is this a two-pisser?

Bladder: 8

Artistry is important too. How’s the writing, acting, directing, and so forth?

Artistry: 8

I don’t mind violence per se. I can watch hundreds of zombies or henchman get mowed down and still enjoy my popcorn. What I object to is any scene where someone enjoys torturing someone else.

Sadism: 8

A good story is important. Mostly the story needs to be original and make sense. I don’t care about much else.

Originality: 6

I have a hard time with any movie with a plot so complicated I can’t understand it. I have a right to know ahead of time whether I will be able to decipher the story I am paying to see.

Incomprensibility: 4

You also need rankings for humor, scariness, and suspense.

Humor: 7

Scariness: 8

Suspense: 3

That’s all I want to know. Don’t tell me a movie is some particular actor’s best work yet, or the director is at the peak of his powers. That gives me nothing.

Puto Godard.

jueves, 7 de febrero de 2008

¿Por qué hay tantas películas largas y violentas?

Scott Adams tiene las respuestas:

"Did you ever wonder why movies are too long? I’ve heard the theory that it’s because directors have too much power compared to the past, when the studio could order them to edit a movie. A top director these days has the contractual right to final edit, and the director isn’t likely to lop off the 30 minutes of boredom that took him a month to create. Brains don’t work that way. He’ll convince himself that every minute of his work is essential. If the studio wants him to make another blockbuster for them, they will agree.
And why is there so much violence in movies? A study done in 2005 showed that G-rated movies are 11 times more profitable than R-rated movies, yet the industry cranks out 12-times more R-rated movies.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/news/newsmakers/dove_movies/index.htm
Why is that? It’s obviously not because the public wants more R-rated movies. A theory I’ve heard is that directors are trying to win Academy Awards, and G-rated movies rarely win. Screw the public."

Se rumorea que el tío dice cosas así porque está intentando hacer una peli sobre Dilbert pero los estudios no se animan a invertir. Puto Godard, anda que no molaría una peli sobre Dilbert...