Welcome to my message board.
New member registration has been disabled due to heavy spammer activity. If you'd like to join the board, please email me at MaxDevore at hotmail dot com.
New member registration has been disabled due to heavy spammer activity. If you'd like to join the board, please email me at MaxDevore at hotmail dot com.
The Shining is the perfect horror movie
Secret Behind Scary Films Revealed
Want to know the secret behind the world's greatest horror movies - it's easy, it's: (es+u+cs+t) squared +s+ (tl+f)/2 + (a+dr+fs)/n + sin x - 1.
At least that's what mathematicians think.
Researchers watched scores of horror films and produced a formula designed to give perfect results every time.
They looked at how the elements of suspense, realism and gore combine to make the ideal scary film.
They found that suspense is one of key qualities and is created by escalating music (es) the unknown (u), chase scenes (cs) and the sense of being trapped (t).
They therefore started their formula with (es+u+cs+t) squared before shock (s) is added.
The experts next said that for a film to be terrifying, it has to be realistic, so true life (tl) and fantasy (f) are added together and divided by two (tl+f)/2 to find the balance between too unrealistic and too close to life.
As the number of characters can also influence a film's scariness, with fewer characters increasing the shock factor, the formula looks at whether the characters are alone (a), in a dark environment (dr) and the film setting (fs) and divides it by the number of people (n) in the film (a+dr+fs)/n.
Mathematicians said there was also a maximum level of gore, beyond which a movie becomes average.
Therefore the experts took blood and guts (Sin x) and subtracted it by the stereotypes (1), to make Sin x - 1.
Based on their formula, researchers found that The Shining, the 1980 Jack Nicholson film based on the Stephen King book, made the perfect horror film.
The research was carried out for Sky Movies, which will be showing The Shining and other scary movies this weekend.
Want to know the secret behind the world's greatest horror movies - it's easy, it's: (es+u+cs+t) squared +s+ (tl+f)/2 + (a+dr+fs)/n + sin x - 1.
At least that's what mathematicians think.
Researchers watched scores of horror films and produced a formula designed to give perfect results every time.
They looked at how the elements of suspense, realism and gore combine to make the ideal scary film.
They found that suspense is one of key qualities and is created by escalating music (es) the unknown (u), chase scenes (cs) and the sense of being trapped (t).
They therefore started their formula with (es+u+cs+t) squared before shock (s) is added.
The experts next said that for a film to be terrifying, it has to be realistic, so true life (tl) and fantasy (f) are added together and divided by two (tl+f)/2 to find the balance between too unrealistic and too close to life.
As the number of characters can also influence a film's scariness, with fewer characters increasing the shock factor, the formula looks at whether the characters are alone (a), in a dark environment (dr) and the film setting (fs) and divides it by the number of people (n) in the film (a+dr+fs)/n.
Mathematicians said there was also a maximum level of gore, beyond which a movie becomes average.
Therefore the experts took blood and guts (Sin x) and subtracted it by the stereotypes (1), to make Sin x - 1.
Based on their formula, researchers found that The Shining, the 1980 Jack Nicholson film based on the Stephen King book, made the perfect horror film.
The research was carried out for Sky Movies, which will be showing The Shining and other scary movies this weekend.
Comments
;D
These mathematicians think they know everything
It's formulas like this that generate unoriginal copies of movies that get worse and worse. You can't make a good movie with formulas and no heart, depth in character, and a smart script. You can't boil down a good movie or a peice of art with a math equation in my opinion.
I did manage to get sick of Friday the Thirteenth after part 4. and Nightmare on Elm street after part 3 ;D
How about Children of the Corn parts 1 - infinity! ;D
But I did enjoy Pet Sematary 2 ;D
How are the Children of the Corn movies after the first one? - are they worth the rental fee? ( That Redheaded Kid in the 1st one was scary).
Lin
Someone needs to invent a virtual reality movie where you put on the headgear and the character appears as you think they aught to - of course this means you have to have read the book first! ;D ;D
For a scary movie, I'd say it would have to be 'Salem's Lot over the The Shining.
Tosses their theory out the window...lol
Btw, Bev - any idea if they were paid alot of money to come up with this theory?
Probably ghastly sums.
Wonder's if that can equate to "us" starring in movie's also as our favourite character's working alongside our favourite actresses/actor's.
Thought so...
Does anyone take this research seriously?
And...
if they do, is this how the next generation of horror movies will be made - to a mathematical formula ready for the multiplexes and the masses...?
OH!
mathematical formula (m1) X multiplexes (m2) X masses (m3)
so: m1 X m2 X m3 = me copyrighting this formula and making loads of money ;D
It's easy for King fans who have an emotional investment in the book to take offense to the Kubrick version.
But I've yet to see anyone give a real, convincing argument about how the movie is substantially different from the novel.
The usual problems I hear bantered are: Nicholson's performance was hammy, or that he was nuts to begin with. Or that the hedge maze creatures weren't involved.
Those are the three arguments that I have heard that hold the most weight for me (I think that Jack's alcholism was very much a part of Kubrick's version).
I will agree with fans who don't like Nicholson's performance. I don't care for it myself. His hammy moments (like at the bar with Lloyd) make me want to laugh and bounces me out of the picture.
But the whole atmosphere that Kubrick created in that movie is astoundingly creepy, unnerving, and just outright freaky.
And I also think that it was unfair for King to take potshots at the film when it came out (calling it an example of "how not to make a horror film", or words to that effect.) because his attacks on the film were emotionally based, and had nothing to do with anything close to an objective viewpoint. I can understand how Kubrick was only willing to lease the film rights back to King in exchange for ending his tired and silly criticisms of the film. King had a chance to do his own version. It's certainly not the golden example of "faithfulness" from novel to film (even though King had 3 hours to play with), nor is it held in high regard as an example of an effective horror picture.
Some may think I am going too far when I say this, but there is a part of me that is convinced that King was pissed when someone adapted one of his novels, changed aspects of it, and still managed to make an effective horror picture.
Another part of me wonders whether or not King fans expected for the movie to include the entire book, chapter for chapter, with every single theme, nuance, and character involved, and still manage to cram it into a 2 1/2 hour movie.
Where does the criticism for King's adaptation of his own work and lack of faithfulness in those projects play in this?
Quote from esplatter.com: