Anders raised an interesting point - seeing as how Hollywood is latin for "form over substance" and heavily favors looks over abilities, how would female actors fare when applying the Samuel L. Jackson-factor (SLJ)?
My take was that over time, quality prevails, so in order to take it to the test, I tried applying the SLJ-factor to two female actors I consider to be absolutely top-notch, and compared the resulting SLJ-factors with what I obtained for two vacuous bags of plastic, make-up and hair-extensions.
Meryl Streep: Not the most prolific actress, and known for the quality of her work. I've seen 8 of her movies, and liked 6, yielding an SLJ-factor of 0.75.
Jodie Foster: 6 out of 9; SLJ = 0.67
Angelina Jolie: I've suffered through four miserable movies in which she appears (none of them had the words "tomb" or "raider" in the title) - SLJ = 0.
Sarah Jessica Parker: This merchant of HBO-level risque crap has appeared in five movies I've seen. I thought they all sucked. SLJ = 0.
So yeah; the system works, at least for me. Notice that none of my examples utilized "naked teenager number seven" from ___(insert random movie title here)___.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Well, I tried two actresses: Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock.
Roberts is considered being one of the most valued actresses in
Julie Roberts: SLJ= 0.20
Sandra Bullock: SLJ= 0.50
Why? Because I've seen one good I've deliberately avoided seeing Bullock movies, since I pretty much have a feeling they suck, and thus have only watched three. But I actually liked one of them
Roberts: I've seen 10, liked two. However, among the "not liked" there are several that are not half bad. And she has several other movies on her back catalogue that I might like. The movies I didn't like with Ms. Bullock, I really hated. And I can almost guarantee that I won't like any of the movies I haven't seen starring Ms. Bullock.
To which I conclude: I'm more likely to like the next Roberts movie* then the next Bullock movie, even though the SLJ factor tells me otherwise.
*Except it Julia Robert's have a role in the upcoming Ocean's 13...
PS: Are we including films where the actor only has voice over (animation and cartoons) in the SLJ factor, and how about TV productions?
Uhhh..not to be all math guy on you, but if you have seen 3 Bullock movies and you liked 1, the SLJ-factor is 1/3, or 0.33........
I seem to remember that you avoided math-oriented higher-level courses at the university, and in light of this - let me tell you; that seems like a very smart decision :-D
The thing of it is, though, that with only three movies to provide statistical material, your SLJ-factor for Julia Roberts is probably way more believable than the one for Bullock.
I haven't counted TV appearances - don't think I've included voice-overs in major animated movies. Although for the latter, I guess you could argue that having a recognizable voice character really brings something to the movie (which is why it sucks to watch animated movies dubbed to Norwegian - having Chris Rock or Kevin James replaced by Nicolai Cleve Broch or Jahn Teigen doesn't exactly improve the experience).
PS: When you watched Speed, didn't Bullock appear to be quite the stellar actress next to Keanu Reeves?
You're way too hung up in conventional "math", with your "adding", "multiplying" and "dividing"*. This is fuzzy logic, and is way too complicated to bother your cute, little head with...
Ok, ok, my bad. I admit it. However, it doesn't take anything away from my point: I don't bother seeing any more Bullock flicks just to get her SLJ score down. I know I don't like her movies, based more on the genre and general topic of the movies. And Roberts might have some movies in her catalogue that I like, despite the lower SLJ factor.
So, how many movies with an actor do I have to watch to have enough statistical material to set a good SLJ factor?
*See how suspect "words" look if you put them in quotation mark?
When you watched Speed, didn't Bullock appear to be quite the stellar actress next to Keanu Reeves?
You bet! That's the one good movie I've seen with Bullock. Funny though, neither Bullock nor Reeves managed to ruin this movie for me.
..ok, "Anders"....... ;-)
You don't have to see lots of movies with an actor in order to change the SLJ-factor - it's just something you can use as an empirical tool.
For example; you see a new movie coming out, and the description looks really promising. Crime drama or whatever. BUT; some guy from Jackass is starring. Obviously, you skip seeing the movie, right? Or Keanu Reeves is cast as a grad student in nuclear physics......wait...that actually happened........
Ok At last my SLJs !!!!!!!
Samuel L. Jackson first :
0.37 (10/27) even if he plays 2 minutes in Kill Bill 2, out of sight, goodfellas
Tom Cruise:
0,42 (I can't believe it) (8/19)
It could have been better since MI2 and MI3 are not bad (but I couldn't have a ratio above 0,5 for Tom Cruise)
Nic Cage :
0,52 (10/19) but I have to admit that he has made lots of movies that I have not seen but I surely know that they suck (Ghost biker or whatever he calls himself)
Ed Norton 0,5 (5/10)
Damn I forgot red dragonThis movie is so bad that it should count for 2 !!
Johnny Depp
0,29 (5/17)
Lots of not so bad movies (but not wonderful either) so a quite bad slj
I should had some half points for this one
Bruce Willis
0,25 (6/24)
Brad Pitt
0,26 (6/23)
I have to add Jodie Foster:
0,77 (10/13)
I only didn't like Flight Plan, Nell and the accused (even if she won an oscar for that one)
But I don't know if I liked Maverick for the movie or for the actors by the way.
Mel Gibson :
0,37(7/19)
What about an SLJ-equivalent for directors, as per Anders' post?
..only 0.5 for Ed Norton??? Surely, Thou must be shitting me, as Shakespeare said..
Dude rules, dammit. Rules, I say.
More SLJ's from me:
Gary Oldman: SLJ = 5/9 = 0.56. Surpisingly low...
Robert De Niro: SLJ = 16/22 = 0.73. No surprise there.
Al Pacino: SLJ = 6/11 = 0.55. Kind of low due to the fact that I'm not particularly partial to his one-dimensional guido characters like Carlito and Scarface.
Keanu Reeves: SLJ = 6/12 = 0.5. Damn - wayyyy higher than expected. It's due to the first Matrix movie (not the crap-o-rama sequels), The Devil's Advocate (with Pacino), Speed, Parenthood (I've got a soft spot for Steve Martin's movies) and the two Bill&Ted movies (...they've got shredding and Steve Vai)
John Travolta: SLJ = 7/17 = 0.41. His past totally comes back to haunt him, with the "Look Who's Talking" flicks and Staying Alive. Also; that "Swordfish" fiasco didn't do him any favors....
Tom Hanks: 9/11 = 0.82. Again - no surprise. Dude rocks!
Sylvester Stallone: SLJ = 17%25 = 0.68. Throwback to the 80's, plus the fact that he's made some pretty standard, totally-cool-to-watch action movies.
yes 0,5 for Ed Norton
I didn't like red dragon, the score, keeping the faith, american history X and Everybody says I love you
Here are the votes from the Nerdy jury:
Norway - one point
La Norvège - un point
(Sounds familiar, Wilhelm?)
Ok, I finally added some SLJs myself, with some surprising results.
Sarah Jessica Parker: 0.33 (didn’t know she played in Footloose. Only seen three movies with SJP, hence the high SLJ)
Meryl Streep: 0.50 (I’m surprised I haven’t seen more movies with her)
Jodie Foster: 0.75
Angelina Jolie: 0.2
SLJ: 0.63
Tom Cruise: 0.17
Nicolas Cage: 0.60
Edward Norton: 0.30 (surprisingly low! I’ll write that one of on my math skills (or the fact that I’ve only seen 5 EN movies. I must have missed some?))
Johnny Depp: 0.82 (no surprise, he’s known for choosing the right roles).
Bruce Willis: 0.39
Brad Pitt: 0.61 (a little high, but I’ve seen 13 Pitt flicks, so I must like him…)
All SLJ factors within +/- 0.5 accuracy.
...la France...zero point.....
Yeah; it sounds familiar, I guess.
What the hell kind of movies with Sarah Jessica Parker have you seen that you actually like?
About Johnny Depp; yeah dude's good. Problem is, I've only seen like four movies with him, so I didn't bother ranking.
The Ninth Gate did suck, though.
What the hell kind of movies with Sarah Jessica Parker have you seen that you actually like?
I gave thumbs up for Mars Attacks. Not my favorite movie, but it had it's moments, so I gave it a thumbs up. We really should have some finer grating than love/hate...
And, SLJs effort as "Hold-up guy" in Coming to America I guess didn't make or break the movie, but it still counted towards his SLJ score...
Didn't think I'd be the one to say that, but wouldn't a more detailed system be overly nerdy?
You actually liked "Coming To America"?
Didn't think I'd be the one to say that, but wouldn't a more detailed system be overly nerdy?
Yes. But we are nerds. You just have to face the truth; you are not the hip and cool dude you think you are. You are a nerd. But, you're a tenured academic and have a blog, so the odds were against you from the start... ;-)
You actually liked "Coming To America"?
No, but it still counted towards his SLJ score.
Didn't think I'd be the one to have to explain this, but both the numerator and denominator have an impact on the result when you calculate fractions.
Or, since you obviously don't speak math fluently: Both the numbers above and below the dividing line matters when you calculate SLJ factors. E-mail me if you want me to clarify... ;-)
(sorry, I just couldn't resist...)
...I prefer the term "geek" myself. There is a difference, you know. A geek is a nerd with some social skills.
Thanks for the math lesson, by the way. That'll sure come in handy one fine day. So when calculating fractions you have to consider what's below the line as well as what's above it? Who'd have thunk it......
Post a Comment