Stupid Movie Director Viz

Here is a stupid viz I built a while ago. I didn't like it because as I mentioned earlier.... it's stupid. But I showed some people and they said it wasn't the worst thing they had ever seen which is basically my standard of excellence. I wanted to see if movie director's get better with age and experience; a blatant ripoff of this guy's cool viz. I discovered nothing and who cares. So enjoy?


5 comments:

  1. Nice work, Adam. I don't think it's stupid at all. In fact, since I'm the guy you blatantly ripped-off, I'd say I resemble that remark. Surprised to see that Tarantino's output post Pulp Fiction is rated so consistently High. And that "True Grit" had a higher rating than "Fargo" or "No Country For Old Men". What the?

    Dug it. Thanks.

    Kyle Biehle (aka the Ivory Sofa)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a cool viz, and a very interesting data set. I decided to play around with it to see if some conclusions could be drawn. The only clear insight I was able to see is that more selective directors tend to do better over time. I'd be curious to know what you think.

    http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/RankingFilmDirectors/RankingFilmDirectors?:embed=y&:display_count=no

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike, Thanks. I like your analysis. I wanted to do something looking at duration between films and rating. My assumption was your finding; that the more time between films the higher the rating. Cool stuff.

    I think it might be interesting to look at the volatility in a Director's ratings and their box office success. For example, Barry Levinson's movies have total range of 89%. But it would be interesting to look at the average change between films and does that lead to less box office success. The assumption being consistency leads to higher box office because audiences know what to expect.

    Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That definitely is an interesting follow-up question, Adam. If my brain wasn't fried (and slightly inebriated), I'd try to put together a viz that explored it. :-)

    But I did select a few of the directors, to see what their trend showed. The top-rated director (in terms of career rating durability) is Chris Nolan, and his box office has improved over time. But you'd expect that, since his earlier films were very indie and the Batman movies are cash cows. Similarly, the Coen Brothers have had very good ratings for most of their films, and had their biggest box office hit with their last film, True Grit.

    Looking towards the bottom of the director list, you have Michael Bay. His ratings have been consistently pretty poor, but his films tend to still make a boatload of money, with his second-to-last film (Transformers 2) being his most successful. And Ron Howard, just one notch above Levinson, has had a very mixed ratings history, with the trend being noticeably down. Despite that, a fairly recent film (Da Vinci Code) is his second most successful box office hit.

    So, at this point, I'd say there might be a correlation between ratings volatility and box office success, but it's a weak one. Audiences seem willing to give directors second and third chances, or sometimes a particular story is just going to be a draw regardless of who is behind the helm.

    Interesting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's actually a cool and useful piece of info. I am glad that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing, You can also check out this http://www.sqiar.com

    ReplyDelete