Some Interesting Concordances Between Modern Literature And The Golden Ratio
08-31-2017, 09:16 PM
In summary: the highest Return-On-Investment films appear to follow fairly strongly the pattern of the Golden Ratio ... and from my brief experimentation, it looks like some of the more popular "breakout" novels do so as well.
I got interested after doing some reading at this very badly-organised website from a doctoral student named JV Velikovsky who's interested in how memes work and in particular how creativity works. Going in there is a bit like browsing old-school Wikipedia, you can very easily start one article, then link across to another article and find yourself getting pretty lost easily.
At first glance it looks like another standard massive Internet Wank about leftie, postmodernist interpretations of literature ... except you find fairly early on that Velikovsky actually doesn't believe in postmodernism. He's a very big believer in the concept of consilience, i.e. deep principles that underlie not just single bodies of science but multiple bodies of science. This idea is not new-age shit but is in fact fairly advanced, cutting-edge work being done in the science field: I've reviewed Edward Wilson's book on the subject here, and it was this website that turned me onto the idea. The point being: postmodernism is bullshit, because it doesn't reflect physical or biological reality. Human beings appear to be pre-programmed with certain underlying epigenetic rules that drive our behaviour, i.e. all the biological evidence seems to be pointing away from the idea since Freud et. al. that everything is just narratives and social constructs and pointing to the idea that there is, indeed, an underlying human nature which we tend to follow.
This is a very shallow and summary version of the concept, but Velikovsky and some elements of the creative industries -- particularly those interested in AI -- are looking at the epigenetic rules that underlie creativity. To wit: are there some testable, scientific rules that creativity follows, that determines whether human beings like a work and whether it becomes popular?
Velikovsky's doctoral dissertation - which is basically contained in the honeycomb of webpages at that site - is essentially that there is such a test. Velikovsky's idea was basically to find the highest return-on-investment (ROI) films of the 20th century and see what common features each of them had. ROI he defines as the movie's budget versus what its box office ultimately was. Per Velikovsky:
So what are the highest ROI (versus highest gross) films of the past 70 years?
![[Image: the-top-20-roi-films-storyality-theory.png]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-top-20-roi-films-storyality-theory.png)
Any investor should understand the implications of this list. If, as an investor, you had put up $1,000 to fund Paranormal Activity, you would have made back literally over a million percent. $1,000 into The Full Monty, you would have made seven thousand times your investment.
Shit, here's one of the biggest ironies of them all: George Lucas got a better ROI on American Graffiti than he did with Star Wars! By that metric, American Graffiti was the bigger success.
Compare that to the standard rule-of-thumb in Hollywood that a film has to make back three times its budget to be even considered a break-even, and 70% of Hollywood films don't do that even with massive budgets and big-name stars.
So what is it about these films that makes people turn out in their droves, what makes them viral? Velikovsky does note some common factors to them:
In short: these stories struck a chord with more people across the world than anything else in Hollywood's history, in spite of every marketing trick, big name star, or massive SPFX budget that was thrown at them. It was the story, more than anything else, that guaranteed the story's reach.
On analysing these 20 films, Velikovsky found something stirringly beautiful about the structure underlying each. I want to emphasise again that these elements were derived scientifically - they were not just another recitation of the Three Act Structure or a conventional screenwriting manual (Velikovsky goes through pretty much every manual and model for screenwriting out there in the webpages and identifies what are consistent with his findings and what are not.). They were derived as a result of scientific and consilient experimentation.
You can sum up Velikovsky's insights in three images:
![[Image: storyality-10-key-points.png]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/storyality-10-key-points.png)
![[Image: the-storyality-screenplay-story-structur....jpg?w=852]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-storyality-screenplay-story-structure-syntagm.jpg?w=852)
![[Image: the-storyality-syntagm-beat-sheet1.jpg?w=984]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-storyality-syntagm-beat-sheet1.jpg?w=984)
The spiral is the artistic representation of the Golden Ratio, but it illustrates the wider concept: each of these films' structure is the same and has the same elements to it ... because these elements are what pushes hardest out to audiences in the modern day.
Many of these elements are highly counterintuitive to things that are taught in screenwriting classes if not generally about what works in stories in the present day, but the data speaks for itself. I'll come back to this stuff in another post as the infodump is getting a bit long, but for the time being, go through what you remember of the ROI films and think about how these structures match.
I got interested after doing some reading at this very badly-organised website from a doctoral student named JV Velikovsky who's interested in how memes work and in particular how creativity works. Going in there is a bit like browsing old-school Wikipedia, you can very easily start one article, then link across to another article and find yourself getting pretty lost easily.
At first glance it looks like another standard massive Internet Wank about leftie, postmodernist interpretations of literature ... except you find fairly early on that Velikovsky actually doesn't believe in postmodernism. He's a very big believer in the concept of consilience, i.e. deep principles that underlie not just single bodies of science but multiple bodies of science. This idea is not new-age shit but is in fact fairly advanced, cutting-edge work being done in the science field: I've reviewed Edward Wilson's book on the subject here, and it was this website that turned me onto the idea. The point being: postmodernism is bullshit, because it doesn't reflect physical or biological reality. Human beings appear to be pre-programmed with certain underlying epigenetic rules that drive our behaviour, i.e. all the biological evidence seems to be pointing away from the idea since Freud et. al. that everything is just narratives and social constructs and pointing to the idea that there is, indeed, an underlying human nature which we tend to follow.
This is a very shallow and summary version of the concept, but Velikovsky and some elements of the creative industries -- particularly those interested in AI -- are looking at the epigenetic rules that underlie creativity. To wit: are there some testable, scientific rules that creativity follows, that determines whether human beings like a work and whether it becomes popular?
Velikovsky's doctoral dissertation - which is basically contained in the honeycomb of webpages at that site - is essentially that there is such a test. Velikovsky's idea was basically to find the highest return-on-investment (ROI) films of the 20th century and see what common features each of them had. ROI he defines as the movie's budget versus what its box office ultimately was. Per Velikovsky:
Quote:Quote:
...the key hypothesis of this research is that these 20 films are the films that are the most popular (relative to their own budget), due to the story.
The reason this is due to the story is that, there are no other observable reasons that might explain their success: they (mostly) had small marketing budgets (at least initially, if not later), had no stars (A-list actors), and most (17 and arguably 18 out of 20, all except Star Wars – 1977 and ET – 1982) had no `name’ directors attached, etc.
The reason these are the most viral films, is that they are the most contagious memes, due to word-of-mouth. The reason they are the most contagious memes, is that they spread furthest through the culture due to / via word-of-mouth, when their final audience reach is compared to their production budget. (See Brian Boyd on `cost-benefit ratios’ in On The Origin of Stories, 2009)
Notably, other potential causes such as: aggressive marketing, star power and director marquee value are absent – as all except two of these films had none of those factors, to therefore explain their success in going so virulent in the culture.
The literature search reveals that no other existing screenwriting manual nor research paper yet published uses this empirical data set.
So what are the highest ROI (versus highest gross) films of the past 70 years?
![[Image: the-top-20-roi-films-storyality-theory.png]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-top-20-roi-films-storyality-theory.png)
Any investor should understand the implications of this list. If, as an investor, you had put up $1,000 to fund Paranormal Activity, you would have made back literally over a million percent. $1,000 into The Full Monty, you would have made seven thousand times your investment.
Shit, here's one of the biggest ironies of them all: George Lucas got a better ROI on American Graffiti than he did with Star Wars! By that metric, American Graffiti was the bigger success.
Compare that to the standard rule-of-thumb in Hollywood that a film has to make back three times its budget to be even considered a break-even, and 70% of Hollywood films don't do that even with massive budgets and big-name stars.
So what is it about these films that makes people turn out in their droves, what makes them viral? Velikovsky does note some common factors to them:
Quote:Quote:
As part of the doctoral study findings, it should also be noted that these films are:
1) primarily low-budget (under USD$2m on average);
2) primarily independently-financed; (18 of the top 20 films)
3) all involve writer-hyphenates, (notably, 7 of the `bottom 20 ROI films’ do not) (My note: a "write-hyphenate" is Velikovsky's term for a writer-producer, writer-director, writer-X -- where the film's scriptwriter is intimately involved in the production, unlike standard Hollywood which tends to throw the scriptwriter out once the director has control of the film.)
4) all are `original screen ideas’ (none of the top 20 are sequels, nor adaptations).
Also note that none of the 20 films had large marketing budgets, nor stars, and only two had “name” directors attached. The above four (numbered) factors in combination (and, the latter three factors, by their absence) indicate that: the reason each of these films became so popular/viral was the film story, alone.
It is problematic that story is generally not described in the film-making/ screenwriting discourse (in any significant depth) as the sole controllable reason for a film’s success.
Preventing and delaying the solution of this problem is the situation that in the domain of film, other factors – such as marketing and `star power’ – are still seen by many as causal factors in a film’s success, although the most comprehensive and scientific study to date (De Vany 2004, p. 6) shows this widespread conception to be false.
In short: these stories struck a chord with more people across the world than anything else in Hollywood's history, in spite of every marketing trick, big name star, or massive SPFX budget that was thrown at them. It was the story, more than anything else, that guaranteed the story's reach.
On analysing these 20 films, Velikovsky found something stirringly beautiful about the structure underlying each. I want to emphasise again that these elements were derived scientifically - they were not just another recitation of the Three Act Structure or a conventional screenwriting manual (Velikovsky goes through pretty much every manual and model for screenwriting out there in the webpages and identifies what are consistent with his findings and what are not.). They were derived as a result of scientific and consilient experimentation.
You can sum up Velikovsky's insights in three images:
![[Image: storyality-10-key-points.png]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/storyality-10-key-points.png)
![[Image: the-storyality-screenplay-story-structur....jpg?w=852]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-storyality-screenplay-story-structure-syntagm.jpg?w=852)
![[Image: the-storyality-syntagm-beat-sheet1.jpg?w=984]](https://storyality.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-storyality-syntagm-beat-sheet1.jpg?w=984)
The spiral is the artistic representation of the Golden Ratio, but it illustrates the wider concept: each of these films' structure is the same and has the same elements to it ... because these elements are what pushes hardest out to audiences in the modern day.
Many of these elements are highly counterintuitive to things that are taught in screenwriting classes if not generally about what works in stories in the present day, but the data speaks for itself. I'll come back to this stuff in another post as the infodump is getting a bit long, but for the time being, go through what you remember of the ROI films and think about how these structures match.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm