So, in other words, Bulletproof Monk.

I can't speak for the movies, but as far as my own life is concerned, it's at 8% action, 40% comedy, 17% music, 13% good versus evil, 12% sex/romance, 10% special effects and 0% plot.

I'm pretty pleased.

"30 percent action, 17 percent comedy, 13 percent good versus evil, 12 percent sex/romance, 10 percent special effects, 10 percent plot and eight percent music"?

According to my calculations, the closest match is the Clinton administration.
Now we know why Gore lost.

I'm sure this news pleases directors, actors, cinematographers, producers, composers, writers, etc. who were worried that talent and hard work might actually have something to do with it.

Now Hollywood has a recipe to go with their cookie-cutters...Yay.

What's in a blockbuster?
An Oreo by any other name would smell as profitable.

Only 30% action? That's ridiculous. They say it before every take.

This is ridiculous and probably a hoax. For example, just what the hell is "plot" defined as anyway? Wouldn't the "good vs. evil" theme be defined as part of the plot? Well that screws up the percentage figures right there.

I'm not impressed. If this "study" broke things down by a certain number of minutes dedicated to, say, a love making scene, or an action sequence, then I'd take this more seriously. But as it stands, I think the author is joking.

Yeah, what the heck does "8 percent music" mean, anyway? Most movies have music through most of the soundtrack, don't they? How do you count a fight scene with a pounding techno soundtrack? Is that "action" or "music"?

screentime. it seems it's being measured by on screen time. so the 30% action would be 30 minutes of a 100 minute film where nothing but physical action took place.

and yes, theme is different from plot. theme is the underlying motive.

So then "8% music" means 8% of the screen time _nothing_ but music is taking place? Black screen?

What about an action sequence that's relevant to the plot (okay, maybe no such thing in a blockbuster, but anyway) in which the hero is fighting the bad guy ("good vs. evil")?

Oh, and what about "credits"? Don't most successful movies devote some % of the screen time to them?

Here's the problem: When people say that a movie has "no plot," they are completely mis-using the term "plot". They should be saying, instead, that "the plot sucks".

"Plot" is the overall sequence of events and elements that are put together to tell a story. (Look it up in the dictionary.) Hence the saying: "Plotting things out."

So WHAT the fuck does "XX% plot" mean in this "study"? And, yes, things like a story's theme, character development, pacing, action sequences, music, etc. are elements that make up a movie's plot.

ok i dont think you guys understand this is just a weighted percentage idea...no, the screen wouldn't go black for the music, duh.

but i totally disagree about the music. it is far more important, even in a "blockbuster," as are spfx. i think spfx should be given more like 30%.

gorgor, a weighted percentage of _what_?

cwoo said "percentage of screen time". So I asked what it means to say that "music is 8% of total screen time", since music is generally not _on_ the screen at all (except in a movie involving musical performances, like Amadeus or Shine or Oh Brother).

My point (and that of other detractors) is that the things being measured here are not mutually exclusive, so describing them as percentages that add up to 100% is just silly. I think the original article claimed that the author of the study did a "frame by frame analysis" of many films; how did she decide when a frame counted as "music" versus "action" versus "plot" versus "good vs. evil" versus all the other things?

The claim was that this was some sort of systematic study, not just opinion about the relative importance of various aspects of a film.