Comments on: Dynamism and the destruction of the fibonacci staircase

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:57:29 +0000

Tom, yes, it’s a little depressing for we would be pundits, isn’t it? I wonder if another factor here might be the fact that the world has grown in its complexity and it is harder to find one note theories that will carry the expect to stardom. Damn, born too late again. Best, Grant

Matt, yes, the new culture throws off new “rules,” that apply for so short a time that they hardly deserve to be so called. Thank god for consultants, otherwise called agents, who can serve to detect the brief patterns that do still form. Best, Grant

DanT (Dante?), splendid, really illuminating, thanks, Grant

By: DanT

DanT — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:48:25 +0000

Two explanations of how receiving an Oscar can negatively impact a career in the short-term: one internal and one external.

INTERNAL: Receiving an Oscar can cause the recipient to set her sights too high. She holds out for “better” scripts and salaries – and ends up not accepting any. By the time she realizes her sights are too high, the “Oscar glow” has worn off. (Hey, I just invented a new term! See more below.) This partially explains the recurring Hollywood theme of Oscar recipients going in a different direction – there is no stigma with accepting a lower salary for the sake of ~ART~.

EXTERNAL: Receiving an Oscan can cause producers to set their sights too low. Producers reason that since Mr. X received an Oscar, he will be receiving better offers than the one I have so I won’t send it to him. Instead, producers direct their casting agents to get someone like Mr. X who is cheaper and more available. This partially explains the recurring Hollywood theme of Oscar-recipient look-alikes.

In reality, some combination of the two could explain most of the short-term effects.

OSCAR GLOW

“Oscar glow” for a first-time recipient lasts until the next year’s Oscar nominations are released. Thus, Oscar recipients with smart agents but little talent sign multiple contracts several years out during this time.

For a multiple-Oscar recipient, the rules change since it means the recipient probably has actual talent and the Oscars were not a fluke due to the role / Academy sentiment / bad year. “Oscar glow” in this case lasts about 5 years or two flops.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:33:16 +0000

Considering just how many things (many of them previously discussed on this very blog) about the decision making processes in Hollywood are so very obviously _broken_ in a profound way, I’m disinclined to draw any conclusions about things that matter based on a hypothesis derived from the changing impact of Oscars.

But that doesn’t mean I think you’re wrong. In fact, I think you make a very good point and may indeed be right. I just doubt that it’s as widely applicable as you appear to think it is.

There is no certain route to lasting success, and many of the things that “everybody knows” lead to lasting success will in fact reduce the odds of what success one gains from them being stable. I am unconvinced that this was ever actually false, but overwhelming evidence shows that it is _now_ true.

By: Tom Asacker

Tom Asacker — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:16:45 +0000

A very astute observation Grant. And the same applies to guys like you and me with our newly released – and fading fast – business books. Let’s face it. The days of Tom Peters and Laurence Olivier are nearing an end. Ditto The Beatles and Harry Houdini. The talent level is WAY up there, and the barriers to entry and fame are getting lower as we blog. Success is less and less about “who you know,” and more and more about “who knows you!” What a great time to be alive . . . if you’re an up and comer.