/’kɪn ɛn fəʊ gra ‘fi li ə/
1. The love of infographics having to do with film, cinema, or video, often to an excessive degree. [From the Oxford English Dictionary, 4th Ed.]
To borrow a didactic tone from educators of yore, the purpose of this post will be to examine the excellence that is this infographic from boxofficequant.com. To begin with, consider that the author has thoughtfully provided a simple key in the upper right corner (“Above the Line is Better than the Original; Below the line is Worse than the Original”) that renders the whole graphic a simple visual proof of the theory that sequels suck.
It took me a minute to realize, though, that to make the graph this instantly readable, the author (his name is “Edmund” evidently) needed to bend infographic space-time. Okay, so maybe he’s only rotated a regular graph 45 degrees, but bending space-time feels like what he’s doing, because he’s tweaking the orientation we’re seeing the graph in order to make it intuitively readable. Edmund knows that the difference between up and down is easier to read than the difference between one-side-of-the-diagonal-line or the other, and he’s adjusted his graphic accordingly.
Another part of my being jazzed is that Edmund managed to embed the most important information without cluttering anything. If you look carefully at the graph, you realize there are no spots representing the original movies. That’s because the information about the quality of the original is already implicit in the circle’s location on the x axis (which is now turned 45 degrees, but whatever). Then ol’ Ed (you see I’m feeling chummy with him already) uses the only thing left that can be safely altered without upending the story he’s telling with the graphic: He makes the size of the circles represent domestic gross. That’s just gravy at this point, but it means that a quick glance tells you that sequels, despite the aforementioned suckage, have a pretty good track record for making money.
So, yes, I like this a lot.