The RiffTrax Blog header image 1

Rogenomics 101 Part 2: The Hill Curve

September 9th, 2008 by Kevin Murphy · 13 Comments

One of the most exciting aspects of Rogenomics is its ability to adapt to new Hollywood trends yet remain the most accurate predictor of their outcome. Last time we observed some basic principles; now let’s observe one of the recent additions to the pantheon of Leading Rogenomic Indicators (LRI’s), Jonah Hill. Jonah has dependably served major Rogenomic models as a null integer – a place-holding cypher with no intrinsic value of his own. When plotted on a grid, His presence in movies has no perceivable effect on the success or failure of said film.

Hill Curve Adjusted

(The apparent anomaly occurring around Walk Hard is commonly explained by the Meadows Effect hypothesis, which argues that any movie featuring Tim Meadows will see a significant across-the-board downturn in quality and performance.)

However, recent developments in Rogenomic theory are predicting a gradual realignment and possible convergence of LRI’s which will have a powerful impact on the future of filmed entertainment. Take a look at this corollary to the Hornet Theorem:

seth prog 1

Not to suggest that Seth Rogen will reverse in age or height; keep in mind that this progression moves in both directions. This is accepted to indicate that if conditions persist, one of several outcomes are possible: Seth Rogen will become Jonah Hill; Jonah Hill will become Seth Rogen; or the two will merge in a sort of Superseth Convergence, the outcome of which is wildly unstable and possibly dangerous. However, the supposition that existing conditions will persist is called into question by the following probability:

hills prob

This of course follows the Sizemorean Curve and applies the Nolte Rule, both of which create unknowns in typical outcomes and increase the standard deviation.  Yet in fact, real-world proof, both of progression and probability, has been observed in the field:

judd apatow02

This trend, while neither inevitable nor irreversable, tends to support the general principle that schlubs will always move toward a state of inertia. Next time we will discuss the declining influence of Sandlerian Rogenomics and the surprising accuracy of the Rule of Sequels.

Tags: Events · In the Media · Memes · Podcast · Predictions · RiffTrax · Riffer Blogs · Rogenomics · Trends · movies

13 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jeff on Sep 9, 2008 at 7:00 am

    Kev, these are great. I can’t wait to hear more about the Ferrelian offshoot.

  • 2 Charlie W on Sep 9, 2008 at 7:04 am

    I’d like to hear more about the Stiller Synopsis or the Sandler Theorem.

  • 3 Tom on Sep 9, 2008 at 7:34 am

    Stiller Synopsis? Is this the theory that states the degree of creative input from Stiller (Ben not Jerry) is directly proportional to its critical acclaim and inversely proportional to its box office/neilson ratings?

    What about the Wilson and Vaughn axioms to the Sandler theorem. As a catalyst or lesser reagent either one will boost the reaction of a film (Dodgeball, Zoolander, etc.). However as a leading reagent they will have a damping effect resulting in the likes of Drillbit Taylor.
    Oh and lets not forget the Cage effect. Anything featuring Nicholas Cage is a steaming pile.

  • 4 Heather on Sep 9, 2008 at 8:27 am

    The Cage effect can, like most actor-based indicators, be neutralized with the application of the Coen Brothers constant (usually referred to as the “Coenefficient” in Rogenomics), resulting in Raising Arizona levels of quality.

  • 5 Conor Lastowka on Sep 9, 2008 at 8:43 am

    “Oh and lets not forget the Cage effect. Anything featuring Nicholas Cage is a steaming pile.”

    For reference, please see “Bees, Not the” The Wicker Man, 2006.

  • 6 Heather on Sep 9, 2008 at 9:50 am

    Also see the bizarre fourfold “How’d it get burned?” chorus, ibid.

  • 7 RemmieBarrow on Sep 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Ow, my head just imploded from thinking about Rogan and Hill merging. It Hurts!!

  • 8 jason on Sep 9, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    I think you’ve all failed to see (or at least comment on) one important thing: the boobie factor. Movies with the above actors that have naked (or close to naked) boobies in them do well, however the movies with the above actors and no boobies don’t do near as well. Hollywood has, of course, figured this out ages ago and has tried to include boobies in every movie that features an annoying, supposedly funny actor (and also most that don’t), so you should take it into consideration as well (just think of how much better MST3K: The Movie would have done with the addition of boobies, preferrably on Servo).

  • 9 R.A. Roth on Sep 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Rogen and Hill are two separate people? I don’t buy it.

    Randy

  • 10 Anna on Jan 23, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Your reasoning really is extraordinary. Weedsmoker-kind-of-extraordinary.

    (that was not a compliment) ;)

  • 11 important on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:21 am

    I think you’ve all failed to see (or at least comment on) one important thing: the boobie factor.
    威哥王:http://www.okkanpo.com/Product/8.html

  • 12 アニメ 抱き枕 on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Movies with the above actors that have naked (or close to naked) boobies in them do well,
    http://www.cheaptojp.com/category-47-b0.html

  • 13 RMT on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Rogen and Hill are two separate people? I don’t buy it.

    Randy
    RMT:http://www.rmtking.jp