Companies today have the holy grail in form of shareholder value - the mad race at stock exchange to get ever more virtual money. So, maximizing profit is everything that counts, with any other considerations coming second place. From that point of view, it is not only a wise but almost a compulsory decision to axe less-profitable parts if they cannot be reformed to generate more cash, so the money can go into the more profitable ventures. That is one main difference between WotC and paizo IMO: Of course, paizo needs to make a healthy profit to stay in business, but they don´t put every consideration under that "maximize profit" view. With paizo, I have the distinct impression that their guiding principle is "how can we make products that are our best effort, please our customers and make a profit. Oh, and if the guys working here have fun doing so it is great."
Stefan
I'm looking for a fantasy themed tarot deck to be used as a Tarot Deck of Many Things. The original Deck, which all others are based on, according to 1st/2nd edition mythology. Can you recommend a specific deck or a place to look?
I'd go on Amazon at look at the various "Golden" tarots recently put out by Lo Scarabeo. I have the Golden Tarot of Klimt which is utterly gorgeous but probably a little too modern for what you're wanting. I would look at "the Visconti Tarot" and go with the Lo Scarabeo edition. That's a reproduction of the oldest Tarot set known, commissioned in 1450 by the Duke of Milan, but with the set completed by modern artists in the original style to replace the missing cards.
That said, look at some of the other Tarots they have as well. One or another may be better for the feel you want for your game or just want to have in general.
(semi-rant) Look at it this way: If I am a corporate executive, axing a "marginal" profit-making division allows more money to be put in two things - a division with a higher profit margin... and a raise for myself, since I "saved" the company so much money.
Oh, I get the concept/theory behind it, and likely, the practice works in many respects.
I just don't agree with it.
I'm sure that I'm in the minority - it seems that more investment takes place in the "shooting star" rapid-growth businesses rather than the "old stalwart" steady businesses, which seems like it would contribute to the eventual decline or abandonment of those old stalwarts.
I know that growth is typically considered a good thing, but it seems that too many businesses are considered "failures" if they aren't growing, which doesn't make sense on the surface. A business that plateaus, but maintains it's profit levels relative to it's expenses seems to be a "good" business, and not a failure.
Mega-mergers also seem to contribute to that decline as well - two competing businesses that seem successful merge, and then, due to corporate redundancy ("We can't have two stores in the same neighborhood compete with each other! Close one of them!"), half of that new business is tossed, and eventually, the remainder craps out as well.
Again, I'm no expert. Anecdotal observations and "outside-looking-in" views do not deliver the entire picture of things, and I realize that.
Yeah, the fortune cards seem to be suffering a lot of inaccurate bad press. They're not much different from the game mastery plot cards (in fact I think the game mastery cards are more likely to lead to plot headaches given their more open nature).
I suspect the source of the animosity is the collectible card game model - paizo sell you the full set, wizards make you buy boosters.
You know what you're never going to find in Fortune Cards?
Bad things, negative effects.
The Plot Twist cards are designed to give the GM multiple options, both on the card itself, and adjudicating what the effect is.
That's not how the Fortune Cards work. They have very specific effects (bonuses to rolls, re-rolls, etc).
Comparing Plot Twist cards to Fortune Cards is comparing apples to oranges. They're similar, but nowhere close to the same thing.
And yes, I'm sure some of the animosity is the CCG nature of it - on both sides. I think a lot of the hyperbolic defense of these cards, and putting up false analogies to other products in card format is a knee-jerk to early claims that WotC/Hasbro would turn D&D into a CCG given half the chance. Well, here's phase one, in a lot of eyes.
*shrug* I think they're similar so I don't think it's a false analogy. (There aren't any bad or negative effects on the Plot Twist cards either, plus they have specific effects in addition to the broad 'story based' effects - as I said the plot twist cards are more work for the DM to adjudicate and more likely to cause headaches). Apples to oranges is too much, imo - more like Golden Delicious to Granny Smith.
FWIW, I'm also not denying WoTC are trying to merge their RPG products with CCG and boardgames - creating new hybrid games like the new Gamma World, Ravenloft, etcetera. I think the fortune cards are a pretty obvious shift in the same direction with the core product.
*shrug* I think they're similar so I don't think it's a false analogy. (There aren't any bad or negative effects on the Plot Twist cards either, plus they have specific effects in addition to the broad 'story based' effects - as I said the plot twist cards are more work for the DM to adjudicate and more likely to cause headaches). Apples to oranges is too much, imo - more like Golden Delicious to Granny Smith.
There ARE negative/bad effects.
Something Lost
Backstabbed
Rock And A Hard Place
Unseen Obstacle
Agony Of Defeat
Unwelcome Arrival
Not As It Seems
Switch Sides
Black Mark
Broken
Sanity Check
Moment Of Indecision
Mistaken Identity
Bad Decision
Sloth
Pride
Wrath
Gluttony
Point Of No Return
Parting Of Ways
Erratic Behavior
Bad News
All of these have negative effects.
Of course, the mechanics don't necessarily always target the PC, but they're not necessarily the PC choice of who they target, like the always-a-positive-effect Fortune Cards.
|
There ARE negative/bad effects.
Something Lost
Backstabbed
Rock And A Hard Place
Unseen Obstacle
Agony Of Defeat
Unwelcome Arrival
Not As It Seems
Switch Sides
Black Mark
Broken
Sanity Check
Moment Of Indecision
Mistaken Identity
Bad Decision
Sloth
Pride
Wrath
Gluttony
Point Of No Return
Parting Of Ways
Erratic Behavior
Bad NewsAll of these have negative effects.
Of course, the mechanics don't necessarily always target the PC, but they're not necessarily the PC choice of who they target, like the always-a-positive-effect Fortune Cards.
Huh?!?! I do not know the product all that well but I did read teh product's webpage and it says:
" Plot Twist Cards open up a new experience of shared storytelling, providing players with ways to suggest new events during an adventure or get help when they need it most."**Providing players**...
Now the Plot Twist card Backstabbed is not negative in the way the cards are supposed to be used.
Read teh instruction card. It is the PCs that draw and keep the cards to use whenever they wish. The player's inform the GM how the card can take effect. The player is making the choices. How are these cards MORE negative to the player's than the other cards?
It appears I'm wrong. I was of the understanding that the cards could negatively affect players as well.
That said, look at some of the other Tarots they have as well. One or another may be better for the feel you want for your game or just want to have in general.
TANGENT:
I have a tendency to use a random deck each time someone wants to use this item. Clearly indicating that the cards are changing each time they are pulled from the storage bag, as I feel it is flavorful for an object that has some multi-planar, and time manipulation properties. If its a more modern deck like my Mage: the Ascension one then it may be very difficult to interpret the card before its effects come to pass.
It appears I'm wrong. I was of the understanding that the cards could negatively affect players as well.
Steady on, this is the internet.
FWIW, you are completely correct (imo :)) regarding the fortune cards being an attempted shift of D&D towards CCG with all that that entails.
|
It appears I'm wrong. I was of the understanding that the cards could negatively affect players as well.I wish more people on message boards were like you Brian. Willing to admit when they got something wrong and actually will say so.
Hey, I admit when I'm wrong. it just happens so rarely that ancient civilizations predicted those times on their calendars. Next time I'm wrong is supposed to be some time late next year...
Sorry about that in advance.
I figured this was the appropriate thread for this...this pleases me. :D
I just came across this on RPGGeek.com... check out number 5.
|
FWIW, you are completely correct (imo :)) regarding the fortune cards being an attempted shift of D&D towards CCG with all that that entails.
Ooh, ooh. Maybe Paizo should jump on this before WotC does. I can see it now.
"Valeros, I choose you!"
"Ha, I block Valeros with a Hold Person."
"Snookered again. Well I'll turn my two Core cards and draw from my discard pile. Let's see... I think I'll put the Large Blue back in my hand."
;-p
Although I'm equally baffled as to how the D&D movies were botched so bad... "the Riddliest" things I had ever seen, save Jeremy Irons *bro-crushing on his villan roles*.It's not so surprising. It's worth remembering that most fantasy movies are "B" movies at best. If the movie had been titled something other than "Dungeons and Dragons" the same gaming nerds who pan the movie would no doubt be endorsing it as a "cult classic."
Problem is.. writing a movie about a gaming system doesn't have the built in depth of making a movie about a major story such as Lord of the Rings. Dragonlance may have been a good choice to go for if the movie had been made 20 years ago, but it's an unknown brand outside the gaming set. A movie about a "game system" isn't going to attract Burton-quality movie producers or storywriters. And I suspect a major truth is that tying fiction to game systems almost always results in bad fiction.
Following that logic, "Pirates of the Caribbean" should have been an awful movie, except it wasn't, based on good writing and good acting. Similarly, the reason "The Haunted Mansion" sucked so hard was because it was based on a theme park ride and had nothing to do with an awful script and Eddie Murphy doing the most annoying and boring performance in his life.
And saying that "tying fiction to game systems almost always results in bad fiction".... First off, thanks for insulting every fiction writer in the gaming industry. Second, you're wrong. Example? Well, I'm a member of the Wild Cards consortium, and Wild Cards got its start as a SuperWorld game played by George R.R. Martin and his friends (and fellow writers) back in the 80s. They then turned their game into a shared world anthology, and Walter Jon Williams got nominated for the Nebula for "Witness," his story in that first anthology. The Nebulas are SF's answer to the Oscars.
And the number of writers I know personally who are gamers.... George R.R. Martin, Melinda Snodgrass, Katharine Kerr, Raymond E. Feist, Elizabeth Gilligan, S.L Farell, Seanan McGuire....
Of course, writers in the science fiction, fantasy and horror fields or indeed any of the genres are used to this sort of prejudice already because it's fashionable for "literary" writers and critics dismiss all genre fiction and *cough* I'm sorry. *cough* I think I'm having a literary moment here, the spirit of Jane Austen has something she wants to say: "Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans."
What's that, Jane? Oh, I think she wants to say more, to put her quote in context:
The progress of the friendship between Catherine and Isabella was quick as its beginning had been warm, and they passed so rapidly through every gradation of increasing tenderness that there was shortly no fresh proof of it to be given to their friends or themselves. They called each other by their Christian name, were always arm in arm when they walked, pinned up each other's train for the dance, and were not to be divided in the set; and if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel-writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding—joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens—there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. "I am no novel-reader—I seldom look into novels—Do not imagine that I often read novels—It is really very well for a novel." Such is the common cant. "And what are you reading, Miss—?" "Oh! It is only a novel!" replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. "It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda"; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language. Now, had the same young lady been engaged with a volume of the Spectator, instead of such a work, how proudly would she have produced the book, and told its name; though the chances must be against her being occupied by any part of that voluminous publication, of which either the matter or manner would not disgust a young person of taste: the substance of its papers so often consisting in the statement of improbable circumstances, unnatural characters, and topics of conversation which no longer concern anyone living; and their language, too, frequently so coarse as to give no very favourable idea of the age that could endure it.
There. It's been said.
Change a couple words and it's a response to the boilerplate complaints about gaming and gaming fiction.
And saying that "tying fiction to game systems almost always results in bad fiction".... First off, thanks for insulting every fiction writer in the gaming industry. Second, you're wrong.
He did say 'almost always'.
And, actually, I think that's pretty fair. Look at how many Forgotten Realms novels were written; how many of those would you say are good?
That doesn't mean that gamers are never good authors, nor did he say that. It also doesn't mean that gaming is never the inspiration for good fiction, which he also didn't say.
Basically I feel like you got what you wanted to (or something triggered one of your hot buttons) out of his post and wrote a response to that, not to what he actually said.
awesome sauceNot to mention some of the best political and general philosophers of the 20th Century were science fiction writers.
L. Ron Hubbard?
Following that logic, "Pirates of the Caribbean" should have been an awful movie, except it wasn't, based on good writing and good acting. Similarly, the reason "The Haunted Mansion" sucked so hard was because it was based on a theme park ride and had nothing to do with an awful script and Eddie Murphy doing the most annoying and boring performance in his life.
I must be missing something: Pirates of the Caribbean was also a movie "based" on a theme park ride. I think this makes your basic idea stronger. A movie inspired by a ride can be good just as such a movie can be junk. It doesn't depend on the inspiration, but on these other factors' successes/failures.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Paizo has no mass market sales; Wizards has sold D&D Minis and the "Red Box" through mass outlets; other stuff pops up occasionally.They might not sell it in the store, but they sell it online:
I did not know that! I do have to note, though, that those count as book trade sales, not mass market sales, since they're being supplied (probably indirectly) by our book trade distributor.
And saying that "tying fiction to game systems almost always results in bad fiction".... First off, thanks for insulting every fiction writer in the gaming industry. Second, you're wrong.He did say 'almost always'.
And, actually, I think that's pretty fair. Look at how many Forgotten Realms novels were written; how many of those would you say are good?
That doesn't mean that gamers are never good authors, nor did he say that. It also doesn't mean that gaming is never the inspiration for good fiction, which he also didn't say.
Basically I feel like you got what you wanted to (or something triggered one of your hot buttons) out of his post and wrote a response to that, not to what he actually said.
Saying "almost always" is just applying Sturgeon's Law, which I'll reiterate here for anyone who's missed it. In it's most popular slightly misquoted form it's "Ninety percent of everything is crap."
In the long form? Here:
I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud.[2] Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.
Ted Sturgeon is making the same point that Jane Austen made a hundred and forty-one years before and that I'm having to make forty-three years later now: Yes, there is crap. But it's only a matter of fashionable prejudice that let's people decry all but a few slim examples of one artform while giving others a complete pass. Television is trash while opera is high art, despite some of the most ludicrous plots known to storytelling and ignoring the fact that it was popular art that was widely criticized in its day.
Yes, there is bad gaming fiction. There are also bad television shows, operas, poems, radio plays, and every example of artwork known to man, with the explanations for why any of these things are bad ranging from hackwork, lack of skill, insufficient inspiration, or even occasionally it being the right piece for the wrong audience. It's a lot easier for someone to say something is "horrible" rather than say "It's a work of art that is utterly not to my taste."
It's a lot easier for someone to say something is "horrible" rather than say "It's a work of art that is utterly not to my taste."I think we can all safely say Dianetics (or anything else written by that hack) is objectively horrible.
;-)
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?
|
|
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?It's a lot easier for someone to say something is "horrible" rather than say "It's a work of art that is utterly not to my taste."I think we can all safely say Dianetics (or anything else written by that hack) is objectively horrible.
;-)
Either way. The stuff he did write was hack work ;-)
awesome sauceNot to mention some of the best political and general philosophers of the 20th Century were science fiction writers.
Asimov FTW!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I've read Wild Cards, up through all of the original series, and three of the new ones after that. I've enjoyed Wild Cards, and recommended it to others. But I think I'd hesitate more than a little before using as an example of a series that rises above the complaints about genre fiction. Sometimes it's okay for a book to just be a good read, rather than high art. Especially since high art often isn't a good read.
I do think it's well outside the Sturgeon margin, i.e. decidedly not crap.
I figured this was the appropriate thread for this...this pleases me. :D
I just came across this on RPGGeek.com... check out number 5.
Holy crapola, that is awesome. I'm shocked that D&D 3.5 is doing so much better than D&D 4E too! (Also... Warhammer Fantasy 2nd is in the top 20? Really?!)
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?Wait--L. Ron Hubbard died in ten long volumes? Which ones were those?
The Mission Earth series, ten volumes published between 1985-87. Hubbard died in 1985, three months after the first volume was released.
Bear in mind I haven't read the series since it first came out, but I remember it as being pretty bad, though still entertaining in a "Plan Nine" sense. But then I was only fifteen at the time.
And Heinlein, I know he's a divisive figure, but The Moon is a Harsh Mistress sang to me.
Stranger in a Strange Land IMO is a true epic read and necessary for any lover of Sci-Fi.
And don't forget Starship Troopers the book gave us Warhammer 40K, Starcraft, and a B-Movie trilogy. I could have done w/o the movies, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Basically I feel like you got what you wanted to (or something triggered one of your hot buttons) out of his post and wrote a response to that, not to what he actually said.
To be fair, though, it's a hot button that pretty much any writer who does tie-in work shares. ;)
FWIW my feeling is that it cuts both ways. Some settings already have so much canon established that it does limit what writers can do in those shared worlds (and also makes them fairly unapproachable to outsiders). Some game mechanics don't exactly lend themselves to easy storytelling. In those cases, sure, sometimes the story suffers because of those restrictions, or particular writers don't want to work within those limitations.
On the other hand, some game settings are so full of possibility that it's impossible to look at them and not be inspired by all the stories waiting to be told. And in those cases it's the opposite: you get your imagination set on fire and, if you're lucky, maybe even manage to pin a little of that fire to the page.
|
|
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?Wait--L. Ron Hubbard died in ten long volumes? Which ones were those?
The Mission Earth series, ten volumes published between 1985-87. Hubbard died in 1985, three months after the first volume was released.
Bear in mind I haven't read the series since it first came out, but I remember it as being pretty bad, though still entertaining in a "Plan Nine" sense. But then I was only fifteen at the time.
But Hubbard didn't die in them, did he?
But Hubbard didn't die in them, did he?
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?Wait--L. Ron Hubbard died in ten long volumes? Which ones were those?
The Mission Earth series, ten volumes published between 1985-87. Hubbard died in 1985, three months after the first volume was released.
Bear in mind I haven't read the series since it first came out, but I remember it as being pretty bad, though still entertaining in a "Plan Nine" sense. But then I was only fifteen at the time.
...Er, no.
He died while writing them.
One... get off the high horse in trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
The only thing the movie ride stories shared with the movies was the title and genre. They could just as easily been titled anything else and they would have worked just as well, this case they made good use of a very well known brand, and they both had top-knotch talent which would not have fit in any conceivable budget for a D+D movie.
I've read the Wild Card novels, they're excellent works but in no sense was I rolling dice in my mind when I read them, which is part of the reason they WERE good stories. And if you think I'm attacking fantasy writers, I'd share the experiences of Tracy and Hickman in writing their Dragonlance novels. They themselves have gone on the record in stating the reason they improved after writing the first Dragonlance novel was that they realised that the game system had to be set aside when it got in the way of the story. It's a story that WOTC never fully learned in making it's "Magic the Gathering" novels which started as awful and only worked their way up to fairly mediocre.
Titles can be a problem.. What does titling a story "Dungeons and Dragons give you for a story hook? How does it motivate a script writer? From what I've seen of the efforts done to date, it's not motivated anything better than "B" movie scripts which is why the movies are a disappointment to anyone other than folks who like "B" movies.
Maybe D+D would work better as a subtitle, such as "Wrath of the Grey Baron, a Dungeons and Dragons adventure", although I personally tend to hate such title styling. I'm not sure there is a good way to title or present such a movie.
First off, tarring every writer in the industry with the same brush dipped in Sturgeon's Law is not a "molehill." It's a boilerplate attack which we've been defending against since at least 1817, when Jane Austen used the high horse to deliver her rant in Northanger Abbey, and Sturgeon used the high horse again in 1958 to deliver "Sturgeon's Revelation," and I'm proud to plant my feet firmly in the stirrups and do it now, taking arms against a sea of troubles and mixed metaphors, especially blanket statements about everything in the genre, or even almost everything, being crap.
I'm happy to talk about why specific examples might be crap, however. That's standard literary analysis and deconstruction. But please get the facts right. First off, this statement: "The only thing the movie ride stories shared with the movies was the title and genre." Wrong. Fifteen-men-on-dead-man's-chest-dead wrong. The movie is stuffed with vignettes and scenes from the ride. The jail cell with the dog with the ring of key in his mouth? The scene's straight from the ride. The dog's even used for the second movie. The harlots? You'll see them in the ride too. There are all sorts of vignettes from the ride spiced throughout the movie but incorporated so seamlessly you wouldn't notice them unless you were already there and a fan of it, which is as it should be, because Elliot and Rossio, the screenwriters, deeply care about their craft. I know, I've met them, and we've talked about it. Any writer doing an adaptation--and that's what tie-in fiction is--will try to incorporate as much of the source material as can be incorporated organically into the new work. Some of it won't fit or won't work, and sometimes new things will be invented out of whole cloth which will be incorporated into future adaptations because they're too perfect not to be used.
Next incorrect statement: "they both had top-knotch talent which would not have fit in any conceivable budget for a D+D movie."
First D&D movie cast list: Jeremy Irons (Emmy, Golden Globe, starred in "Reversal of Fortune"), Thora Birch (highly popular at the time due to her work in "Ghost World"), Richard O'Brien (veteran character actor best known for his role as Riff Raff in "Rocky Horror"), Marlon Wayans (well known comedian and comic actor from a family of them), Justin Whalin (television actor from "Lois and Clark" and well known at the time).
That's pretty high-notch talent there, especially with Jeremy Irons anchoring the villain role.
I'm going to fault the script for that debacle, but more than that I'm going to fault executive meddling for why it didn't work. There were far too many grand "save the world" and other silly bits of plotting thrown in that screwed things up. And the costume director didn't help, what with the elfin ranger with her hot pink leather armor which she must have gotten from slaying the fabulous pink heraldic deer in the merry merry greenwood ho.
The second D&D movie? A B-movie, but much better plotted and more enjoyable. No A-list cast, but a better script. There was a dungeon, there was a dragon, there were reasons for them being there, and no one was wearing pink armor.
So, is PF outselling D&D?
I lost track of the answer in the middle of the other debates...
So, is PF outselling D&D?
I lost track of the answer in the middle of the other debates...
No clear facts either way.
|
|
Objectively, D&D lit tends to be crap. Linear plots, shallow character development, convoluted story lines, absolutely nothing of substance in most cases.
But, fantasy and sci-fi in general aren't D&D lit. The product of the genre ranges from brilliant to garbage, just like any other published fiction genre.
So, is PF outselling D&D?
I lost track of the answer in the middle of the other debates...
We don't know yet.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Gotta disagree with the D&D movie having top-notch talent. The roster's B-grade, with a few anchors. Many from the top part of the B grade for that time, but still there. Marlon Wayans in particular may be from a family of comedians, but count the number of decent movies any of them have made.