As I cycle about my business, I often pass (and am in turn passed by) buses – sometimes as many as 5 times by the same bus as I trundle along the Hills Road. For some reason, today I found that a couple of the advertisements, that adorn the sides of these monarchs of the road, raised questions that they failed to answer.
One was drawing our attention to a film named “Paul” – I presume a biopic about the French boulanger whose outlets now garnish some of our larger rail termini. The main “pull” for this flick is the fact that it shared producers with the earlier comic masterwork “Hot Fuzz”. Now, I am no Barry Norman as we have previously established, but I’m not sure why a shared production team would encourage me to haul myself to a cinema. I would certainly be willing to take a view on the script and acting of a previous movie, I might at a push admire the direction and editing and I could possibly even say something cogent about costume or props. However, in my limited understanding of the movie business I thought that producer was basically a management role – and from seeing a film I have little idea how well managed it was as a project. Was SSADM or PRINCE followed? Did it come in on time and budget? Equally, even if “Paul” was produced by a team with a history of using established project management systems and delivering to time and budget, I’m not sure that this acts as any sort of recommendation to me as fan of bread-maker themed cinema (though, if I were financing the movie I might well be reassured). Surely, they could just have successfully used a strap-line like, “Catered by the same team that fed Pride and Prejudice” for all the clues that it would give as to the film’s desirability as a night out.
The other advertisement drew attention to a video game (I think it may have been what is known as a first person shooter – probably set in some sort of dystopian future as that is de rigeur for the genre, though I will admit such a game would be a little out of place in a utopian one) and the draw here was a summary of a review. The review précis came in two parts – a numeric score and a compound adjective. The score was a creditable 9 out of 10 which equated to the adjective “mind-blowing”. This left me wondering what adjective would have been used had it scored the full 10 – how could blowing of the mind be bettered? Or would we be looking to blow something better than a mere mind? (It might help if I knew whether the reviewer was a dualist or not – dualism is very much a minority view among neuroscientists, but I have no idea how pervasive it is in the video game reviewing community). Perhaps a standard scale could be published so that we know what adjective should be married to each score, otherwise confusion will surely reign.
Or is it just that I’m over-thinking these things?