This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I don't see anything wrong with this page...
Loracarol: Sweet. X3
Falcon Pain: So if Sean Connery is in a movie, the original awesomeness quotient is equal to either 0 or 1?
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Maybe we'd better remove the "quotient" part, since it implies a division that hasn't been made... <laughing> There is no range of values given for "original awesomeness" at all. Thus, as this equation stands, if "original awesomeness" => 1, then Sean Connery will make it way more awesome. If "original awesomeness" = 0, then Sean Connery being in the film won't make any difference whatsoever. And if "original awesomeness" < 0, then Sean Connery will make it even worse! (For the record, a film can have a negative amount of awesome. This happens to Horrible films and to films with a sufficiently large amount of Narm. It is even possible that Sean Connery has appeared in some films in that second class.)
Wascally Wabbit: Why is this not part of the Sean Connery article? What can it possibly add except for duplicating his works list?
Some Sort Of Troper: To put what Anonymous said in a shorter way- Sean Connery is a multiplier of awesome. Take the awesome and double it. Positive numbers get more positive, negative numbers get more negative and zero remains zero.
Loracarol: Except, it's not times 10, it's to the power of 10, meaning that it can't go into the negative numbers. Also, the Original Awesomeness is 0<OA<10 (to the hundreth power, only), it cannot be 0 or one, as not everyone agrees. Example: For some people, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen has Narm Charm, and thus a low (but exsistant) OAN (Original Awesomeness Number?), but for other's it's So Bad Its Horrible.
Madrugada: I think it's funny, but the formula doesn't work, because if Y = the original Awesomeness Quotient, it can't also equal the Original Awesomeness Quotient^100. This works, I think:
X = Movie's Awesomeness Factor without Sean Connery
Y = Presence of Sean Connery = ^100
Z = Movie's Actual Awesomeness Factor
If X+Y, then Z=X^100, otherwise X=Z.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I'd drop the "otherwise" part, since we may find other actors with similar effects on films — but this does look clearer than the current published one... We need to keep refining this formula. Exponentiation is a tricky thing — even doubling series move fast, and ^10 moves five times as fast. I'll concede that we shouldn't give films negative awesomeness... We need to specify the range. And we need to make sure Original Awesomeness can be greater than 1. For X > 1, X^100 > X; for X = 1, X^100 = X (thus, Falcon Pain's observation); and for 0 < X < 1, X^100 < X!
Madrugada: Simple enough to make additions for other actors if they deserve it. Y=Presence of Sean Connery; A = presence of Brian Blessed = whatever; B = presence of Humphrey Bogart. The last line of the formula can be changed as easily. Also, I don't see the problem with negative Original Awesomeness — seriously — didn't Sean Connery being in it just make Zardoz worse? But you are right that ^100 may be too big of a multiplier.
Cider: I'm all for killing it.
Loracarol I'm all for the Keanu Reeves addenum to the Rule Of Sean Connery, but could we make a slight exception for Bill And Teds Excellent Adventure? Er... If other people agree, that is. X3
