Dave Stomping
Sundance By The Numbers

After our computers cranked for days, and our legal team got finished filing their Freedom of Information requests, we can now break down the Sundance Film Festival by the numbers.

For a non-profit entity, the Sundance Institute is doing pretty well for itself. Below find some numbers from their recent audited financial statements.

Below are the last ten years of Festivals rated by their average Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) score and broken down between films in the Dramatic Competition and those in the Documentary Competition:

DRAMATIC COMPETITION

  1. 2001 (IMDB: 7.0)
  2. 1998 (IMDB: 6.6)
  3. 1996 (IMDB: 6.4)
  4. 2002 (IMDB: 6.3)
  5. 2000 (IMDB: 6.2)
  6. 2003 (IMDB: 6.1)
  7. 1997 (IMDB: 6.0)
  8. 1999 (IMDB: 6.0)
  9. 2004 (IMDB: 5.5)
  10. 2005 (IMDB: 5.5)

DOCUMENTARY COMPETITION

  1. 2004 (IMDB: 7.5)
  2. 2001 (IMDB: 7.1)
  3. 2000 (IMDB: 7.0)
  4. 2002 (IMDB: 6.9)
  5. 2005 (IMDB: 6.8)
  6. 1999 (IMDB: 6.7)
  7. 2003 (IMDB: 6.6)
  8. 1998 (IMDB: 6.5)
  9. 1996 (IMDB: 6.1)
  10. 1997 (IMDB: 5.6)

In terms of this year's festival, the Bayesian analysis indicates that it should be a better than average year for films in the Dramatic Competition, and a slightly worse than average year for films in the Documentary Competition -- reversing the trend of the last few years. Here the predicted best and worst of this year's Festival.

PREDICTED BEST OF 2006 DRAMATIC COMPETITION

PREDICTED WORST OF 2006 DRAMATIC COMPETITION

PREDICTED BEST OF 2006 DOCUMENTARY COMPETITION

PREDICTED WORST OF 2006 DOCUMENTARY COMPETITION

(Films in the 2006 Dramatic or Documentary competitions, but not listed as a above, are predicted to be "average" as compared to your typical Sundance movie.)

So how did we come up with these predictions? Statistically, over the last ten years there are certain words and characteristics that can appear in the description of your film that predict its success or failure. Below are 20 "good" and 20 "bad" words from the last ten years of Festivals:

WORDS MAKE YOU GOLDEN

WORDS THAT ARE THE KISS OF DEATH

Who writes your description is a strong indication of how well your film will do.

REVIEWERS WHO TEND TO PICK HITS

REVIEWERS WHO TEND TO PICK STINKERS

Other factors are statistically relevant in the success of a film. For instance, in spite of Sundance's push toward Digital filmmaking, to date if your film is shot to Sony HD you have a 72% chance that it will be below average and only a 19% chance that it will be a hit. If you premier at the Eccles theater, somewhat surprisingly, you have a 52% of being below average versus only a 33% chance of being a hit. If your film is proceeded by a short, you have statistically a slightly greater chance of being a flop (43%) versus a hit (35%).

One of the best predictors of success -- or, maybe more accurately, one of the best predictors of failure -- involves the number producers involved in the film. If you only have one or two producers on your film you're statistically more likely to have a stinker. One producer (63% chance of flop/16% chance of hit), two producers (56%/37%), three producers (38%/46%), four producers (38%/43%), five or more producers (32%/37%).

Please remember that the predictions are all in fun. You shouldn't make multi-million dollar decisions with a studio's money based on this analysis. On the other hand, if you buy one of the movies that we've predicted to be a winner, and you need a little extra support justifying your decision, our engineers would be happy to attend your acquistion party in order to talk about the incontrovertible proof of box office success the math provides!