http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/20080223_REVENUE_GRAPHIC.html
I found this infographic to be really interesting as it shows movie revenues over the years. Although it looks complicated at first, the instructions on how to understand the graphic make it much easier to comprehend. I thought this was an interesting way to show industry trends over time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm sort of torn about this graphic. On the one hand, it is really cool to look at -- it looks like a geological formation. On the other, though, it is really difficult to understand, even with the instructions, until you actually start clicking around -- the design is not particularly intuitive, especially with the odd/sporadic labeling of movies. Granted that the point of interactive features is to engage the audience, I'm not sure that you should HAVE to engage with it just to understand what it's about. Moreover, if the point of a graphic is to help the reader understand something better than he/she would in print, should it really require complicated written instructions to follow? And I'm not entirely sure how important the information is anyway -- is it worth it for the average reader to figure this graphic out just to understand movie revenues? I know I almost gave up trying to understand it because I just didn't care that much about it.
Lastly, it is extremely depressing to see how much money The Transformers made in comparison to movies that are actually good...
Post a Comment