Final Project

Here is the link to my final project for Comp 1 at OSU. It is a site showing some of my web identities!

http://identityfacets.weebly.com/index.html

Essay 4: Viewer’s Review

            Growing up, I never listened to critics when deciding what movie to attend. I knew there was people whose job it was to tell the public whether they felt a movie was worth paying for or not. However, I just listened to my friends and what they had heard or thought about the picture. This allowed me to get multiple opinions about the movie and from sources that were my age and thought similar to myself. To this day it still seems like to best way to learn about something like a movie. When it comes to movies I find that critics are all looking for things that I do not care as much about. For many critics the artistic elements may be the biggest factor for judging a movie. Personally I can enjoy all kinds of movies and while I enjoy a truly great movie experience I also enjoy the typical action or murder mystery. I still find that I only agree with the critics about half of the time. Therefore, when I look for a movie to see today I go to the Internet to decide if a film is worth spending my money on. I go to sites and blogs dedicated to giving customer reviews and I judge what the general rating of the film is before making my decision. The Internet has changed the way many people look for reviews or product opinions. It allows people to be able to get a wide sense of the quality of something instead of just one person’s opinion. The Internet decreases the need for paid professionals to serve as critics.

            The Internet has allowed people to be able to share their opinions all over the world. Not everyone feels that this is for the best in terms of quality of information. Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, thinks that the Internet is belittling truth and diminishing quality. The first few chapters of Keen’s book explain how he feels the Internet is allowing so many amateurs to post reviews and opinions that the professional’s opinions get lost in the mess. However, Keen commits certain fallacies that weaken or undermine his arguments against the points in this paper. Keen begins by talking about the negative side of blogging and the Internet using neutral terms, however he soon converts his word choice to negative words such as calling the bloggers and programmers “monkeys” (Keen 15). In this he is committing the Shifting Terms Fallacy. Keen is using degrading words such as monkeys to bring down the readers opinion of the people he is attacking. It is not actually dealing with the issues, but instead he is simply breaking down any ethos they may have had. Keen also states that, “What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment” (Keen 16). This is an example of the fallacy that Keen commits many times in his arguments. He is committing the Begging the Question Fallacy because he is arguing that reviews and posts made by amateurs are shallow and uninformed compared to the professional’s views. He is basing this proof on something that is very subjective. This is also a good example of Keen committing the Stereotyping Fallacy because he is declaring that all amateur’s opinions are weaker and less-intelligible that true critics without basing it off any large sample of the population. Keen is declaring the inferiority of amateurs’ opinions and knowledge without anything to back up his argument.

            As the Internet has transformed different movie or food sites have popped up that deal with the difference between critical reviews and user reviews. The most notable one is the website Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes has two ways of grading a movie, shown by two separate one hundred percent rating scales. One is an average rating of all professional critics while the other is an average of anyone who wants to write in a rating on the site. The site shows that people care about amateurs’ views just as much, if not more than the critics’ opinions. The majority of big movies on the site have more amateur reviews, resulting is a more fair and average score, than critics. The large amount of users that take the time to write a review and score the film proves how much people not only enjoy reviewing the movies but also how many people use the user reviews. For many movies the scores from the critics and the amateurs are similar. The result is that people do not need both groups of reviewers when they are getting the same results. Plus, since commonly the amateurs outnumber the critics, if there is a slight difference the viewer score is more accurate.

An article called “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick for Movie Reviews” by Gary M. Stern discusses the website and the difference in reviewers.  Stern writes for Information Today, Inc., which is a publisher of magazines and books geared towards libraries. The article states that some movies may get a very different score between the different groups. The article quotes an editor of the Rotten Tomato site stating, “‘A lot of critics analyze movies from an artistic perspective’” and “’If there’s a movie you really want to see, go see it – regardless of what the critics say’” (Stern). The editor of the website believes that many critics are not looking at how entertaining or good the movie is and instead are focusing more on the artistic quality the film portrays. The editor sees that when the critics and viewers are very different that the public tends to find the amateurs’ reviews more real and helpful. Rotten Tomatoes provides both types of reviewers but when there are disagreements about the quality and enjoyment of a movie the public sides with the amateurs’ reviews. This is a great example of how the Internet and amateur critics are removing the need for professionals.

The reason these amateurs can take over the job of reviewing movies and restaurants from critics is because of the passion they possess. Critics clearly enjoy whatever they are reviewing or they would not do the job. However, amateurs are not getting paid or even much recognition for what they are posting. These amateurs are taking time after their jobs and families to review and spread their ideas about something they enjoy. This devotion and enjoyment will create better, more real reviews and responses than a paid professional would. In 2006 TIME magazine gave their Person of the Year award to You. In “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’S Person of the Year”, by Lev Grossman, Grossman insists that the drive and dedication that everyday people have to create, make and review online is the reason everyone on the Internet is their Person of the Year. The award did not go to a professional; in fact it went to exactly the opposite, to the amateurs. TIME felt that these amateurs were growing so much in importance that they needed to be recognized because with the Internet, these people are driven by something so much to be able to spread their love and problems with something like a movie. Since there are people like that and a platform to spread their message there is no need for people, who often don’t have the same devotion, to be paid to do the same thing.

            I am one of those devoted people that enjoy writing and debating about my favorite film or even just a recent movie. Another thing that makes the amateur writers a better system than the professional critics is the connectedness of all the people online. I can comment on a review someone has posted because I disagree with their opinion and they can respond, defending their reasoning. This is not a possibility with Roger Ebert or any professional writer. They are not truly out of contact but they are not as accessible for discussions as a blogger. This allows many people to post and debate and gives a better indication of the true quality of a film. The more people that input their opinion, the more accurate and helpful it will be. The same can be said for sites like Amazon, which allows every member to post their own review of any product, including movies. Amazon has a five star rating system and each reviewer can give a rating and their reasoning. This allows readers to get a more through of the product they are about to buy. When reading a critic’s review there is always the risk that they may have alternative reasons for giving it a good or bad review. However, sites like Amazon overcome this problem since each person can review. This way anyone who may have a less than honorable motives will be covered up by all the users who can give a more accurate description. It results in a more truthful and therefore trustworthy method than a singular critic. Amazon has used the Internet to create a better shopping environment because amateurs are able to provide insight and more accurate reviews that can only come from countless people.

            The Internet is decreasing the need for paid professionals who will only provide a single view, for the sum of opinions of an Internet full of amateurs. It opens the door to a more through understanding of how good or enjoyable something is instead of trusting one person who may not even be looking for the same qualities. Amateurs give opinions that are closer to what the average person is looking for and by averaging many of these reviews a more truthful rating can be found. The Internet allows a person to review a movie, debate it with many people and produce a better understanding of what type of experience the movie or product provided. All the way from grade school to now, the availability of countless reviews and opinions will always trump a single viewpoint, professional or not.

Works Cited

Amazon.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Grossman, Lev. “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’s Person of the Year” TIME Magazine U.S. n.p. 25 Dec. 2006. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.

RottenTomatoes.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Stern, Gary. “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick For Movie Reviews.” Link Up Digital. n.p. 15 Nov. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Essay 3: How to Construct a Tentpole

         Movie companies have come a long way since the movie industry began. Now they are huge businesses and like any good business they need to make money. Since not every movie makes a profit, the major production companies have to have certain films that they know will bring in a huge haul allowing them to risk some money on other projects. Such movies are called Tentpole films. The issue that is arising with these Tentpole films is whether it is the story or the visual spectacle that is bringing in the fans. On one side there is the argument, most commonly made by those in the business, that these Tentpole movies should not concern themselves with the story nearly as much as the visual aspects of the film, because the visual effects are what people will pay money to see. However, the majority of movie fans agree that a really great film should be able to balance both an entertaining story and some beautiful images.  Many arguments, mainly centering on appeals to logos, are made to support the idea that even Tentpole movies should have a good story. One article, entitled “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” by Angie Han, attacks a speech given by Disney Executive Andy Hendrickson. Hendrickson believes that Tentpole films should not focus on story because people pay the high prices of the movie theatres to see visual spectacle. Han uses examples of story-driven blockbuster movies to back up her arguments as to why she believes that this is an incorrect idea. The second article, “Staked to Cash-cow Tentpoles, Hollywood Has Little Need to Look Back” by Elizabeth Guider, explains why the movie business is heading towards Tentpole films that are only about money and not about story. Both these articles use similar appeals but are also prone to committing the simillar fallacies.

            Neither of the two articles have very many appeals to pathos. Guider uses only one emotional phrase when she discusses how sad it is that the same people who grew up on “story-led films and will say that they fell in love with these movies” (Guider) are now greenlighting movies with no coherent plot at all. Guider uses this emotional appeal because she knows that her audience of movie lovers will feel sentimental about the movies they grew up with and they will be emotionally led to agree with her. This is a value proof type of appeal to pathos because Guider is using what the audience will value, good quality movies, to strengthen the argument. Guider’s article appears in the Hollywood Reporter which is a movie magazine and website that draws in the most audience in both males and females of 18-49 years, being stronger in the older females. However, the biggest factor in audience is that people who read this are people who enjoy reading about movies and therefore, probably love watching movies. Guider uses the emotion of enjoyment or happiness when relating back to older films and their strong use of plot. There are other times in the article where emotion is used in the background, such as when Guider talks about blockbuster movies and why America has always loved them. She hopes the readers will feel the same emotion of nostalgia about the old movies and enjoyment of the new, but these arguments are not direct appeals to pathos. Han’s article also has background emotional parts but no true appeals to pathos. A few of her arguments contain small appeals to pathos because she talks about how irritated some people may be at Hendrickson downplaying the role of story, something that Han points out, is very important to the audience of this site. The audience of the /Film website is also strongest in ages 18-49, although on this site it is much stronger in males, probably due to the site’s focus on science fiction. The audience is, however, also people who love movies and therefore want them to be the best they can.

            Due to the lack of appeals to pathos neither of the writers’ ethos are affected by extreme or misplaced emotions. Thus, both authors are able to use their ethos to strengthen their articles. Han is a member of the site’s community of posters and for people who visit the site regularly, she is probably a recognizable name. She also does a very through job of analyzing Hendrickson’s claims and directing her arguments with her audience in mind, both of which increase her ethos. She also makes appeals to ethos when she compares herself to the audience in how much she enjoys watching movies. This is an appeal to the personal experience type of ethos because she is trying to prove that she knows about movies because she enjoys watching them just like those who read the site. It is also a one-of-us appeal because she is aligning herself with the audience since people more easily trust people who are like them. Guider does not ever make these appeals to ethos in the text; however, she has more ethos than Han due to her writing experience. By simply exploring the Hollywood Reporter website it can be discovered that Guider has won multiple different writing awards while working for them and holds a high level position in the company. This information is not expressed directly in the article but is most likely known to people who frequent the site or magazine. Han expresses exactly why she knows what she is talking about and Guider has the experience as a writer to prove her ethos.

            Both articles make arguments that appeal to logos. Han’s biggest argument is centered on a list of the top 25 grossing movies. Han makes an appeal to logos by showing the facts of what movies have made the most money and how many of those actually are story-driven. This is an argument from statistics because it uses the quantitative values the movies have earned as proof that they are examples of the Tentpole movies that Han is writing about. She carries out the argument nicely as she uses examples such as Star Wars and Titanic that are not only loved by millions but that also have strong stories at the core. This shows that past examples have proven that story is something that can be a major factor in a movie’s success. Guider also references a few big name films to aid in her appeals to logos. She discusses how much money The Dark Knight (which had not been released to theaters at the time of this article) is estimated to make and how superhero movies are the big moneymaker right now. Guider argues, however, that unless these movies have more than just beautiful effects then the fad will die off and Hollywood will have to find the next subject for Tentpole films. She uses past examples, like Han, to show how movies without an entertaining story can make a large amount of money but will not stay as big as long and may not inspire as much interest down the sequel line.

            Guider also makes the argument that it may be impossible for Tentpole films to be very heavy in story. The article takes a little bit of a turn here to focus on why films seem to have been going the way of spectacle. Guider focuses on the audience that movie companies are now gearing the movies towards, “14-year-old boys” (Guider). She states that most Tentpole films are being based off of graphic novels, and on top of the ever-advancing technology, the visual effects are what can be done the best with the source material. These are arguments from induction, a type of appeal to logos, because she is taking a number of examples from today’s movies and drawing a conclusion. The conclusion is that the target audience, material and technology is causing it to be very difficult for a story-centered film like Citizen Kane or Rosemary’s Baby to be made. She declares that even the very successful Hollywood legend Warren Beatty “probably couldn’t get a movie made in today’s film climate” (Guider). She is reasoning from her earlier conclusion to a specific example about Warren Beatty, which is called an argument from deduction. She goes much farther than Han on what the future of movies may hold because Han simply concludes that movies should be able to contain both story and visual wonder.

            Both writers focus on a few strong arguments that appeal to logos but some of these arguments commit fallacies and that not only lessens the weight of the argument but it also decreases their ethos. Han commits the begging the question fallacy when she uses examples of movies that she considers to be largely story-based. While the use of specific examples is a good technique to make a strong argument, this use begs the question of the determining factors of a story-driven versus a spectacle movie. The evidence is very subjective, and while her examples are well known and may not receive disagreement from most readers, the argument is still weakened by this fallacy. Guider, however, commits different fallacies in her argument about where movies are headed due to their audience, technology and source material. First she commits the false dilemma fallacy by breaking down the controversy into only two choices. She limits the options to movies that are only story-driven or movies that have basically no story at all. She completely ignores the possibility that even though the audience wants more action or effects that they may want an entertaining story too. She also commits the slippery slope fallacy when she talks about how hard, or even impossible it would be to get a story-driven movie, like the older ones, made in today’s culture. This is slippery slope because the first part of the argument is weakened by another fallacy and this takes that part and then leaps to grand conclusions without explaining. There is no proof or even reasoning why technology and the audience would eventually lead to it being impossible to make movies with a story. This argument is completely broken down by fallacies even though some of the points may be true.

            Both writers, Han and Guider, focus primarily on arguments that appeal to logos, which is mostly due to the subject matter. Movies are something that everyone enjoys but there are not very many strong emotions that could be called on by an appeal to pathos. Also in this day of the internet, having a good ethos on movie knowledge does not take a degree or job, it is more about how well the writer argues. The audience is more likely to look at the comments section to see if others think the person knows what they are writing about to determine how much ethos they carry than to find out what degree they have. For a debate about movies and money, logos is simply the best appeal to make. Yet, the fallacies that occur in both papers are also logic fallacies. Han commits her fallacy because she uses examples for the subject that could be subjective. The examples come from a reputable source and Han makes the argument because she believes the audience will be movies lovers that will agree with her. However, this fallacy opens up the chance for someone on the opposite side of the argument to be able to attack this point and it therefore, weakens the argument. Guider commits her fallacies because she plays into the fear that movies will have to go to one of the extremes when there could easily be a compromise in terms of story and spectacle. She believes that her older readership are going to be worried about where movies are headed these days and will therefore, go along with her reasoning. The fallacies are not a surprise for such logic heavy articles and the writers still both make some convincing points in the debate of Tentpole films.

Work Cited

Guider, Elizabeth. “Staked to Cash-cow Tentpoles, Hollywood Has Little Need to Look Back” Hollywood Reporter – International Edition 405.37 18 Jul. 2008: 42-42. Print.

Han, Angie. “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” /Film. n.p., 17 August 2011. Web.  25 September 2011.

Netvibes

This is a link to my Netvibes account! It is a pretty useful tool for having everything in one place.

http://www.netvibes.com/christianoldham

Mindmap

Essay 2: Spectacle, Story, or Both

           Technology is ever advancing and this increase in special effects could be damaging the movie industry. This progress centers on the visual aspect of the film, making movies more and more of a feast for the eyes. However, the story may be suffering for it. Slash Film (written /Film.com) is a website that blogs about different happenings in the entertainment industry such as casting news, reviews and interviews. The site is very popular, doing the best in the 18-49 male demographic, and is aimed at big movie fans. The site mostly posts updates, reviews and general information about science fiction and blockbuster movies. Recently, Angie Han, a writer for the site, posted an article about whether movies should concern themselves more with spectacle or story. The article is titled “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” Han writes a coverage and reaction to a presentation by the Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Chief Technical Officer Andy Hendrickson. In his talk he discussed the idea that the biggest movies only draw in the fans because of visual spectacle, not because of the story. Han outlines his presentation about the decreasing amount of people attending each movie and about the importance of Tentpole movies. However, she counters his idea, using arguments of pathos, ethos, and logos, that these movies should only focus on the spectacle in order to make money.

            Han starts out with a rundown of Hendrickson’s presentation. She defines a Tentpole film as a movie that the company can rely on to make a substantial profit so they can put money into other riskier films. Han goes on to say that the main point of Hendrickson’s presentation was that Tentpole films should focus only on the spectacle because he believes it is what draws in moviegoers. However, Han is quick to point out that his assertion is, “story doesn’t matter, only spectacle does.” She argues that the readers of this site, herself included, are going to have a problem with that because it downgrades one of the most important aspects of a movie. Her argument is one of logos because she states why her readers are going to have a problem with an idea like that. She also does a good job of connecting with the audience by calling them “cinephiles” and including them in her argument. The arguments contains small appeals to pathos because she talks about how irritated some people may be at Hendrickson downplaying the role of story, something that Han points out, is very important to the audience of this site.

            Han has some ethos to readers of the site because she is constantly updating the site with her posts. At the beginning of the article the audience does not know her credentials or even how much she really knows about the subject matter, and therefore, her ethos is a little low. Yet, the site carries its own ethos as a site that can be trusted to deliver accurate information and so as a writer for the site she gains some ethos. Her analysis of Hendrickson is very through and she does a good job of directing her arguments with her audience in mind. She also makes appeals to ethos when she compares herself multiple times with the audience as a major movie fan. This gives the audience an idea of who she is and why they might listen to her arguments, making her ethos a prominent factor by the end of the article. 

There is a strong appeal to logos near the latter half of the article concerning previous Tentpole movies and whether they use spectacle over story. The writer of the post has a chart from Box Office Mojo that shows the top 25 grossing movies of all time (not adjusted for inflation), which she address in her argument. Han argues that while some movies on the list were all about spectacle (Transformers: Dark of the Moon) many of the top movies (such as Titanic and Toy Story 3) have good stories. The appeal to logos could work very well as long as the readers agree that the latter category of movies truly have good stories. The argument is at the mercy of people’s opinions and therefore could make people who disagree with the quality of those movies completely dismiss it. The argument could also hold a little bit of an appeal to pathos when concerning movies that people love, such as Star Wars IV. Big fans of these movies would probably side with the position that declares that their favorite movie consists of something more respectable than just visual effects. Since most of the audience loves stories, the appeals to pathos concerning the idea that Hendrickson is insisting that many of the biggest movies of all time are nothing more than a spectacle is probably insulting to many people reading the post. Han again brings the arguments back around to the audience, strengthening her article.

The article is written in an ordered, through way that resonates strongly with the audience of the site Slash Film. Han uses the appeals to pathos, ethos and logos but focuses most of her arguments in logic. Her ethos grows as the article goes along and she slips in appeals to pathos in many of her logos arguments. Her appeals to logos are mostly very strong and well aimed at the site’s readers. Some of her logical statements are at risk of alienating some of the audience because of the reliance on people sharing her opinion. However, the opinion is backed up with examples that are agreed upon. The article always does a good job of knowing who the readership is and staying focused on the audience. Han holds movies to a higher standard and her article gives a through set of arguments and appeals as to why she believes movies can contain both a solid, moving story and visually impressive effects.

Work Cited

Han, Angie. “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” /Film. n.p., 17 August 2011. Web.  25 September 2011.

The Final Piece - My Web Identity

For my final blog post on this platform I look to my own web identity. This blog, first of all is for a class and therefore does not convey all of myself. This simply shows my truthful reactions to questions and prompts provide to me. Overall, I believe this blog shows a positive presence. My other areas in the Internet include Facebook, Amazon and the various movie blogs I comment on. Facebook certainly provides a more complete look at me as my friends also provide information about me. This keeps me from sugarcoating everything about me to appear better. With conversations, pictures and information sections Facebook is a large part of my presence in cyberspace and I think it is also a good one. I am not on Facebook as much right now as my posting slows down a lot during the school year. This is mainly due to a lack of time and the fact that I see a lot of my friends in person so there is no need to talk with them online.

However, even Facebook does not show a total look at me as it just shows my public image. My Amazon profile can tell you about what I like to buy and therefore some personal things about my interests. Amazon would tell you I buy a ton of movie memorabilia and merchandise along with the movies and soundtracks themselves. This would certainly give a better idea about how much I enjoy movies and what some of my favorites are since many of my purchases center around LOST, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Dark Knight. Going along with this my presence as a commenter on many movie blogs also gives some insight into me. It would show how I could get intense when debating about something I care about. Yet, it would also show that I never loose my temper, as I would rather sign offline before I say something I will later regret. My overall web identity is pretty positive I believe and I hope I can keep it that way because the Internet is forever!