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.
No comments:
Post a Comment