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.
No comments:
Post a Comment