Blog 7 (Illegal Downloading)

Last week in class, we talked a bit about illegal downloading of music. This blog will be about the illegal downloading of movies. One of the questions we discussed was: is stealing a song/album online the same as walking into a record store and stealing an album? Moreover, is illegally downloading a movie online the same as walking into Blockbuster and taking a movie off the shelf without paying for it? I think it is. What do you guys think?

Here is a link to an article that states alternatives to illegal downloading. One of the ways movie rental places is trying to eliminate illegal downloading, thus giving them more business, is by not charging their customers late fees. Not all places do that, though. Online rental sites were also mentioned as an alternative. One of the reasons I became a member of Netflix is that it doesn't charge late fees; and all the movie rental places here in town do. Then of course the article mentioned purchasing the movies. I don't purchase movies often just because I rent them, and that's cheaper. But if people do want to purchase them, they can likely get them for under $20, but that's still $20 more than an illegal download.

Not everyone opposes illegal downloading, though. The article also mentions that independent film directors support illegal downloading for the point of getting people to view their work. Chances are, people are more likely to spend money on something they know has a solid name behind it. Independent film directors don't always have that going for them.

In another small article here, the author says, "Critics say the effort does society more harm than good by creating a generation of young criminals." They compared it to the failure of prohibition. A little different, in my opinion. Often, I hear people say, as long as the downloaded music/movie/other file is not being shared or sold for money, it should be legal. How does that make any sense?! That's the equivilant of saying, "As long as the person who stole the movie from the movie store does not sell it, it's not legal."

Legalmoviedownloads.com tells us all we need to know about movie downloads. One of the points this site brings up is that a lot of people downloading these movies illegally don't even know they're doing so. Websites that claim to be legal are in fact, not. Plus, people in general don't know to look for signs of legality. When the internet started becoming mainstream when I was younger, I sometimes used Napster to download music. I didn't think for one second that it was illegal. Now, I know better, but when I was that young and the internet was new, it was just common for me and a lot of my friends to dl songs without thinking twice.

Do you think the laws for illegal movie downloading should be stricter? Do you think they're strict enough? Why do you think people are more likely to steal off the internet than physically walk into a movie store and shoplift? Do you think the main problem with illegal downloading is that people just don't know it's illegal?

Blog 6 (Female Killer in Horror Movies)

Think of your favorite horror movie. Now think of who the killer was. Was it a man? Chances are, probably. In fact, I can only think of a select few movies in which the killer was a woman. Is this sending the wrong message about men? Or about women? I read an article a woman wrote about a script for a horror movie she wrote in screenwriting class. She said her teacher wrote, "Women can't be seriel killers!!!" on her paper after handing it in. If I were her teacher, I would have commended her for thinking outside the box, but that makes me think, do people want to see women seriel killers in horror movies?

Jennifer also talks about the movie called Monster. This movie features a female seriel killer. Amanda in Saw III was also a killer.


Another article tells us what we already know, that women are portrayed as weak in horror movies. And if you ask me, dumb too. How many of you have seen a horror movie where the woman gets a chance to kill her killer and just bonks him on the head, knocking him out for a couple minutes, and then she thinks he's dead. Unfortunately her fate isn't so good after the killer regains consciousness (if he even lost it in the first place). Click here to read the article.



My thoughts on female killlers in movies is for one, the writers probably think that a female victim is more entertaining to watch than a male victim is, but also I think that people hear more about male seriel killers on the news. I'm not going to get into all of those statistics and stuff. I figured I'd write a few of my blogs about the content of certain types of movies, and I noticed a trend in horror movies. I like to watch horror movies because they make me anxious, and that's part of the appeal. I think that if I were to watch a movie where a woman was shown as the killer from the very beginning, I'd be just as anxious as I am with all other horror movies I watched. As long as it's well-written, I am likely to get scared from a horror movie. :)



What are your thoughts on female killers in movies? Would you like to see it? Do you think it sends a bad message about men to us? Do you know of any other movies that feature female killers?

Blog 5 (3-D Movies)

I've chosen to write about three-demensional movies for this blog because I just saw a 3-D movie remake called My Bloody Valentine. The very first 3-D movie appeared at the Astro Theatre in New York on June 10, 1915. I had no idea 3-D films went back that far. I thought it was newer technology. However, the process of 3-D didn't become mainstream until the 1950s, where an explosion of 3-D movies became popular. Although other 3-D movies have been made sporadically since then, the '50s will always be the decade for 3-D. (Well so far, at least). This is partially because of the rise in popularity of television. Movie studios started to have fierce competition, so they had to go above and beyond, creating 3-D films. Click here for more information.

What's even more surprising is that the process of 3-D has been around since the 1830s. When 3-D film was first released (in the 1920s), audiences panicked because they thought the train was about to crash right into them! Click here or here to read more history on 3-D cinema.

You may click here to see a directory of 3-D films.

I'm sure you all related 3-D to those green and red cardboard glasses. These glasses work with something called the anaglyphic process, developed by Edwin S. Porter and W.E. Waddell. The green and red specs create a single image from twin motion picture images (of cooresponding colors) photographed 2½ inches apart. Ever take your glasses off during a 3-D show? That's the anaglyph image.

In my process of finding information about 3-D, I came across people's opinions in 3-D. Here is one man's opinion on My Bloody Valentine 3-D. He claims that the 3-D version of the movie is much scarier than the original. I can't say, because I've never see the original. What are your thoughts on 3-D films? Have you seen 3-D? Do you like or dislike 3-D?

I had only been to one 3-D film before My Bloody Valentine, and that was a The Muppets 3-D movie at Disney World. I remember really enjoying it because it was something I'd never experienced before. Another great part of the movie was when there were rats crawling around on the floor on the movie, the theatre had some device under the seats that poked at my ankles and feet, making me think it was rats crawling around under there! That really added to the effect. One of the things I didn't like about 3-D was the blurriness of the images. I don't know if it was just me, but it took me awhile to get used to the slight blurriness. And then there was the wearing heavy glasses that made it uncomfortable! I wouldn't mind seeing another 3-D movie, but when I'm watching a movie, especially at home, I like to be comfortable and wearing glasses just isn't!

Blog 4 (Movies vs. Books)

Books, the inspiration for a lot of movies, was a class topic on Monday. Books have been around way longer than movies have. In fact, books started to become mass-produced in the 1400s, long before movies were even thought of. Some might argue that television and movies contributies to illiteracy. This is probably true. If people never read, and just watch there never going to learn essential reading skills. Thankfully, schools still make students read.

I found a couple interesting articles about books versus movies. This first one found from Time.com talks about the age-old belief that the book will always be better than the movie (unless of course one hasn't read the book...:)) In their judgment, Memiors of Geisha the movie won. The movie was better than the book. Almost every other movie/book listed in the article, the book won, though.

Are there any books you found were better than the movie or vice versa?

Why is the book usually better? Here's what I think. If you've read the book, chances are you created the book. You created a movie version of it in your head. You had your own viewpoints of what the characters and setting looked like. When someone else contradicts what your imagination created, it doesn't seem so good. In fact, it seems upsetting. That once fantasy world you slipped into everytime you opened the book was now destroyed by the movie. Do you agree with this?

Martha Brockenbrough explains it like this, "As anyone who's ever bitten into a muffin with meat chunks in it (and I have) can tell you, this is a risky proposition. Just as meaty muffins rudely shock someone expecting raspberries, a bad movie adaptation can sicken people who truly loved a book."

On the contrary, have you ever read one of those books in which the author spent so much time describing every little detail that you ended up getting lost and not really creating your own viewpoint. That might be a case where the movie is better than the book. Click here to read Brockenbrough's thoughts on what makes a movie better than a book.