This week, I've decided to write about alternate endings on movies. This past week, I watched The Butterfly Effect and realized that there was more than one ending. I hadn't known that before. (I watched it once before). I was confused as to why Evan ended up watching a different home video on the end of the movie. I guess I watched the theatrical version this time, and the first time I watched the director's cut version. The plot was pretty much the same, except for a few scenes different, until the end. I was a little disappointed with the ending, mainly because I didn't know there were two endings. The one I watched this past week had a happier ending, but it was the one I saw second. Even if the ending was horrible, it was the first ending that was instilled into my mind. However, once I open my mind to actually watch the alternate ending, I usually end up liking it.
DVDs make alternate endings possible. Sometimes I like the idea of DVDs having alternate endings, so I can see all the different outcomes for the movie, but I also think that sometimes it just ruins the movie, especially if I had seen one ending that I really liked or just accepted. This is a link to a blog about a person's opinions on the seven worst alternate endings. You'll see some familiar movie names, including The Butterfly Effect, though the author of this blog liked the theatrical version ending better.
USA Today writes about alternate endings. The article beings by asking, "What if you could change the ending to you favorite movie?" This article states the positives of alternate endings. "'An alternate ending is a great way to provide added value because it brings film fans into the creative process,' says Ken Graffeo, executive vice president of Universal Studios Home Entertainment." Even though I can be skeptical about alternate endings, I do agree with Graffeo here. It does allow for different endings to suit what different people may like. Moreover, the article states that Universal's research has identified alternate endings as consumers' favorite bonus feature.
What's one of the reasons I don't like alternate endings? Because it makes me realize that it was just a movie, and it can be changed. Have you ever watched a movie that you liked so much that you just wanted to watch it over and over again, playing out the plot in your head? When I find a movie like that, I don't want to know that all it takes is a click of a button to completely change the ending. Same goes with deleted scenes. They're fun to watch, but they also make me realize that the wonderful plot that I just fell in love with was just a movie.
What are your thoughts on alternate endings? What are some positives? Negatives?...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Blog 8 (Decline of Movie Theatres)
I love going to the movies. I find it more fun than sitting at home on my couch watching movies. I don't have a home theatre system or even a very big T.V., so one of the main appeals of the movie theatre is the surround sound and big screen. I know that those are becoming more common in the household, so that could be a contributing factor in the decline of movie theatres. I know not everybody likes to go to movies as much as I do. Some would rather save their money and wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it. If it's a good enough looking movie, I can't wait that long to see it.
This blog will look into some of the reasons behind the decline in the popularity movies as well as my opinions on what the theatres could do to fix this problem.
According to this website, one of the largest contributing factors to the decline in movie theatres is social issues, such as people talking on their cell phones, babies crying, etc. I also think people having conversations in person plays a part in this.
"Purple Violets" is a movie that won't release in theatres; it will release on iTunes. Anyone who has $13 to download it can. But is this really cheaper than going to the movies and seeing it? With all factors considered, probably. First there is the movie ticket itself. In my hometown we could see a movie for $3. That movie wasn't just released, but it hadn't come out on DVD yet. However, other theatres have much more expensive tickets. Then there's the gas to get there. We can see movies at our theatre in Valley City, but they stay here for like two weeks and there's only two at a time, so we have to drive to Fargo or Jamestown if we want to see a specific one. Then of course, there's the popcorn and pop which is rediculously over-priced at theatres. (Though in my hometown we could get popcorn and pop for a dollar).
Josh Wolf says that the value of actually going to the movies is becoming less and less significant. "At the same time, I can't see the movie theater going away as a dating oasis and the refuge for teenage lovers that it has always been," Wolf says in his article.
Going back to home theatres systems, some think Blu-Ray will knock off movie theatres. For me, who has a small T.V. and a regular DVD player, the movie theatre's movies are much better quality and more enjoyable, but I've seen high-def. and Blu-Ray, and it's probably better quality than watching movies at the theatre.
An article says that distinct advantages movie theatres once boasted, such as superior picture quality and surround sound,have been eliminated by the latest innovations in home theater technology.
I think that in order for theatres to make a comeback, they have to keep up with high-definition technology. They also have to realize that people want to feel more at-home in the theatres, so reclining, comfy seats and maybe even couches might offer that. One disadvantage with that, though, is that then people may feel even more comfortable and the social problems I mentioned at the beginning of my blog might escalate.
Do you think movie theatres are becoming/will become obsolete? What do you think will be the ultimate downfall for movie theatres? What do you think they could do to make a comeback?
This blog will look into some of the reasons behind the decline in the popularity movies as well as my opinions on what the theatres could do to fix this problem.
According to this website, one of the largest contributing factors to the decline in movie theatres is social issues, such as people talking on their cell phones, babies crying, etc. I also think people having conversations in person plays a part in this.
"Purple Violets" is a movie that won't release in theatres; it will release on iTunes. Anyone who has $13 to download it can. But is this really cheaper than going to the movies and seeing it? With all factors considered, probably. First there is the movie ticket itself. In my hometown we could see a movie for $3. That movie wasn't just released, but it hadn't come out on DVD yet. However, other theatres have much more expensive tickets. Then there's the gas to get there. We can see movies at our theatre in Valley City, but they stay here for like two weeks and there's only two at a time, so we have to drive to Fargo or Jamestown if we want to see a specific one. Then of course, there's the popcorn and pop which is rediculously over-priced at theatres. (Though in my hometown we could get popcorn and pop for a dollar).
Josh Wolf says that the value of actually going to the movies is becoming less and less significant. "At the same time, I can't see the movie theater going away as a dating oasis and the refuge for teenage lovers that it has always been," Wolf says in his article.
Going back to home theatres systems, some think Blu-Ray will knock off movie theatres. For me, who has a small T.V. and a regular DVD player, the movie theatre's movies are much better quality and more enjoyable, but I've seen high-def. and Blu-Ray, and it's probably better quality than watching movies at the theatre.
An article says that distinct advantages movie theatres once boasted, such as superior picture quality and surround sound,have been eliminated by the latest innovations in home theater technology.
I think that in order for theatres to make a comeback, they have to keep up with high-definition technology. They also have to realize that people want to feel more at-home in the theatres, so reclining, comfy seats and maybe even couches might offer that. One disadvantage with that, though, is that then people may feel even more comfortable and the social problems I mentioned at the beginning of my blog might escalate.
Do you think movie theatres are becoming/will become obsolete? What do you think will be the ultimate downfall for movie theatres? What do you think they could do to make a comeback?
Monday, February 23, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, February 9, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, February 2, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Blog 3 (My Opinions on a Medical Thriller)
Today in class, I learned that the word pregnancy was not allowed to be said on TV when TV first became popular. Clearly, the content and use of words have changed in television and movies over the years, becoming dramatically worse (or better? entertainment-wise...). This idea made me think of the content of a movie I just watched called Awake. This movie took a very morbid subject, displayed it, and then made it even worse by adding human cruelty at its worst.
Awake is about a young billionaire residing in New York City who experiences anesthetic awareness during heart surgery. This means that the patient who is supposed to be in a deep sleep ends up waking up but being completely paralyzed, and thus not being able to do anything but lie there in agony. The main character, Clay, realizes, while still in surgery, that the entire surgery team and his own wife (whom he'd married the night before) are plotting to strategically kill him--to get his money. The surgeons planned to make it look like just a failure that naturally can happen to heart transplant patients.
The movie takes some crazy twists and turns and leaves you wondering until the very end. The essence of human cruelty is very obvious throughout the surgery process. This is way worse than using the word pregnant in the script. It just goes to show how far entertainment has come and makes me wonder if it's gone too far. I thought Awake was a thrilling but also very disturbing movie. The beginning of the movie shows Clay having a close relationship with his fiance and his surgeon/doctor. Once I realized that they were plotting to kill him, I couldn't believe it. I thought, "How could they be so cruel?" A scene featured Clay literally crying during his surgery and it made me think of all the people that have actually experienced anesthetic awareness (though hopefully not like that in the movie!).
This movie was very well-written and made a seemingly boring subject one of the most thrilling movies I've ever seen. For a movie that features a man going through surgery nearly 75% of the entire show, I wasn't bored for one second.
Awake is about a young billionaire residing in New York City who experiences anesthetic awareness during heart surgery. This means that the patient who is supposed to be in a deep sleep ends up waking up but being completely paralyzed, and thus not being able to do anything but lie there in agony. The main character, Clay, realizes, while still in surgery, that the entire surgery team and his own wife (whom he'd married the night before) are plotting to strategically kill him--to get his money. The surgeons planned to make it look like just a failure that naturally can happen to heart transplant patients.
The movie takes some crazy twists and turns and leaves you wondering until the very end. The essence of human cruelty is very obvious throughout the surgery process. This is way worse than using the word pregnant in the script. It just goes to show how far entertainment has come and makes me wonder if it's gone too far. I thought Awake was a thrilling but also very disturbing movie. The beginning of the movie shows Clay having a close relationship with his fiance and his surgeon/doctor. Once I realized that they were plotting to kill him, I couldn't believe it. I thought, "How could they be so cruel?" A scene featured Clay literally crying during his surgery and it made me think of all the people that have actually experienced anesthetic awareness (though hopefully not like that in the movie!).
This movie was very well-written and made a seemingly boring subject one of the most thrilling movies I've ever seen. For a movie that features a man going through surgery nearly 75% of the entire show, I wasn't bored for one second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
