http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-hollywood-fcc-net-neutrality-rules-20150226-story.html
The article I read is about the FCC passage of net neutrality rules on the internet. It is said that ,"This is clearly a victory for everyone -- not just Hollywood -- but everyone who uses the Internet, ... It is a critical moment in the ongoing fight for free expression and robust competition."
I chose this article because I thought it was interesting how Hollywood would approve of something the FCC endorsed usually Hollywood would be in disagreement with what the FCC thinks bout they are on the same page about this. This article is important because it shows us how the FCC believes that people and companies should have increased freedom to create and distribute content to users without a media company go-between. As someone who uses the internet this makes me wonder if this will affect the way the internet will work. This lets us see that there are alot of regulations in the entertainment industry and now it will be easier/ more convenient for companies to share things with their clients.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-time-warner-comcast-merger20150218-story.html
The article I read is about how to merger between the companies Time Warner Cable and Comcast, is said to cause many problems economically, according to Rep. Tony Cardenas. The article says that the merger will give even more power to company as it is already the owner of many others that distribute entertainment. It is said that if the merger happens, which Tony Cardenas is trying his best to stop it, the prices of entertainment and internet provides will rise and there will be a great job loss.
This article is important because it shows us that politicians see that the entertainment industry is a great part of the economy and they are trying to keep a stability by making sure that these companies do not become to powerful to where they can manipulate the economy to their best interest. I chose this article because I though it was interesting that a politician would oppose a merger of two companies. As a consumer this whole situation is very concerning. If the two companies merger what does it mean? will prices rise? Quality be reduced? This shows us that politicians are looking out for us, the people, so that we companies do not become to powerful and we are not completely dependent of that one company for a service or product.
The article I read is about how to merger between the companies Time Warner Cable and Comcast, is said to cause many problems economically, according to Rep. Tony Cardenas. The article says that the merger will give even more power to company as it is already the owner of many others that distribute entertainment. It is said that if the merger happens, which Tony Cardenas is trying his best to stop it, the prices of entertainment and internet provides will rise and there will be a great job loss.
This article is important because it shows us that politicians see that the entertainment industry is a great part of the economy and they are trying to keep a stability by making sure that these companies do not become to powerful to where they can manipulate the economy to their best interest. I chose this article because I though it was interesting that a politician would oppose a merger of two companies. As a consumer this whole situation is very concerning. If the two companies merger what does it mean? will prices rise? Quality be reduced? This shows us that politicians are looking out for us, the people, so that we companies do not become to powerful and we are not completely dependent of that one company for a service or product.
Friday, February 13, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-la-plans-campaign-to-promote-new-film-tax-credits-20150211-story.html
The article I read is about Maor Eric Garcetti's efforts of an outreach campaign called "Greenlight Hollywood" to pitch the new incentives, which triple annual funding to $330 million a year and allow a broader swath of projects to qualify. The plan is to, "contact studios before they make key decisions on what movies and TV shows to greenlight." However, California still faces heavy competition from other states and countries that offer richer incentives.
This article is important because it shows how politics and economics plays a role in the film industry. I chose this article because I thought it was interesting how mayor Eric Garcetti supports the entrainment industry and would advocate on its behalf to get a bill passed. The new incentives are said to," triple annual funding to $330 million a year and allow a broader swath of projects to qualify." This shows me that the film industry can help the economy; if the Mayor convinced Congress to pass the bill then it must be good for the economy, right?
The article I read is about Maor Eric Garcetti's efforts of an outreach campaign called "Greenlight Hollywood" to pitch the new incentives, which triple annual funding to $330 million a year and allow a broader swath of projects to qualify. The plan is to, "contact studios before they make key decisions on what movies and TV shows to greenlight." However, California still faces heavy competition from other states and countries that offer richer incentives.
This article is important because it shows how politics and economics plays a role in the film industry. I chose this article because I thought it was interesting how mayor Eric Garcetti supports the entrainment industry and would advocate on its behalf to get a bill passed. The new incentives are said to," triple annual funding to $330 million a year and allow a broader swath of projects to qualify." This shows me that the film industry can help the economy; if the Mayor convinced Congress to pass the bill then it must be good for the economy, right?
Friday, February 6, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-coca-cola-make-it-happy-super-bowl-ad-20150201-story.html
'The article I read is about Coca-Colas's Super Bowl advertisement and how its message to everyone is to be nicer on the internet. The last ad Coca Cola did for the Super Bowl caused alot of controversy, according to the article. People were upset with it and argued about it for some time. The ad this year was to raise awareness of internet negativity. "If a brand can make people pause for a minute to think about what they’re going to say online, Coke is the brand to help inspire happiness and positivity.”
I chose this article because it thought it was interesting how Coca Cola would use their influence on people to try and raise awareness. This article is important because it shows how the media can be use for good to help raise awareness for things and influence people, possibly. As a consumer this shows me that Coca Cola corporation can use their influence in the media for the greater good and it shouldn't just be them. More big name brand should take the bold step coca Cola took and use their influence to make a difference. Think about all the good it could possibly do. As a filmmaker their shows me that people are very judgmental about what they see on television. There are always going to be people that dislike your work and talk lowly of it, howver, one must ignore what everyone thinks and do what you think is right.
'The article I read is about Coca-Colas's Super Bowl advertisement and how its message to everyone is to be nicer on the internet. The last ad Coca Cola did for the Super Bowl caused alot of controversy, according to the article. People were upset with it and argued about it for some time. The ad this year was to raise awareness of internet negativity. "If a brand can make people pause for a minute to think about what they’re going to say online, Coke is the brand to help inspire happiness and positivity.”
I chose this article because it thought it was interesting how Coca Cola would use their influence on people to try and raise awareness. This article is important because it shows how the media can be use for good to help raise awareness for things and influence people, possibly. As a consumer this shows me that Coca Cola corporation can use their influence in the media for the greater good and it shouldn't just be them. More big name brand should take the bold step coca Cola took and use their influence to make a difference. Think about all the good it could possibly do. As a filmmaker their shows me that people are very judgmental about what they see on television. There are always going to be people that dislike your work and talk lowly of it, howver, one must ignore what everyone thinks and do what you think is right.
Friday, January 30, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-movie-ticket-prices-up-20150120-story.html
The article I read is about how ticket prices rose as compared to ticket prices from 2013. It is,"The average price of a movie ticket rose to $8.17 in 2014, the highest yearly average on record, according to The National Assn. of Theatre Owners." The cause of the raise on average was due to the successful of Guardians of the Galaxy later in the year. The article also talks about how in bigger cities the prices of tickets are significantly more than those of smaller cities."an adult movie ticket for an evening showing at AMC Century City is $14.49. By comparison, at AMC Oakview Plaza in Omaha, the cost of an adult movie ticket for an evening showing is $6.73." The cause of this being "box office slump." The box office reached an estimated $10.3 billion in 2014, down about 5.2% from 2013's record of $10.9 billion. The article says that the slump was due to the struggle "to lure in moviegoers with growing competition from home entertainment options such as Netflix, video-on-demand and video games." In response to this many theaters renovated, adding "premium services such as extra-large screens, improved sound systems and in-theater."
I chose this article because I thought it was rather interesting that in 2014 the price of a movie ticket rose. If the trend continues, as predicted, how high will prices go? This article is important because it shows how last year, due to the "slump" prices rose. As a consumer this worries me; why do I have to pay more, nearly twice as much, to seethe same movie as someone who lives in a smaller cities, whereas I live in a larger. As a filmmaker this shows me how it is important to produce movies that not only are "good" but good enough, if not better, to keep an audience coming back to watch it over and over again and or recommending it to their friends and family.
The article I read is about how ticket prices rose as compared to ticket prices from 2013. It is,"The average price of a movie ticket rose to $8.17 in 2014, the highest yearly average on record, according to The National Assn. of Theatre Owners." The cause of the raise on average was due to the successful of Guardians of the Galaxy later in the year. The article also talks about how in bigger cities the prices of tickets are significantly more than those of smaller cities."an adult movie ticket for an evening showing at AMC Century City is $14.49. By comparison, at AMC Oakview Plaza in Omaha, the cost of an adult movie ticket for an evening showing is $6.73." The cause of this being "box office slump." The box office reached an estimated $10.3 billion in 2014, down about 5.2% from 2013's record of $10.9 billion. The article says that the slump was due to the struggle "to lure in moviegoers with growing competition from home entertainment options such as Netflix, video-on-demand and video games." In response to this many theaters renovated, adding "premium services such as extra-large screens, improved sound systems and in-theater."
I chose this article because I thought it was rather interesting that in 2014 the price of a movie ticket rose. If the trend continues, as predicted, how high will prices go? This article is important because it shows how last year, due to the "slump" prices rose. As a consumer this worries me; why do I have to pay more, nearly twice as much, to seethe same movie as someone who lives in a smaller cities, whereas I live in a larger. As a filmmaker this shows me how it is important to produce movies that not only are "good" but good enough, if not better, to keep an audience coming back to watch it over and over again and or recommending it to their friends and family.
Friday, January 23, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dreamworks-layoffs-20150122-story.html
The article I read is how Dream Works plans on laying off over 500 employees because they feel it would save them more money. As of recent years Dream Works has been in somewhat in a slump as they are not making nearly as much money in the box- office as opposed to previous years. The lay off of the 500 employees is said to be "best" for the studio as it would also lessen their payroll and he number of movies released per year; from 3 to 2. Although this seems like a bad thing to must the studio has said, that by doing so they will be able to spend more time and effort of the movies released for greater revenue.
This article is important because it shows business side to the film industry. It shows us how a major studio can suddenly lay off people just to save a quick buck. As a filmmaker this shows me that he work in the field is tough and if you really want to make it you must be at the top of you game or else thing like this, where the studio lays you off, happens.This article raises a few questions in my head such as: would laying off all those people really benefit the studio? Why would you decrease the number of movies you release per year if that is where your source of income is? In my opinion I don't think they should have laid off all those people nor have decrease their number of movies produced per year. Doing this doesn't really solve anything, yes it save you a quick buck, but if you are consistently not making as much money as you expect per film, wouldn't it be a bright idea to maybe think about investing in better movie ideas or more movies? To make money you must first spend money.
The article I read is how Dream Works plans on laying off over 500 employees because they feel it would save them more money. As of recent years Dream Works has been in somewhat in a slump as they are not making nearly as much money in the box- office as opposed to previous years. The lay off of the 500 employees is said to be "best" for the studio as it would also lessen their payroll and he number of movies released per year; from 3 to 2. Although this seems like a bad thing to must the studio has said, that by doing so they will be able to spend more time and effort of the movies released for greater revenue.
This article is important because it shows business side to the film industry. It shows us how a major studio can suddenly lay off people just to save a quick buck. As a filmmaker this shows me that he work in the field is tough and if you really want to make it you must be at the top of you game or else thing like this, where the studio lays you off, happens.This article raises a few questions in my head such as: would laying off all those people really benefit the studio? Why would you decrease the number of movies you release per year if that is where your source of income is? In my opinion I don't think they should have laid off all those people nor have decrease their number of movies produced per year. Doing this doesn't really solve anything, yes it save you a quick buck, but if you are consistently not making as much money as you expect per film, wouldn't it be a bright idea to maybe think about investing in better movie ideas or more movies? To make money you must first spend money.
Friday, December 5, 2014
http://deadline.com/2014/12/fox-tv-studios-fox-21-merger-plans-dana-walden-1201309296/
This week I read an article about how Fox is expanding its horizons by creating a new television studio by merging the operations of divisions Fox 21 and Fox TV Studios under president Bert Salke. According to Dana Walden, the merger is not going to layoff employees as the merger was "inevitable" and its purpose is to create a "more successful organization."
I chose this article because I found it interesting that a big name Studio like Fox is merging with another company. This article is important because not to often do companies merge; when they do however, there is a reason why. Whether it be because of financial issues or because of competition between the two companies for customers there is a reason for this merger. This shows me, as a student, that teaming of with your competitors or rivals to for a team, can be a good decision. As a consumer this makes me wonder how the merger will affect the company's products. This article also makes me wonder is there really aren't going to be layoffs; mergers often mean layoffs. Why all of a sudden did the two companies decide to merge?
This week I read an article about how Fox is expanding its horizons by creating a new television studio by merging the operations of divisions Fox 21 and Fox TV Studios under president Bert Salke. According to Dana Walden, the merger is not going to layoff employees as the merger was "inevitable" and its purpose is to create a "more successful organization."
I chose this article because I found it interesting that a big name Studio like Fox is merging with another company. This article is important because not to often do companies merge; when they do however, there is a reason why. Whether it be because of financial issues or because of competition between the two companies for customers there is a reason for this merger. This shows me, as a student, that teaming of with your competitors or rivals to for a team, can be a good decision. As a consumer this makes me wonder how the merger will affect the company's products. This article also makes me wonder is there really aren't going to be layoffs; mergers often mean layoffs. Why all of a sudden did the two companies decide to merge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)