http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2313552153/
My movie trailer is from "The Dark Knight".
The trailer starts out with quick flashes of picture, accompanied by a loud noise. It seems to me that there are a couple purposes to this, besides the obvious of showing Batman jumping off a building, which is of course pretty cool. The others are first, that it gets your attention. Nothing like a loud noise to make people turn around. The other reason is that it lets the viewer know that this is an action movie. Action movies are characterized by quick, changing scenes. It keeps you on the edge of your seat because you don't know what's going to happen next. To me the opening of the trailer accomplishes that.
The next portion of the trailer I would characterize mainly as an appeal to pathos, but also ethos. It introduces what movie it is by showing the logo and the main characters. Showing the "DC" logo and the bat symbol appeal especially to ethos, because viewers think, "Oh, this isn't just some other movie, it's a series I'm familiar with". Showing the characters appeals to pathos, at least for those who saw the first movie and have gained a connection so to speak to these characters.
Here I should point out that this was the third trailer for this film, so at least the fans of the movie were already familiar with the plot line. That's important because in a way the trailer assumes the viewer knows who the Joker is. He doesn't get an introduction, he's just kind of there. That kind of makes me think the target audience was not people completely unfamiliar with the movie, but those who were already at least a little interested. Maybe then the hope was to prove to those people who had seen and like "Batman Begins" that this sequel was going to be equally good and not a disappointment.
That being said, I also think that the trailer was meant to reach a broad audience. It didn't just reach out to the Batman crowd, it also showed scenes about the relationship drama between Bruce and Rachel, which shows that the movie isn't just explosions and Batman taking out villians.
Finally, the last clip of the trailer is another appeal to pathos, by ending the trailer with a humorous dialogue between Alfred and Bruce. It ends it on a high note, leaving the viewer thinking "that would be a good one to see".
I think the trailer was effective in accomplishing its goal, at least as for me as a big fan of "Batman Begins" the trailer satisfied my hope that this movie would be as good as the first.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
RA 6, Visual Art
http://cfac.byu.edu/uploads/RTEmagicC_8d66579a21.jpg.jpg
This painting is "No place to go" by Maynard Dixon, from 1935.
I saw this painting in a section about American History at the Museum of Art at BYU. It was painted during the Great Depression, so it's pretty important to understand what kind of audience it was directed towards. Most of the people in the country had very little money, as there were few jobs. I imagine that most people were just searching for a way to make ends meet.
The man in this picture is carrying a sack over his shoulder. He's clearly trying to find a new home. What he has with him is probably all that he owns. However the clothes he's wearing don't seem to me as the kind of clothes someone wears when going on a long hike like he is. They're more like worker's clothes. I would interpret that as meaning he was recently a worker and has left that life to search for something new, but hasn't found anything.
The fence he's leaning up against stretches on both sides for as far as we can see. It represents a kind of prison keeping him from going further. Although he could easily go through it or over it, I think its main purpose is its representation of the end of the line. He's come as far as he could, and he didn't find what he was looking for.
I think the background carries a similar theme. I'm not completely sure but it looks to me like an ocean. When I see an open sea and a horizon like that it makes me think of freedom. However, his way to the sea and freedom is blocked by the mountains.
Also, the landscape that he's in is very dead. Other than the ugly grass, there isn't a living thing anywhere. No trees, or flowers, or any kind of animals. There isn't even any shade. This clearly isn't a place he wants to stay.
For all these reasons, I think the painting is portraying the emotion people had that they're searching for a way to get out of the situation they're in, but they really don't have anywhere to go.
This painting is "No place to go" by Maynard Dixon, from 1935.
I saw this painting in a section about American History at the Museum of Art at BYU. It was painted during the Great Depression, so it's pretty important to understand what kind of audience it was directed towards. Most of the people in the country had very little money, as there were few jobs. I imagine that most people were just searching for a way to make ends meet.
The man in this picture is carrying a sack over his shoulder. He's clearly trying to find a new home. What he has with him is probably all that he owns. However the clothes he's wearing don't seem to me as the kind of clothes someone wears when going on a long hike like he is. They're more like worker's clothes. I would interpret that as meaning he was recently a worker and has left that life to search for something new, but hasn't found anything.
The fence he's leaning up against stretches on both sides for as far as we can see. It represents a kind of prison keeping him from going further. Although he could easily go through it or over it, I think its main purpose is its representation of the end of the line. He's come as far as he could, and he didn't find what he was looking for.
I think the background carries a similar theme. I'm not completely sure but it looks to me like an ocean. When I see an open sea and a horizon like that it makes me think of freedom. However, his way to the sea and freedom is blocked by the mountains.
Also, the landscape that he's in is very dead. Other than the ugly grass, there isn't a living thing anywhere. No trees, or flowers, or any kind of animals. There isn't even any shade. This clearly isn't a place he wants to stay.
For all these reasons, I think the painting is portraying the emotion people had that they're searching for a way to get out of the situation they're in, but they really don't have anywhere to go.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Article for paper A
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-There-A-Difference-Between-Loving-Someone-and-Being-In-Love?&id=321212
This article is very general and that makes me think that it has a very broad target audience. The author uses questions that incorporate ideas for people who are in relationships, those who are going through break-ups, and probably even people who are not in a relationship at the time.
He uses numerous examples of what it means to be in love, as well as siting his own extensive research to boost his ethos. He clearly posts numerous articles, so he probably has a fan base of people who believe in what he says.
I think he uses the part of asking readers to ponder a couple questions in order to show them how confusing it is to find answers about what love is. That could be called an attempt at logos.
His argument is effective, although it seems to me that he kind of takes the easy way out. Anyone who sees this article and decides to read it will most likely do so because they are searching for an answer to the question "what does it mean to be in love?" His answer to that question is what the reader already suspected: there is no straight answer. Although that is an answer most everyone can agree with, that still shouldn't stop you from giving a try at a more extreme view.
This article is very general and that makes me think that it has a very broad target audience. The author uses questions that incorporate ideas for people who are in relationships, those who are going through break-ups, and probably even people who are not in a relationship at the time.
He uses numerous examples of what it means to be in love, as well as siting his own extensive research to boost his ethos. He clearly posts numerous articles, so he probably has a fan base of people who believe in what he says.
I think he uses the part of asking readers to ponder a couple questions in order to show them how confusing it is to find answers about what love is. That could be called an attempt at logos.
His argument is effective, although it seems to me that he kind of takes the easy way out. Anyone who sees this article and decides to read it will most likely do so because they are searching for an answer to the question "what does it mean to be in love?" His answer to that question is what the reader already suspected: there is no straight answer. Although that is an answer most everyone can agree with, that still shouldn't stop you from giving a try at a more extreme view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)