Youtube results:
LOL | |
---|---|
File:LOL 2012 movie poster.jpg Theatrical release poster |
|
Directed by | Lisa Azuelos |
Produced by |
Michael Shamberg |
Screenplay by | Lisa Azuelos Karim Aïnouz |
Starring | Miley Cyrus Demi Moore Ashley Greene Adam Sevani Douglas Booth |
Music by | Rob Simonsen |
Editing by | Myron Kerstein |
Studio | Mandate Pictures Double Feature Films |
Distributed by | Lionsgate |
Release date(s) | May 4, 2012 |
Running time | 97 minutes |
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Budget | $11 million |
Box office | $46,500[1] |
LOL is a 2012 American coming-of-age comedy film directed and co-written by Lisa Azuelos. It is based on the 2008 French smash-hit, LOL (Laughing Out Loud) (R), which was itself a remake of the French movie La boum, and stars Miley Cyrus as a teen girl navigating through the peer pressures of high school romance and friendship and Demi Moore as her protective mother.
The film was directed by Lisa Azuelos, who had also written and directed the original film. The screenplay was dramatized by Lisa Azuelos and Kamir Aïnouz, based on the film LOL (Laughing Out Loud)(R). Headlined, as stated above, by Miley Cyrus and Demi Moore, the film featured a strong ensemble cast which also included Ashley Greene, Golden Globe nominated actor Thomas Jane, Jay Hernandez, Hollywood legend Marlo Thomas, Nora Dunn, Gina Gershon, Fisher Stevens and Austin Nichols. The cast likewise featured Douglas Booth, Adam Sevani, George Finn and Ashley Hinshaw, whereas newcomers Lina Esco and Tanz Watson made or followed up their respective debuts in it. It was produced by Academy Award-nominated Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher of Double Feature Films (Erin Brockovich, Best Picture, 2000) and Tish Cyrus (The Last Song). Its executive producers were Nathan Kahane, Jerome Seydoux, Romain Le Grand and Lisa Azuelos, and Nicole Brown of Mandate Pictures and Kelli Konop, Taylor Latham, and James Powers of Double Feature Films served as co-producers.
Contents |
In a world connected by YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, Lola and her friends navigate the peer pressures of high school romance and friendship while dodging their sometimes overbearing and confused parents. When Lola's mom, Anne, accidentally reads her teenage daughter's racy journal, she realizes just how wide their communication gap has grown.
These are songs that were featured in the film. They are not to be confused with the incidental soundtrack music.
The film started production on July 16, 2010 and later finished filming and went to post-production on Sept. 14, 2010. It was filmed primarily in the city of Grosse Pointe, a community on the east side of Detroit, MI, and required a year and two weeks of post production before it was completed on November 1, 2011. In January 2012, the film finally got a trailer, and days later, a poster was designed and printed for it.
On February 10, 2012, the film was released for the first time in India, and later, on March 1, 2012, in Singapore. Later, it was announced that the film would be released on limited release on May 4, 2012 in the United States. The film, the announcement went on, would be released as Lola in Brazil, LOL: Laughing Out Loud in Germany, ЛЕТО. ОДНОКЛАССНИКИ. ЛЮБОВЬ (Summer. Classmates. Love) in Russia and Casi 18: LOL (Almost 18: LOL) in Latin America.[citation needed]
Three different trailers were released for the movie—a British trailer, a German trailer, and an American trailer.
LionsGate had two years to market the film nationwide, but instead it rushed the movie to only limited theatrical release on May 4, 2012, without substantial marketing, which LionsGate's home entertainment division handled for LOL. The film would have been released directly to DVD if not for a technicality in its distribution contract.[2]
LionsGate chose to debut the film, without a formal premiere, to a limited release of 105 theaters in the United States, on May 4, 2012. On the premiere weekend, the movie had proven to be a box-office bomb, making only $46,500 in its limited release - a slight percentage of its $11 million budget.
On March 11, 2012, LOL made $21,000 in Singapore and was only released for two weeks in seven theaters.[3]
Critically, the film received mixed reviews from critics. As of May 21, it held a rating of 51% on Rotten Tomatoes [4] with negative reviews from especially prominent film critics on the site. The movie was panned by users on IMDB, garnering a 1.7 user rating and is currently listed at #22 on the website's Bottom 100.[5]
LOL will be available on DVD and Blu-ray Disc on July 31, 2012.
LOL, an abbreviation for laughing out loud,[1][2] or laugh out loud,[3] is a common element of Internet slang. It was used historically on Usenet but is now widespread in other forms of computer-mediated communication, and even face-to-face communication. It is one of many initialisms for expressing bodily reactions, in particular laughter, as text, including initialisms for more emphatic expressions of laughter such as LMAO[4] ("laugh(ing) my ass off"), and ROTFL[5][6][7][8] or ROFL[9] ("roll(ing) on the floor laughing"). Other unrelated expansions include the now mostly historical "lots of luck" or "lots of love" used in letter-writing.[10]
The list of acronyms "grows by the month"[5] and they are collected along with emoticons and smileys into folk dictionaries that are circulated informally amongst users of Usenet, IRC, and other forms of (textual) computer-mediated communication.[11] These initialisms are controversial, and several authors[12][13][14][15] recommend against their use, either in general or in specific contexts such as business communications.
LOL was first documented in the Oxford English Dictionary in March 2011.[16]
Contents |
Laccetti (professor of humanities at Stevens Institute of Technology) and Molski, in their essay entitled The Lost Art of Writing,[12][13] are critical of the terms, predicting reduced chances of employment for students who use such slang, stating that, "Unfortunately for these students, their bosses will not be 'lol' when they read a report that lacks proper punctuation and grammar, has numerous misspellings, various made-up words, and silly acronyms." Fondiller and Nerone[14] in their style manual assert that "professional or business communication should never be careless or poorly constructed" whether one is writing an electronic mail message or an article for publication, and warn against the use of smileys and these abbreviations, stating that they are "no more than e-mail slang and have no place in business communication".
Yunker and Barry[15] in a study of online courses and how they can be improved through podcasting have found that these slang terms, and emoticons as well, are "often misunderstood" by students and are "difficult to decipher" unless their meanings are explained in advance. They single out the example of "ROFL" as not obviously being the abbreviation of "rolling on the floor laughing" (emphasis added). Haig[1] singles out LOL as one of the three most popular initialisms in Internet slang, alongside BFN ("bye for now") and IMHO ("in my honest/humble opinion"). He describes the various initialisms of Internet slang as convenient, but warns that "as ever more obscure acronyms emerge they can also be rather confusing". Bidgoli[17] likewise states that these initialisms "save keystrokes for the sender but [...] might make comprehension of the message more difficult for the receiver" and that "[s]lang may hold different meanings and lead to misunderstandings especially in international settings"; he advises that they be used "only when you are sure that the other person knows the meaning".
Shortis[8] observes that ROTFL is a means of "annotating text with stage directions". Hueng,[5] in discussing these terms in the context of performative utterances, points out the difference between telling someone that one is laughing out loud and actually laughing out loud: "The latter response is a straightforward action. The former is a self-reflexive representation of an action: I not only do something but also show you that I am doing it. Or indeed, I may not actually laugh out loud but may use the locution 'LOL' to communicate my appreciation of your attempt at humor."
David Crystal notes that use of LOL is not necessarily genuine,[18] just as the use of smiley faces or grins is not necessarily genuine, posing the rhetorical question "How many people are actually 'laughing out loud' when they send LOL?". Franzini[2] concurs, stating that there is as yet no research that has determined the percentage of people who are actually laughing out loud when they write LOL.
Victoria Clarke, in her analysis of telnet talkers,[19] states that capitalization is important when people write LOL, and that "a user who types LOL may well be laughing louder than one who types lol", and opines that "these standard expressions of laughter are losing force through overuse". Egan[3] describes LOL, ROTFL, and other initialisms as helpful as long as they are not overused. He recommends against their use in business correspondence because the recipient may not be aware of their meanings, and because in general neither they nor emoticons are (in his view) appropriate in such correspondence. June Hines Moore[20] shares that view. So, too, does Lindsell-Roberts,[21] who gives the same advice of not using them in business correspondence, "or you won't be LOL".
LOL, ROFL, and other initialisms have crossed from computer-mediated communication to face-to-face communication. David Crystal—likening the introduction of LOL, ROFL, and others into spoken language in magnitude to the revolution of Johannes Gutenberg's invention of movable type in the 15th century—states that this is "a brand new variety of language evolving", invented by young people within five years, that "extend[s] the range of the language, the expressiveness [and] the richness of the language".[22][23]
Geoffrey K. Pullum points out that even if interjections such as LOL and ROFL were to become very common in spoken English, their "total effect on language" would be "utterly trivial".[24]
Conversely, a 2003 study of college students by Naomi Baron found that the use of these initialisms in computer-mediated communication (CMC), specifically in instant messaging, was actually lower than she had expected. The students "used few abbreviations, acronyms, and emoticons". The spelling was "reasonably good" and contractions were "not ubiquitous". Out of 2,185 transmissions, there were 90 initialisms in total, only 31 CMC-style abbreviations, and 49 emoticons.[23] Out of the 90 initialisms, 76 were occurrences of LOL.[25]
On March 24, 2011, LOL, along with other acronyms, has been formally recognized in an update of the Oxford English Dictionary.[16][26] In their research, it was determined that the earliest recorded use of LOL as an initialism was for "little old lady" in the 1960s.[27] They also discovered that the oldest written record of the use of LOL in the contemporary meaning of "Laughing Out Loud" was from a message typed by Wayne Pearson in the 1980s, from the archives of Usenet.[28]
Gabriella Coleman references "lulz" extensively in her anthropological studies of Anonymous.[29][30]
The past tense of lol is lolled. The participle form is lolling.
For a list of words relating to for Internet laughter slang, see the Internet laughter slang category of words in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
Most of these variants are usually found in lowercase.
In some languages with a non-Latin script, the abbreviation LOL itself is also often transliterated. See for example Arabic لــول and Russian лол.[citation needed]
Pre-dating the Internet and phone texting by a century, the way to express laughter in morse code is "hi hi". The sound of this in morse, 'di-di-di-dit di-dit, di-di-di-dit di-dit', is thought to represent chuckling.[47][48]
Look up LOL or lol in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
|
2012 | |
---|---|
File:2012 Poster.jpg Theatrical release poster |
|
Directed by | Roland Emmerich |
Produced by | Harald Kloser Mark Gordon Larry J. Franco |
Written by | Harald Kloser Roland Emmerich |
Starring | John Cusack Chiwetel Ejiofor Amanda Peet Oliver Platt Thandie Newton Danny Glover Woody Harrelson |
Music by | Harald Kloser Thomas Wander |
Cinematography | Dean Semler |
Editing by | David Brenner Peter S. Elliott |
Studio | Centropolis Entertainment |
Distributed by | Columbia Pictures |
Release date(s) |
|
Running time | 158 min |
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Budget | $200 million[1] |
Box office | $769,679,473[2] |
2012 is a 2009 American science fiction disaster film directed by Roland Emmerich. It stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, and Woody Harrelson, among others. It was produced by Emmerich's production company, Centropolis Entertainment, and was distributed by Columbia Pictures. Filming began in August 2008 in Vancouver, although it was originally planned to be filmed in Los Angeles.[3]
The plot follows Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) as he attempts to bring his children, Noah and Lilly (Liam James and Morgan Lily respectively), ex-wife Kate Curtis (Amanda Peet) and her boyfriend, Gordon Silberman (Thomas McCarthy) to refuge and attempt to escape the heightened change in the elements. The film includes references to Mayanism, the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and the 2012 phenomenon in its portrayal of cataclysmic events unfolding in the year 2012. Emmerich has announced that the film will be his last involving disasters.[4]
After a prolonged marketing campaign comprising the creation of a website from the point of view of the main character, Jackson Curtis,[5] and a viral marketing website on which filmgoers could register for a lottery number to save them from the ensuing disaster,[6] the film was internationally released on November 13, 2009. Critics gave 2012 mixed reviews, praising its special effects and tone but criticized its length and screenwriting. Despite this, the film, budgeted at $200 million, has a worldwide theatrical revenue that reached approximately $770 million.[7]
Contents |
In 2009, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), an American geologist, visits astrophysicist Dr. Satnam Tsurutani (Jimi Mistry) in India and learns that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to increase rapidly. Adrian gives a report on this to White House Chief of Staff Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) who ends up taking Adrian to meet the President of the United States.
In 2010, President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) and other international leaders begin a secret project to ensure humanity's survival. Approximately 400,000 people are chosen to board "arks" that are constructed at Cho Ming, Tibet, in the Himalayas. At the same time as the People's Liberation Army are gathering volunteers, a Buddhist monk named Nima (Osric Chau) is evacuated while his brother Tenzin (Chin Han) joins the workers in the Ark project. Additional funding for the project is raised by selling tickets to the private sector for €1 billion per person. By 2011, humanity's valuable treasures are moved to the Himalayas under the guise of protecting them from terrorist attacks with the help of art expert and First Daughter Dr. Laura Wilson (Thandie Newton).
In 2012, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is a science fiction writer in Los Angeles who works part-time as a limousine driver for the Russian billionaire, Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Burić). Jackson's ex-wife, Kate (Amanda Peet) and their children Noah (Liam James) and Lilly (Morgan Lily) live with Kate's boyfriend, plastic surgeon Gordon Silberman (Thomas McCarthy).
Jackson takes Noah and Lilly camping in Yellowstone National Park. After an encounter with Helmsley, they meet Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), who hosts a radio show from the park. Charlie plays a video of Charles Hapgood's theory that polar shifts and the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar predict that the 2012 phenomenon will occur. He has a map of the ark project in addition to information about officials and scientists from around the world who were murdered after planning to alert the public. The family returns home as seismic activity vastly increases along the west coast of the United States. Jackson grows suspicious and rents a plane to rescue his family. He collects his family and Gordon as the Earth crust displacement begins, and they narrowly escape Los Angeles as the city slips into the Pacific Ocean.
As millions die in catastrophic earthquakes worldwide, the group flies to Yellowstone to retrieve Charlie's map, escaping as the Yellowstone Caldera erupts. Charlie stays behind to broadcast the eruption and is killed in the blast of the expulsion of an ash cloud. Learning that the arks are in China, the group lands in a devastated Las Vegas to find a larger plane. They meet Yuri, his twin sons Alec and Oleg (played by Alexandre and Philippe Haussmann), girlfriend Tamara (Beatrice Rosen) and pilot Sasha (Johann Urb). The group secures an Antonov An-225 aircraft and they depart for China. Also heading for the arks aboard Air Force One are Anheuser, Helmsley and Laura Wilson. President Wilson remains in Washington, D.C. to address the nation one last time. With the Vice President dead and the Speaker of the House missing, Anheuser assumes de facto leadership. President Wilson is later killed by a megatsunami that sends the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy crashing into the White House.
Arriving in China in a crash landing that kills Sasha, the group is spotted by the People's Liberation Army. Yuri and his sons, possessing tickets, are taken to the arks, leaving Tamara and the others behind. They are picked up by Nima and are taken to the arks with his grandparents (Lisa Lu and Chang Tseng). They stow away on the ark with the help of Tenzin. As a megatsunami approaches the site, an impact driver becomes lodged between the gears of the ark's hydraulics chamber, preventing a boarding gate from closing and rendering the ship unable to start its engines. In the ensuing chaos, Yuri, Gordon and Tamara are killed, Tenzin is wounded, and the ark is set adrift. Jackson and Noah dislodge the impact driver and the crew regains control of the ark before it can impact Mount Everest.
After flood waters from the tsunamis recede, the arks travel to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa where the Drakensberg Mountains have risen in relation to sea level and become the tallest mountains in the world. Jackson is rejoined with his family, and Helmsley starts a relationship with Laura.
The credits cite the bestselling book Fingerprints of the Gods by author Graham Hancock as inspiration for the film,[12] and in an interview with the London magazine Time Out Emmerich states: "I always wanted to do a biblical flood movie, but I never felt I had the hook. I first read about the Earth's Crust Displacement Theory in Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods."[13]
Director Emmerich and composer-producer Harald Kloser had an extremely close relationship and also co-wrote a spec script entitled 2012, which was marketed to major studios in February 2008. Nearly all studios met with Emmerich and his representatives to hear the director's budget projection and story plans, a process that the director had previously gone through with the films Independence Day (1996) and The Day After Tomorrow (2004).[14] Later that month, Sony Pictures Entertainment won the rights for the spec script, planning to distribute it under Columbia Pictures[15] and was produced for less than budgeted. According to Emmerich, the film was eventually produced for about $200 million.[1]
Filming was originally scheduled to begin in Los Angeles, California, in July 2008[3] but instead commenced in Kamloops, Savona, Cache Creek and Ashcroft in British Columbia, Canada.[16] Due to the possible 2008 Screen Actors Guild strike, filmmakers set up a contingency plan for salvaging the film.[17] Uncharted Territory, Digital Domain, Double Negative, Scanline, Sony Pictures Imageworks and others were hired to create computer animated visual effects for 2012.
Although the film depicts the destruction of several major cultural and historical icons around the world, Emmerich stated that the Kaaba was also considered for selection. Kloser opposed the idea out of fear that a fatwā might be issued against him.[18][19]
The film was promoted in a marketing campaign by a fictional organization, the "Institute for Human Continuity"; this entailed a fictitious book written by Jackson Curtis entitled Farewell Atlantis,[5] and streaming media, blog updates and radio broadcasts from the apocalyptic zealot Charlie Frost on his website This Is The End.[5]
On November 12, 2008, the new studio released the first teaser trailer for 2012 that showed a tsunami surging over the Himalayas and interlaced a purportedly scientific message suggesting that the world would end in 2012, and that the world's governments were not preparing its population for the event. The trailer ended with a message to viewers to "find out the truth" by searching "2012" on search engines. The Guardian criticized the marketing effectiveness as "deeply flawed" and associated it with "websites that make even more spurious claims about 2012".[20]
The studio also launched a viral marketing website operated by the fictional Institute for Human Continuity, where filmgoers could register for a lottery number to be part of a small population that would be rescued from the global destruction.[6] David Morrison of NASA received over 1000 inquiries from people who thought the website was genuine, and condemned it. "I've even had cases of teenagers writing to me saying they are contemplating suicide because they don't want to see the world end," he said. "I think when you lie on the internet and scare children to make a buck, that is ethically wrong."[21] Another viral marketing website promotes Farewell Atlantis, a fictional suspense novel by the film's lead protagonist, about the events of 2012.[5]
Comcast had also organized a "roadblock campaign" to promote the film, where a two-minute scene from the film was broadcast across 450 American commercial television networks, local English-language and Spanish-language stations, and 89 cable outlets within a ten-minute window between 10:50 PM EDT/PDT and 11:00 PM EDT/PDT on October 1, 2009.[22] The scene featured the destruction of Los Angeles and ended with a cliffhanger, with the entire 5-minute-38-second clip made available on Comcast's Fancast web site. The trade newspaper Variety estimated that, "The stunt will put the footage in front of 90% of all households watching ad-supported TV, or nearly 110 million viewers. When combined with online and mobile streams, that could increase to more than 140 million".[22]
2012: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack | |
---|---|
File:2012 Soundtrack.jpg | |
Soundtrack album by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wander | |
Released | November 10, 2009 |
Length | 57:48 |
Label | RCA Victor |
The original score for the film was composed by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker. Singer Adam Lambert contributed a song for the film titled "Time for Miracles" and expressed his gratitude for the opportunity in an interview with MTV.[23]
The film's soundtrack consists of 24 tracks, and it includes the songs "Fades Like a Photograph" by Filter and "It Ain't the End of the World", performed by George Segal and Blu Mankuma, which were featured in the film.[24] The trailer music was Master of Shadows by Two Steps From Hell.
2012: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Title | Length | ||||||||
1. | "Time for Miracles" (Performed by Adam Lambert) | 4:43 | ||||||||
2. | "Constellation" | 1:30 | ||||||||
3. | "Wisconsin" | 1:14 | ||||||||
4. | "U.S. Army" | 2:20 | ||||||||
5. | "Ready to Rumble" | 1:42 | ||||||||
6. | "Spirit of Santa Monica" | 1:21 | ||||||||
7. | "It Ain't the End of the World" (Performed by George Segal and Blu Mankuma) | 2:52 | ||||||||
8. | "Great Kid" | 2:17 | ||||||||
9. | "Finding Charlie" | 1:45 | ||||||||
10. | "Run Daddy Run" | 1:14 | ||||||||
11. | "Stepping Into the Darkness" | 1:35 | ||||||||
12. | "Leaving Las Vegas" | 1:44 | ||||||||
13. | "Ashes in D.C." | 4:19 | ||||||||
14. | "We are Taking the Bentley" | 3:43 | ||||||||
15. | "Nampan Plateau" | 2:51 | ||||||||
16. | "Saving Caesar" | 2:09 | ||||||||
17. | "Adrian's Speech" | 1:41 | ||||||||
18. | "Open the Gates!" | 2:16 | ||||||||
19. | "The Impact" | 1:49 | ||||||||
20. | "Suicide Mission" | 2:06 | ||||||||
21. | "2012 The End of the World" | 1:24 | ||||||||
22. | "Collision with Mount Everest" | 1:09 | ||||||||
23. | "The End is Only the Beginning" | 5:44 | ||||||||
24. | "Fades Like a Photograph" (Performed by Filter) | 4:19 |
2012 was originally scheduled to be released on July 10, 2009. The release date was changed to November 2009 to move out of the busy summer schedule into a time frame that the studio considered to have more potential for financial success. According to the studio, the film could have been completed for the summer release date, but the date change would give more time to the production. The film was released on November 11, 2009. It was released on Friday November 13, 2009 in Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Mexico, India and the United States, and was released on November 21, 2009 in Japan.[25]
The DVD and Blu-ray for 2012 were released on March 2, 2010. The 2-Disc Blu-ray Edition includes over 90 minutes of special features, including Adam Lambert's music video "Time for Miracles", and a Digital Copy for PSP, PC, Mac & iPod.[26] The European release date of 2012 on DVD was March 26, 2010; it includes the same special features as the North American version.
2012 earned $166,112,167 in the USA and Canada and $603,567,306 in other territories for a worldwide total of $769,679,473. It is the 5th highest-grossing film of 2009 worldwide[7] and the 39th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. It is Emmerich's second highest grossing film worldwide, behind Independence Day. However, it surpassed Emmerich's previous disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, which grossed $544.3 million worldwide.[27] Worldwide on its opening weekend it made $230.5 million, marking the fourth-largest opening weekend worldwide for a 2009 film.[28]
In North America, it grossed $65,237,614 on its first weekend, ranking number one and marking the 9th highest-grossing opening weekend for a film released in November. The film grossed $166,112,167 in total[2] and earned $165.2 million overseas on its opening weekend marking the 7th largest opening weekend of all time.[29] With $603,567,306 in total overseas earnings, just above the $600-million-mark, it marked the 4th highest-grossing 2009 film overseas.[30] In Bulgaria, it earned $285,273 on its opening weekend, which is the 6th largest in the country, and it earned $856,915 in total to become the 8th highest-grossing film of all time.[31] In Greece, it grossed $2,288,288 which is the second highest-grossing opening weekend of all time after 300's opening with $3,087,500.[32] In Malaysia, it made the second-largest opening weekend ($2,308,796) behind that of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($2,546,774) and became the fourth highest-grossing film of all time.[33] In Taiwan, it grossed the largest two-day weekend of all time ($2,790,845) and, in total earnings, it is third on the all-time chart.[34]
The film received generally mixed reviews from film critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 39% of 2012 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 5 out of 10.[35] Among the site's notable critics, 32% gave the film a positive write-up, based on a sample of 37.[35] The site's consensus is that "Roland Emmerich's 2012 provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length."[36] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 1–100 reviews from film critics, has a rating score of 49 based on 34 reviews.[37]
Roger Ebert was enthusiastic about the film, giving it 3½ stars out of 4, saying it "delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year".[38] Both Ebert and Claudia Puig of USA Today called the film the "mother of all disaster movies".[38][39] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone criticized the film by comparing it to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: "Beware 2012, which works the dubious miracle of almost matching Transformers 2 for sheer, cynical, mind-numbing, time-wasting, money-draining, soul-sucking stupidity."[40] In 2010, Irish comedian Dara Ó Briain, one of the few comics with a Degree in Science, used his stand up show This is the Show to indicate how ridiculous a concept 2010 is. The concept being that "entire cities tilt and fall into lava" while the only explanation on offer is the single line "the neutrinos have mutated". The science of this, Ó Briain points out, being equivalent to saying that "the electrons are angry" or the sun smells a bit.
Award | Category | Recipients and nominees | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards[42] | Best Visual Effects | — | Nominated |
Image Awards[41] | Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture | Chiwetel Ejiofor | Nominated |
Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture | Danny Glover | Nominated | |
Motion Picture Sound Editors[43] | Best Sound Editing - Music in a Feature Film | Fernand Bos, Ronald J. Webb | Nominated |
Best Sound Editing - Sound Effects and Foley in a Feature Film | — | Nominated | |
Satellite Awards[44] | Best Sound (Mixing and Editing) | Paul N.J. Ottosson, Michael McGee, Rick Kline, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Michael Keller | Won |
Best Visual Effects | Volker Engel, Marc Weigert, Mike Vézina | Won | |
Best Art Direction and Production Design | Barry Chusid, Elizabeth Wilcox | Nominated | |
Best Film Editing | David Brenner, Peter S. Elliot | Nominated | |
Saturn Awards[45] | Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film | — | Nominated |
Best Special Effects | Volker Engel, Marc Weigert, Mike Vézina | Nominated |
North Korea has reportedly banned possession or viewing of the film. The year 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the nation's founder, Kim Il-sung, and has been designated by the North Korean government as "the year for opening the grand gates to becoming a rising superpower". Thus, a movie which depicts the year in a negative light is found to be offensive by the North Korean government. Several people in North Korea have reportedly been arrested for possessing or viewing pirated copies of the movie and charged with "grave provocation against the development of the state."[46][47]
Entertainment Weekly announced that there was a plan for a spin-off television series entitled 2013 that would have served as a follow-up to the film.[48] Executive producer of 2012, Mark Gordon told EW that "ABC will have an opening in their disaster-related programming after Lost ends, so people would be interested in this topic on a weekly basis. There's hope for the world despite the magnitude of the 2012 disaster as seen in the film. After the movie, there are some people who survive and the question is how will these survivors build a new world and what will it look like. That might make an interesting TV series."[48]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: 2012 (film) |
|
Millennium: | 3rd millennium |
---|---|
Centuries: | 20th century – 21st century – 22nd century |
Decades: | 1980s 1990s 2000s – 2010s – 2020s 2030s 2040s |
Years: | 2009 2010 2011 – 2012 – 2013 2014 2015 |
Gregorian calendar | 2012 MMXII |
Ab urbe condita | 2765 |
Armenian calendar | 1461 ԹՎ ՌՆԿԱ |
Assyrian calendar | 6762 |
Bahá'í calendar | 168–169 |
Bengali calendar | 1419 |
Berber calendar | 2962 |
British Regnal year | 60 Eliz. 2 – 61 Eliz. 2 |
Buddhist calendar | 2556 |
Burmese calendar | 1374 |
Byzantine calendar | 7520–7521 |
Chinese calendar | 辛卯年十二月初八日 (4648/4708-12-8) — to —
壬辰年十一月十九日(4649/4709-11-19) |
Coptic calendar | 1728–1729 |
Ethiopian calendar | 2004–2005 |
Hebrew calendar | 5772–5773 |
Hindu calendars | |
- Vikram Samvat | 2068–2069 |
- Shaka Samvat | 1934–1935 |
- Kali Yuga | 5113–5114 |
Holocene calendar | 12012 |
Iranian calendar | 1390–1391 |
Islamic calendar | 1433–1434 |
Japanese calendar | Heisei 24 (平成24年) |
Julian calendar | Gregorian minus 13 days |
Korean calendar | 4345 |
Minguo calendar | ROC 101 民國101年 |
Thai solar calendar | 2555 |
Unix time | 1325376000–1356998399 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: 2012 |
2012 (MMXII) is a leap year that started on a Sunday and is the current year. In the Gregorian calendar, it is the 2012th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 12th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 3rd of the 2010s.
There are a variety of popular beliefs about the year 2012. These beliefs range from the spiritually transformative to the apocalyptic, and center upon various contemporary interpretations of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Scientists have disputed the apocalyptic versions.[1]
This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. (January 2012) Don't speak French? Click here to read a machine-translated version of the French article. Click [show] on the right to review important translation instructions before translating.
|
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
World cinema |
---|
A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a series of still or moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or visual effects. The process of filmmaking has developed into an art form and industry.
Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. Film is considered to be an important art form, a source of popular entertainment and a powerful method for educating – or indoctrinating – citizens. The visual elements of cinema give motion pictures a universal power of communication. Some films have become popular worldwide attractions by using dubbing or subtitles that translate the dialogue into the language of the viewer.
Films are made up of a series of individual images called frames. When these images are shown rapidly in succession, a viewer has the illusion that motion is occurring. The viewer cannot see the flickering between frames due to an effect known as persistence of vision, whereby the eye retains a visual image for a fraction of a second after the source has been removed. Viewers perceive motion due to a psychological effect called beta movement.
The origin of the name "film" comes from the fact that photographic film (also called film stock) has historically been the primary medium for recording and displaying motion pictures. Many other terms exist for an individual motion picture, including picture, picture show, moving picture, photo-play and flick. A common name for film in the United States is movie, while in Europe the term film is preferred. Additional terms for the field in general include the big screen, the silver screen, the cinema and the movies.
Contents |
Preceding film in origin by thousands of years, early plays and dances had elements common to film: scripts, sets, costumes, production, direction, actors, audiences, storyboards, and scores. Much terminology later used in film theory and criticism apply, such as mise en scene (roughly, the entire visual picture at any one time). Owing to an absence of technology for doing so, moving visual and aural images were not recorded for replaying as in film.
In the 1860s, mechanisms for producing two-dimensional drawings in motion were demonstrated with devices such as the zoetrope, mutoscope and praxinoscope. These machines were outgrowths of simple optical devices (such as magic lanterns) and would display sequences of still pictures at sufficient speed for the images on the pictures to appear to be moving, a phenomenon called persistence of vision. Naturally the images needed to be carefully designed to achieve the desired effect, and the underlying principle became the basis for the development of film animation.
With the development of celluloid film for still photography, it became possible to directly capture objects in motion in real time. An 1878 experiment by English photographer Eadweard Muybridge in the United States using 24 cameras produced a series of stereoscopic images of a galloping horse, is arguably the first "motion picture", though it was not called by this name.[1] This technology required a person to look into a viewing machine to see the pictures which were separate paper prints attached to a drum turned by a handcrank. The pictures were shown at a variable speed of about 5 to 10 pictures per second, depending on how rapidly the crank was turned. Commercial versions of these machines were coin operated.
By the 1880s the development of the motion picture camera allowed the individual component images to be captured and stored on a single reel, and led quickly to the development of a motion picture projector to shine light through the processed and printed film and magnify these "moving picture shows" onto a screen for an entire audience. These reels, so exhibited, came to be known as "motion pictures". Early motion pictures were static shots that showed an event or action with no editing or other cinematic techniques. The first public exhibition of projected motion pictures in America was shown at Koster and Bial's Music Hall in New York City on the 23rd of April 1896.
Ignoring W. K. L. Dickson's early sound experiments (1894), commercial motion pictures were purely visual art through the late 19th century, but these innovative silent films had gained a hold on the public imagination. Around the turn of the 20th century, films began developing a narrative structure by stringing scenes together to tell a story. The scenes were later broken up into multiple shots of varying sizes and angles. Other techniques such as camera movement were realized as effective ways to portray a story on film. Rather than leave the audience with noise of early cinema projectors, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music that would cover noises of projector. Eventually, musicians would start to fit the mood of the film at any given moment. By the early 1920s, most films came with a prepared list of sheet music for this purpose, with complete film scores being composed for major productions.
The rise of European cinema was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I when the film industry in United States flourished with the rise of Hollywood, typified most prominently by the great innovative work of D. W. Griffith in The Birth of a Nation (1914) and Intolerance (1916). However in the 1920s, European filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein, F. W. Murnau, and Fritz Lang, in many ways inspired by the meteoric war-time progress of film through Griffith, along with the contributions of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and others, quickly caught up with American film-making and continued to further advance the medium. In the 1920s, new technology allowed filmmakers to attach to each film a soundtrack of speech, music and sound effects synchronized with the action on the screen. These sound films were initially distinguished by calling them "talking pictures", or talkies.
The next major step in the development of cinema was the introduction of so-called "natural color", which meant color that was photographically recorded from nature rather than being added to black-and-white prints by hand-coloring, stencil-coloring or other arbitrary procedures, although the earliest processes typically yielded colors which were far from "natural" in appearance. While the addition of sound quickly eclipsed silent film and theater musicians, color replaced black-and-white much more gradually. The pivotal innovation was the introduction of the three-strip version of the Technicolor process, which was first used for short subjects and for isolated sequences in a few feature films released in 1934, then for an entire feature film, Becky Sharp, in 1935. The expense of the process was daunting, but continued favorable public response and enhanced box-office receipts increasingly justified the added cost. The number of films made in color slowly increased year after year.
In the early 1950s, as the proliferation of black-and-white television started seriously depressing theater attendance in the US, the use of color was seen as one way of winning back audiences. It soon became the rule rather than the exception. Some important mainstream Hollywood films were still being made in black-and-white as late as the mid-1960s, but they marked the end of an era. Color television receivers had been available in the US since the mid-1950s, but at first they were very expensive and few broadcasts were in color. During the 1960s, prices gradually came down, color broadcasts became common, and the sale of color television sets boomed. The strong preference of the general public for color was obvious. After the final flurry of black-and-white film releases in mid-decade, all major Hollywood studio film production was exclusively in color, with rare exceptions reluctantly made only at the insistence of "star" directors such as Peter Bogdanovich and Martin Scorsese.
Since the decline of the studio system in the 1960s, the succeeding decades saw changes in the production and style of film. Various New Wave movements (including the French New Wave, Indian New Wave, Japanese New Wave and New Hollywood) and the rise of film school educated independent filmmakers were all part of the changes the medium experienced in the latter half of the 20th century. Digital technology has been the driving force in change throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s. 3D technology increased in usage and has become more popular since the early 2010s.
Film theory seeks to develop concise and systematic concepts that apply to the study of film as art. It was started by Ricciotto Canudo's The Birth of the Sixth Art. Formalist film theory, led by Rudolf Arnheim, Béla Balázs, and Siegfried Kracauer, emphasized how film differed from reality, and thus could be considered a valid fine art. André Bazin reacted against this theory by arguing that film's artistic essence lay in its ability to mechanically reproduce reality not in its differences from reality, and this gave rise to realist theory. More recent analysis spurred by Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis and Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotics among other things has given rise to psychoanalytical film theory, structuralist film theory, feminist film theory and others. On the other hand, critics from the analytical philosophy tradition, influenced by Wittgenstein, try to clarify misconceptions used in theoretical studies and produce analysis of a film's vocabulary and its link to a form of life.
Film is considered to have its own language. James Monaco wrote a classic text on film theory titled "How to Read a Film". Director Ingmar Bergman famously said, "[Andrei] Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [director], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream." Examples of the language are a sequence of back and forth images of one actor's left profile speaking, followed by another actor's right profile speaking, then a repetition of this, which is a language understood by the audience to indicate a conversation. Another example is zooming in on the forehead of an actor with an expression of silent reflection, then changing to a scene of a younger actor who vaguely resembles the first actor, indicating the first actor is having a memory of their own past.
Parallels to musical counterpoint have been developed into a theory of montage, extended from the complex superimposition of images in early silent film[citation needed] to even more complex incorporation of musical counterpoint together with visual counterpoint through mise en scene and editing, as in a ballet or opera; e.g., as illustrated in the gang fight scene of director Francis Ford Coppola’s film, Rumble Fish.
Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films. In general, these works can be divided into two categories: academic criticism by film scholars and journalistic film criticism that appears regularly in newspapers and other media.
Film critics working for newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media mainly review new releases. Normally they only see any given film once and have only a day or two to formulate opinions. Despite this, critics have an important impact on films, especially those of certain genres. Mass marketed action, horror, and comedy films tend not to be greatly affected by a critic's overall judgment of a film. The plot summary and description of a film that makes up the majority of any film review can still have an important impact on whether people decide to see a film. For prestige films such as most dramas, the influence of reviews is extremely important. Poor reviews will often doom a film to obscurity and financial loss.
The impact of a reviewer on a given film's box office performance is a matter of debate. Some claim that movie marketing is now so intense and well financed that reviewers cannot make an impact against it. However, the cataclysmic failure of some heavily promoted movies which were harshly reviewed, as well as the unexpected success of critically praised independent movies indicates that extreme critical reactions can have considerable influence. Others note that positive film reviews have been shown to spark interest in little-known films. Conversely, there have been several films in which film companies have so little confidence that they refuse to give reviewers an advanced viewing to avoid widespread panning of the film. However, this usually backfires as reviewers are wise to the tactic and warn the public that the film may not be worth seeing and the films often do poorly as a result.
It is argued that journalist film critics should only be known as film reviewers, and true film critics are those who take a more academic approach to films. This line of work is more often known as film theory or film studies. These film critics attempt to come to understand how film and filming techniques work, and what effect they have on people. Rather than having their works published in newspapers or appear on television, their articles are published in scholarly journals, or sometimes in up-market magazines. They also tend to be affiliated with colleges or universities.
The making and showing of motion pictures became a source of profit almost as soon as the process was invented. Upon seeing how successful their new invention, and its product, was in their native France, the Lumières quickly set about touring the Continent to exhibit the first films privately to royalty and publicly to the masses. In each country, they would normally add new, local scenes to their catalogue and, quickly enough, found local entrepreneurs in the various countries of Europe to buy their equipment and photograph, export, import and screen additional product commercially. The Oberammergau Passion Play of 1898[citation needed] was the first commercial motion picture ever produced. Other pictures soon followed, and motion pictures became a separate industry that overshadowed the vaudeville world. Dedicated theaters and companies formed specifically to produce and distribute films, while motion picture actors became major celebrities and commanded huge fees for their performances. By 1917 Charlie Chaplin had a contract that called for an annual salary of one million dollars.
From 1931 to 1956, film was also the only image storage and playback system for television programming until the introduction of videotape recorders.
In the United States today, much of the film industry is centered around Hollywood. Other regional centers exist in many parts of the world, such as Mumbai-centered Bollywood, the Indian film industry's Hindi cinema which produces the largest number of films in the world.[2] Whether the ten thousand-plus feature length films a year produced by the Valley pornographic film industry should qualify for this title is the source of some debate.[citation needed] Though the expense involved in making movies has led cinema production to concentrate under the auspices of movie studios, recent advances in affordable film making equipment have allowed independent film productions to flourish.
Profit is a key force in the industry, due to the costly and risky nature of filmmaking; many films have large cost overruns, a notorious example being Kevin Costner's Waterworld. Yet many filmmakers strive to create works of lasting social significance. The Academy Awards (also known as "the Oscars") are the most prominent film awards in the United States, providing recognition each year to films, ostensibly based on their artistic merits.
There is also a large industry for educational and instructional films made in lieu of or in addition to lectures and texts.
Derivative academic Fields of study may both interact with and develop independently of filmmaking, as in film theory and analysis. Fields of academic study have been created that are derivative or dependent on the existence of film, such as film criticism, film history, divisions of film propaganda in authoritarian governments, or psychological on subliminal effects of a flashing soda can during a screening. These fields may further create derivative fields, such as a movie review section in a newspaper or a television guide. Sub-industries can spin off from film, such as popcorn makers, and toys. Sub- industries of pre-existing industries may deal specifically with film, such as product placement in advertising.
Although the words "film" and "movie" are sometimes used interchangeably, "film" is more often used when considering artistic, theoretical, or technical aspects, as studies in a university class and "movies" more often refers to entertainment or commercial aspects, as where to go for fun on a date. For example, a book titled "How to Read a Film" would be about the aesthetics or theory of film, while "Lets Go to the Movies" would be about the history of entertaining movies. "Motion pictures" or "Moving pictures" are films and movies. A "DVD" is a digital format which may be used to reproduce an analog film, while "videotape" ("video") was for many decades a solely analog medium onto which moving images could be recorded and electronically (rather than optically) reproduced. Strictly speaking, "Film" refers to the media onto which a visual image is shot, and to this end it may seem improper for work in other "moving image" media to be referred to as a "film" and the action of shooting as "filming", though these terms are still in general use. "Silent films" need not be silent, but are films and movies without an audible dialogue, though they may have a musical soundtrack. "Talkies" refers to early movies or films having audible dialogue or analog sound, not just a musical accompaniment. "Cinema" either broadly encompasses both films and movies, or is roughly synonymous with "Film", both capitalized when referring to a category of art. The "silver screen" refers to classic black-and-white films before color, not to contemporary films without color.
The expression "Sight and Sound", as in the film journal of the same name, means "film". The following icons mean film: a "candle and bell", as in the films Tarkovsky, of a segment of film stock, or a two faced Janus image, and an image of a movie camera in profile.
"Widescreen" and "Cinemascope" refers to a larger width to height in the frame, compared to an earlier historic aspect ratios.[3] A "feature length film", or "feature film", is of a conventional full length, usually 60 minutes or more, and can commercially stand by itself without other films in a ticketed screening.[4] A "short" is a film that is not as long as a feature length film, usually screened with other shorts, or preceding a feature length film. An "independent" is a film made outside of the conventional film industry.
A "screening" or "projection" is the projection of a film or video on a screen at a public or private theater, usually but not always of a film, but of a video or DVD when of sufficient projection quality. A "double feature" is a screening of two independent, stand-alone, feature films. A "viewing" is a watching of a film. A "showing" is a screening or viewing on an electronic monitor. "Sales" refers to tickets sold at a theater, or more currently, rights sold for individual showings. A "release" is the distribution and often simultaneous screening of a film. A "preview" is a screening in advance of the main release.
"Hollywood" may be used either as a pejorative adjective, shorthand for asserting an overly commercial rather than artistic intent or outcome, as in "too Hollywood", or as a descriptive adjective to refer to a film originating with people who ordinarily work near Los Angeles.
Expressions for Genres of film are sometimes used interchangeably for "film" in a specific context, such as a "porn" for a film with explicit sexual content, or "cheese" for films that are light, entertaining and not highbrow.
Any film may also have a "sequel", which portrays events following those in the film. Bride of Frankenstein is an early example. When there are a number of films with the same characters, we have a "series", such as the James Bond series. A film which portrays events that occur earlier than those in another film, but is released after that film, is sometimes called a "prequel", an example being Butch and Sundance: The Early Days.
Credits is a list of the people involved in making the film. Before the 1970s, credits were usually at the beginning of a film. Since then, the credits roll at the end of most films.
A Post-credits scene is a scene shown after the end of the credits. Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a post-credit scene in which Ferris tells the audience that the movie is over and they should go home.
A preview performance refers to a showing of a movie to a select audience, usually for the purposes of corporate promotions, before the public film premiere itself. Previews are sometimes used to judge audience reaction, which if unexpectedly negative, may result in recutting or even refilming certain sections (Audience response).
Trailers or previews are film advertisements for films that will be exhibited in the future at a cinema, on whose screen they are shown. The term "trailer" comes from their having originally been shown at the end of a film programme. That practice did not last long, because patrons tended to leave the theater after the films ended, but the name has stuck. Trailers are now shown before the film (or the A movie in a double feature program) begins.
Film may be combined with performance art and still be considered or referred to as a "film", for instance, when there is a live musical accompaniment to a silent film. Another example is audience participation films, as at a midnight movies screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the audience dresses up in costume from the film and loudly does a karaoke-like reenactment along with the film. Performance art where film is incorporated as a component is usually not called film, but a film, which could stand-alone but is accompanied by a performance may still be referred to as a film.
The act of making a film can, in and of itself, be considered a work of art, on a different level from the film itself, as in the films of Werner Herzog.
Similarly, the playing of a film can be considered to fall within the realm of political protest art, as in the subtleties within the films of Tarkovsky. A "road movie" can refer to a film put together from footage from a long road trip or vacation.
Film is used for education and propaganda. When the purpose is primarily educational, a film is called an "educational film". Examples are recordings of lectures and experiments, or more marginally, a film based on a classic novel.
Film may be propaganda, in whole or in part, such as the films made by Leni Riefenstahl in Nazi Germany, US war film trailers during World War II, or artistic films made under Stalin by Eisenstein. They may also be works of political protest, as in the films of Wajda, or more subtly, the films of Andrei Tarkovsky.
The same film may be considered educational by some, and propaganda by others, such as some of the films of Michael Moore.
At its core, the means to produce a film depend on the content the filmmaker wishes to show, and the apparatus for displaying it: the zoetrope merely requires a series of images on a strip of paper. Film production can therefore take as little as one person with a camera (or without it, such as Stan Brakhage's 1963 film Mothlight), or thousands of actors, extras and crewmembers for a live-action, feature-length epic.
The necessary steps for almost any film can be boiled down to conception, planning, execution, revision, and distribution. The more involved the production, the more significant each of the steps becomes. In a typical production cycle of a Hollywood-style film, these main stages are defined as:
This production cycle usually takes three years. The first year is taken up with development. The second year comprises preproduction and production. The third year, post-production and distribution.
The bigger the production, the more resources it takes, and the more important financing becomes; most feature films are not only artistic works, but for-profit business entities.
A film crew is a group of people hired by a film company, employed during the "production" or "photography" phase, for the purpose of producing a film or motion picture. Crew are distinguished from cast, the actors who appear in front of the camera or provide voices for characters in the film. The crew interacts with but is also distinct from the production staff, consisting of producers, managers, company representatives, their assistants, and those whose primary responsibility falls in pre-production or post-production phases, such as writers and editors. Communication between production and crew generally passes through the director and his/her staff of assistants. Medium-to-large crews are generally divided into departments with well defined hierarchies and standards for interaction and cooperation between the departments. Other than acting, the crew handles everything in the photography phase: props and costumes, shooting, sound, electrics (i.e., lights), sets, and production special effects. Caterers (known in the film industry as "craft services") are usually not considered part of the crew.
Film stock consists of transparent celluloid, acetate, or polyester base coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive chemicals. Cellulose nitrate was the first type of film base used to record motion pictures, but due to its flammability was eventually replaced by safer materials. Stock widths and the film format for images on the reel have had a rich history, though most large commercial films are still shot on (and distributed to theaters) as 35 mm prints.
Originally moving picture film was shot and projected at various speeds using hand-cranked cameras and projectors; though 1000 frames per minute (16⅔ frame/s) is generally cited as a standard silent speed, research indicates most films were shot between 16 frame/s and 23 frame/s and projected from 18 frame/s on up (often reels included instructions on how fast each scene should be shown).[5] When sound film was introduced in the late 1920s, a constant speed was required for the sound head. 24 frames per second was chosen because it was the slowest (and thus cheapest) speed which allowed for sufficient sound quality. Improvements since the late 19th century include the mechanization of cameras – allowing them to record at a consistent speed, quiet camera design – allowing sound recorded on-set to be usable without requiring large "blimps" to encase the camera, the invention of more sophisticated filmstocks and lenses, allowing directors to film in increasingly dim conditions, and the development of synchronized sound, allowing sound to be recorded at exactly the same speed as its corresponding action. The soundtrack can be recorded separately from shooting the film, but for live-action pictures many parts of the soundtrack are usually recorded simultaneously.
As a medium, film is not limited to motion pictures, since the technology developed as the basis for photography. It can be used to present a progressive sequence of still images in the form of a slideshow. Film has also been incorporated into multimedia presentations, and often has importance as primary historical documentation. However, historic films have problems in terms of preservation and storage, and the motion picture industry is exploring many alternatives. Most movies on cellulose nitrate base have been copied onto modern safety films. Some studios save color films through the use of separation masters: three B&W negatives each exposed through red, green, or blue filters (essentially a reverse of the Technicolor process). Digital methods have also been used to restore films, although their continued obsolescence cycle makes them (as of 2006) a poor choice for long-term preservation. Film preservation of decaying film stock is a matter of concern to both film historians and archivists, and to companies interested in preserving their existing products in order to make them available to future generations (and thereby increase revenue). Preservation is generally a higher concern for nitrate and single-strip color films, due to their high decay rates; black-and-white films on safety bases and color films preserved on Technicolor imbibition prints tend to keep up much better, assuming proper handling and storage.
Some films in recent decades have been recorded using analog video technology similar to that used in television production. Modern digital video cameras and digital projectors are gaining ground as well. These approaches are preferred by some moviemakers, especially because footage shot with digital cinema can be evaluated and edited with non-linear editing systems (NLE) without waiting for the film stock to be processed. Yet the migration is gradual, and as of 2005 most major motion pictures are still shot on film.
Independent filmmaking often takes place outside of Hollywood, or other major studio systems. An independent film (or indie film) is a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio. Creative, business, and technological reasons have all contributed to the growth of the indie film scene in the late 20th and early 21st century.
On the business side, the costs of big-budget studio films also leads to conservative choices in cast and crew. There is a trend in Hollywood towards co-financing (over two-thirds of the films put out by Warner Bros. in 2000 were joint ventures, up from 10% in 1987).[6] A hopeful director is almost never given the opportunity to get a job on a big-budget studio film unless he or she has significant industry experience in film or television. Also, the studios rarely produce films with unknown actors, particularly in lead roles.
Before the advent of digital alternatives, the cost of professional film equipment and stock was also a hurdle to being able to produce, direct, or star in a traditional studio film.
But the advent of consumer camcorders in 1985, and more importantly, the arrival of high-resolution digital video in the early 1990s, have lowered the technology barrier to movie production significantly. Both production and post-production costs have been significantly lowered; today, the hardware and software for post-production can be installed in a commodity-based personal computer. Technologies such as DVDs, FireWire connections and non-linear editing system pro-level software like Adobe Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas and Apple's Final Cut Pro, and consumer level software such as Apple's Final Cut Express and iMovie, and Microsoft's Windows Movie Maker make movie-making relatively inexpensive.
Since the introduction of DV technology, the means of production have become more democratized. Filmmakers can conceivably shoot and edit a movie, create and edit the sound and music, and mix the final cut on a home computer. However, while the means of production may be democratized, financing, distribution, and marketing remain difficult to accomplish outside the traditional system. Most independent filmmakers rely on film festivals to get their films noticed and sold for distribution. The arrival of internet-based video outlets such as YouTube and Veoh has further changed the film making landscape in ways that are still to be determined.
An open content film is much like an independent film, but it is produced through open collaborations; its source material is available under a license which is permissive enough to allow other parties to create fan fiction or derivative works, than a traditional copyright. Like independent filmmaking, open source filmmaking takes place outside of Hollywood, or other major studio systems.
A fan film is a film or video inspired by a film, television program, comic book or a similar source, created by fans rather than by the source's copyright holders or creators. Fan filmmakers have traditionally been amateurs, but some of the more notable films have actually been produced by professional filmmakers as film school class projects or as demonstration reels. Fan films vary tremendously in length, from short faux-teaser trailers for non-existent motion pictures to rarer full-length motion pictures.
When it is initially produced, a feature film is often shown to audiences in a movie theater or cinema. The identity of the first theater designed specifically for cinema is a matter of debate; candidates include Tally's Electric Theatre, established 1902 in Los Angeles,[7] and Pittsburgh's Nickelodeon, established 1905.[8] Thousands of such theaters were built or converted from existing facilities within a few years.[9] In the United States, these theaters came to be known as nickelodeons, because admission typically cost a nickel (five cents).
Typically, one film is the featured presentation (or feature film). Before the 1970s, there were "double features"; typically, a high quality "A picture" rented by an independent theater for a lump sum, and a "B picture" of lower quality rented for a percentage of the gross receipts. Today, the bulk of the material shown before the feature film consists of previews for upcoming movies and paid advertisements (also known as trailers or "The Twenty").
Historically, all mass marketed feature films were made to be shown in movie theaters. The development of television has allowed films to be broadcast to larger audiences, usually after the film is no longer being shown in theaters.[citation needed] In 1967, videocassettes of movies became available to consumers to watch in their own homes.[10] Recording technology has since enabled consumers to rent or buy copies of films on VHS or DVD (and the older formats of laserdisc, VCD and SelectaVision – see also videodisc), and Internet downloads may be available and have started to become revenue sources for the film companies. Some films are now made specifically for these other venues, being released as a television movie or direct-to-video movies. The production values on these films are often considered to be of inferior quality compared to theatrical releases in similar genres, and indeed, some films that are rejected by their own movie studios upon completion are distributed through these markets.
The movie theater pays an average of about 50-55% of its ticket sales to the movie studio, as film rental fees.[11] The actual percentage starts with a number higher than that, and decreases as the duration of a film's showing continues, as an incentive to theaters to keep movies in the theater longer. However, today's barrage of highly marketed movies ensures that most movies are shown in first-run theaters for less than 8 weeks. There are a few movies every year that defy this rule, often limited-release movies that start in only a few theaters and actually grow their theater count through good word-of-mouth and reviews. According to a 2000 study by ABN AMRO, about 26% of Hollywood movie studios' worldwide income came from box office ticket sales; 46% came from VHS and DVD sales to consumers; and 28% came from television (broadcast, cable, and pay-per-view).[11]
This section requires expansion with: optical disc distribution. |
Animation is the technique in which each frame of a film is produced individually, whether generated as a computer graphic, or by photographing a drawn image, or by repeatedly making small changes to a model unit (see claymation and stop motion), and then photographing the result with a special animation camera. When the frames are strung together and the resulting film is viewed at a speed of 16 or more frames per second, there is an illusion of continuous movement (due to the persistence of vision). Generating such a film is very labor intensive and tedious, though the development of computer animation has greatly sped up the process.
Because animation is very time-consuming and often very expensive to produce, the majority of animation for TV and movies comes from professional animation studios. However, the field of independent animation has existed at least since the 1950s, with animation being produced by independent studios (and sometimes by a single person). Several independent animation producers have gone on to enter the professional animation industry.
Limited animation is a way of increasing production and decreasing costs of animation by using "short cuts" in the animation process. This method was pioneered by UPA and popularized by Hanna-Barbera, and adapted by other studios as cartoons moved from movie theaters to television.[12]
Although most animation studios are now using digital technologies in their productions, there is a specific style of animation that depends on film. Cameraless animation, made famous by moviemakers like Norman McLaren, Len Lye and Stan Brakhage, is painted and drawn directly onto pieces of film, and then run through a projector.
This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability. |
While motion picture films have been around for more than a century, film is still a relative newcomer in the pantheon[clarification needed] of fine arts. In the 1950s, when television became widely available, industry analysts[who?] predicted the demise of local movie theaters.[citation needed] Despite competition from television's increasing technological sophistication over the 1960s and 1970s[citation needed] such as the development of color television and large screens, motion picture cinemas continued. In fact with the rise of television's predominance, film began to become more respected as an artistic medium by contrast due the low general opinion of the quality of average television content.[citation needed] In the 1980s, when the widespread availability of inexpensive videocassette recorders enabled people to select films for home viewing, industry analysts again wrongly predicted the death of the local cinemas.[citation needed]
In the 1990s and 2000s, the development of DVD players, home theater amplification systems with surround sound and subwoofers, and large LCD or plasma screens enabled people to select and view films at home with greatly improved audio and visual reproduction.[citation needed] These new technologies provided audio and visual that in the past only local cinemas had been able to provide: a large, clear widescreen presentation of a film with a full-range, high-quality multi-speaker sound system. Once again industry analysts predicted the demise of the local cinema. Local cinemas will be changing in the 21st century and moving towards digital screens, a new approach which will allow for easier and quicker distribution of films (via satellite or hard disks), a development which may give local theaters a reprieve from their predicted demise.[citation needed] The cinema now faces a new challenge from home video by the likes of a new high definition (HD) format, Blu-ray, which can provide full HD 1080p video playback at near cinema quality.[citation needed] Video formats are gradually catching up with the resolutions and quality that film offers; 1080p in Blu-ray offers a pixel resolution of 1920×1080, a leap from the DVD offering of 720×480 and the 330×480 offered by the first home video standard, VHS.[citation needed] Ultra HD, a future digital video format, will offer a resolution of 7680×4320. However, the nature and structure of film prevents an apples-to-apples comparison with regard to resolution.[13] The resolving power of film, and its ability to capture an image which can later be scanned to a digital format, will ensure that film remains a viable medium for some time to come.[citation needed] Currently the super-16 format is seeing use as a capture medium, with digital scanning and post-production providing good results.[14][15] Despite advances in digital capture, film still offers unsurpassed ability to capture fine detail beyond what is possible with digital image sensors. A 35 mm film frame, with proper exposure and processing, still offers an equivalent resolution in the range of 500 mega pixels.[13]
Despite the rise of all-new technologies, the development of the home video market and a surge of online copyright infringement, 2007 was a record year in film that showed the highest ever box-office grosses. Many[who?] expected film to suffer as a result of the effects listed above but it has flourished, strengthening film studio expectations for the future.[citation needed]
Find more about Film on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
Definitions and translations from Wiktionary |
|
Images and media from Commons |
|
Learning resources from Wikiversity |
|
News stories from Wikinews |
|
Quotations from Wikiquote |
|
Source texts from Wikisource |
|
Textbooks from Wikibooks |
Wikinews has related Film news: | |
|