A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10 in order to ensure a quality product As you know we are working with a first time director whose only previous exper

Essay topics:

A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio.
"We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don't get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure."

Though the memo does raise few vital points pertaining to the shortcomings of the movie shooting, and possible ways in which he or she can bring a change; the argument provided in the memo in itself is a controversial one, of which, would be explained, in two points, as following.

Firstly, the writer of the memo largely doubts the skills of the director of the movie "Working Title". It is humane to make such an assumption, given the inexperienced background of the director of the movie. But, it would be more prudent to make more observations, and provide more proof as to why the director would be unsuitable for the job. We are surrounded by a large example of successful people in the movie industries, such as the kind of Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, and many more, which have really hit the jackpot in their first movies itself. Some might call it "beginners luck." It'd be foolish to make an assumption doubting the skills of a person withour proper analysis of his or her skills. Analysing more deeply, the prejudiced belief against advertisement business, of how they are "notoriously wasteful", does forms a biased and unfair opinion against the director of the movie. This questions the validity of the memo in the core itself. And if so, supposedly, that the movie producer is able to provide enough proof that truly the director is unfit for the task, the question remains as to why the increase in funding is neccessary? As stated in the memo, the movie producer desires to hire "inexperienced" assistant producers and directors, in place of an "inexperienced" movie director. This method seems illogical, and controversial in itself, and the movie producer would have to do an arduos task in explaining as to why he wishes to do so.

Secondly, the assumption that the hiring of the assistant producers and directors will translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew for overtime for the extra time they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers in arranging things, might be improbable too. It is not neccessary that the assistant directors and the producers work parallely and seperately. It can be so that they work as one team, thus helping eradicate the waste of time and money. Movies are produced in a team. Without proper harmony and sync between the actors, the crew, the director and the producer, it is not probable that the movie would be a good one. Thus, rather than creating such an athmosphere, where the actors and the crew will have do the same job again for the assistant directorand producer, it is prudent that the producer creates a more team-friendly athmosphere.

Stated against the argument in the memo, two reasons are provided in that has to be questioned critically by the movie studio head, regarding the decesion he would have to take for the movie "Working Title". While the arguments stated, seems logical, they are self-contradicting in itself, and requires further analysing.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 776, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'done'.
Suggestion: done
...where the actors and the crew will have do the same job again for the assistant di...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, while, as to, kind of, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2557.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06336633663 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22527392982 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473267326733 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.0406617598 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.578947368 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5789473684 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258925257356 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0947777788105 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074344352556 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156068821034 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508083864035 0.0628817314937 81% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 776, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'done'.
Suggestion: done
...where the actors and the crew will have do the same job again for the assistant di...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, while, as to, kind of, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2557.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06336633663 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22527392982 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473267326733 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.0406617598 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.578947368 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5789473684 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258925257356 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0947777788105 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074344352556 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156068821034 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508083864035 0.0628817314937 81% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.