Films were produced by big companies in the past, but today people are able to make a film. Is this a negative or positive development?
A surge in modern technology has now enabled non-professionals to make films, which used to require arduous work from big corporations. While this development can be disadvantageous to some degree, the advantages are of greater significance.
On the one hand, the importance of advanced filmmaking courses is facing widespread ignorance. As there are instructions on how to produce a film with a mobile phone and an extensive knowledge pack about film editing that are available on social media platforms, people assume that filmmaking is rather easy to master. Consequently, some myopic individuals who aspire to become successful directors decide not to enroll in any particular prestigious university to explore the field academically. Educators who rely on filmmaking courses to earn their livings are therefore being made redundant, escalating the unemployment situation of certain nations, and their economic development might be hindered. Moreover, an abundance of low-quality films on social media sites can cause dissatisfaction and frustration among viewers. They will abandon their habits of using these applications, which undoubtedly have a negative influence on the revenues of the founders.
On the other hand, despite the above-mentioned adverse effects regarding the simplification of filmmaking, there are various benefits brought by this phenomenon. Chief among these is that financial can take advantage of this to increase interactions with potential customers at a smaller expense. A prominent example can be observed in the success of Vinamilk corporation, which has hired influencers with no experienced celebrity manager to produce short films. Such innovative advertisements discreetly introduce main features of the new products, prompting watchers to purchase them out of curiosity while relieving their stress as the fundamental purpose of films. Another point worth considering is that non-professionals can have an extra income during unfavorable periods of their lives. For instance, two years ago, as a result of the pandemic, my aunt was not allowed to go to work, which heightened her financial burden. Fortunately, using the time at home, she began making blog videos and films based on her experience. Surprisingly, her videos received a positive evaluation from the viewers and brought about a huge amount of money, which was, as she revealed, greater than her previous salary. Currently, she is a blogger with millions of followers, which secures her a lucrative income.
In conclusion, while the fact that the public can now produce films themselves exerts several valid concerns, I am inclined to the view that its positive effects overshadow them. It is advisable for experts in filmmaking to share their knowledge with individuals who are ignorant of this field to enhance the overall quality of films publicized on the internet.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-04 | pwlihnkt | 89 | view |
| 2022-12-22 | Dinh Ngoc Thao Nguyen | 84 | view |
- Some people could be naturally good leaders Others believe that people can learn leadership skills Discuss both views and give your opinion 84
- Some people could be naturally good leaders Others believe that people can learn leadership skills Discuss both views and give your opinion 84
- As well as making money businesses also have a responsibility towards society To what extent do you agree or disagree 11
- People these days watch TV films and other programs alone rather than with other people Do the advantages of the development outweigh the disadvantages 84
- Plastic shopping bags are used widely and cause many environmental problems Some people say they should be banned To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 41.998997996 162% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2444.0 1615.20841683 151% => OK
No of words: 438.0 315.596192385 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5799086758 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21749364915 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 176.041082164 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609589041096 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 779.4 506.74238477 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5370275589 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.631578947 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0526315789 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31578947368 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174842254995 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464884690024 0.084324248473 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0479948802121 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111148167809 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308550322078 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.47 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 78.4519038076 201% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, if, moreover, regarding, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 41.998997996 162% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.3376753507 204% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2444.0 1615.20841683 151% => OK
No of words: 438.0 315.596192385 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5799086758 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.20363070211 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21749364915 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 176.041082164 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609589041096 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 779.4 506.74238477 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5370275589 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.631578947 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0526315789 20.7667163134 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31578947368 7.06120827912 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174842254995 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464884690024 0.084324248473 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0479948802121 0.0667982634062 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111148167809 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308550322078 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.47 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 78.4519038076 201% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.