"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."
[...] For instance, the producer uses the premises that the advertising business is wasteful and that the director previously worked in advertising to conclude that the director will waste time (and, therefore, money) shooting more scenes than necessary. There is no evidence given that the advertising business is wasteful with money. Furthermore, there is nothing to support the supposition that television commercials, specifically, are wasteful. Even if we concede that that particular category of the advertising business is wasteful, there is no indication that the waste is produced by shooting a large number of takes of each scene. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee