first_imgNo person would consider watching a movie without prior knowing what the film is about today. Of course, the movie’s rating in the popular review and rating sites like IMDb and rotten tomatoes. In this article, I’ll try to explain how the rating and review sites influence how we watch movies and perceive how good the film is—of course, not considering the Netflix movies. In some unusual yet a typical case where it is the background score for us to browse through Instagram.First things first, to understand how the rating and review sites influence our movie watching experience, let us try to understand how we watch them. The order of things is identifying, in this case, could be referred by a friend, and the next step would be the information search. Which usually is a google search, which gives the results from IMDb and Rotten tomatoes. And next comes the processing of the information obtained from the search process, including reading the reviews. And then the judgment and decision phase wherein we process the information available to us and decide whether or not to watch it—all of it in the span of 2 to 5 minutes. And after all that, the only thing that sticks in our mind is the initial information we come across. In this case, our friend talks about the movie, which is the initial source. Then all the other information may either aid it or contradict it. Still, we rarely change our beliefs, in this case, opinion on the movie.A classic I wanted to share is about one of the most influential movies of all time. It has inspired many filmmakers to cross the boundaries that the time may put upon them. King Kong 1933, which, if watched now, might seem a bit silly due to its visual effects and the limitations that time has placed upon them. The rating & review sites recommend movies like King Kong to users, thereby serving as a primary source of information for them and informs beforehand of what to expect from this particular movie. One specific thing about human judgment is that we most primarily trust the initial information that they have crossed upon whatever the source might be. Only in a few cases do they tend to change their views upon the things, in this case, being movies. So while watching a film like King Kong, either a review site mentioning it as “One of the most influential films of all time” makes us watch it with a different mindset. And viewers don’t mind some apparent flaws.Moving on for about a few decades, let us consider The Shining 1980. upon release, the movie received mixed reviews by the critics at the time, added to Stephen king’s (author of ‘The Shining.’) dissatisfaction with the film, it was not a big commercial success. The critics’ primary concern was the slow pacing of the movie and a lot of other reasons. But over the years, considering the popularity that the film has garnered, it was subjected to a thing critics do when they are wrong, called the re-evaluation or reappraisal. And since then, ‘The Shining’ has become a staple in pop culture, inspiring filmmakers and creating a new genre.Let us consider the movies of the present time, in particular, the Netflix originals. The Netflix originals are made based on the data collected from millions of users worldwide based on their watching preferences; this might range from selecting a particular genre that people watch frequently or the inclusion of Asian and Latin American cast in their shows. And we are so used to this type of programming that subconsciously, whenever we hear about a Netflix original movie/series, we think of it as a no-brainer and let the movie run. At the same time, we do our work as a background score for whatever we are doing.So how exactly do they influence the way we watch movies? The answer might be both as simple as we want or make it as complex as we like. Keeping things simple, we might say that Netflix tried to make that reputation for itself. So even if the movies are passable, they make a pretty good attempt at it that people like watching those generic movies with an all-inclusive cast.Let us not consider the rating sites for a while and talk about the movie genres. While all the movies come with a genre tag attached to them, it might spoil the movie and increase others’ enthusiasm. When a movie tagged as a drama, and a particular twist comes up, we genuinely feel it and get thrilled. And if the same film, when labelled as a mystery or a thriller, we might see it with a different mindset and try to find clues throughout the movie.So, we might say that not only review sites, but also the tags for the movies change the way we see movies.last_img read more

Posted in fmdcodne

first_imgA year after Priority Ambulance was awarded the exclusive contract for emergency ambulance service in Loudon County, analysis of response times shows significant improvement, county officials said this week.“We’re very pleased with the results of the analysis,” Loudon County Mayor Buddy Bradshaw said.Response times have improved by 50 percent over the same time period by the previous provider, according to data prepared by Priority with the help of county public safety and health officials.The numbers indicate Priority’s ambulances are on the scene in fewer than five minutes approximately 18 percent to 23 percent of the time. Response times of more than 25 minutes have decreased to fewer than 1 percent of calls, a decrease of 50 percent from the previous provider, the data shows.The improvements are the result of careful analysis of staffing data, according to Dennis Rowe, Priority’s director of operations. Based on the data, Priority moved the Lenoir City and city of Loudon ambulance stations for better coverage of the county system, he said.“˜We kept tweaking the system using mapping, historical data and statistical analysis,” he said.Priority has also spearheaded the creation of a countywide emergency medical services council, with membership that includes the Fort Loudoun Medical Center chief administrative officer and emergency department director, local fire and police chiefs, the Loudon County sheriff, and select members of the Loudon County Commission.The council reviews emergency response data on a quarterly basis, Rowe said.Bradshaw said he has been keeping a close eye on the performance of the county ambulance service through regular review of response data and meetings with Priority management.Priority has also been active in the local schools, Bradshaw said. Free CPR training and the installation of automated external defibrillators have been implemented at high schools in the county. Priority’s nonemergency transport service has also been increasing, Rowe said.Bradshaw said although the county commission has been hesitant to make changes that would put Priority in the position of the exclusive provider of nonemergency transports in the county, the company’s reputation for quality service has been growing during the past year.“I expect they will continue to increase their share of the nonemergency transport,” he said.last_img read more

Posted in xyybvouo

first_imgUK operator Dana Petroleum has detected a gas leak at its offshore unit in the North Sea.In a email sent to Offshore Energy Today on Friday, Dana said production was partially shut in on the Triton FPSO following identification of a gas leak on subsea gas lift infrastructure.According to BBC, the leak was identified on Thursday evening. The Dana spokesperson said the leak was isolated and made safe.“The FPSO is continuing to operate with reduced production with its normal crew of 60 on board. All regulatory authorities have been informed. Work is continuing to effect a long-term repair,” the spokesperson ended.The Triton FPSO is located in block 21/30 approximately 120 miles east of Aberdeen, and produces oil and gas from the Bittern, Clapham, Pict, Saxon, Guillemot West and North West fields.Offshore Energy Today Stafflast_img read more

Posted in awzhpora

first_imgTabloid ‘rent-a-gob’ columnist Katie Hopkins has been ordered to pay £24,000 in damages for libellous tweets in one of the first cases to define the new ‘serious harm’ threshold in defamation law.Ruling in Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins today, Mr Justice Warby said that Twitter comments made by Hopkins about food writer Jack Monroe were defamatory and met the requirements of the 2013 Defamation Act.Warby ruled that the serious harm requirement is satisfied, ‘on the straightforward basis that the tweets complained of have a tendency to cause harm to this claimant’s reputation in the eyes of third parties, of a kind that would be serious for her’.Warby is the presiding judge of the new Media and Communication List in the High Court and his interpretation of the serious harm test will be a blow to publishers hoping the 2013 act would make defamation actions more difficult to bring. Monroe had complained that two tweets sent by the defendant on 18 May 2015 accused her of vandalising a war memorial or of approving or condoning such behaviour. At the time Hopkins wrote for the Sun newspaper and had about 570,000 followers. She had apparently confused Monroe with another left-wing columnist. Warby ruled that Monroe is entitled to ‘fair and reasonable compensation’, assessed at £24,000. Hopkins was also ordered to pay £107,000 on account of costs within 28 days. In closing remarks he noted that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. ‘There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event.’He also called attention to the problems of bringing actions over publications in transient social media. He said the case highlights ‘the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it’.Michael Skrein, entertainment and media partner at international firm Reed Smith said that the case  provides useful guidance on what the Defamation Act means by serious harm. ‘The judge made it clear that whilst the claimant may not have proved that her reputation suffered gravely, she had established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to her reputation, and therefore met the threshold set by the act.’Monroe’s solicitor Mark Lewis, partner at London firm Seddons Solicitors, said his client had been vindicated in full from the libellous and wholly false accusation by Katie Hopkins that she had supported the vandalisation of a war memorial. ‘The price of not saying sorry has been very high. Hopkins has had to pay out of her own pocket a six-figure sum in damages and costs for a tweet that should have been deleted within minutes as soon as she was told it was wrong. On this occasion, the cost of renting that gob was particularly high.’Lewis added: ‘Hopkins claimed that Twitter was just the wild west where anything goes. The judge has shown that there is no such thing as a Twitter outlaw.’last_img read more

Posted in vlpnbmjn