Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
as some other authors movie biography (not printed biography in forrm of a book), that made the book successful has nothing o do with the movie being released based on the book.
Option C, though less convincing still has some meat in it; Reciving money for production rights is showing soundness of plan and that there are better things to follow, as someone has already realized potential of book and paid for it. so popularity of the book can again soar high.
am i right? _________________
i love kudos consider giving them if you like my post!!
For me it is E, seems irrelevant. This talks about unpopular novel adapted into a top-grossing film and sales spiking up. In first place, the argument is about a popular novel when it was first published
I think C is weaker than D and C must be the answer. Even though the publisher received money from the film studio, but this money was deprived from productions rights, not from the new edition of the novel. From this, we can't say the plan was sound because it doesn't matter if the publisher printed out the new edition or not, it still got this 200,000 bucks.
(D) The actress didn't help the plan much but somehow movie watcher might be affected by her opinion and became to like to read the novel. Thus the plan might become sound. Again, there was no connection between $200,000 and the new edition, the plan could not be sound. _________________
I came across this question in test just now so chipping in my two cents.. My vote goes on C as well.
D There has to be direct link between the launch of movie and chances of the novel starting to sell again. If the actress talks about the novel, then this sounds like a very logical link to me. Movie fans are watching actress interviews...
C Publisher getting money from selling the rights doesn't establish any link with future sales of the novels. For all we know, the movie becomes a hit and nobody cares about the novel (say for example, the rights include condition of not mentioning the novel anywhere!)
200 K is quite a low figure, probably a crisis figure. I have seen figures up to 600 K. The way you look at it is probably not the right way. You need to look at the whole thing as a package, movie tie-in book, merchandising etc. Although publishers have often still their original names, many of them have been bought by multimedia companies. News and BMG (Bertelsmann Group) have print publishers, radio TV interests, record labels, movie distribution, and probably shares or whole production companies. You do not see that, because the big conglomerates these days like to keep the brand names they have purchased. It may well be that the publisher is part of the family of companies that instigated the movie and the actress was interviewed on a related channel. The publicity arm of the movie people would have told her what to say, what else do you expect. Audiences are so easily influenced by the hype that these specialists create. It has been said that Avatar made 500 million US for News Corp, but I have no way of verifying it. The movie gets in the main daily news, too - and oh wonder, the next day you have News advertising on that channel. It's all business, and product, don't look at it as arts. The publicity people coordinate advertising, interviews, release of CDs and interviews. They all cost a lot of money, so you'd be darft not to. And yet, only 10 % of movies and CDs are making their money back, I once heard. I'd love to sell my book rights for a smaller sum and a share in the profits.
I have doubts with D too. An actress telling positive things about a novel in television can be seen as a huge advertisement which would later bring increase revenue because more people are aware of the novel .