Level D Reading

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

Violent Ways

(1) The modern world has a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to their love of sports. On one end of the spectrum, we worry about violence in sports. We’re concerned about head injuries in football. We worry that our children are focusing so early on one sport that they are causing their body harm. We argue that we need to make changes to our current systems to protect our athletes. At the same time, though, violent sports like mixed martial arts have never been more popular. How do we explain such a split personality in how we view athletes? Why are we worried about a quarterback getting hit too hard but cheering when a fighter lifelessly collapses to the mat like a dead tree?

(2) The answer to these questions is at the same time simple and complicated. The simple answer is that a sport like mixed martial arts is intended to be violent; the sport involves two people getting into a ring and fighting. Football, on the other hand, centers around moving a ball from one zone to the next. To argue that football is not about violence would be extremely naïve, though. That’s where the problem gets complicated. If we remove violence from football, what’s left?

(3) The more complicated and depressing reason why we can’t seem to figure out whether we want violence or not is because it plays to our human nature. The football arena is the new Colosseum, and the players are the new gladiators. One of the most powerful human instinct is the instinct of survival. Naturally, then, we are entertained when people are in peril because we are instinctively drawn to their fight for survival. This doesn’t make us evil; we don’t want to see people get hurt. We do, however, want to see people get hit.

(4) The problem is that there is no definitive solution to violence in sports. We want it and don’t want it at the same time. It seems our culture has decided to allow it in certain areas where we think it belongs, like mixed martial arts, but condemning it where we think it doesn’t, like football. Football fans worry about what’s going to happen to the sport in the next few years as reports of brain injuries continue to surface. Most likely, though, nothing will change. We will sit around our dinner table and argue that something needs to be done, then head to the Colosseum and cheer for every big hit.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

(1) Social networking sites and apps provide global connectivity and allow people to make instant connections with each other. As social networking becomes more ubiquitous in modern society, employers and admissions offices are starting to use these sites as a way to learn more about potential candidates and ultimately inform their decisions. This means that you could lose out on a chance to go to the college you want, or work at your dream job, just because of a comment you made on social media.

(2) In a recent study, only 30% of high school students were “extremely concerned” about college admission offices using their social networking information as part of their admission process (41% of students were “not at all concerned”). Because social networking platforms usually have a “private” setting that gives users a feeling of security, they think they have control over what information is accessible to employers and colleges. However, social networking platforms are supposed to be a place where people can express themselves, share their lives with friends and family, and meet new people. Once employers and colleges start snooping in on these platforms, people will be forced to cultivate an “acceptable” version of themselves. This requires censorship—self-censorship perhaps, but censorship nonetheless. Additionally, this kind of invasion could lead to discrimination, discrimination that is impossible to monitor.

(3) American’s have laws that protect them from discrimination by employers and colleges. A job interviewer, for example, can’t directly ask a candidate about their age, sexual preference, religious beliefs, or political ideals. These questions lead to discrimination. The average person’s social networking activity answers these questions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination.

(4) Even though people have some control over what information they publicize on social networking platforms, when employers and colleges pore through this information, they are invading the personal lives of their candidates. For many Americans, their work life is already invading their personal life way too much. With inflation climbing and wages remaining stagnant, modern citizens are less able to have a life outside of work. Now, employers want to invade what small social life people do have. It’s important for our own mental health that we can keep these parts of our life separate.

(5) Employers and colleges might say that they are doing it to weed out people with extreme behavior. An employer may not want to hire someone who has posted anti-Semitic hate speech all over the internet, for example. These extreme examples don’t justify monitoring everyone, though, much like trying to catch one terrorist doesn’t justify the government listening in on everyone’s phone calls. People deserve to have some privacy in their lives, and employers and colleges need to respect that.

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?

The Modern Horror Movie

(1) The American Film Industry, like any business market, has a history of adapting itself to meet the demands of its customers. When viewers respond to a film trend, movies studios do their best to capitalize on that trend. This can sometimes lead to disastrous losses, but it has also helped to shape American films throughout the history of the industry. Summer blockbusters, for example, have become an annual tradition. Up until the last few years, studios almost exclusively released their big-budget films during the summer (ticket sales have recently proven that these big budget films can flourish during other seasons as well).

(2) Summer wasn’t always the time for big budget movies. In fact, summer used to be the slow season for movie studios. People were out at the beach all day and didn’t want to spend their evenings inside of a movie theater. Many critics trace the modern summer blockbuster back to Jaws in 1975, when director Steven Spielberg and Universal deliberately delayed the opening of their film to coincide with summer. Since Jaws is a film about a shark terrorizing a sleepy beach town, Spielberg and Universal figured it would have the most impact during the season when people frequented the beach. They were right. After Jaws, more movies began dipping their toes into the summer market. Spielberg’s friend, George Lucas, released each of the films in his original Star Wars trilogy during the summer. By the 90’s big-budget summer blockbusters were an annual tradition.

(3) In the last 20 years, however, we have seen a trend in films that is almost the antithesis of the big-budget summer blockbusters. Studios have proven through the last 40 years that big budget movies can pay big dividends. In the last 20 years, though, some movie studios are cashing in on the fact that small budget movies can have even better returns. A contemporary big-budget blockbuster can cost around $250 million to make, and another $250 million to properly market. If that film makes $1 billion, then the movie studio has made $500 million, or 100% profit. That is an amazing return on the studio’s investment. However, if that same studio made a smaller film for $5 million, and spent another $5 million on marketing, they could reach the same percentage of return on their investment if the movie makes $10 million. The justification behind big budget movies is that betting big potentially gives the studio the biggest payoff. The downfall, however, is that the studios are shelling out a lot of money up front; if the movie doesn’t do great, it’s a failure.

(4) If you do some research on the highest grossing movies of all time, the list is exclusively big-budget movies. The top five movies on the list, Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Avengers: Infinity War, and Jurassic World cost over $1 billion to be made (not counting the money spent on marketing). However, if you do some research on the most profitable movies of all time, none of the films on the list cost even $1 million to make.

(5) The studios that have embraced this low-budget, high return trend the most are studios who produce horror movies. Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a film that cost $600,000 to make, and grossed over $200 million, studios have realized that horror films can make them a lot of money with very little risk. Some criticize this trend because studios can continue to roll out sequels to movies like Paranormal Activity (the most profitable movie of all time by most reports) and The Purge even after they are no longer good. They cost very little to make and their brand recognition means they will likely make a decent run at the box office. However, the low financial risk of these films also gives studios the opportunity to give new filmmakers more freedom. A studio producing a big budget film would never hand over the reins to a newcomer without overseeing every step of the production carefully. Because of the low risk, Jordan Peele, a first-time director known for a comedy sketch show, had the freedom to do what he wants with his first movie. The result of this first-time, unproven director getting directorial freedom is Get Out, one of the most critically-acclaimed movies of 2017. This trend will invariably lead to more lazy horror sequels, but it could also lead to the de-stigmatization of the horror genre. Jordan Peele received an Oscar for Original Screenplay for Get Out; is a Best Picture-winning horror film far off?