A  sample  text  of  high  quality

    Hollywood‘s New Model

    [1] Film has traditionally been a good business and a bad investment. The dream machine has been oiled by sources as varied as property developers， tax-averse Germans and the Baptist church. But returns have usually been disappointing. The inherent riskiness of the film business is one reason； another is the studios' accounting practices， which， until recently， were as laden with special effects as the films they produced.

    從傳統(tǒng)上講，電影是一項不錯的事業(yè)，但不是比較佳投資。使這臺夢機器順利運轉的投資者像房地產(chǎn)商一樣形形色色，有厭惡稅費的德國人和浸會教堂。但是，回報通常是令人失望的。一是因為電影業(yè)存在潛在風險；另一個原因是電影公司以前的會計實務有很多特技，就像他們制作的電影一樣。

    [2] The need for serious money has changed all that. The big studios now spend an average of just over $100m making and selling each film. Led by Disney， they are cutting back on the number of movies they produce， making the gambles they do take all the more risky. The studios' corporate parents would prefer it if their financial reports were a little less suspenseful. Hence the new， more open and honest attitude to private investors.

    對嚴肅投資資金的需求改變了所有這一切。大的電影公司現(xiàn)在平均花一億多美元制作和營銷每部電影。在迪斯尼的領導下，他們減少了電影制作量，賭注的風險就更大了。電影公司的母公司希望財務報告少讓人擔心些。因此，對待私人投資者就會有新的、更加開放和誠實的態(tài)度。

    [3] For the past few years the big studios have encouraged hedge funds and other investors to back “candidates” of several dozen films spread over more than a year. Although the financiers are not allowed to get their hands on reliable money-makers such as “Harry Potter” or “Spider-Man”， they still find the candidates less risky， and hence more appealing， than individual films. Last September Merrill Lynch estimated that outsiders cover more than 30% of the cost of film production.

    在過去的幾年中，大的電影公司鼓勵對沖基金和另外一些投資者對分散在一年多內拍攝的幾十部影片的“候選制片人”進行投資。雖然金融家不能插手象《哈里波特》或《蜘蛛人》那樣的肯定能賺錢的影片，但他們還是發(fā)現(xiàn)對制片人投資風險更少，因此，比投資私人電影更加吸引人。去年九月，估計30%多的電影制作成本來自外部資金。

    [4] One result is that Wall Street now knows much more about how the film business works. As their experience grows， some investors are beginning to think they can “beat the house”， as John Burke， a Hollywood dealmaker， puts it. Rather than backing every film put out by a studio， they are investing in producers with good records. Michael London， who specialises in making family dramas， and Joel Silver， who is notably good at blowing things up， are among the recent recipients of such largesse. Several more such deals are rumored and the pace may increase if JPMorgan goes ahead with its plan to set up a film-finance arm.

    結果是華爾街現(xiàn)在對電影業(yè)的運作有更多的了解。好萊塢的風險投資人約翰。伯克說，隨著他們對經(jīng)驗的積累，一些投資者開始認為他們可以“贏莊家”。他們對以往成績優(yōu)秀的電影制片人進行投資，而不資助電影公司拍攝的每部電影。專長于拍攝家庭劇的麥克。倫敦和明顯擅長于拍攝爆炸場景的喬。西爾沃就是比較近接受如此慷慨援助的人。據(jù)謠傳，還有幾個更多的類似交易，而且如果摩根大通銀行想設立電影資助部門的計劃照常進行的話，步伐可能加快。

    [5] This has changed the arc of Hollywood careers. Not so long ago， producers and film stars who fell out with studio bosses might retire to write books with titles like “You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again”。 These days they round up some private equity and get back to work. Thanks to Goldman Sachs， Bob and Harvey Weinstein were able to set up a new film studio just two months after they angrily left Disney in 2005.

    這改變了好萊塢的職業(yè)軌跡。以前，與電影公司老板鬧翻的制片人和影星也許退休后寫書，題目是“你將永遠不在這個城鎮(zhèn)吃中飯”。如今，他們聚積了一些私人資產(chǎn)，又回來工作了。

    多虧了高盛公司，鮑泊和哈維。溫斯丁能夠在2005年氣憤地離開迪斯尼兩個月后就建立一個新的電影公司。

    [6] Although the big names get most of the attention， Wall Street money is churning the independent film business， too. Until recently， investors were nervous about dealing with firms that produce only a few films a year. But financiers have noticed that cheap hits such as “Little Miss Sunshine” can be hugely profitable. And beneath their varied exteriors， such outfits are reassuringly obsessed with cost control. Jim Stern， a former fund manager who has raised enough money to start producing films， reckons he can undercut the big studios by making them for $20m——35m.

    雖然大人物獲得的注意力比較多，但是華爾街資金也劇烈地攪動了整個獨立電影業(yè)。直到比較近，投資商都對一年只拍幾部電影的公司感到緊張。但是金融家們已經(jīng)注意到像《陽光小美女》這樣低成本制作的流行影片可以賺大錢。雖然他們的外表標新立異，這類公司無疑滿腦子想的都是成本控制。杰姆。斯登以前是財務經(jīng)理，籌集了足夠的資金來拍攝電影。他認為他能夠與大的電影公司砍價，把錢壓到兩千萬至三千五百萬之間。

    [7] Such a minnow tries to protect its investors by pre-selling films abroad and exploiting tax rebates offered by other states to filmmakers who shoot outside California. Overture Films， a four-month-old studio， plans to follow a similar strategy. It will eschew broad teenage fare （which is expensive to advertise） in favor of movies targeted at narrower audiences such as blacks and young women.

    如此不起眼的公司設法通過在國外預先營銷影片和利用其它國家對在加州以外拍攝的制片人提供的出口退稅來保護投資者。四個月前才成立的“序曲影業(yè)公司”計劃采用相同的策略。它將避免廣泛的青少年節(jié)目（做廣告非常昂貴），而喜歡針對更窄一些的像黑人和年輕婦女一樣的觀眾。

    [8] Chris McGurk， who runs Overture， reckons that three-quarters of the newly financed outfits will be gone within five years， and he may be right. The film industry's real problem， says John Sloss， a consultant， is not so much a shortage of films as a shortage of eyeballs. Getting movies to the screen and the DVD racks， and persuading people to see them， is the tricky part. Here the established studios have a huge advantage. They have global networks and legions of marketing men—and can attach their trailers to blockbusters.

    序曲影業(yè)公司老板克里斯？ 麥克歌克估計，接受資助的新影業(yè)公司中有三分之一將會在五年內消失。也許他是對的。影業(yè)顧問約翰？斯勞斯說，電影工業(yè)的真正問題不是缺少電影，而是缺少眼球。上映電影和讓電影上DVD架并規(guī)勸人們去看電影是很棘手的一關。地位穩(wěn)固的電影公司在這方面有巨大的優(yōu)勢。他們有環(huán)球網(wǎng)絡和市場營銷兵團，并能把電影預告片與大片綁在一起。

    [9] The other problem is that film is such an unpredictable business. Who could have predicted， for example， that Americans would spend some $70m in just three days last week to see “300”， a poorly reviewed film featuring a Scottish-accented Spartan warrior？ Perhaps nobody—but a studio like Warner， which produced the film， probably had a better chance than a hedge-fund manager trying to beat the odds. New money is transforming Hollywood， but institutional memory will always count for something.

    另外一個問題是，電影是不可預測的行業(yè)。比如，誰能預測到上周美國人會在三天內花費七千萬美元看《300》呢？這部影片是關于一位操蘇格蘭口音的斯巴達克戰(zhàn)士的故事，影評反映很差。也許，除了拍攝這部電影的華納電影公司之外，沒有人能戰(zhàn)勝厄運，只有對沖基金經(jīng)理才有機會這樣做。新的投資資金在改變好萊塢，但是，機構記憶將永遠是重要的。

    仿真題目——compiled  by  Dr  sony

    1. Film as a bad investment （Paras. 1——3） is noted to suggest that

    A. the studios‘ accounting practices are likened to special effects.

    B. the big studios cannot overcome disadvantages of their own.

    C. people still take the new and more open attitude to investors.

    D. the investors may largely influence the prospect of film firms.

    2. In the author‘s view， potential film-finance （Paras. 4——5） may result in

    A. the better working conditions of film businesses.

    B. some investors‘ reconsideration of their plans.

    C. the career changes of producers and film stars.

    D. more and more new film studios in Hollywood.

    3.From Paragraph 6， we can infer the film investors‘ conception of

    A.cost-effectiveness.

    B. no nervousness.

    C. huge profits.

    D. cost control.

    4.Like Overture Film （Paras. 7——8） ， the small studios are inferior to the established studios in having

    A. no similar strategy.

    B. less audiences.

    C. no global network.

    D. a shortage of films.

    5. The last paragraph is mainly concerned with

    A. the unpredictability in film making.

    B. the better chance to beat the odds.

    C. the transformation oiled by new money.

    D. the importance of institutional memory.

    參考答案及解析

    1. 答案為[D].此題屬多段落推理題，以第二段的話題句（topic）為“點”，綜合考核幾個段落這個“面”（zone），所以需要推導深層的含義；這一考研英語的命題強勢，值得特別關注。（D）為答案，源于第三段尾句和第四段內容。作者的觀點為：要對個人投資者坦誠相見，鼓勵他們給有業(yè)績的電影公司投資等等。由此可見，投資者對電影公司前程的重要影響。

    2. 答案為[C].此題可視為因果關系歸納題。第六段的主題句及其下文的說明，均可以判斷（C）為題干的結果，所以是正確答案。而從第六段結尾和第七段看，我們不能得出結果“好萊塢會有越來越多的電影公司”，所以（D）被排出掉了。

    3. 答案為[A].此題應為段落推理題。從第八段能夠推斷出這樣的含義：投資商（Wall Street money， investors， financiers）的所作所為都是建立在“低成本高利潤”（cost-effective）的觀念之上的，所以（A）為答案，其它三個選項均以偏代全，故不選。

    4. 答案為[B].此題可為段落語義歸納題。我們有時要能夠識別“正話反說”的命題方式。第九段說明小公司“targeted at narrower audiences”， 而且第十段也指出大公司“have a huge advantage”。由此題干反過來命題：小公司不如大公司的地方是（B）“有較少的觀眾”，所以（B）是答案。

    5. 答案為[D].此題屬于全文主旨題。命題時經(jīng)常把比較后一段作為結論段，設制能夠表達作者全文思想的主旨題。當我們看到“句①…。but句②…。”這樣的并列結構的時候，應該意識到語義重心在but之后的語句②上。所以，這里（C）不是答案，而（D）才是結論段中作者的意圖所指。

   研招信息：教育部2012研招通知簡章 ♦2012研招六變化 ♦首發(fā)2012年比較新考研大綱

    報考指南：2012考研報名時間 ♦ 報名入口 ♦網(wǎng)上報名指南  ♦ 預報名流程  ♦院校專業(yè)報考

    研招簡章：2012全國研招簡章 ♦各高校2012研招簡章 ♦推免生招生簡章 ♦如何看懂簡章

    復習備考：各科第二輪復習策略  政治  英語  數(shù)學  專業(yè)課   ♦公共課真題  ♦專業(yè)課真題

    輔導課程：海文   海天  啟航  文都  跨考  考研專業(yè)課   法碩輔導   考研英語保過班