Content uploaded by Zora Hudíková
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zora Hudíková on Feb 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
1
СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ
Выпуск 2 (28), 2021
Редакционная коллегия:
Кожемякин Евгений Александрович, д.филос.н., зав. кафедрой коммуникативистики,
рекламы и связей с общественностью НИУ «БелГУ» (г. Белгород)
Полонский Андрей Васильевич, д.филол.н., зав. кафедрой журналистики НИУ «БелГУ»
(г. Белгород)
Русакова Ольга Фредовна, д. полит.н., проф., зав. отделом философии Института
философии и права УрО РАН (г. Екатеринбург)
Синельникова Лара Николаевна, д.филол.н., проф. кафедры русского языка, теории и
истории литературы Крымского гуманитарного университета (г. Ялта)
Пастухов Александр Гавриилович, к.филол.н., зав. кафедрой иностранных языков
Орловского государственного института культуры (г. Орёл)
Дубровская Татьяна Викторовна, д.филол.н., зав. кафедрой «Английский язык»
Пензенского государственного университета (г. Пенза)
Руфова Елена Степановна, к.филол.н., зав. кафедрой восточных языков и страноведения
Северо-Восточного федерального униерситета имени М.К. Аммосова (г. Якутск)
Переверзев Егор Викторович, к.филос.н., директор департамента дипломных программ
бизнес-школы СКОЛКОВО (г. Москва)
Аматов Александр Михайлович, д.филол.н., проф. кафедры английского языка и
методики преподавания НИУ «БелГУ» (г. Белгород)
Кротков Евгений Алексеевич, д.филос.н., проф. кафедры философии и теологии НИУ
«БелГУ» (г. Белгород)
Борисов Сергей Николаевич, д.филос.н., директор Института общественных наук и
массовых коммуникаций НИУ «БелГУ» (г. Белгород)
Попов Антон Александрович, к.филол.н., доцент кафедры коммуникативистики, рекламы
и связей с общественностью НИУ «БелГУ» (г. Белгород)
Тяжлов Ян Игоревич, к.филол.н., доцент кафедры журналистики НИУ «БелГУ»
(г. Белгород)
Матич Петар, PhD, научный сотрудник Института политических исследований
(г. Белград, Сербия)
Корбут Андрей Михайлович – н.с. Центра фундаментальной социологии ИГИТИ Высшей
школы экономики (г. Москва)
Тягунова Татьяна Васильевна – университет Галле-Виттенберг (г. Галле, Германия)
Контакты:
kozhemyakin@bsu.edu.ru (Кожемякин Е.А.),
polonskiy@bsu.edu.ru (Полонский А.В.)
Web-сайт журнала: www.discourseanalysis.org
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
2
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
Josef SEDLÁK, Petra CEPKOVÁ GLOBAL AGE OF MAN WITHIN
THE CONTEXT OF PHOTOGRAPHY 3
Eva JONISOVÁ PHOTOGRAPHY AS A MEDIUM AND TOOL FOR
SOCIAL CHANGE 14
Ladislav HALAMA, Zora HUDÍKOVÁ NIGHTFALL OF THE
CINEMA 24
Анастасия Юрьевна ЛЕМЗЯКОВА, Анна Викторовна БЕЛОЕДОВА
АУДИАЛЬНАЯ АРХИТЕКТУРА КИНОТРЕЙЛЕРОВ:
МУЛЬТИМОДАЛЬНЫЙ ПОДХОД 34
Алла Михайловна ШЕСТЕРИНА ОСОБЕННОСТИ И ПРОБЛЕМЫ
ПОПУЛЯРИЗАЦИИ НАУЧНОГО ЗНАНИЯ В СИСТЕМЕ
ВИДЕОБЛОГИНГА 49
Viera KRÚPOVÁ, Zora HUDÍKOVÁ PODCAST STRATEGY IN PUBLIC
MEDIA 57
Валерия Игоревна СУШКОВА ОСОБЕННОСТИ
МУЛЬТИМОДАЛЬНОГО ПОДХОДА К АНАЛИЗУ
ПОЛИКОДОВЫХ ТЕКСТОВ 72
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
24
Ladislav HALAMA, Zora HUDÍKOVÁ
NIGHTFALL OF THE CINEMA
Three phenomena of current mainstream production: production of franchise films,
production of remakes and tentpole movies are the current pillars of the profitability of
global film production. Their preference significantly limits resources for independent,
artistically ambitious film production. More original, less commercial or art films don´t have
a fair chance in the new cinematic marketplaces. Audience behavior is changing. The
number of visitors who are willing to go to the theater and pay more money for a single ticket
than for a one-month subscription to a streaming service is declining. The film viewer thus
settles irresistibly in front of the home tv screens and the culture of the cinema disappears.
Keywords: Cinema, digital film, digital technologies, franchise movie, tentpole movie,
remake, independent movie.
Introduction
ver the last three decades, digital technologies in cinema have
made an intensive impact on all phases of film production.
Their gradual development and improvement were initially
aimed mainly at post-production editing of previously traditionally shot
material (on celluloid). The change was completed with the development of
digital recording in a quality comparable to that of a film image. In this way,
the medium of film changed its material nature and filmmakers lost the
'tangible' result of their work. However, they have gained a wealth of CGI
technology, and the possibilities of film distribution have expanded. And it
is these new techniques that have been perfected in the last ten years or so
that have begun to fundamentally change the behaviour of the film viewer.
Digital movies have entered networked clouds, and audiences have moved
from the armchairs in movie theaters to the couches in their living rooms.
This 'displacement' has had a profound effect on the behaviour of producers,
the selection and development of themes and, as a result, again on audience
expectations. In less than three decades, the paradigm of film has completely
changed. As recently as 2000, almost 100% of mainstream Hollywood films
were shot on film stock. By 2015, that number had dropped to roughly 22%
- the rest was already being shot digitally. Similarly, as recently as 2005,
almost 100% of films were projected from film stock. Just eight years later,
film exhibition already accounted for less than 3% of the market. (Dixon
2019: 30) The year 2013 marked the literal end of film - digital projection
was almost exclusively used, with the exception of art cinemas, museums and
research institutions. This period also saw the collapse of the (only recently
O
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
25
discovered) physical media market for home use. Sales of DVDs, which in
2005 accounted for almost 100% of the home video market, fell by more than
80% in 2018 (Dixon 2019: 30).
The aim of our study is to elucidate the processes in mainstream
American production, which, with its worldwide distribution, has serious
implications for the behaviour and expectations of audiences in all countries.
The proliferation of distribution channels for American productions raises
the question of what the future holds for independent, artistically quality
productions. To develop our study, we will use the methods of logical and
content analysis, induction, and deduction.
Signs and symptoms of decay
Parallel to the processes mentioned above, the digitalization of
production has also begun to manifest itself very strongly in changes in the
creative practices of the world's largest producers, the American Big Six
companies that top the charts in terms of volume and profits in film
production. This dominance also stems from their leading position in the
introduction of digital production and has had a major impact on the
development of world cinema. We will briefly mention three phenomena of
contemporary American mainstream production that have an impact on
global film culture. The first - but not the most important - is the continuing
and growing trend of adaptation. Adaptation is defined as "adaptation to
environmental conditions and composition rewritten into a new form."
(URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaptation’.)
Adapting stories from one medium to another has been around since people
started writing them down. Every storyteller alters his or her story, every
story is slightly modified to suit the storyteller and the audience. Even when
a story is written down or otherwise recorded, it has to deal with subtle
adjustments, a variety of versions, and the medium of recording itself. In the
contemporary film environment, however, we encounter not only
adaptation, but also mutation and convergence of genres, without evolution.
R. Stam even links this to a kind of new life for texts, saying: „If mutation is
the means by which the evolutionary process proceeds, then we can also see
film adaptations as "mutations" that help the source novel "survive" them“.
So, in addition to adapting to changing environments and tastes, the new
medium adapts the text through its distinctive industrial demands,
commercial pressures, censorship taboos, and aesthetic norms (Stam 2005:
3).
The current form of adaptations is the production of so-called
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
26
franchise films. (Merriam-Webster. A media franchise URL:
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/ Film %20franchise/en-en/) They are part
of a never-ending stream of adaptations of stories from other fields and
media. As G. Smith stated: “One of the primary sources of aesthetic
innovation is adaptation from other media. (...) When a medium borrows
an effect from other existing media, the borrowing medium often evolves
and gains expressivity” (Smith 1999: 32-53). With the help of new CGI
technologies, the producers have succeeded in bringing to life characters and
stories inspired by the drawings of comic book authors in a perfectly
believable animated form. The reuse of story material, characters and worlds
in franchises is the result of convergence in the media industry. It's why there
are so many expensive productions nowadays, with different variations of
popular comic book material. H. Jenkins explains that, “in recent decades,
the entertainment industry has moved into the world and narrative logic of
franchises and trans media. This is an economic necessity given the way
Hollywood conglomerates operate, where the same companies own many
different media platforms” (Henry Jenkins Interviewed at the 5D
conference. ‘5D Presents: The Amazing 5th Dimension!’12.11.2009. 28-09-
2011. 00:02:53 – 00:03:12.).
The reasons for the success of franchises have been explored by many
theorists and they include several: T. Elsaesser sees them in the cross-
connection of narrative material with other media (Elsaesser 2000: 28).
M. Piccard defines audience interest as the result of a desire for repeated
experiences, a kind of appetite for the same thing (Picard 2009: 298-299).
In the case of adaptations, when audiences are familiar with the quoted
text and recognize the references in the film, it strengthens their relationship
to both texts. Audiences can use their knowledge of the texts to distinguish
themselves as individuals, as L. Hutcheon argues that “the art of this
pleasure (of adaptations) comes simply from repetition with variation,
from the comfort of ritual coupled with the piquancy of surprise” (Hutcheon
2006: 4). This strategy capitalizes on consumers' desire for stories they knew
from childhood, that they liked, and therefore they logically and emotionally
wanted to acquire more of the products that the franchise was currently
offering them - both narratively and materially.
But what are the implications of this overproduction of comic book
franchise films that occupy the majority of multiplexes? In addition to the
portion of the audience that consumes this type of production, there is a large
group of viewers whose feelings were aptly expressed by A. White in his
article: “How many more times can we tolerate digitally enhanced
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
27
characters flying through the air with a spear or knife to destroy an
adversary as Superheroes? How many super-dynamic shots of fantasy
landscapes, 360-degree panoramas, and criminal and grotesque monsters
entering our consciousness can we take before our heads spin and we
realize that those millions of digital pixels no longer make sense?” (White,
A. “Cinema Is About Humanity, Not Fireballs,” The New York Times 13 June
2013 URL: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/07/are-
digital-effects-cgi-ruining-the-movies/cinema-is-about-humanity-not-
fireballs).
Not everyone is thrilled with the digital grandeur of franchise films,
which suffocates what A. Bazin and previous generations of theorists, critics,
and filmmakers considered to be the essence of cinema: nature and the
human face. It seems as if Hollywood's emphasis on digital effects is aimed
at turning viewers into children rather than to aesthetically responsive
spectators. Audiences are also becoming addicted to these films under the
influence of the overwhelming marketing mediated by the internet and social
media. Through spectacular visual effects experiences, they leave behind the
reality that the film camera was able to convey. Audiences expecting more
and more franchise films, more Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy,
Avengers, Spider-Man and Superman, seem to be conveying a single
message: entertain us, but don't ask us to think. Thus, the viewer experiences
stereotypical story twists, ongoing superhero wars and victories, dramatic
clichés and endings that only pave the way for more sequels. The film has
stopped being thought-provoking, it wants us to turn off our minds and let
ourselves be carried away by the "wow" aesthetic for a few hours. This is the
21st century mainstream cinema: images that don't really exist, serving
stories that offer no help to our lives off-screen.
And the situation may be even worse: Superhero movies have grown to
take themselves increasingly seriously, and studios are varying and
canonizing ever more complex stories and subplots to suit them, in an effort
to satisfy a voracious fan base for whom their stories are becoming
mythology. The major players, Disney/Marvel Entertainment and Warner
Bros.-DC Entertainment, have no reason to change their strategies. Marvel
has grossed $18.5 billion to date and Warner Bros'-DC Entertainment nearly
$5 billion (2019 figures), with more than 3/4 of revenue coming from
distribution outside the US. (URL:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/warner-bros-dc-films-are-no-longer-
trying-to-be-marvel.html Published 2019_04_05). That's why plans for
superhero, tentpole movies, more sequels with new comic book heroes,
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
28
spinoffs and reboots are planned for the rest of the decade and even for the
next one.
Another phenomenon that contributes to the schematization,
insubstantiality and soullessness of the mainstream is the making and
production of blockbusters - films whose budgets are extremely high, whose
promotion consumes more resources than their actual making, and whose
profits are supposed to make up for all the losses suffered by the producers.
It is franchise films - and not only adaptations of comic book stories, but also
James Bond stories - that fulfill the role of 'tentpole' films - Hollywood slang
for films designed to attract audiences with stunning special effects and to
'cover' the producers' losses or accelerate their profits on a global scale. A
very fresh example is the worldwide release of the latest Agent 007 film, 'No
Time to Die', which after its world premiere (September 30th, 2021) earned
$119 million in four days, with a current release in 54 countries (before the
release in China) (Whitten, S.: ‘No Time to Die’ scores $119 million in
international debut URL: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/03/no-time-to-
die-scores-119-million-in-internatio nal-debut.html). For cinema owners,
this will probably be a lifeline that will come in handy and probably save
them from bankruptcy after the pandemic period. At least for now...
Success of such films has been partially attributed by filmmakers such
as S. Spielberg and G. Lucas, who can be described as the main architects of
the blockbuster phenomenon. Spielberg has said that the end of the
superhero franchise is still not in sight, likening it to the western genre: “We
were there when the western died and there will come a time when the
superhero movie will go the way of the western. (...) Right now, the
superhero movie is alive and well. But the day will come when mythological
stories will be replaced by some other genre that some young filmmaker is
already thinking about and discovering for all of us” (Coyle, Jake. “Full
Movie Preview: Spielberg Plunges into the Cold War,” The Associated Press
2 September 2015. URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fallmovie-preview-
spielberg-plunges-cold-war-131839190.html?ref=gs). This reflection of
Spielberg, however, seems to us rather too optimistic, because it is unlikely
that in the current state of the commercial production boom, perhaps some
creative force can change the direction of the whole industry.
The third phenomenon of the producer's one-sidedness aimed only at
maximum profitability is the exploitation of already played themes. Here,
however, it must be admitted that the motive that drives producers to
remakes is not only declining sales. The revival of older, already played out
themes that were once successful is usually motivated in different ways -
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
29
most often by casting currently popular actors or by transferring, updating
the plot in new contemporary conditions. Even remakes have become a
proven means of raising money. It must be said, however, that remakes are
an innocent symptom of commercialization, so to speak, and among them
can be found films that meet higher aesthetic and artistic criteria (Little
Woman, 2019; Silence, 2016; It, 2017; Cinderella, 2015; True Grit, 2010;
Murder in the Orient Express, 2017; A Star Is Born, 2018; etc.).
Where is it heading?
All three of these phenomena in contemporary pop cinema contribute
to a trend that W.W. Wheeler has termed "synthetic cinema" and defines it
as: film making motivated by profit alone, designed solely to make money,
with no real art. In the early days of digital cinema, computer-generated
effects already existed, but were used to some extent in fantasy, action and
adventure films. But with the transition to digital cinema and the current
scale of production of franchise (comic book) films, the temptation of
limitless possibilities is irresistible to audiences (and producers) to the point
where the film world is escaping from reality, taking the viewer out of reality
- into the world of "synthetic cinematography" (Wheeler 2019: 16).
How do all these phenomena relate to the new distribution channels
brought about by digital distribution? It is clear that all the big franchise,
tentpole films are made with the main intention of presentation - screening
on the big screen, in a cinema with perfect digital picture and sound. After
all, it's the special effects budget, CGI imagery and multi-channel sound that
most of the budget for these films is invested in. Although cinema attendance
has been in long-term and worldwide decline, these most powerful calibers
of producer's weapons are still profitable. Hence, we conclude that audiences
are choosing to visit the cinema specifically in favour of blockbuster titles,
and more artistically valuable films are losing audience interest. It is the
declining number of these audiences that reduces absolute numbers, but this
does not directly imply a reduction in the profitability of the big studio
conglomerates. These losses are being replaced by the new distribution
channels and markets that are opening up for them.
On the other side of this boom in franchises and transmedia
convergence is the supply of independent filmmakers, a market that stands
outside the mainstream and has always produced better quality, more or less
profitable films. Independent producers have also been able to survive
through independent cinema networks, DVD, Blu-ray, or VOD distribution.
However, this distribution pillar has weakened a lot. Almost the entire space
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
30
has been filled by digital VOD distribution through streaming services. Of
course, both DVD and CD are now obsolete formats. Physical media is being
abandoned in favour of cloud streaming, again bringing the prospect of profit
to studios and distributors. Once you've bought a DVD, you've owned it
forever. Now, even if one 'buys' a film title digitally (VOD), it is stored in the
cloud and is only accessible to them according to the agreement and terms
set by the supplier, which may be subject to change. So where once the
cinematic community supported each other, the ubiquity of the web has
turned audiences into a legion of lonely moviegoers, each with their own
laptop or mobile phone. This, figuratively speaking, closed the door to
cinema and opened the way to the lonely consumerism of the mainstream.
The current distribution system is clearly trending in favour of the most
easily marketable and aesthetically trivial projects. The more thoughtful,
artistic films are relegated to the depths of digital libraries, to the lists of
"indie" films.
Technological change is only half of the discourse on distribution.
Much more serious - and not much talked about - is that distribution form
has become a driving force in determining what is produced. The most
important factor in the making of a film today is whether the studios can sell
it. In the last ten to fifteen years, the marketing and distribution departments
of the studios have had a decisive voice in deciding what is produced, how
many films are made, and how much is spent on a particular production.
Marketing in all its forms has dominated the decision-making processes in
film distribution and has a decisive influence on the kinds of films that the
viewer will see. People vote with their wallets - they can buy a film online,
watch it on TV or pay for a streaming service - and they don't have to go to
the cinema at all. This has a huge impact on the creative professions, too.
You can find a lot of commentary on this from creative professionals. S.
Frank, a successful screenwriter and director, in his book Distribution
Revolution, articulated a number of implications that have changed the
situation among creative professionals: “Proficient, experienced writers and
directors don't have many options - their opportunities have diminished.
There are many filmmakers who, despite their artistic ambitions, have
accepted to work on a sequel or spinoff of a big-budget film. Screenwriters
get the job of rewriting and adapting franchises rather than the
opportunity to develop their own film. Instead of developing our own
scripts, we rewrite foreign, old ideas that are guaranteed to be realized by
a major studio. Writers shy away from films that have little hope of
financing - even if they are talented and proven filmmakers” (Curtin, Holt,
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
31
Sanson 2014: 168) Film studios don't want to take the risks of innovative
films, and independent producers can't. The search is always for the same -
a profitable film, no one is looking for artistic value. "Prequel" or
"reinvention" have become watchwords. That's how the latest Spider-Man,
Batman, Transformers movies were made. And major studios are engaging
renowned directors to adapt even board games (R. Scott - Monopoly) or
theme park stories for them.
The overall trend is that the worthier, imaginative and artistic films are
nowadays not being made for cinema - but, surprisingly, for television. Good
dramatic stories are now being made as TV series in the new production
parameters of so-called high quality television. The kinds of dramas that the
viewer is willing to respect, almost all take place on TV screens. Film
production for cinemas has fallen into the grip of huge, spectacular 3D films
that lack a compelling story and believable emotion. These are now offered
by TV movies, which reach the viewer via streaming services, albeit in the
form of series and their sequels. As these companies (Netflix, HBO, Amazon,
Hulu and dozens of others) accumulate huge financial resources through
regular subscriptions, they are able to deliver not only cinematic quality but
also authorial quality.
Conclusion
Although in this paper we have discussed American mainstream
production and the consequences of digital distribution, the result of these
processes is similar in the US as in Slovakia. The proof is summarized in a
short Facebook status by Slovak film publicist P. Konečný: “Currently,
worthy films are experiencing a total crisis of attendance in Slovak
cinemas. A lot of young people don't plan to go to the cinemas to see art-
house cinema at all anymore, and the middle and older generation has
settled down to Netflix and soon to HBO Max, which is coming to Europe.
(...) High-quality Slovak and foreign films often have an attendance of 200-
500 spectators in cinemas outside festivals, and in our cinemas they
struggle with the disinterest of the middle, but mainly the emerging
generation. (...) I fear that the scissors of interest and taste are opening
wide. We currently have the opportunity to see festival titles in club
distribution, but it's quite possible that with zero audience interest, there
will be fewer and fewer of them” (URL:
https://www.facebook.com/konecnypeter/posts/10223297493456831)
Our study reflects on the underlying factors influencing contemporary
American mainstream production as it has evolved in the wake of digital
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
32
transformation. We argue that it is digital production and distribution that
has contributed most to the changes in creative practices, changing themes,
and dramaturgy that have dominated mainstream production. We believe
that it is the improved production practices, the use of CGI technology, and
especially the intense pressure on producers to maximize profits that have
led American mainstream production to a significant thematic decline. The
factors we have named in the study are actual concomitants of the
transformation of the film medium today: the absolute dominance of
commercial, franchise production has resulted in a narrowing of the space
for more artistically valuable productions in cinema distribution. This has
resulted in a gradual change in the audience's tastes, evaluation criteria and
habits, especially among young audiences. A new segment - so-called HQ
television (premium television) with production quality comparable to that
of film, designed for new distribution channels, especially streaming
services, provides an alternative space for creative professionals and the
production of more valuable film productions. Paradoxically, this gives space
to higher quality film productions on TV screens, which multiplies the
outflow of viewers from cinemas. It is questionable whether and how these
trends, also under the influence of other factors (global pandemic), will
develop in the upcoming years.
References
A media franchise is an intellectual property involving the characters, setting and
trademarks of an original work of media (usually a work of fiction). URL:
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Film%20franchise/en-en/
Coyle, J. Full Movie Preview: Spielberg Plunges into the Cold War. The Associated
Press 2 September 2015. URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fallmovie-preview-
spielberg-plunges-cold-war-131839190.html?ref=gs
Curtin, M., Holt, J., Sanson K. (eds) Distribution Revolution Conversations about
the Digital Future of Film and Television. University of California Press. Oakland.
2014. Pp.164-174.
Dixon, W. W. Synthetic Cinema. The 21st-Century Movie machine. Palgrave Pivot,
Cham: 2019. Pp. 1-23.
Full Definition of adaptation: URL: https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/adaptation
Henry Jenkins Interviewed at the 5D conference. ‘5D Presents: The Amazing 5th
Dimension!’12.11.2009. 28-09-2011. 00:02:53 – 00:03:12.
Hutcheon, L. A theory of Adaptations. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Piccard, M. Video Games and Their Relationship with Other Media. The Video Game
Explosion: A History from Pong to Playstation and Beyond. Ed. Mark J. P. Wolf.
Westport: Greenwood Press, 2008. 293-300.
Smith, G. M. Shaping The Maxx: Adapting the Comic Book Frame to Television.
(СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ДИСКУРС-АНАЛИЗ)
выпуск 2 (28) 2021
33
Animation Journal. 8.1 (1999): 32-53.
Stam, R. Introduction. In: Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice
of Film Adaptation. Eds. Stam, Robert, and Alessandra Raengo. Malden:
Blackwell, 2005.
The death of the DVD: Why sales dropped more than 86% in 13. years. URL:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-
more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html
URL: https://www.facebook.com/konecnypeter/posts/10223297493456831
White, A. Cinema Is About Humanity, Not Fireball. The New York Times 13 June
2013 URL: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/07/are-digital-
effects-cgi-ruining-the-movies/cinema-is-about-humanity-not-fireballs
Whitten, S. ‘No Time to Die’ scores $119 million in international debut URL:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/03/no-time-to-die-scores-119-million-in-
international-debut.html
_____________________
HALAMA Ladislav – film editor, mgr., PhD student, University of Ss.
Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Faculty of Mass Media Communication,
Department of Artistic Communication (Trnava, Slovak Republic),
dir@lacohalama.sk
HUDÍKOVÁ Zora – assoc. prof., PhDr., PhD, University of Ss. Cyril and
Methodius in Trnava, Faculty of Mass Media Communication, Department
of Artistic Communication (Trnava, Slovak Republic),
zorahudikova@gmail.com