报考学士匈牙利(Magyarország)语经典例题剖析及答案解读

  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。

  从观念上讲,电影是一项科学的事业,但不是极品投资。使那台梦机器顺遂运作的投资者像房土地资金财产商一样形形色色,有头疼税费的塞尔维亚人和浸会教堂。但是,回报常常是令人失望的。一是因为电影业存在潜在风险;另三个缘由是影视集团在此以前的会计实际事务有无数特殊技能,就像她们制作的摄像一样。

  [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。

  对尊严投资费用的急需变动了有着这一切。大的电影公司今后平均花一亿多英镑创设和经营销售每部电影。在迪斯尼的首长下,他们减弱了影视制作量,赌注的高风险就更大了。电影集团的总局希望财务报告少令人揪心些。因而,对待私人投资者就会有新的、越发开放和规矩的千姿百态。

  [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。

  在过去的几年中,大的影视集团鼓励对冲资本和其余一些投资者对粗放在一年多内摄像的几十部影视的“候选出品人”进行投资。就算金融家不能加入象《哈里Porter》或《蜘蛛人》那样的任其自然能净赚的影视,但她俩依旧发现对出品人投资危害更少,由此,比投资私人电影越发引发人。2018年十二月,推断百分之三十多的影片制作花费来自外部资金。

  [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。

  结果是华尔街今昔对电电影业的运行有越多的明白。好莱坞的高危害投资人John·Burke说,随着他们对经验的积聚,一些投资者初步觉得他俩得以“赢庄家”。他们对过去战表卓绝的电影监制进行投资,而不援救电影公司拍摄的每部电影。专长于拍片家庭剧的迈克·London和显眼擅长于拍戏爆炸场景的乔·西尔沃正是近来承受那样慷慨相助的人。据谣传,还有多少个越来越多的近乎交易,而且如若Morgan大通银行想开办电影接济机构的布署照常进行的话,步伐大概加速。

  [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。

  那改变了好莱坞的工作轨迹。以前,与影片集团经理娘闹翻的导演和歌手可能退休后写书,标题是“你将永远不在这一个镇子吃中饭”。最近,他们聚积了一些私人资金,又回到工作了。

  多亏了高盛集团,鲍泊和哈维·温斯丁能够在二〇〇七年愤然地离开迪斯尼多少个月后就创制1个新的影片公司。

  [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。

  就算大人物获得的注意力最多,可是华尔街资产也剧烈地搅动了整整独立电电影业。直到眼前,投资商都对一年只拍几部电影的小卖部感到不安。不过金融家们曾经注意到像《阳光小雅观的女子》那样低本钱制作的风行影片能够赚大钱。即使他们的表面标新革新,那类集团无疑满脑子想的都以资本控制。杰姆·斯登从前是财务高管,筹集了足足的工本来照相影片。他认为他能够与大的电影和电视公司索价,把钱压到三千万至贰仟五百万里边。

  [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。

  如此不起眼的铺面设法通过在海外预先经营销售影片和平运动用别的国家对在加州以外拍录的导演提供的出口退税来保卫安全投资者。4个月前才树立的“序曲影业公司”布署选择同一的方针。它将制止大规模的小伙子节目(做广告卓殊昂贵),而喜欢针对更窄一些的像白种人和青春妇女等同的观者。

  [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。

  序曲影业集团组长Chris•
Mike歌克估摸,接受捐助的中央新闻纪录电影制片厂业集团中有三分一将会在五年内毁灭。只怕她是对的。影业顾问John•斯劳斯说,电影工业的实在难点不是干涸电影,而是缺少眼球。热映电影和让录制上VCD架并奉劝人们去看录制是很费劲的一关。地位稳固的电影集团在那方面有宏伟的优势。他们有海内外网络和市场经营销售兵团,并能把电影预先报告片与大片绑在共同。

  [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.   

  其余多少个题材是,电影是不可预测的正业。比如,何人能预测到上周意大利人会在四天内开销八千万韩元看《300》呢?这部影片是关于一个人操英格兰口音的斯巴达克战士的轶事,影视评论反映很差。大概,除了拍照那部电影的沃纳电影公司之外,没有人能摆平厄运,唯有对冲基金老总才有机会这么做。新的投资资金在改动好莱坞,可是,机构回想将永生永世是最主要的。

  仿真标题——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。

  参考答案及分析

  1.
答案为[D]。此题属多段落推理题,以第3段的话题句(topic)为“点”,综合考核多少个段子那一个“面”(zone),所以须求推导深层的含义;这一报考硕士藏语的命题强势,值得专门关怀。(D)为答案,源于第一段尾句和第4段内容。作者的视角为:要对私有投资者赤城相见,鼓励他们给有业绩的影视公司斥资等等。由此可知,投资者对影片公司前程的显要影响。

  2.
答案为[C]。此题可视为因果关系总结题。第伍段的核心句及其下文的认证,均能够判断(C)为题干的结果,所以是不错答案。而从第⑥段结尾和第拾段看,我们不可能搜查缴获结果“好莱坞会有更多的影视公司”,所以(D)被排出掉了。

  3.
答案为[A]。此题应为段落推理题。从第⑧段能够估摸出这么的意思:投资商(WallStreet money, investors,
financiers)的行事都以树立在“低费用高利润”(cost-effective)的价值观之上的,所以(A)为答案,此外多个选用均以偏代全,故不选。

  4.
答案为[B]。此题可为段落语义总结题。我们有时候要力所能及辨识“正话反说”的命题方法。第⑦段表明小商店“targeted
at narrower audiences”, 而且第七段也建议大商厦“have a huge
advantage”。由此题干反过来命题:小企不如大商行的地点是(B)“有较少的观者”,所以(B)是答案。

  5.
答案为[D]。此题属于全文大旨题。命题时日常把最终一段作为结论段,设制可以发挥笔者全文思想的核心题。当大家见到“句①….but句②…。”那样的并列结构的时候,应该发现到语义重心在but之后的语句②上。所以,那里(C)不是答案,而(D)才是定论段中笔者的用意所指。

    越多消息请访问:乐乎报考硕士频道
报考大学生论坛
报考博士博客圈

  尤其表明:由于各州点情状的穿梭调整与转变,天涯论坛网所提供的享有考试新闻仅供参考,敬请考生以权威部门宣布的科班消息为准。

相关文章