Module 8: SPEAKING. Tips

🎬 C1 & C2 Speaking EOI Exam: Blockbusters, Bestsellers, and Media Vocabulary (Fully Developed)

LEVEL C1 (Advanced)

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

Time: 3-4 minutes speaking time. (Preparation: 10-15 mins). Task: Discuss the statement below. Structure your ideas logically (Intro, Arguments, Conclusion). Topic: The Franchise Fatigue "The dominance of sequels, remakes, and shared universes in film and literature signifies a cultural regression driven by risk-averse commercialism." You may mention:

• Franchise Economics: Why studios prioritize familiar Intellectual Property (IP).

• Artistic Innovation: The impact on original storytelling and unknown writers/directors.

• Consumer Demand: Do audiences genuinely prefer familiarity, or is it merely what is available?

• Streaming Services: Have they helped or hindered the development of new narratives?

  
  

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 5-6 minutes. Goal: Reach a consensus / Negotiation. Scenario: You are a small publishing house with a €500,000 budget for a new book launch. You must agree on ONE primary marketing strategy. Candidate A: The Traditionalist You want to spend the budget on Critical Acclaim & Endorsements (sending books to major literary reviewers, hosting high-profile, exclusive events). Argument: Winning awards and securing positive reviews from established critics offers long-term credibility and distinguishes the book from commercial pulp. Candidate B: The Modernist You want to spend the budget on Social Saturation & Influencers (viral campaigns, TikTok/YouTube promotion, paying micro-influencers). Argument: This offers the best immediate return on investment (ROI), reaches a younger demographic, and exploits the power of viral marketing.

2. TIPS FOR C1 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Franchise, sequel, critical acclaim, box office receipts, intellectual property (IP), viral marketing, commercial pulp, return on investment (ROI), narrative arc, target demographic. Grammar: Use Conditional III ("If we had invested in the original concept, the reward might have been greater.") and the Passive Voice to sound objective ("Stories are being repackaged..."). Dialogue Strategy: Don't just assert your view. Use phrases like: "I see your point about critical acclaim, but consider the speed of the digital market..." or "Let’s prioritize the strategy that offers the clearest measurable outcome..."

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C1 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Franchise Fatigue

"Good afternoon. I want to discuss a phenomenon increasingly prevalent in modern media: franchise fatigue. I believe the dominance of sequels, remakes, and shared universes in both film and literature does indeed signify a cultural regression driven by risk-averse commercialism.

To begin with, we must look at franchise economics. For major studios, an established Intellectual Property (IP)—like a superhero or a popular book series—is a safer bet than an original script. These franchises have built-in fanbases and predictable box office receipts. This financial security, however, stifles artistic innovation. Why bankroll an original, high-concept premise when you can simply rehash an old story?

Secondly, this trend impacts consumer demand. While studios claim audiences crave familiarity, the truth is that original content struggles to gain visibility when marketing budgets are overwhelmingly focused on promoting the latest sequel. If we had provided more opportunities for original voices a decade ago, we might not be facing such a creatively homogenous landscape today.

Regarding streaming services, they have, paradoxically, both helped and hindered. While they offer platforms for niche and original content, their algorithms often push familiar, big-budget names to maintain subscriber retention. In conclusion, the current landscape is driven by commercial pragmatism over creative ambition. To reverse this, we must reward studios that invest in unique narrative arcs and support new, untried voices."

C1 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Critical Acclaim vs. Social Saturation

(A meeting of the Publishing House Strategy Team)

Candidate A (Traditionalist): "I believe spending the €500,000 on Critical Acclaim and Endorsements is the only way forward. We want to publish a bestseller, not just commercial pulp. Securing reviews from The New Yorker or The Guardian provides long-term credibility. It is imperative that we signal to readers that this book has literary merit, not just online hype."

Candidate B (Modernist): "I understand the appeal of critical acclaim, but I see your point, but consider the logistics: Traditional reviews are slow and reach a diminishing target demographic. Our €500,000 is better spent on Social Saturation and Influencers. This offers a measurable ROI and exploits the power of viral marketing. We need to focus on the speed and reach of platforms like TikTok, where trends are born."

Candidate A: "But digital hype is ephemeral. A viral trend lasts three weeks; a prestigious award lasts a lifetime. Let’s play devil's advocate: if we spend the entire budget on influencers, what happens when the next big trend comes along? We’ve simply burned through the money without building a foundation of quality. We need sustained success, not a short-term blip in box office receipts."

Candidate B: "That is a valid point about sustainability. But isn't it better to ensure the book is seen by a million young readers now than waiting six months for a review that might only be read by five thousand academics? Let's try to find a middle ground. What if we allocate 70% of the budget to Social Saturation to achieve maximum immediate reach, and reserve 30% for a highly targeted campaign aimed at one or two major literary prizes?"

Candidate A: "A split budget that prioritizes speed is acceptable, but only if the social campaign focuses heavily on the book's narrative arc and underlying themes, not just on the author's personality. I can get on board with that. We use the 70% for mass visibility, and the 30% ensures we still secure the critical validation needed for long-term sales."

Candidate B: "Agreed. 70% for Social Saturation, 30% for Critical Validation. A pragmatic balance of speed and substance."

🎬 C1 & C2 Speaking EOI Exam: Blockbusters, Bestsellers, and Media Vocabulary (Fully Developed)

LEVEL C2 (Mastery)

1. EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1: MONOLOGUE (Long Turn)

Time: 4-5 minutes speaking time. Task: Deliver a monologue analyzing the nuance and complexity of the topic. Topic: The Algorithmic Aesthetic and Cultural Memory Analyze the concept of the "algorithmic aesthetic", where content is increasingly generated and consumed based on predictive algorithms rather than genuine artistic or critical merit. Discuss:

• The Sunk Cost Fallacy: Why studios continue to invest in failing IPs.

• Cultural Homogenization: The risk that personalized content leads to a uniform, bland global culture.

• The "Black Box" of Taste: To what extent do algorithms now dictate—rather than merely reflect—what we consume?

• The Literary Canon vs. Data: Analyzing the role of critics and gatekeepers in the age of Big Data.

  
  

PART 2: DIALOGUE (Interaction)

Time: 6-7 minutes. Goal: Debate a controversial policy. Scenario: An international film finance body is deciding on ethical investment guidelines for content production. Candidate A: The Pragmatist (Pro-Franchise Investment) You argue that funding established franchises is an ethical imperative because it guarantees jobs, revenue, and cultural stability. Stance: Risk-taking should be privatized. Public funding should only support projects with a high ROI to ensure funds are not wasted on niche content. Candidate B: The Purist (Pro-Originality) You argue that funding established franchises is morally questionable because it perpetuates cultural homogenization and ignores the needs of marginalized artists. Stance: Public investment must focus exclusively on new, original IP to preserve diversity of expression and challenge the algorithmic status quo.

2. TIPS FOR C2 SUCCESS

Vocabulary: Algorithmic aesthetic, ephemeral, cinematic oeuvre, literary canon, high-concept premise, sunk cost fallacy, cultural homogenization, technological hubris, antecedent condition, to bankroll. Style: Use rhetorical questions ("Are we not simply rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic?") and hedge your assertions ("One might contend that the crux of the problem lies..." or "The matter is arguably the most urgent ethical dilemma..."). Dialogue Strategy:Acknowledge complexity. Concede small, tactical points to reinforce the larger, philosophical argument. Use precise language for negotiation.

3. EXERCISES DONE (Model Responses)

C2 EXTENDED MONOLOGUE: The Algorithmic Aesthetic and Cultural Memory

"I would contend that the most subtle, yet profound, threat to our contemporary culture is the concept of the 'algorithmic aesthetic.' This is where content is no longer selected based on critical merit or its contribution to the cinematic oeuvre, but rather on predictive algorithms designed to maximize retention. This poses a severe ethical challenge to the very notion of cultural memory.

Firstly, we must analyze the 'Black Box' Problem of taste. Algorithms are not merely reflecting consumer preference; they are antecedent conditions that actively dictate taste. By prioritizing what worked before, they inherently discourage novelty. This leads to cultural homogenization, where nuanced local stories are replaced by bland, globally recognizable franchise narratives. It is incumbent upon us to ask: Are we not sacrificing the richness of our literary canon for the sake of predictable data streams?

Secondly, this trend feeds the sunk cost fallacy within the industry. Studios continue to bankroll failing sequels or remakes because the algorithm promises some degree of safety. The ethical issue is that these algorithms make the financial risk associated with true artistic originality appear insurmountable, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Furthermore, this shift destroys the role of the traditional gatekeepers—the critics and curators—whose value is based on subjective analysis and historical context, something data cannot replicate. Never before have the tools of mass distribution been so beholden to a single, opaque corporate motive. Unless we mandate radical transparency in these algorithms, we will continue to subsidize the erosion of genuine human expression."

C2 EXTENDED DIALOGUE: Franchise Investment vs. Originality

(A meeting of the International Film Finance Body)

Candidate A (Pragmatist): "We must look at this with fiscal prudence. Funding established franchises is an ethical imperative because it guarantees the ROI necessary to stabilize the industry and ensure jobs. If we spend public funds on high-risk projects that fail, we commit fiscal imprudence and waste taxpayer money. It is imperative that public money supports projects that demonstrate proven economic viability."

Candidate B (Purist): "I find the term 'ethical imperative' highly misleading when discussing cultural homogenization. Funding only proven IP is morally questionable because it perpetuates the algorithmic status quo. I concede that original IP is riskier, but the public funding’s purpose is to challenge the market, not merely replicate it. Not only are we neglecting emerging artists, but we are also actively destroying the diversity of expression that is essential to any healthy culture."

Candidate A: "But we cannot gamble the stability of the entire sector on untested high-concept premises. Let's play devil's advocate: if we use all public funds on experimental films that no one watches, the major studios will simply withdraw, and the market will collapse, leading to mass unemployment. We need a safety net. Isn't it better to fund a successful franchise that pays taxes and stabilizes jobs than a critical darling that goes straight to the archive?"

Candidate B: "That is an astute compromise. But the key is how the money is spent. To synthesize our positions, I propose that we create a tiered funding system. Tier 1 (70% of the grant) goes to original IP and emerging voices, with the stipulation that they use the funds to develop sustainable, non-algorithmic distribution methods. Tier 2 (30% of the grant) is a 'Contingency Fund' for established studios, subject to them proving complete algorithmic transparency for the financed project."

Candidate A: "Funding original IP with a mandate for innovation... and demanding transparency from the majors... that's an elegant solution. It satisfies my need for accountability while addressing your core issue of cultural homogenization. I think we have a framework there."

Candidate B: "Agreed. We balance fiscal prudence with the preservation of the cinematic oeuvre."