Lukas Bennett AS Media Exam

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Essay first draft

“Media production is dominated by global institutions, which promote their products and services to national audiences.” To what extent do you agree to this statement?

Hollywood has been dominating the cinematic universe since the 1920’s. Although there have been a few anomalies in their global dominance. It has been Britain that has created these anomalies; they are the only other country in the world that has managed to compete with the powerhouse that is America. Britain did this with the release of film franchises like Harry Potter, which grossed over seven billion pounds. Disney, Universal Pictures, Warner Bro’s are three of the ‘Big 8’ that command the market; even with the Paramount agreement in place which means that they cannot own their own cinemas, they use the fact that other American companies own cinemas internationally to their advantage and this gives them a strangle-hold over Britain. I am going to explain this in more detail with reference to my two case studies, PAUL (2011 – British) and Rango (2011 – American).

2011 was a fairly good year for Britsh cinema as a whole, but the film that really caught my eye was PAUL. Although this film did not make nearly as much as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2; which was released in the same year, it still managed to rock the British box office a tremendous amount. Ninety-eight million dollars worth to be exact. Written by the unequivocally rated comedy genius's that are Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, it was not a part of their renowned 'cornetto trilogy' and yet it still brought in the most money at box office. They did use an American distribution company (Universal Pictures) yet their deal with them stated that it most be released in the UK first, which it was. Hollywood on the other hand didn't release a massive blockbuster like they did in 2010 with Iron Man 2 and in 2009 with Avatar. In fact the highest grossing film in 2011 was Harry Potter - A mostly British film. Saying this my chosen Hollywood film 'Rango' still made more money on the box office than PAUL did; raking in a massive $245.7 million in comparison to PAUL's $98 million.

I chose these two particular films because they both include an animated main character. Although they do have different target audiences, PAUL having an adult audience and Rango aiming more at children, they're both still comedies in their own right and they both made their mark as two of the top comedies in 2011, both managing to get their hands on awards which just shows how much these films managed to control the comic film market. Yet the dominance by Hollywood is still clear even though awards were won on both sides; PAUL claimed an NMA for best comedy whilst Rango absolutely monopolised the animated film awards winning a grand total of twenty-three awards! This just illustrates how much the Hollywood film industry dictates the film market.

So Hollywood dominate the film industry on the Box Office and on awards won for their films and they have been doing this for years. We saw a vague comeback from Britain with Harry Potter, James Bond and Star Wars. Whilst Britain have these huge film franchises that have made billions upon billions, Hollywood still dominate due to the fact that the volume of films that make masses of money is much more than that of Britain. Not just this but almost all of Britain's huge films have been distributed by Hollywood which means they still get 'a slice of the pie' so to speak. Not just this but America also make a shedload of money from their overseas cinemas. They have a monopoly of cinemas in Britain that far excel the privately owned cinemas, this means that more people go to the big cinema chains and are therefore giving their money to the American film industry. Companies such as Cineworld and VUE only ever play American films unless it is one of these massive blockbusters that will earn them truckloads of money from people coming to watch. They do this to tighten their strangle-hold on the British film industry because if British films aren't played then they cannot earn money and therefore it keeps Hollywood well ahead of the race.

Due to the fact that both of my chosen films are either animations or contain a large amount of animation, a lot of special effects will have had to be used. A fully animated film like Rango took a lot longer to make than PAUL because they have to do all of the art work for the characters whereas in PAUL they only had to do artwork for one character because only one of them is animated. PAUL has a lot of action and explosions and so it will contain a lot of CGI to imitate this which means that it took a little longer to produce than a film that doesn't contain as much CGI.

Both Rango and PAUL feature big names in their line up. PAUL have Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Seth Rogan whilst Rango have one of the biggest names in Hollywood, Johnny Depp. It is a well-known fact that who is in your film can have a massive impact on its success. The Fast and Furious franchise use big names to their advantage several different ways. Instead of paying to distribute their trailer worldwide, they release it on their main actors Facebook timeline for everyone to see. This is extremely effective because people share the trailer, comment on it, like it and in a matter of hours hundreds of millions of people have seen it and they haven't spent a single penny on distributing it. For 'Fast 7' and 'Fast 8' Vin Diesel released the trailer on his timeline and it was an instant success. That's just one way of using actors to your advantage but this is not usually used by film franchises. Usually the effect big actors have is that people will want to pay to watch their favourite actors or actors they know are funny. For example, I really wanted to go and watch PAUL because I knew before I watched it that it would be funny because I have watched Simon Pegg and Nick Frost before and know how funny they are.

Thursday, 9 February 2017

Impact of technology

Production

“A broader version of conventional literacy, which enables all visual, aural and digital forms, seeking to enable people to become thoughtful producers and interpreters of media” (Peter Fraser)

“By looking at how culture is used and transformed by social groups, cultural studies see people not simply as consumers, but as potential producers of new social values and cultural language” (Toby Miller 2006) new media such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Blogger etc. is a classic example of consumers becoming producers and, as Miller says, ‘potential producers of new social values and cultural language’ because any individual can reach as mass audience.

Gauntlett (2007) goes as far as to say that new media (and new media technologies) erodes the boundary between producer and audience to the extent that it makes little sense to talk about media audiences at all anymore: “Conventional research methods are replaced—or at least supplemented by new methods which recognise and make use of people's own creativity, and brush aside the outmoded notions of 'receiver' audiences and elite 'producers' (Gauntlett, 2007)

Distribution/Exhibition

“A new generation of UK media power players are ditching the traditional gatekeepers and going straight to their audience via the web” (Plunkett 2008)

“The view that the internet and new digital media as an optional extra is replaced with the recognition that they have fundamentally changed the ways we engage with all media” (David Gauntlett 2007)

“As people individually and collectively progress the web, they’re increasingly in command…this is the new consumer power. It’s not the ability to swap suppliers at the click of a mouse…It’s the power to become the supplier – in effect to become an economic power themselves” (Tapscott and Williams 2006)
And, it isn’t just the web that is giving people this power, though it is critical in terms of exhibition and reaching a wide audience, it is also advances in digital cameras, editing software etc that narrows the gap and makes it possible for consumers to become producers.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

Marketing exam question

"Successful media products depend as much upon marketing and distribution to a specific audience as they do upon good production practices."

To what extent do you agree with this statement within the media area you have studied?

The two films that I have chosen to analyse and evaluate are PAUL (British) and Rango (American). I have chosen these two films because they are two of my favourite films and yet they're both of differing nationalities. Although PAUL was distributed and produced by an American company it is still classed as a British film due to the fact that it is a Simon Pegg and Nick Frost film, who are notorious for working together. Even with this in mind the difference between the two budgets is pretty tremendous, with PAUL's budget being a tiny $40 million in comparison to Rango's massive $135 million.

There are several key elements in any marketing campaign and the huge Hollywood conglomerates rule them all. On average Hollywood spend twenty to thirty million dollars on marketing per film, whilst Britain stands at around five million. That difference is enormous and it makes an enormous difference. PAUL made a pretty whopping $98 million on the box office; which for a British film is pretty incredible, but even with a figure like that they were absolutely blown out of the water by the amount that Rango made on the box office, $245.7 million!

One of the key elements in marketing are trailers. Trailers are a huge part of marketing, and these need to present a number of key elements to a potential audience. The genre of the film has to be apparent and this may be shown through key scenes, dialogue, and sound elements. The key elements of the narrative also have to be included, but obviously not enough to give away the surprises within the narrative. If the film is star driven then the viewer will expect to see sequences including well known stars. As it is with posters the trailer must present itself as unique to sell to its audience.

Although, some film producers and distributors are starting to find that they do not need to spend millions creating and distributing trailers in cinemas across the globe instead there have been several instances where they have got their main star to release the trailer onto their Facebook page and they find that it is quickly shared and distributed for them for almost no cost at all. For example, Fast and Furious 6's trailer was not released in cinemas but instead it was released onto Vin Diesel's Facebook page and the film went on to make nearly $800 million on the box office, hence why it's budget is lower in comparison to other films that have made that amount of money.

McDougall (2008) said that there are five main Hollywood conglomerates ruling the market, United International Pictures, Warner Brothers, Buena Vista, 20th Century Fox and Sony. Even though none of these companies are allowed to own any chain of cinemas due to the 1948 Paramount decision, they are still a head above anyone else in the world when it comes to film-making. Even with this rule in place America are still finding ways to dodge it in Britain. America have opened up several massive cinema chains all across Britain; Vue, Cineworld and Odeon are among them, and so only American films are generally played in Britain - 9/10 of the films played in Britain are American to be exact.
Hanseen (2007) summarised, 'The Hollywood studio system era' of vertical integration that impacted production, distribution and exhibition (because the major companies owned the cinemas) came to an end in 1948; "when the USA Supreme Court issued its famous Paramount decision. The Paramount consent decree required the divestiture of affiliated cinema chains and the abandonment of a number of vertical practices." I disagree with this because even though American conglomerates can't own their own cinemas they can still determine what films are played and when due to the fact that American companies own these massive cinemas and will obviously be biased towards what nationality of film they show.

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

British and American film age ratings

The BBFC implement age ratings to determine what films they find suitable for what ages. Yet it is a commonly known fact that under-18's feel the desire to ignore these age ratings.

Filmmakers have always been allowed to get advice from the BBFC about the age rating their film will probably get. Sometimes they send in the film before it is finished, and Senior Examiners watch it without special effects, music or other details. The Senior Examiners can give a good idea of the rating the film will probably get based on our guidelines. If the filmmakers decide the likely rating is too high, they may decide to change the film, eg by removing scenes or changing the special effects, so they are more likely to get the lower rating they want. This is called a ‘cut for category’ and is the most common sort of cut made to films in the UK.

Since the early 1960s research evidence has been accumulating that suggests that exposure to violence in television, movies, video games, cell phones, and on the internet increases the risk of violent behavior on the viewer’s part just as growing up in an environment filled with real violence increases the risk of them behaving violently. In the current review this research evidence is critically assessed, and the psychological theory that explains why exposure to violence has detrimental effects for both the short run and long run is elaborated. Finally, the size of the “media violence effect” is compared with some other well known threats to society to estimate how important a threat it should be considered.

Most researchers define media violence as visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another. This definition has evolved as theories about the effects of media violence have evolved and represents an attempt to describe the kind of violent media presentation that is most likely to teach the viewer to be more violent. Movies depicting violence of this type were frequent 75 years ago and are even more frequent today, e.g., M, The Maltese Falcon, Shane, Dirty Harry, Pulp Fiction, Natural Born Killers, Kill Bill. Violent TV programs became common shortly after TV became common in American homes about 55 years ago and are common today, e.g., Gunsmoke, Miami Vice, CSI, and 24. More recently, video games, internet displays, and cell phone displays have become part of most children’s growing-up, and violent displays have become common on them, e.g., Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, Warrior.

Hypodermic needle theory

The "hypodermic needle theory" implied mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behaviour change. Several factors contributed to this "strong effects" theory of communication, including: the fast rise and popularisation of radio and television. The emergence of the persuasion industries, such as advertising and propaganda; the Payne Fund studies of the 1930s, which focused on the impact of motion pictures on children. Hitler's monopolization of the mass media during WWII to unify the German public behind the Nazi party.

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Production Cycle

Pre-Production • The Director would take on overall ‘creative’ responsibility of the production, the style of shooting and editing, and working with the actors to deliver the story in the script including conveying the emotion and dynamic of the characters. The DOP in conjunction with the Director would be responsible for the look of the film, the style of the filming, again achieving what would have been suggested by the writer in the script.

Producers • Producers are frequently the first person to become involved in a project; they participate directly in all the main producing phases; and see the project through production, to post- production, marketing and distribution. • The Producer's is role to turn story ideas into profitable cinematic entertainment, and to persuade others to share in his or her commercial and creative vision. Producers usually report to the production company, or to the Executive Producers appointed to supervise the production on behalf of the financiers and Distributors.

Distribution • Releasing and Sustaining a film in the market place • Worked best when the three key stages (Production, Distribution, Exhibition) are linked or controlled by the same company • UK system has more focus on marketing and sustaining a film in the local market • Independent Studios struggle to get distribution - No formal connection between Producers, distributors and exhibitors • Collaboration – need to get a major company on side.

Marketing • Every major Hollywood studio/distribution has an internal department for promotion and the resources to promote (TV, Magazines, Radio) • The marketing campaign will be cohesive across all media platforms • Most common forms are teaser trailers, trailers, Adverts in News papers and Magazines, Television spots, Radio promo, internet (official websites, viral sites, social networking) and billboards.

Exhibition • Exhibition is the retail branch of the film industry. • What the exhibitor sells is the experience of a film (and, frequently, concessions like soft drinks and popcorn). • Because exhibitors to some extent control how films are programmed, promoted, and presented to the public, they have considerable influence over the box-office success and, more importantly, the reception of films.

Monday, 23 January 2017

Paul

Release date	14 February 2011 (2011-02-14) (United Kingdom) 18 March 2011 (2011-03-18) (United States)
Running time	104 minutes 110 minutes (unrated version)
Country	United Kingdom United States
Language	English
	Budget: £32.64 million
	Box office: £78.62 million Two sci-fi geeks take a pilgrimage to America's UFO heartland. While there, they accidentally meet an alien who brings them on an insane road trip that alters their universe forever. For the past 60 years, an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogan) has been hanging out at a top-secret military base. When he discovers he's been taken prisoner, the space-traveling smart ass decides to escape the compound and hop on the first vehicle out of town - a rented RV containing Earthlings Graeme Willyand Clive Golling. Chased by federal agents and the fanatical father of a young woman that they accidentally kidnap, Graeme and Clive hatch a fumbling escape plan to return Paul to his mother ship. And as two nerds struggle to help, one little green man might just take his fellow outcasts from misfits to intergalactic heroes.