Digital distribution affects the marketing and consumption of media products in the film industry nowadays because more people tend to watch films in the comfort of their own homes, rather than taking trips to the cinema, and have become more dependent on the internet.
This means that the film industry have to take this into consideration before promoting or distributing a film, and so many online or televised methods are now used during the marketing and consumption of said media products.
For example, an extensive viral marketing campaign was created in order to promote Ridley Scott's Prometheus, and the film became a massive success due to this contributing factor. Any major film studio is going to have a marketing campaign which includes some kind of online element, perhaps a trailer and a few film clips, but only few reach a major, viral victory, and Prometheus was amongst those that had, due to very generous investment from 20th Century Fox.
First came a video which showed Guy Pierce as character Peter Weyland of 'Weyland Industries', giving a TED talk in 2023, which was first screened at the real TED conference in February 2012, attracting a lot of viewers. Second was a piece given by Michael Fassbender who plays David, a robot with very human characteristics - this allowed the public to explore David's world and created a lot of hype surrounding the film itself. Two other short movies were also produced, one involving one of the main characters Elizabeth Shaw played by Naomi Rapace, and the other involving the ship's captain; the latter of the two being kept the shortest so as to add a sense of mystery and excitement before the film's release, after the former had provided a little bit of background into the crew's mission.
As well as all of this, a website for 'Weyland Industries' was created, which, as a movie promo site, could easily be mistaken for an actual corporate website, making the film's plot seem all the more real. Several trailers were also released.
Everything was distributed digitally to the public via the internet - on the 'Prometheus' website and the 'Prometheus' channel on YouTube - or through television (trailers shown during advert breaks), which allowed for a good number of people to become aware of the film and created a lot of hype surrounding it. The film had a budget of $130 million, and so to make a profit, a big audience was needed.
In terms of consumption, Prometheus was released in over 15 markets during cinema exhibition, both in 2D and 3D, which was an experience that could not be topped by digital distribution, but was then sold to online distributors such as LOVEFiLM and Netflix, having been released on DVD and Blu-ray in over 50 countries prior to this, so as to reach an extremely wide audience.
This arrangement would have ensured that those who did not want to pay a fairly weighty price for a cinema ticket - although this would have provided the best kind of viewing, having allowed the public to experience a 3D showing had they wished, along with limited showings in IMAX theatres - could wait to either buy the disc version for a lower price and keep the film as a permanent investment, or to watch the film over the internet, also for a less amount of money, or rent the film and have it sent to their door.
Digital distribution would have affected the consumption of Prometheus massively, as people that were perhaps sceptical about a 'prequel to Alien' could view the film for less money and as part of a package deal with an online distributor, rather than being put off by cinema prices or investing in something which they may not have enjoyed. Although this is true for most films nowadays, this way Prometheus would have made a considerable amount more than if it had not been made viewable in more ways than cinema exhibition alone.
However, the film industry may not always look upon digital distribution as such a good thing, as many websites can allow the public to view films illegally and for free, which means that the film will not be making its money back and the companies who have spent time working on the film may lose money rather than gaining a profit, and although this was not a huge problem for a massive film like Prometheus, for smaller, low budget films such as Joe Cornish's Attack The Block, it can be.
With a budget of only £8 million, Optimum Releasing (now StudioCanal UK), owned by StudioCanal, could not afford to create a viral marketing campaign on the same level as Prometheus', yet online methods still seemed to be the way forward. And so, due to lack of funding, StudioCanal chose to promote Attack The Block through social networking sites such as Facebook, which would cost nothing but still get people talking.
It wasn't crucial that Attack The Block reach a wide audience, as it did not have to make as much money back as Prometheus did, although the film's rating during cinema exhibition, which was a certified 15, may have been a slight issue, as the film grossed little over £3.6 million at the box office, subconsciously enlisting itself as a 'cult film in the making'. However, this did not necessarily mean that the production stages of the film did not reach certain standards, as the film currently holds a 90% 'Certified Fresh' rating on the critical responsive site Rotten Tomatoes, and generally had favourable reviews from those who did see the film upon its release, and so digital distribution would have helped Attack The Block to gain a higher profit, as people of a younger age could now watch the film thanks to online distributors. As Film4 Productions had also contributed to the production of Attack The Block, the film also aired on Channel 4 and Film4 without any added cost, which would have resulted in an increasing awareness of the film and gaining extra profit, as well as an option for the public to rent the film on Film4oD. The issue of illegally viewing the film online was much more prominent in the downfall of Attack The Block when compared to Prometheus, however, as most people would have probably waited until the film had been leaked online before viewing because of its rating or lack of awareness, which would have made earning its money back an even harder job, and so this was problem which could not be resolved and could have serious consequences.
Consequently, Attack The Block was not considered a flop, despite its lack of success at the box office, as only a small audience was targeted in the first place, and DVD sales will eventually boost its overall income where cinema exhibition failed to do so.
Therefore, digital distribution will become significant in the consumption of Attack The Block, as it will allow for enough money to be made back if it hasn't already done so, and was also important during the marketing stages of the film, as although little money could be spent on an extravagant promotion campaign, the use of online methods meant that information could be spread quickly.
Another film which relied heavily on digital distribution during the marketing stages was The Inbetweeners Movie, although this was not quite the case during the consumption of the film.
Because The Inbetweeners Movie had sprouted from the TV series, The Inbetweeners, a lot of air time was given on Channel 4 between shows in anticipation of the film's release, as this would be the perfect place to gain potential viewers. As well as this, the four main cast members, Simon Bird, Joe Thomas, James Buckley and Blake Harrison took over Film4's Twitter account up until the release of the film, which was a great piece of low budget marketing which would have proven significantly effective. The audience which had been targeted for the movie were between the ages of 15 and 25, generally, and so these marketing methods were sure to attract the most attention.
The Inbetweeners Movie did amazingly well at the box office, having made just over £13 million in its opening weekend, setting a new record for the most successful opening weekend ever achieved by a comedy film in the UK. The film grossed just over a staggering £56 million during cinema exhibition, which was 'staggering' since its budget had been only £3.5 million. The reason for this success may have been down to the fact that the film had been released during the summer, just after all of the teenagers in the UK had broken up for the school holidays, but I believe that The Inbetweeners Movie would not have been as successful had it been released straight to DVD.
The film became the third fastest-selling British home media release of 2011 after the two final Harry Potter instalments, after selling approximately 575,000 copies on the first day of its release, however, I scarcely believe that this would have been the case had the film not have been such a phenomenon during cinema exhibition, as this brought a kind of higher status to the franchise which had not been done with any other British TV series. Also, those which had never seen The Inbetweeners may have gone to the cinema to watch the film, just because it had reached cinema potential despite its extremely low budget, but may not have considered buying the film on DVD straight away if they had never seen the TV series.
Nonetheless, digital distribution of the film itself was not poorly received, as DVD sales confirm the exact opposite, but it was not as important in the consumption of the film due to its content and target audience as it had been during the marketing stages.
Overall, digital distribution affects the marketing and consumption of films quite significantly, as the internet is becoming increasingly popular as the years go on and a cinema experience is becoming less of a must due to the continuing development of technology.
(Please could you leave a comment/mark this for me, sir! :) Thanks!)
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Saturday, 29 December 2012
Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of media texts in your chosen media area.
In many cases, lack of money due to media ownership can be
an extreme inconvenience during the production stages of a film and also in
exchange, as this limits choice in casting, the quality of special effects, how
the film can be viewed i.e. 2D/3D/IMAX etc.
This was the case for Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass, which initially had a budget of only $10 million, as Vaughn had to focus on producing the film himself and had to invest money in the film from his own pocket and his relatively small production company, Marv Films. This was because the source text (the comic book) was extremely controversial, and so, many companies were not expressing any interest in its content – the final product portrayed an 11-year-old girl to be tremendously violent and slipping in the notorious ‘c’ word. Once pre-production started, however, Plan B Entertainment – another relatively small production company - decided to get involved. Consequently, Brad Pitt, owner of Plan B, supported Vaughn with an additional $20 million, bringing the budget of the film to $30 million, which now made the process a lot more achievable. Although, this increase in budget was still not enough to supply the demands of big, Hollywood stars, unless they worked for the screen actor’s minimum, and so the cast was made up of relatively unknown actors such as Aaron Johnson, whom the audience may have recognised from ‘Nowhere boy’, and up-and-coming actors such as Chloe Moretz. An exception to this was Nicholas Cage, who, as previously mentioned, would have had to work for the screen actor’s minimum, though he is a huge star. The rest of the cast included a significant amount of British actors, posing as Americans, which would have resulted from the influence of Matthew Vaughn, a British director. Furthermore, although Vaughn had managed to sell the film’s US distribution rights to Lionsgate Films, one of the ‘mini-major’ studios, which would have significantly boosted potential for the film, he was still at a disadvantage as they could not use an all-star cast as a weighty marketing tool, and therefore around a third of the budget had to be spent on heavily distributing the film across the US instead, so as to secure an American audience along with the British and consequently bring in a larger profit. This was also thought about during the production stages of the film, and so a lot of the filming took place in parts of America and Canada as well as England, so as to entice the American public more to the film.
Kick-Ass was also distributed in the UK by Universal Pictures, one of the six major movie studios, which was promotion for the film in itself, thus proving how significant the size of the companies involved are when compared to the success of the film – if Kick-Ass had been distributed by two studios of the same size as the two production companies involved (Marv & Plan B), then audiences may not have felt as inclined to watch Kick-Ass as profit suggests.
Without this use of synergy and co-operation between companies, the film would have been a flop no doubt, as Vaughn could not have possibly produced, promoted or distributed the film on a similar level by himself.
Another issue raised by media ownership in the production of Kick-Ass was due to the fact that they could not afford to perfect a lot of the special effects with the use of CGI, which once again would have placed the film significantly behind others of the same genre such as Iron Man, as the companies involved with production – Marv and Plan B - were now going to have a very hard job to convince the audience that the action scenes within the film were believable.
Nonetheless, the soundtrack created for the film was not much of an issue, as most of the tracks featuring on it were recognisably from other films or shows, thus cutting down costs in this respect, and consequences due to this would not have been enormous, as this would have conformed to the stereotype of a traditional superhero movie.
Issues raised by media ownership in the exchange of Kick-Ass, however, could be seen as more threatening to its success, as the film had to be rated R in the US and was labelled a 15 in the UK during cinema exhibition, because of its violent content and language – to say the least – and so did not portray a typical family film which others of the same genre would have fallen under, such as Batman or Spider-Man. Usually, comic book adaptations fall under a 12/12A certificate, and so this change would have dramatically affected box office figures, as the rating of the film had significantly limited the audience. Therefore, Kick-Ass could be classed as a cult film, as it was made specifically for a particularly small audience. This was once again due to the production of the film, however, and so could not be prevented, as the content had already been provided by the source text and could not be altered without completely damaging the storyline.
Kick-Ass was also sold to online distributors such as LOVEFiLM, which would have increased profit overall, as it would have provided a way for the audience to view the film in the comfort of their own homes without paying out a tremendous amount of money for the one investment.
The film was not converted into 3D, but this decision may have been made due to the fact that it would not fit the generic conventions of a traditional superhero film, rather than lack of funding.
Within the first week of its home media release, Kick-Ass sold 1.4 million units in America alone, one third of these in Blu-ray format, and debuted at number one on the DVD sales chart. This shows that although the rating of the film affected the number of participants which viewed the film to begin with - achieving only $19.8 million its opening weekend in the US, though it did widely gross 3 times its budget overall – the film was obviously not a flop due to its production practices, as people were more than willing to make a permanent investment in Kick-Ass, and the exchange techniques used were more than satisfactory in this sense.
This was the case for Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass, which initially had a budget of only $10 million, as Vaughn had to focus on producing the film himself and had to invest money in the film from his own pocket and his relatively small production company, Marv Films. This was because the source text (the comic book) was extremely controversial, and so, many companies were not expressing any interest in its content – the final product portrayed an 11-year-old girl to be tremendously violent and slipping in the notorious ‘c’ word. Once pre-production started, however, Plan B Entertainment – another relatively small production company - decided to get involved. Consequently, Brad Pitt, owner of Plan B, supported Vaughn with an additional $20 million, bringing the budget of the film to $30 million, which now made the process a lot more achievable. Although, this increase in budget was still not enough to supply the demands of big, Hollywood stars, unless they worked for the screen actor’s minimum, and so the cast was made up of relatively unknown actors such as Aaron Johnson, whom the audience may have recognised from ‘Nowhere boy’, and up-and-coming actors such as Chloe Moretz. An exception to this was Nicholas Cage, who, as previously mentioned, would have had to work for the screen actor’s minimum, though he is a huge star. The rest of the cast included a significant amount of British actors, posing as Americans, which would have resulted from the influence of Matthew Vaughn, a British director. Furthermore, although Vaughn had managed to sell the film’s US distribution rights to Lionsgate Films, one of the ‘mini-major’ studios, which would have significantly boosted potential for the film, he was still at a disadvantage as they could not use an all-star cast as a weighty marketing tool, and therefore around a third of the budget had to be spent on heavily distributing the film across the US instead, so as to secure an American audience along with the British and consequently bring in a larger profit. This was also thought about during the production stages of the film, and so a lot of the filming took place in parts of America and Canada as well as England, so as to entice the American public more to the film.
Kick-Ass was also distributed in the UK by Universal Pictures, one of the six major movie studios, which was promotion for the film in itself, thus proving how significant the size of the companies involved are when compared to the success of the film – if Kick-Ass had been distributed by two studios of the same size as the two production companies involved (Marv & Plan B), then audiences may not have felt as inclined to watch Kick-Ass as profit suggests.
Without this use of synergy and co-operation between companies, the film would have been a flop no doubt, as Vaughn could not have possibly produced, promoted or distributed the film on a similar level by himself.
Another issue raised by media ownership in the production of Kick-Ass was due to the fact that they could not afford to perfect a lot of the special effects with the use of CGI, which once again would have placed the film significantly behind others of the same genre such as Iron Man, as the companies involved with production – Marv and Plan B - were now going to have a very hard job to convince the audience that the action scenes within the film were believable.
Nonetheless, the soundtrack created for the film was not much of an issue, as most of the tracks featuring on it were recognisably from other films or shows, thus cutting down costs in this respect, and consequences due to this would not have been enormous, as this would have conformed to the stereotype of a traditional superhero movie.
Issues raised by media ownership in the exchange of Kick-Ass, however, could be seen as more threatening to its success, as the film had to be rated R in the US and was labelled a 15 in the UK during cinema exhibition, because of its violent content and language – to say the least – and so did not portray a typical family film which others of the same genre would have fallen under, such as Batman or Spider-Man. Usually, comic book adaptations fall under a 12/12A certificate, and so this change would have dramatically affected box office figures, as the rating of the film had significantly limited the audience. Therefore, Kick-Ass could be classed as a cult film, as it was made specifically for a particularly small audience. This was once again due to the production of the film, however, and so could not be prevented, as the content had already been provided by the source text and could not be altered without completely damaging the storyline.
Kick-Ass was also sold to online distributors such as LOVEFiLM, which would have increased profit overall, as it would have provided a way for the audience to view the film in the comfort of their own homes without paying out a tremendous amount of money for the one investment.
The film was not converted into 3D, but this decision may have been made due to the fact that it would not fit the generic conventions of a traditional superhero film, rather than lack of funding.
Within the first week of its home media release, Kick-Ass sold 1.4 million units in America alone, one third of these in Blu-ray format, and debuted at number one on the DVD sales chart. This shows that although the rating of the film affected the number of participants which viewed the film to begin with - achieving only $19.8 million its opening weekend in the US, though it did widely gross 3 times its budget overall – the film was obviously not a flop due to its production practices, as people were more than willing to make a permanent investment in Kick-Ass, and the exchange techniques used were more than satisfactory in this sense.
When compared to a film like Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows Part 2, however, which had a massive budget of $250 million (shared
between both parts) due to generous funding by Warner Bros., this suggests that
media ownership can sometimes raise no issues at all, providing they can afford
to supply an extensive amount of money in the production and exchange of a
film, which clearly Warner Bros. could, and that the content of the film
appeals to everybody, which Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 came
very close to doing.
Although the size of Warner Bros. contributed to the fact that it could lenient with money, the same could be said for Universal Studios and why they did not do the same for Kick-Ass.
Had Warner Bros. believed that the final film in the Harry Potter series would not do well, I scarcely believe that they would have provided as much money as they did, though this was almost certainly not likely to happen. Kick-Ass on the other hand was a stand-alone film, and so a public fan base had not been established yet, therefore Universal Pictures and even Lionsgate Films would not have felt inclined to significantly contribute to the budget of the film.
Since deciding that he wanted to focus on film adaptations of books, David Heyman, a British producer, founded his own production company, Heyday Films, and put his faith in the Harry Potter series. Although the company is relatively small, the financial support from Warner Bros., particularly during production and of the final film, was substantial enough to secure worldwide success.
Most of the cast had been established already, due to the fact that this was the eighth and final instalment in the Harry Potter series, although I’m sure this wouldn’t have been a major issue had this not been the case anyway, as the budget for the film suggests that other named stars would have been interested, due to being well-paid.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 received a 12A certificate from the British Board of Film Classification, who noted that the film ‘contains moderate threat, injury detail and language’, which was the only Harry Potter film to receive a warning for ‘injury detail’, though no real restrictions had been made where audience was concerned, as this would have allowed all ages to view the film during its cinema release.
Marketing was extensive across all areas of the world, special effects were mastered terrifically, cinema tickets were being bought like no one’s business – the film broke five box office records, including ‘opening weekend worldwide’, bringing in an impressive $483,189,427, and ‘highest grossing film of 2011’, bringing in a total of $1,328,111,219 - DVD and Blu-ray sales went through the roof, selling 2.71 million Blu-ray units in three days and 2.83 million DVD units during its debut, and the film had even been converted into 3D.
Virtually no issues were raised in the production or exchange of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, which was solely reflective of Warner Bros.’ financial contribution to its success; and although few negative reviews will have still criticised the film, I do not believe that this has anything to do with media ownership, and rather personal opinion, as the companies involved could not have possibly done any more to improve the film.
In conclusion, these two case studies show that media ownership plays a massive role in the production and exchange of a film, whether it be its downfall or its claim-to-fame. Either way, the companies involved are extremely important to a film’s success, as they provide the bulk of a film’s existence - the budget -which can either limit or widen the choices which can be made when producing and distributing a film.
(Already marked. 45/50 'A' grade.)
Although the size of Warner Bros. contributed to the fact that it could lenient with money, the same could be said for Universal Studios and why they did not do the same for Kick-Ass.
Had Warner Bros. believed that the final film in the Harry Potter series would not do well, I scarcely believe that they would have provided as much money as they did, though this was almost certainly not likely to happen. Kick-Ass on the other hand was a stand-alone film, and so a public fan base had not been established yet, therefore Universal Pictures and even Lionsgate Films would not have felt inclined to significantly contribute to the budget of the film.
Since deciding that he wanted to focus on film adaptations of books, David Heyman, a British producer, founded his own production company, Heyday Films, and put his faith in the Harry Potter series. Although the company is relatively small, the financial support from Warner Bros., particularly during production and of the final film, was substantial enough to secure worldwide success.
Most of the cast had been established already, due to the fact that this was the eighth and final instalment in the Harry Potter series, although I’m sure this wouldn’t have been a major issue had this not been the case anyway, as the budget for the film suggests that other named stars would have been interested, due to being well-paid.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 received a 12A certificate from the British Board of Film Classification, who noted that the film ‘contains moderate threat, injury detail and language’, which was the only Harry Potter film to receive a warning for ‘injury detail’, though no real restrictions had been made where audience was concerned, as this would have allowed all ages to view the film during its cinema release.
Marketing was extensive across all areas of the world, special effects were mastered terrifically, cinema tickets were being bought like no one’s business – the film broke five box office records, including ‘opening weekend worldwide’, bringing in an impressive $483,189,427, and ‘highest grossing film of 2011’, bringing in a total of $1,328,111,219 - DVD and Blu-ray sales went through the roof, selling 2.71 million Blu-ray units in three days and 2.83 million DVD units during its debut, and the film had even been converted into 3D.
Virtually no issues were raised in the production or exchange of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, which was solely reflective of Warner Bros.’ financial contribution to its success; and although few negative reviews will have still criticised the film, I do not believe that this has anything to do with media ownership, and rather personal opinion, as the companies involved could not have possibly done any more to improve the film.
In conclusion, these two case studies show that media ownership plays a massive role in the production and exchange of a film, whether it be its downfall or its claim-to-fame. Either way, the companies involved are extremely important to a film’s success, as they provide the bulk of a film’s existence - the budget -which can either limit or widen the choices which can be made when producing and distributing a film.
What significance does the continuing development of digital media technology have for media institutions and audiences?
The continuing development of digital media technology has extreme
significance for media institutions and audiences, because without it, several
production, marketing and distribution techniques could not possibly be used,
thus lowering profit dramatically.
Everything a film needs to be successful comes from the power of technology
An example of this is the quality of special effects used in production practices.
For instance, although several companies worked on the production of Attack The Block, including Film4 Productions and StudioCanal, because of their size, they could not generate a big enough budget to use an extensive amount of CGI when creating the aliens for the film.
This could have been one of the reasons it did not succeed at the box office, bringing in only £3,615,712, which was less than half of its budget at £8 million, resulting in a loss of money.
However, films on a larger scale such as Prometheus show that a good special effects team – made possible due to a bigger budget – can really make a difference, as the film gained $402.48 million, which is just under 3 times as much money as Ridley Scott gathered to produce the film ($130 million), with the use of CGI included.
Also, when compared to Alien, (Scott’s first project), which had a budget of $11 million and grossed $104,931,801 at the box office, we can see that the use of CGI is significant in drawing in customers, as Alien didn’t feature the use of CGI at all, and although it made a successful profit, could not compare to the success of Prometheus.
Obviously Prometheus had a larger budget to work with, but spending a significant amount on creating better special effects really paid off in terms of attracting customers to the cinema release.
This proves that the development of digital media technology is important when producing films, as new software dedicated to improving the use of special effects obviously has a good outcome on sales figures.
Everything a film needs to be successful comes from the power of technology
An example of this is the quality of special effects used in production practices.
For instance, although several companies worked on the production of Attack The Block, including Film4 Productions and StudioCanal, because of their size, they could not generate a big enough budget to use an extensive amount of CGI when creating the aliens for the film.
This could have been one of the reasons it did not succeed at the box office, bringing in only £3,615,712, which was less than half of its budget at £8 million, resulting in a loss of money.
However, films on a larger scale such as Prometheus show that a good special effects team – made possible due to a bigger budget – can really make a difference, as the film gained $402.48 million, which is just under 3 times as much money as Ridley Scott gathered to produce the film ($130 million), with the use of CGI included.
Also, when compared to Alien, (Scott’s first project), which had a budget of $11 million and grossed $104,931,801 at the box office, we can see that the use of CGI is significant in drawing in customers, as Alien didn’t feature the use of CGI at all, and although it made a successful profit, could not compare to the success of Prometheus.
Obviously Prometheus had a larger budget to work with, but spending a significant amount on creating better special effects really paid off in terms of attracting customers to the cinema release.
This proves that the development of digital media technology is important when producing films, as new software dedicated to improving the use of special effects obviously has a good outcome on sales figures.
The way institutions such as 20th Century Fox
market their films also depends on the development of digital media technology,
as without access to the internet, Prometheus would not have received the
amount of publicity it did, as Fox’s viral campaign for the film was something
like no other – it was most well-known for featuring a short film which showed
Guy Pierce in character as Peter Weyland, head of ‘Weyland Industries’, giving
a TED talk in 2023. This provided the audience with a gateway into the secrets
of the plot before the film had even been released, and made the story seem all
the more real.
A second video was then released, in which Michael Fassbender revealed a lot about his character and the world he lives and works in, so as to give the reader an extra insight into the film. In addition to this, a website was set up for ‘Weyland Industries’, which could easily be mistaken for an actual corporate website.
This form of marketing proved to be very successful because the movie had been shrouded in mystery, and fans were confused as to whether the film was a long-awaited prequel to the Alien series or whether it stood alone, and so these little snippets of information were enough to tide the sci-fi fans over until the release of the film, as well as increasing general hype surrounding the film and encouraging other people to join the bandwagon.
A second video was then released, in which Michael Fassbender revealed a lot about his character and the world he lives and works in, so as to give the reader an extra insight into the film. In addition to this, a website was set up for ‘Weyland Industries’, which could easily be mistaken for an actual corporate website.
This form of marketing proved to be very successful because the movie had been shrouded in mystery, and fans were confused as to whether the film was a long-awaited prequel to the Alien series or whether it stood alone, and so these little snippets of information were enough to tide the sci-fi fans over until the release of the film, as well as increasing general hype surrounding the film and encouraging other people to join the bandwagon.
Moreover, during the marketing process of The Inbetweeners
Movie, Film4 handed their Twitter account over to the cast members in the
months leading up to the film’s release, which created a lot of hype
surrounding the film, as information could be spread to the typical audience of
the film (mainly 15-25 year olds) more easily through a social networking site,
rather than just adding the information to a regular website which
teenagers/young adults might not come across.
However, the film was almost guaranteed to be successful, as an existing audience had already been established due to the TV series prior to the film, and advertising on Channel 4 was very extensive.
The Inbetweeners Movie became the most successful British comedy in cinema history, and gained £13,200,000 in its opening weekend alone, which was an amazing achievement considering the budget of the film was only £3,500,000.
Because of this, it could be argued that the continuing development of digital media technology is not as important as first thought, as The Inbetweeners Movie was made in a traditional way, without the use of special effects, and gained the most publicity due to its advertisements on channel 4, which is not something that has recently been invented.
However, the film was almost guaranteed to be successful, as an existing audience had already been established due to the TV series prior to the film, and advertising on Channel 4 was very extensive.
The Inbetweeners Movie became the most successful British comedy in cinema history, and gained £13,200,000 in its opening weekend alone, which was an amazing achievement considering the budget of the film was only £3,500,000.
Because of this, it could be argued that the continuing development of digital media technology is not as important as first thought, as The Inbetweeners Movie was made in a traditional way, without the use of special effects, and gained the most publicity due to its advertisements on channel 4, which is not something that has recently been invented.
Furthermore, with regards to Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass,
Universal Pictures and Lionsgate Films decided to go back to basics when
promoting the film, which was best known for its wide range of posters. This
would have attracted classic ‘comic-book nerds’ to the film, as they could
collect these posters and when laid out next to each other would spell out
‘KICKASS’, acting as collectables.
The companies didn’t rely on viral marketing as much as Prometheus did, although several trailers and TV spots were created to attract the mainstream market as well the film geeks, as the content of the film was typical of old superhero movies, rather than something which needed to fit in with new technology, and so their approach was much more traditional.
The companies didn’t rely on viral marketing as much as Prometheus did, although several trailers and TV spots were created to attract the mainstream market as well the film geeks, as the content of the film was typical of old superhero movies, rather than something which needed to fit in with new technology, and so their approach was much more traditional.
However, the introduction of 3D has had a massive impact on
institutions and audiences, and brings in a significant amount of sales during
cinema exhibition.
For example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was shown in 3D, despite the fact that none of the previous films had been, and smashed the box office by earning $1,328,111,219.
As the budget of the film was $250 million, but had been shared with part 1, this was an amazing achievement, and it is clear that a considerable amount of success was due to release in 3D and IMAX, as in the United States alone, it played in 4375 cinemas, 3100 3D cinemas and 274 IMAX cinemas, making it the widest release for an IMAX, 2D and a Harry Potter film.
This suggests that although the process of converting a film into 3D costs a lot more than traditional 2D and requires a lot more time and effort to spent in the production stages, statistics show that it pays off in sales figures, and according to Odeon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 3D had a 70% 5 star rating and a 21% 4 star rating, which shows that the people who paid the extra money to see the film in this way did actually enjoy it.
For example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was shown in 3D, despite the fact that none of the previous films had been, and smashed the box office by earning $1,328,111,219.
As the budget of the film was $250 million, but had been shared with part 1, this was an amazing achievement, and it is clear that a considerable amount of success was due to release in 3D and IMAX, as in the United States alone, it played in 4375 cinemas, 3100 3D cinemas and 274 IMAX cinemas, making it the widest release for an IMAX, 2D and a Harry Potter film.
This suggests that although the process of converting a film into 3D costs a lot more than traditional 2D and requires a lot more time and effort to spent in the production stages, statistics show that it pays off in sales figures, and according to Odeon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 3D had a 70% 5 star rating and a 21% 4 star rating, which shows that the people who paid the extra money to see the film in this way did actually enjoy it.
As well as this, recent online distribution provided by
companies such as Netflix and LOVEFiLM have also had an impact on institutions
and audiences, as people who want to see a film but don’t want to pay extortionate
cinema prices often find this way of viewing more beneficial.
Without this development of digital media technology, several films would have ceased to have made as much of a profit as they have done.
Finally, the release of a film on Blu-ray also increases the profit of a film, as people who don’t mind spending a lot of money but would rather watch a film in the comfort of their own home will be more inclined to purchase a film in this way, and so without this advancement in technology, a loss in profit will again have resulted from this.
Without this development of digital media technology, several films would have ceased to have made as much of a profit as they have done.
Finally, the release of a film on Blu-ray also increases the profit of a film, as people who don’t mind spending a lot of money but would rather watch a film in the comfort of their own home will be more inclined to purchase a film in this way, and so without this advancement in technology, a loss in profit will again have resulted from this.
All in all, the continuing development of digital media
technology has allowed both institutions and audiences to improve their way of
working, as films of a higher quality are thus enabled to undergo production, as
well as a considerable range of marketing and distributing techniques being
used in attracting a specific audience to a film.
(Already marked. 42/50 'A' grade.)
Thursday, 20 December 2012
Use of Disabled Stereotypes
The media continue to enforce disability stereotypes portraying disabled
individuals in a negative un-empowering way.
In his 1991 study, Paul Hunt identified 10 stereotypes that the media use to portray disabled people:
the disabled person as pitiable or pathetic;
an object of curiosity or violence;
sinister or evil;
the super cripple;
as atmosphere;
laughable;
his/her own worst enemy;
as a burden;
as Non-sexual;
being unable to participate in daily life.
Shakespeare (1999) presents a potential reason behind the use of one of these stereotypes:
"The use of disability as character trait, plot device, or as atmosphere is a lazy short-cut. These representations are not accurate or fair reflections of the actual experience of disabled people. Such stereotypes reinforce negative attitudes towards disabled people, and ignorance about the nature of disability"
In other words, the disability itself is often used as a hook by writers and film-makers to draw audiences into the story. These one-dimensional stereotypes are often distanced from the audience - where characters are only viewed through their impairment, and not valued as people.
Shakespeare (1999) continues:
"Above all, the dominant images [of disabled people] are crude, one-dimensional and simplistic."
In his 1991 study, Paul Hunt identified 10 stereotypes that the media use to portray disabled people:
the disabled person as pitiable or pathetic;
an object of curiosity or violence;
sinister or evil;
the super cripple;
as atmosphere;
laughable;
his/her own worst enemy;
as a burden;
as Non-sexual;
being unable to participate in daily life.
Shakespeare (1999) presents a potential reason behind the use of one of these stereotypes:
"The use of disability as character trait, plot device, or as atmosphere is a lazy short-cut. These representations are not accurate or fair reflections of the actual experience of disabled people. Such stereotypes reinforce negative attitudes towards disabled people, and ignorance about the nature of disability"
In other words, the disability itself is often used as a hook by writers and film-makers to draw audiences into the story. These one-dimensional stereotypes are often distanced from the audience - where characters are only viewed through their impairment, and not valued as people.
Shakespeare (1999) continues:
"Above all, the dominant images [of disabled people] are crude, one-dimensional and simplistic."
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Prometheus And The Continued Challenge Of Digital Movie Sales
This month The New York Times reported that Fox has started to experiment with windowing in order to try and drive EST (electronic sell through, aka download-to-own) revenues. Specifically, they launched Ridley Scott’s sci-fi thriller PROMETHEUS for digital purchase three weeks before the October 9 DVD/VOD street date for a reduced $14.99 HD price (standard HD pricing on studio fare is $19.99).
It’s no secret that digital sales are struggling to make up for the steady erosion of physical media sales (translation: DVD is going the way of the CD). Why folks are not prone to buy movies digitally is up for debate but a few of the discussed reasons are as follows:
(1) Price: $20 may be too much for a file that takes a long time to download (these things can be up to 5G) and is locked into a certain ecosystem.
(2) Perceived Value: while iTunes extras (a desktop only version of DVD extras) and other such forms of digital bonus content are gaining traction, consumers are still not getting much more than a big, heavy file. And as it’s hard to display the digital movies you’ve bought at home, the self-expressive benefits of movie ownership may die with physical media.
(3) Windowing: maybe people don’t want to buy the file because they don’t have to. If you’re only going to watch the movie once or twice, VOD/digital rental is the more sensible option and currently the VOD/EST windows are one and the same. Simply put- why buy when you can rent?
The PROMETHEUS release addresses (1) and (3) and thus far the results look pretty good. Despite only being available for purchase, the movie is currently #3 in iTunes.
Click on 'reported' to find the article.
It’s no secret that digital sales are struggling to make up for the steady erosion of physical media sales (translation: DVD is going the way of the CD). Why folks are not prone to buy movies digitally is up for debate but a few of the discussed reasons are as follows:
(1) Price: $20 may be too much for a file that takes a long time to download (these things can be up to 5G) and is locked into a certain ecosystem.
(2) Perceived Value: while iTunes extras (a desktop only version of DVD extras) and other such forms of digital bonus content are gaining traction, consumers are still not getting much more than a big, heavy file. And as it’s hard to display the digital movies you’ve bought at home, the self-expressive benefits of movie ownership may die with physical media.
(3) Windowing: maybe people don’t want to buy the file because they don’t have to. If you’re only going to watch the movie once or twice, VOD/digital rental is the more sensible option and currently the VOD/EST windows are one and the same. Simply put- why buy when you can rent?
The PROMETHEUS release addresses (1) and (3) and thus far the results look pretty good. Despite only being available for purchase, the movie is currently #3 in iTunes.
Click on 'reported' to find the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)