How has Working Title adapted to changes in the film industry?

Over the last few years, many changes have taken place in the film industry, mainly due to the change in technology and increase of new technologies, for example; recordable television, 3D film and increased consumption of film via the TV and DVD. Working Title, along with other producers, has had to adapt their techniques to fit the changes that have taken place.

As it has always been, the blockbuster money is in the American market, mainly due the fact that it is so vast. Working Title has always tried their best to appeal to both the British and American market to maximise their profit. The trans-Atlantic idea has meant that American audiences love to British actors and British cultural signifiers and the same for the British audience seeing American actors and signifiers and Working Title have therefore  Although the film industry has changed slightly in that there are more 3D films than ever before as the new technology of 3D has meant that all film producers can make more money from a film in 3D and it also means that people will want to go to see it in 3D due to the technology not being up to the same level in home viewing. “In 2010, 28 3D films were released – double the number for 2009 – generating £241.8 million in the UK.” This fact shows exactly that film producers are adapting to this change of technology and embracing that people cannot, yet, gain the same consumption experience in their home. However, we can see that Working Title continue to release films of the same format as usual. They use A-List actors, both American and British, award-winning directors, popular genres – usually comedy, memorable locations and cultural signifiers. They have not, as yet, used much new technology such as CGI or 3D, as those types of films are usually very high budget and require a lot of backing, financially. I think Working Title have done this because they have seen that low-budget films, which is what they do best, appeal to wide range of demographics, although the main demographic for most films is young people of the ages 16-24. Thus, to keep their films on a low budget it means that they have to keep special effects to a minimum, but still offer something to the audience that will make them want to watch the film and inevitability buy it in some format.

I think that Working Title have realised a long time ago that a popular, non-specific comedy or family film will make profit and also can be directed towards DVD sales and not just in the cinema as they have seen the change in the industry to be that not many people are going to the cinema to see average films anymore, but will still happily buy them on DVD. “6.2 million DVD players were sold in 2010, and 1.1 million Blu-ray stand-alone players were sold.” This shows that the use of DVD is very significant and people consume film greatly in their own home. Also the fact that, “92% of households own at least one DVD player and 8% own a Blu-ray player” shows the whole picture of how accessible film is to people on the format of DVD and Working Title have embraced this change by making films that were aimed towards not only Cinema sales, but thinking onwards to easy DVD sales. And they also now know that the time in between the Theatrical release and the DVD release can be so short that people are willing to wait for the DVD to come out before they attempt to watch so then they don’t have to pay cinema prices, which Working Title have seen this as a contemporary issue and have made their films for DVD so that they make a large profit on a low budget film in the cinema and on DVD. A film such as, ‘Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang’ (2010), used A-list actors, British actors, a clear demographic of families and children, and a popular genre of rom-com. The simple nature of this film is very typical for a Working Title film and includes everything needed to appeal to the audience and gain interest, but it’s still low-budget enough to gain profit. The initial estimated budget for this film was $35,000,000 and on the opening weekend it made £2,586,760 in the UK (28 March 2010). Its worldwide Gross was $93,246,388, which clearly shows a massive amount of profit for this film and that Working Title do not need to use the new technologies to make the profit they need. However, another film ‘Paul’ (2011) used CGI, but from the profits shown, it doesn’t look like this film worked out in their favour. An estimated budget of $40,000,000 and $13,043,310 (USA) taken on the opening weekend, but only $37,371,385 total Gross in the USA, which shows a loss if the budgets were solely on the US market, but possibly on a worldwide market they did make a profit. I think this happened for many reasons, one reason being that because their budget was a lot higher, they had to make more Gross profit to enable their NET profit to be positive and not make a loss. This film was under nearly the same format as every other Working Title film, but this film used CGI and also had a ‘15 Certificate’. This, inevitably, decreased their available audience, as a popular genre such as comedy is usually available to everyone, but due to the somewhat graphic nature of ‘Paul’ and some language used, it was given a 15 Certificate. This meant that people under the age of 15 could not go to see the film, therefore reducing the profits. So, although Working Title, have tried to adapt to the changes in the film industry by using the new technology it didn’t work. Yet, I personally don’t think that the use of CGI was completely to blame, however it did raise the cost of the film to start with, but the fact it was a 15 Certificate meant that some of the target audience for the film couldn’t see it in a multiplex.

            Other film companies have adapted to these changes extremely well, in the sense of using new technology to appeal to the audience. However, these films are usually extremely high budget and also cost a lot to market in the right way to get people into the cinemas. For example, ‘Avatar’ (2009), had an estimated budget of $237,000,000 and its opening weekend it made $77,025,481 (USA). It then made $2,039,472,387 Gross worldwide. The target audience for this film was the general audience of 16-24 year olds as well as families, but it was made such that anybody could see it and enjoy it and therefore wasn’t restricting the demographic. This film, along with many other high budget films, used CGI, special effects and it was shown in 3D. This, at the time, was something extremely new and exciting and was one of the most anticipated films of the year. However, Working Title simply cannot compete with the level of budgeting as they are a small, low budget production company and therefore keep to smaller films and have adapted to the change of DVD and home viewing rather than expanding into keeping people in the cinemas. Another recent film, ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2’ (2011) was a highly awaited film and broke box office records, making $169,189,427 (USA) on the opening weekend. This is even more impressive when you look at the estimated budget for the film being only $125,000,000, meaning that they made a profit even after the opening weekend. The total, worldwide, gross was $1,325,005,007. This film was made using a lot of CGI and special effects and it was also shown in 3D in the cinema. There was a lot of marketing and promotion behind this film and because it is in a series of films people were anticipating the finale. The use of new technology paid off in this respect because the budget allowed them to be creative and do a lot of marketing for the film. The audience for this film was, again 16-24 year olds, but it was also a lot of different people because it was the finale in a series, a lot of people had seen the build up, people of all different ages, so that meant a lot more people wanted to see it. Thirdly, another similar film was ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (2010). This film is similar to the other two as it used CGI, special effects and was also shown in 3D. Along with the other two films it used A-list actors and award winning directors, but I think Tim Burton’s distinct style of directing had made this classic film a much anticipating revival. The estimated budget was around $200,000,000 and it made $116,101,023 (USA) on the opening weekend, totalling up to $1,024,299,291 gross. So we can see that this was another majorly high budget film that succeeded in using the new technology. Also the audience for this film would have been slightly differently because it would have appealed to not only children, because of the story, but also nostalgic teenagers and adults who want to re-live a story from their childhood, which along with the marketing, appealed to the audience.

            One of the most recent Working Title films has been ‘Tinker Tailor Solider Spy’ (2011) was not funded by Universal, who mainly fund all Working Title productions and it was gauged for a more European audience. The way it was marketed was by Print media, the use of posters and outdoor advertisement, Events, Press and Promo, the use of social networking and interviews. Also the release of Trailers meant that people got a preview of the film and teasers about storyline and plot. The Internet (Web) also played a key part, the use of YouTube, Facebook and other social media meant that they could sell the film by ‘word of mouth’ by people talking about it Online and releasing small teasers on these websites. Overall, it was mainly marketed on the Internet because it is very cheap and ‘word of mouth’ marketing is very effective and can create a lot of hype just from one trailer or photo. ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ was marketed very much towards to the European market, which is why Universal did not back Working Title on this film. Universal try to appeal to both British and American audiences and the complex storyline and European nature of this film would not have appeal to American audiences. Also the use of British and European actors meant that it was geared very much towards a British and European market rather than an American one. I somewhat think that Universal thought that this film wouldn’t work and that is why it was not funded by them and I can see why because it is a very different tangent that Working Title have taken with this film. Most Working Title films, as I have said before, use a popular genre, usually rom-com or comedy, but ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ was a spy/thriller film and didn’t have a very wide demographic. It was aimed towards British and European Men who have an interest in spies or thrillers, or even perhaps an interest in the Cold War and the history side behind it, but what it was not, was a family film. It was not the type of film that anybody could go to see and come out of the cinema happy, it was complex and aimed for people with a higher understanding of the subject or people with a genuine interest in that area, which is a very specific demographic and that’s why, I think, Universal decided not to back Working Title’s decision to make this film.

            To conclude, Working Title have adapted to the changes in the industry by appealing to the DVD market rather than trying to compete with the high budget blockbusters which dominate our screens. They have found their niche of rom-com films, with A-list actors and many cultural signifiers, which works and makes them profit. As we saw from, ‘Paul’ 2011, the use of CGI in a low-budget film doesn’t make for a good profit if the marketing isn’t that great. With the main changes in the film industry being the use of new technology, Working Title have looked beyond the new technology and seen why people don’t need to go to the cinema anymore. Although, they do care about their cinema profits, they have aimed their films so that they can be put onto DVD and watched straight away and not miss out on any experience that they would’ve gotten from the cinema, as most people can enjoy and consume film at home relatively the same as in the cinema, but the high budget films have tried to change that by offering more than what you can offer yourself in your own home, however Working Title cannot offer this because they are not a high budget production company therefore have to find other ways of adapting in the ever-changing film industry.

How are new technologies affecting the ways in which we consume films?

New technology has affected the way in which we consume film over the last few years more than any other time previously, shown by Figure 13.2 that although cinema going is still high at 11.1%, new technologies that enable the recording and storing of film on the television have meant that film viewing has increased on that platform.

The internet is a major part of new technology and has meant that young people have increased viewing both on the internet and the cinema due to the accessibility of film and cinema via the internet. However, Figure 15.4 shows that elderly people tend to consume film more through TV and less through the internet, mainly due to lack of knowledge or access to it.

The use of 3D films as a new technology, with “28 3D films being released in 2010”. This shows that because there is the accessibility via the internet, film companies have had to compensate by adding something new and exclusive to the cinema as with a standard film some people may just wait until the DVD or TV release as the time between the theatrical and DVD releases is so short.

Also, the places where we consume film have changed, shown by Figure 10.2. It shows that the use of traditional cinemas has decreased slowly from 1,134 in 1999 to 904 in 2010, this shows people are using traditional cinema screens less and less. However, this is backed up by the fact that multiplex cinemas have increased significantly from 1,624 in 1999 to 2,767 in 2010. This shows the high increase in people using commercial cinema over the last 11 years.

Furthermore, the use of video, DVD and Blu-Ray means that film is now much more accessible to everyone and can be consumed in many ways. Figure 11.1 shows that from 1999 to 2004 there was significant ride in both the volume of video sales and the value of the retail, from 96 million volume and £878 million value in 1999 to 234 million volume and £2,478 million value. However, from 2004 to 2010 it shows a fluctuation in both volume and value. This shows that the use of DVD and video is still prominent, but people are consuming film in different ways, such as on the television and internet. It also shows a slight drop in the profitability of the video industry, this is mainly due to new technology and internet piracy.

Figure 11.5 shows the significant fall in the video rental market. Over a nine year time period (2001 to 2010), the transactions have fallen from 198 million to 63 million and the value has fallen from £494 million to £183 million. This is mainly due to a change in technology from video to DVD then the technology of recordable TV came along enabling people to consume film in their own homes without having pay any extra to rent the film. Also, the internet has gained popularity over those years and in-tern caused the video rental industry to deplete due to the ease of internet piracy and consumption of film via the internet.

            The statement that “6.2 million DVD players were sold in 2010, and 1.1 million Blu-ray stand-alone players were sold” shows that the consumption of film via the new technology of DVD is still increasing and also that “92% of households own at least one DVD player”, which shows how prominent this technology is and how it has affected us in the way in which we consume film. It also shows that the even newer technology of Blu-ray is becoming more and more popular, mainly due to people wanting more from their film viewing experience now that the new technology of High Definition Television is around; people now want ‘HD’ film too and the fact that “8% of households own a Blu-ray player” proves this fact that it is becoming a more significant way of consuming film, as people want High Quality, Cinema-style film, but in the comfort of their own home.

            As we can see by Figure 12.4, the ‘digital multi-channel’ industry has increased fairly significantly over the 10 year gap shown, whereas the ‘subscription film channels’ are on a slow decrease. This is because people no longer need a specific channel to view film on because the multi-channel television packages sold now-a-days are much more efficient, giving people the choice of many channels, including feature films. Also the new technology of recordable TV has enabled Television companies to push their technology and show the ease and convenience of having multiple channels and the technology of being able to record anything and watch at a later date.

            The internet is a main factor in why new technology has changed the way in which we consume film. Figure 13.1 shows that Online-based VoD (Video on Demand) increased from a value of £6.2 million in 2008, to £41.2 million in 2010. This shows that the relatively new technology of the internet has meant that television companies, such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, have been able to put their media onto the internet for their viewers to consume at any point. Meanwhile, the value of TV-based VoD has increased also, with the use of ‘+1’ channels and being able to consume and/or record film or television wherever or whenever.

            We can also see that television is a major part in the change of film consumption, shown by Table 15.18. It shows that while on 4% of people consume film via the Cinema, 80% consume film via the television. This shows that the new technologies of multi-channel, recordable and storable television have enabled new ways of consuming film. The use of the cinema has decreased mainly due to that people can get the same, or near to, experience in their own home, either legally, by recording or watching it via the television or illegally (piracy), by downloading it via the internet. This has made is a lot harder for cinemas to make an profit on a film and the main reason for why 3D has been so heavily used over the last year or so, to get people back into the cinemas rather than at home.

           

            To conclude, new technologies are affecting the way we consume film by the simplicity, ease and convenience of them. The convenience of having a television that can record and store hours upon hours of feature films only a few months after the theatrical release is appealing to people. Also the ease of internet piracy has meant that the film industry has had to try to change it tactics by offering something that your home entertainment can’t, 3D. Although the new technology of the internet does have a negative side, it also has a very positive side, as internet marketing for a film is very cheap and also extremely effective by ‘word of mouth’ and ‘sneak peak’ trailer advertising on websites such as YouTube and Facebook. However, this does mean that people may just wait until the DVD release or try to illegally download the film. As piracy is impossible to police, it means that the film industry have to just admit defeat and perhaps find a way in which they can embrace it.

           

            Overall, the ways in which we consume film will always be affected by new technologies, in this case the internet has caused VoD to become more popular, piracy to be in the increase, but also cause an easy way for film makers to get cheap advertising. The main way new technology has affected the way in which we consume film is television. This is because television is very accessible to the public and can be consumed in your own home, making it very appealing, by being able to view a film without going out to the cinema. So, new technologies have affected the way in which we consume film by making it easier to consume film in our own home, this means film companies have to do more to get people out of their homes and into the cinema, things such as promotional offers and 3D technology, which is not yet available, easily to everyone.

How do trailers appeal to their demographic?

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

The demographic for this film would have been men and teenage boys. There is a mysterious feel to the trailer and the camera angles are done so that it looks like somebody is watching the actors. It also might appeal to people who have read the novel, as the film based on a best-selling novel by John Le Carré. The colour scheme and lighting is also that of a typical spy film. It has dim lighting to create atmosphere and tension and having the only truly vibrant colour as red, usually blood, but could also be warning signs or foreshadowing. From the trailer, the subject is clear, it is a spy film about a mole at the top of the circus planted by the Russians and somebody is going to have to stop him. They also don’t give too much away concerning the plot line or character development and leave it on a cliff-hanger to still keep the audience captive. It would also attract attention from the demographic because of the use of A-List actors, which sell the film more as people who like a certain actor may want to see the film because it looks interesting and their favourite actor is also in the film. Also, the trailer is very busy and fast paced, this means the audience have to follow the trailer carefully and then become hooked and therefore will want to see the film and the fact it is busy is very generic of a spy, thriller film because there are usually many characters and plot twists and we can see that start to develop, but not completely, in the trailer. 

Paul (2011)

The demographic for this film is 16-24 year old people and perhaps Sci-Fi fans. The subject of the film is immediately recognisable as a comedy from the quick wit and humour running throughout the trailer. With comedy being a very popular genre, it means that this film will appeal to many people, which is intended. The use of familiar, A-List actors, like Nick Frost and Simon Webb mean that we recognise them instantly and associate them with previous films, such as Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, and therefore the audience will see this as a positive aspect of the film because Frost and Webb have made a lot of comedy films previously. Although it is a comedy, we see a large element of Sci-Fi in this trailer, too, with the main character being an Alien, called Paul, and the whole reason for these two Englishmen being in America is them going to a Sci-Fi convention. The typical Working Title theme of the relationship between British and American people means that the company and theme is easily recognisable and people will associate it with other good films by Working Title. It also has an Action-Adventure feel to it due to the use of guns and a car chase, which adds to the demographics’ appeal, moving more towards 16-24 year old males, generally. Also the use of big names such as Universal Pictures and saying that it was directed by the same person who directed Superbad has appeal because the demographic will be the same for both films, as they are both comedy and people who’ve seen Superbad will probably be interested in seeing Paul. 

Preliminary Task - Evaluation

Planning:

As a group we planned the whole scene via a storyboard and we also had a small script, but left some of the speech to spontaneity as we thought that the footage would be better as raw emotion rather than an entirely scripted piece. However, we didn’t use the initial script because we found that it might not work. In the end went for something much simpler than our original idea for the conversation and dramatic moment, but in the end kept to the same idea as we started with in terms of camera angle and shots that we wanted and used. Our first idea was to use have a person walk into a room bragging and talking talking about how great their coursework was, then the other person in the room shouting at them because they couldn't say anything as the first person was talking too fast and too much. We tried out this idea, but in the end we thought it wouldn't work as we found it difficult to get the person bragging and talking a lot because they kept laughing and getting confused on their own words as they were speaking so fast. In the end we settled for a much simpler idea of somebody walking into a room asking the other person if they had seen their media folder because it had all their work inside it and they couldn't find it. As they were getting more and more worried, the dramatic moment was when the other person pulls out their folder from on their lap - it being there the whole time - and then the first character gets really angry and storms out of the room.

Camera skills:

I have developed the use of camera skills in the area of camera angles, in our film we used a variety of camera angles, from a very low angle shot of a person walking past to a bird’s eye shot of the same person walking into the room where the conversation took place. This is used to create interest for the audience and therefore contributes to the overall feel of the film. I think my confidence in using a camera, efficiently, has increased because we didn’t break the “180 degree rule” nor did we have many out-takes mainly due to the fact that we planned ahead of time. Our dramatic moment took longer to film because it was difficult to make the characters feeln natural when talking and not laugh at the stituation or triviality of the conversation. In the end the dramatic moment was our second idea of a person getting angry after the other person had given it back to them after saying they hadn't seen it.

Editing:

I already knew, vaguely, how to use editing software, as most software is quite generic and offers the same kind of options and editing techniques. However, I think am more confident with editing a film and taking out unwanted sections and not leaving anything behind in the film which would obviously show that an edit had occurred. We also used a ‘dip to black’ function both at the beginning and end which meant that the clip of our name at the beginning didn’t jump-cut into the first scene of the film and it also meant that the end of the film didn’t end very abruptly and instead it was smooth. I don't think there are any areas in editing where I lack confidence and I know that the more I use editing software the more confident I will become anyway.