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.