http://coleshillmediasite.weebly.com/g322---film-institutions.html
A great site all about Film4! Learn the information for the exam!
Wednesday 11 May 2011
127 Hours
Read this resource - it tells you all about the marketing of the film. Brilliant case study!
Movie Marketing Madness: 127 Hours
Movie Marketing Madness: 127 Hours
How often do you worry about the repercussions of your actions? Depending on your personal level of paranoia or guilt making the decision to go to get some drinks with co-workers might bring on a full panic onset. What if this the time the train I’m on crashes? What if this is the time that I trip and fall into the Chicago River? What if this is the time that something goes horribly wrong?
That “what if” scenario is at the heart of 127 Hours. The movie, directed by Danny Boyle, stars James Franco as the real life Aaron Ralston, a thrill-seeking adventurer who one day faced an incredible situation. While hiking and climbing through the Utah desert he fell into a ravine, his right arm trapped under a boulder he couldn’t move. Quickly losing water after being stuck there for the titular amount of time Ralston used his camping knife to amputate the arm and was able to climb out of the ravine and find help. So this is very much an extreme example of a worst-case scenario coming to pass.
With such uncomfortable subject matter at the heart of the story let’s see how it’s being sold to the public.
The Posters
The movie’s first poster hits what appears to be the central theme of the campaign, which is that it’s a story of one man against the vastness of nature. Franco is seen as a small figure balancing precariously between two canyon ledges, an image that’s set against the vast open blue sky and the setting or rising sun.
The top of the poster hits the heartstrings with the double-punch of “A triumphant true story” making the appeal that we’re watching a human-will victory story and the name-dropping of Slumdog Millionaire looking to attract the audience that made that movie a sentimental cross-over hit.
It’s a bright and vibrant poster that’s hard to ignore and certainly would be a stunning piece of photography if any aspect of it was reliably real. But design-wise it works and gets to the thrills that are being sought by Franco’s character while hinting at the fact that he’s going to be struggling to survive in this environment at some point in the story.
The Trailers
The first trailer is very much meant to simply introduce us to Franco’s character, someone who obviously is in to extreme adventures and a thrill ride lifestyle. He’s a biker, he’s a partier and he’s enjoying every minute of it.
But then we see shortly after he helps a couple of lovely young ladies enjoy their hike through the canyons he has an unexpected accident, which they’re not then around to help him out of. The trailer ends right as he’s entering the rough part of the story, setting the audience up for what’s coming next.
The second trailer got much more specific about things. It starts more or less with the same set-up, that Aaron is a thrill-seeker who is going hiking by himself in the desert canyons. So we see the same few scenes of the ladies that he comes across. The central component of this trailer, though, is a video he’s making of himself as a sort of last testament. So it’s through that device we see him confess that he told no one where he was going and is quickly running out of water, which is the only thing that’s going to keep him alive for any length of time. We also get lots of flashback shots of him throughout his life that fill in backstory and add to the character development, a tactic being employed likely because otherwise we’re watching a guy in a cavern for two hours. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, I’m just saying that’s not what they’re going for here.
This is a much more effective trailer overall since it has a bit more room to breathe and tell the story more effectively. It’s still clear that Franco gives a solid solo performance here and that the movie will rise or fall based on how interested it can get the audience in his character’s journey from reckless adventurer to someone who’s just trying to survive.
Online
Because the movie comes from Fox Searchlight, the official site is mostly given over to the social elements that it uses for most all their movies. So below the main content section (which we’ll get to in a minute) There are streams of updates on the movie’s publicity and advertising, links to the IMDb pages of the cast and widgets for the studio’s Facebook profile and a stream of Twitter updates about the movie.
Moving back to that top content section, the first area there is “About” and there you’ll find a Synopsis and some Production Notes that go into detail on the making of the movie as well as the players and creators of it. Much of that latter information can also be found in the “Cast & Crew” section.
The “Gallery” is actually split into two parts, one with stills from the movie and one with a series of shots of the Utah desert where the action is set, which is a nice touch.
“Downloads” seems to just have a selection of Desktop wallpapers while the “Video” section has both trailers and one TV Spot.
There’s also a link on the site to 127 Defining Moments, which invites you to share a defining moment in your life. Of those submissions, 126 will be chosen to receive some form of outdoor-themed prize pack from the movie’s promotional partners.
Advertising and Cross-Promotions
Some TV advertising was done, most of which focused more on presenting the movie as kind of a travelogue of a young adventurer than as some sort of triumph of the human will story. The fact that at some point he does get his arm stuck in a canyon is mentioned, but it’s left to a couple of brief cuts to show what he does to get out of that. The remainder of the time shows all the crazy locations he visits and beautiful girls he meets while on those adventures.
The movie did have a number of promotional partners that are listed on the website but which I couldn’t find out much information on. Unsurprisingly they’re almost all companies involved in outdoor gear, either clothing or other products. So Eddie Bauer, Nalgene, Sierra Designs, LARABAR and Camelbak are all on board though the extent of their promotions seems to be limited to the 127 Defining Moments contest mentioned above, for which they offered prizes to the winners.
Media and Publicity
Just a couple weeks after the first trailer was released the movie made an unexpected but, I guess, more or less expected debut at the Telluride Film Festival (Hollywood Reporter, 9/4/10), albeit in a not-quite-finished form. It was there where one of two reported incidents took place with people in the audience passing out or needing to be taken out because of panic attacks, though whether they were do to the movie’s subject matter or something else going on is unclear.
Franco and his peculiar approach to the acting game were also put in the spotlight (New York Times, 9/12/10) along with how he goes about preparing for each role he takes on.
There was also some press around what situations the filmmakers found themselves trying to make their movie in (Los Angeles Times, 10/24/10) and what lengths they took to recreate this true life tale
There was also discussion of what kind of a director Boyle was and how this movie seems to be a bit outside his comfort zone (USA Today, 10/29/10)since it’s about subject matter that’s more outdoorsy than he himself is.
Overall
There’s a lot of good stuff here, particularly in the trailers, which when you view them together form a nice one-two punch for the audience. Those, in turn, form a nice unit with the poster. Those are the main things that are going to get people to come out and see the movie. Word-of-mouth will do that to a lesser extent but it’s the primary marketing components that will work on the general public and they seem to do a decent job of getting the movie’s point across.
The campaign, both the marketing and the press aspects, have done a nice job of keeping Boyle and Franco out in the front of everyone’s awareness since they’re the primary draws on this movie. They’re front and center in the trailers and in the press, even if Franco isn’t seen on the poster while Boyle is given prominent placement. But the studio has done a good job of making sure to connect them with the movie and make the case for the movie through them.
PICKING UP THE SPARE•
11/03/10 – Brandfreak says the studio isn’t doing enough to play up the faintings that have occurred at various screenings, though this is because the movie is being sold as a serious triumph-of-the-spirit drama and not a B-movie horror flick.
12/16/10 – Searchlight apparently decided to have a little fun with the reports of people passing out and started distributing shirts and buttons to people who saw the movie successfully that touted that achievement. That’s a great word-of-mouth opportunity as people can show off their funny pin or t-shirt to their friends.
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Some great sites for 'convergent technology' question:
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2010/10/15/127-hours-cinema-tech-in-small-places.html
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/127-hours/
Remember you need to develop case studies and 127 Hours is really great for technology questions.
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/127-hours/
Remember you need to develop case studies and 127 Hours is really great for technology questions.
Friday 6 May 2011
Friday 15 April 2011
Thursday 14 April 2011
Exemplar Response
Media production is dominated by global institutions which sell their products and services to national audiences. Do you agree with this statement?
It is true to say that UK audiences have very little choice when it comes to the films available to them at their local multiplex. Global institutions such as 20th Century Fox, owned by NewsCorps, have the finance to produce high budget genre movies, franchises and 3D movies to entertain audiences all over the world. They have the money to attract glamorous stars and directors as well as being able to use special effects. Hollywood film companies are part of larger conglomerates which have a range of cross media convergence opportunities. This means not only can 20th Century Fox produce their own films without finance from outside sources, they can also distribute their movies around the world. NewsCorps owns Fox Film Music Group and various Internet sites such as MySpace: and this is only the tip of the iceberg. They are able to target global audiences through the vast range of media NewCorps has acquired. When X-Men 3 was released there were promotions on MySpace including, if you added movie Myspace page as a friend you would receive certain online privileges such as being able to customise your friends list. 20th Century Fox is based in Hollywood and owns its own studio lot which means that they can produce movies at a fixed cost as well as being able to re-use sets when needed. 20th Century Fox are also able to finance merchandise tie-ins with companies such as McDonalds which enables them to target younger audiences to see films such as X-Men or Avatar.
These global institutions produce movies almost on a production line. Large marketing and distribution budgets mean that they can release their movies worldwide within a week, known as a blanket release. At my local cinema this week 80% of the screens are showing Hollywood studio movies. In weeks where there are major releases such as Avatar, they may even be showing on more than one screen at a time. The physical distribution of a movie to theatres around the world is extremely costly when you consider that a print reel costs around $2000 for an 80 minute feature leading to overall costs of millions. Only these major Hollywood companies can finance this which makes them dominant. How can independent or indigenous cinema compete?
Film 4 is a British film production company with a current budget of $15 million per year since the success of Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Their indigenous movies are not intended for global audiences as their themes usually involve poverty, violence and family or storylines that are pertinent to the British way of life. They are not genre movies and so they are more difficult to market toward a wider audience: in addition they are usually 15 or 18 certificated movies with adult themes. The limited budgets of these films means that they cannot afford big stars to act as box office draws. Film 4 is part of Channel 4 which includes E4, More4, 4Music and Film4’s television channel as well as a website. This is the extent of the opportunities for synergy available to Film 4. Film4 relies on co-productions to make bigger budget movies that have the potential to be sold to distributors abroad including examples such as Slumdog Millionaire and the more recent 127 Hours starring Hollywood actor James Franco. Slumdog Millionaire’s budget was $15m and was a co-production with Pathe and Celador Films. Film4 has the capacity to market and distribute their movies in the UK, albeit on a small release rather than wide release, however they have to sell the rights of their movies to companies in foreign territories if they want to be distributed outside the UK. Slumdog Millionaire was distributed by Fox Searchlight in the US on theatrical release and by 20th Century Fox on home release. It is clear from this evidence that the market place really is dominated by global companies who have the means not only to produce and distribute their own movies but also to buy the rights to other movies. Their dominance is apparent.
The way 20th Century Fox markets their products is by investing heavily in above-the-line activity such as trailers and posters. Upon the release of Avatar the market was saturated with expensive advertising strategies. However, Film4 is not in a position to advertise their films to UK audiences in such a way. Instead they rely largely on word-of-mouth and reviews to build up a buzz around their films. Slumdog Millionair was a slow burner in the US and UK and received a limited release. It was only when the movie started picking up awards that the real buzz began and more prints of the film were made and a wider distribution strategy was employed. It is only at the point of receiving high level acclamation such as Oscars and BAFTAs that the movie really enjoyed major mainstream international success. This is a one off example for Film4 and is certainly not evidence that the UK can compete with global institutions.
Advancements in Web 2.0 and digital screens could be changing the landscape, though. Digital screens are becoming more widespread, particularly in the UK due to the UK Film Council’s Digital Distribution Network. This means that the cost of distributing copies of a movie is vastly reduced as film reels are no longer needed in these instances. This opens up the market more to smaller companies such as Film4 who will be able to finance wider release of their films. According to the Digital Distribution Network the average Hollywood blockbuster movie opens to 300 screen in the UK and independent films fail to reach even 10% of those screens (source: UK Film Council). Digital Screens could make companies like Film4 more competitive in gaining a wider audience share, in the future. However, the abolition of the UK Film Council could have a counter impact as UK films may struggle to find the investment they need.
Audiences now want to consume movies in different ways with different options. The impact of illegal downloading is taking its toll on the movie industry and so Hollywood is looking for ways to target audiences quickly. The recession and increasing ticket prices are also hitting the film industry hard. A recent development as reported by Media Guardian is that Hollywood is looking to distribute movies to the home within eight weeks of theatrical release as opposed to the current eighteen weeks, in the US. Analysts have suggested that the studios will keep as much as 80% of the revenue making movies more profitable. Could this mean that Hollywood studios become even more powerful and have more money to spend on future productions?
3D is also a major challenge to independent film companies who are trying to target national audiences. 3D has proved to be a huge success following titles such as Avatar which became the highest grossing movie of all time. With directors such as James Cameron stating that 3D could save digital cinema (source:studiodaily.com), it would seem that Film4 is being pushed out of this lucrative market that is aimed at UK national audiences. As well as producing new 3D movies, studios such as Fox are going to invest in past movies such as Terminator and Titanic using In-Three process to make them 3D thus igniting new interest in these movies. Currently there has only been one indigenous film that has been releasde in 3D and that was Street Dance made by BBC Films. Film 4 is yet to enter this market although Pete Buckingham at the UK Film Council says “the demand for 3D films will be huge in the future and the UK should be a big part of it” (source: UK Film Council). It is undeniable then, that global institutions dominate this area of the market as the UK is unable to compete. Would it really be appropriate for Film 4 to present their movies in 3D? Would their target UK audience really be interested?
In conclusion, the film industry is certainly dominant in the UK as Hollywood companies are able to respond to technological changes such as 3D and Web 2.0. Their high budgets mean that they can produce spectacular movies that appeal to wide audiences. Film 4 is benefitting from the rise in digital screens leading to cheaper distribution costs, although Hollywood benefits from this too. It seems that Film 4 will never be able to directly compete with global institutions like Fox and will have to settle for niche audiences for their low budget movies.
It is true to say that UK audiences have very little choice when it comes to the films available to them at their local multiplex. Global institutions such as 20th Century Fox, owned by NewsCorps, have the finance to produce high budget genre movies, franchises and 3D movies to entertain audiences all over the world. They have the money to attract glamorous stars and directors as well as being able to use special effects. Hollywood film companies are part of larger conglomerates which have a range of cross media convergence opportunities. This means not only can 20th Century Fox produce their own films without finance from outside sources, they can also distribute their movies around the world. NewsCorps owns Fox Film Music Group and various Internet sites such as MySpace: and this is only the tip of the iceberg. They are able to target global audiences through the vast range of media NewCorps has acquired. When X-Men 3 was released there were promotions on MySpace including, if you added movie Myspace page as a friend you would receive certain online privileges such as being able to customise your friends list. 20th Century Fox is based in Hollywood and owns its own studio lot which means that they can produce movies at a fixed cost as well as being able to re-use sets when needed. 20th Century Fox are also able to finance merchandise tie-ins with companies such as McDonalds which enables them to target younger audiences to see films such as X-Men or Avatar.
These global institutions produce movies almost on a production line. Large marketing and distribution budgets mean that they can release their movies worldwide within a week, known as a blanket release. At my local cinema this week 80% of the screens are showing Hollywood studio movies. In weeks where there are major releases such as Avatar, they may even be showing on more than one screen at a time. The physical distribution of a movie to theatres around the world is extremely costly when you consider that a print reel costs around $2000 for an 80 minute feature leading to overall costs of millions. Only these major Hollywood companies can finance this which makes them dominant. How can independent or indigenous cinema compete?
Film 4 is a British film production company with a current budget of $15 million per year since the success of Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Their indigenous movies are not intended for global audiences as their themes usually involve poverty, violence and family or storylines that are pertinent to the British way of life. They are not genre movies and so they are more difficult to market toward a wider audience: in addition they are usually 15 or 18 certificated movies with adult themes. The limited budgets of these films means that they cannot afford big stars to act as box office draws. Film 4 is part of Channel 4 which includes E4, More4, 4Music and Film4’s television channel as well as a website. This is the extent of the opportunities for synergy available to Film 4. Film4 relies on co-productions to make bigger budget movies that have the potential to be sold to distributors abroad including examples such as Slumdog Millionaire and the more recent 127 Hours starring Hollywood actor James Franco. Slumdog Millionaire’s budget was $15m and was a co-production with Pathe and Celador Films. Film4 has the capacity to market and distribute their movies in the UK, albeit on a small release rather than wide release, however they have to sell the rights of their movies to companies in foreign territories if they want to be distributed outside the UK. Slumdog Millionaire was distributed by Fox Searchlight in the US on theatrical release and by 20th Century Fox on home release. It is clear from this evidence that the market place really is dominated by global companies who have the means not only to produce and distribute their own movies but also to buy the rights to other movies. Their dominance is apparent.
The way 20th Century Fox markets their products is by investing heavily in above-the-line activity such as trailers and posters. Upon the release of Avatar the market was saturated with expensive advertising strategies. However, Film4 is not in a position to advertise their films to UK audiences in such a way. Instead they rely largely on word-of-mouth and reviews to build up a buzz around their films. Slumdog Millionair was a slow burner in the US and UK and received a limited release. It was only when the movie started picking up awards that the real buzz began and more prints of the film were made and a wider distribution strategy was employed. It is only at the point of receiving high level acclamation such as Oscars and BAFTAs that the movie really enjoyed major mainstream international success. This is a one off example for Film4 and is certainly not evidence that the UK can compete with global institutions.
Advancements in Web 2.0 and digital screens could be changing the landscape, though. Digital screens are becoming more widespread, particularly in the UK due to the UK Film Council’s Digital Distribution Network. This means that the cost of distributing copies of a movie is vastly reduced as film reels are no longer needed in these instances. This opens up the market more to smaller companies such as Film4 who will be able to finance wider release of their films. According to the Digital Distribution Network the average Hollywood blockbuster movie opens to 300 screen in the UK and independent films fail to reach even 10% of those screens (source: UK Film Council). Digital Screens could make companies like Film4 more competitive in gaining a wider audience share, in the future. However, the abolition of the UK Film Council could have a counter impact as UK films may struggle to find the investment they need.
Audiences now want to consume movies in different ways with different options. The impact of illegal downloading is taking its toll on the movie industry and so Hollywood is looking for ways to target audiences quickly. The recession and increasing ticket prices are also hitting the film industry hard. A recent development as reported by Media Guardian is that Hollywood is looking to distribute movies to the home within eight weeks of theatrical release as opposed to the current eighteen weeks, in the US. Analysts have suggested that the studios will keep as much as 80% of the revenue making movies more profitable. Could this mean that Hollywood studios become even more powerful and have more money to spend on future productions?
3D is also a major challenge to independent film companies who are trying to target national audiences. 3D has proved to be a huge success following titles such as Avatar which became the highest grossing movie of all time. With directors such as James Cameron stating that 3D could save digital cinema (source:studiodaily.com), it would seem that Film4 is being pushed out of this lucrative market that is aimed at UK national audiences. As well as producing new 3D movies, studios such as Fox are going to invest in past movies such as Terminator and Titanic using In-Three process to make them 3D thus igniting new interest in these movies. Currently there has only been one indigenous film that has been releasde in 3D and that was Street Dance made by BBC Films. Film 4 is yet to enter this market although Pete Buckingham at the UK Film Council says “the demand for 3D films will be huge in the future and the UK should be a big part of it” (source: UK Film Council). It is undeniable then, that global institutions dominate this area of the market as the UK is unable to compete. Would it really be appropriate for Film 4 to present their movies in 3D? Would their target UK audience really be interested?
In conclusion, the film industry is certainly dominant in the UK as Hollywood companies are able to respond to technological changes such as 3D and Web 2.0. Their high budgets mean that they can produce spectacular movies that appeal to wide audiences. Film 4 is benefitting from the rise in digital screens leading to cheaper distribution costs, although Hollywood benefits from this too. It seems that Film 4 will never be able to directly compete with global institutions like Fox and will have to settle for niche audiences for their low budget movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)