Unit 8 : Understanding the Television and Film Industries - Job Heirarchy Flowchart

Upper Management:

 

Producer

Direction Department                      Production Officer    Script Department

Film Director                                            Executive Producer           Screenwriter
First Assistant Director                             Co-Producer                     Script Editor
Second Assistant Director                        Line Producer                   Development Executive
Third Assistant Director/Floor Manager      Production Co-Ordinator  
Assistant Floor Manager                          Production Assistant
Runner/Floor Runner                                Production Manager
                                                              Serus Producer



Direction Leads to:

Casting                         Editing

Casting Director                  Post-Production Supervisor
Casting Assistant               Assistant Editor
                                         Titles Designer  


Production Leads to:

Accounting              Location                         Health and Safety

Executive Accountant    Location Manager                  Health and Safety Advisor
Production Accountant   Unit Manager                        Unit Nurse
Assistant Accountant     Assistant Location Manager  Paramedics
Cashier                           
Accounts Trainee           


Script and Editing Lead to:

Camera

Director of Photography
Camera Operator
Script Supervisor
Grip
Steadicam Operator
Assistant Camera Operator
Camera Trainee


Camera Leads to: 

Lighting                        Sound

Director of Photography       Sound Recordist
Gaffer                                 Boom Operator
Best Boy                            Sound Assistant/Trainee
Lighting Technician
Lighting Trainee  


Health and Safety Leads to: 

Construction

Head of Construction
Construction Manager
Assistant Construction Manager
Plasterer
Sculptor
Painter
Carpenter
Trainees 


Construction Leads to:

Art

Art Director
Standby Art Director
Supervising Art Director
Assistant Art Director
Production Buyer
Decorater
Drapes Master
Art Department Assistant 

 
Art and Casting Lead to:

 

Hair and Make-Up

Chief Make-Up Artist
Chief Hairdresser
Prosthetics Artist
Make-Up Artist
Hairdresser
Make-Up & Hair Assistant
Trainee

Unit 8 : Understanding the Television and Film Industries - Timeline of Technology in Television

1021 - Camera Obscura is invented to project an image through a hole using a lens and shutters.
1544 - A Camera Obscura is first used in assisting the drawing of a solar eclipse.
1816 - The first photographic image is taken by Nicéphore Niépce. The photograph was not permanent and fading entirely into darkness.
1820 - Cameras continue to develop, using a variety of chemicals to create the first permanent image.
1837 - Photography is developed into a more practical process following Niépce's death.
1885 - Cameras begin using film.
1892 - Cinematograph is first patented.
1895 - The Lumière Brothers patent their own cinematograph and record their first footage on it. They later presented their films to an audience.
1896 - Films start being shown in cinemas.
1897 - Georges Mélies creates one of the first film studios.
1898 - Double exposure techniques begin being used.
1899 - Multi-shot techniques begin becoming very common in the industry. First animated film.
1900 - Films start growing in length and start to be considered as actual film.
1901 - Chase films begin, displaying large number of shots used in sequence, using editing to tell a story.
1905 - First permanent film theatre.
1906 - First feature length film is created.
1917 - Films begin to feature colour.
1920 - Colour film begins to dominate the industry.
1926 - Warner Bros. experiment with syncing sound to film using a process of recording sound to record discs and then playing it back at the same time as the film through overhead amplification systems. The first working television was also created, working on a mechanical system to produce the recorded footage from inside the screen.
1927 - First feature film with sound, The Jazz Singer, is released. First television broadcast via terrestrial methods, involving sending the information to an antenna attached to the TV.
1928 - Electronic Television was first presented and suggested by Philo Farnsworth.
1930 - First Television drama to ever be broadcast, The Man with the Flower in his Mouth.
1932 - Three-strip Technicolor is invented, allowing a wider range of colour than previously available. The BBC is founded, starting a regular UK broadcasting system.
1935 - Kodachrome colour begins to be used. 3D TV is invented (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television)
1936 - Agfacolor is invented. First broadcast of the olympic games on TV.
1939 - BBC suspends broadcasting due to the outbreak of World War II.
1941 - TVs begin broadcasting commercials.
1944 - ABC is founded. (American Broadcast Company)
1945 - NBC is founded in America. (National Broadcast Company) First regularly scheduled channel in the US. WWII ends and all broadcasting gradually begins again worldwide.
1948 - TV begins very regular broadcasting due to the use of cable (CATV) to broadcast television directly and efficiently.
1951 - First live television broadcast of President Harry S. Truman.
1956 - VHS is invented, allowing home viewing of movies to begin in the following years.
1958 - First live breaking news story.
1962 - Satellites are used to broadcast TV, starting in Europe and the US.
1967 - TV begins to broadcast in colour, starting with the BBC broadcast of Wimbledon.
1970 - Companies buy their own satellite arrays to broadcast channels to make subscription based or privatised broadcasting of TV.
1971 - Invention of IMAX.
1979 - The first home satellite dishes begin sale, allowing anyone to have satellite broadcast TV.
1982 - The first solely Satellite broadcast television station (Sky1) broadcasts in the UK. Compact disc is invented.
1995 - LCD Television starts being experimented with. DVD is invented and a lot of films begin being available in higher quality on the disc format.
2000 - The first cable broadcasters begin switching to Digital broadcasting.
2002 - LCD TV begins to take off, with TVs becoming bigger than before with a much higher definition, which gradually increases throughout the 2000's.
2006 - TV begins transitioning into Digital broadcasting, the use of broadcasting footage via binaric coding as opposed to varying analoguic frequencies to standardise the information sent by broadcast networks and present a more consistent TV watching capability for viewers. Blu-Ray disc is invented by Sony and allows a fully high-definition viewing of film.
2007 - Internet broadcast television becomes a regular service, with companies like Netflix emerging around this time.
2008 - TV begins to broadcast in 3D, starting in Japan.
2010 - 3D TV starts becoming a commercialised business. TV begins being broadcast via the internet at this time.
2014 - Curved TV production starts.
2015 - Smart TVs begin to be sold, allowing people to use their TV for functions commonly associated with computers or mobile devices in synergising applications.




This is a timeline of technology that improved or changes the TV and/or Film industries. The list may not be fully comprehensive, but unfortunately I couldn't find anywhere online that was, and a lot of the information seemed unnecessary, usually stating that things were first theorised in the 1930s or 1920s but not giving enough information about when they were released as an actual product. As such, some information may be slightly incorrect or may be missing, but I tried to include everything I could find or think of that was important.

Unit 26: Film Studies - Part 1, Task 2: Differences Between British and Hollywood Filmmaking (Updated)

Typically, when people think of the film industry, their mind thinks of Hollywood, big names and stars in blockbuster movies. People think of Marvel, Disney and Leonardo DiCaprio, because of how much money and publicity this can generate. A lot of people fail to think of other countries involvement in the industry, such as the British film industry and what comes out of the UK to contribute to filmmaking in general. For example, when you think of the most recent Star Wars, you think of the big names like Harrison Ford who are famously American, or the American JJ Abrams directing it, while the movie is classed as a British movie due to the amount of British people starring in and working on the film. The reason this is often overlooked is because of how small the British industry is in comparison to the US industry in Hollywood. There are many differences between them, and they vary greatly in how they function, as they are very different industries in general.

A notable difference is simple - There are 6 major companies that operate in a lot of trade, production and management of the entirety of the media industry, including film. All 6 of these companies originate, or at least operate, in the US, causing them to focus largely on the American markets and prioritising it as a more important distribution and production platform due to the accessibility and convenience of operating and managing production in a more local location than would be necessary in crossing the ocean to get to the UK, which would be seen as an unnecessary inconvenience from the behalf of the production companies due to the fact that it’s simply too far to operate.

Of course, this isn’t the only reason, but a lack of accessibility or convenience in operating in the UK causes the industry to rely more on the US due to it simply being a reliable platform of production for film. A large contributor to making it more convenient, other than locality to production companies, is facilities available. The reason we think of Hollywood when it comes to the movie industry is because of the sheer size and scale of the Hollywood industry in comparison to the industry in the UK, there are larger studios in which to produce the movie due to the large amount of space available for construction, an ideal weather and climate for production of film, a large city scape, as well as local access to places such as desert, jungle and ocean, only one of which is accessible from the UK, which lacks any desert or jungle, and a more traditional design in its city structure and layout, causing the facilities available in Hollywood to be more usable for the industry in general.

Despite the lack of location or funding in Britain, this does not mean the the industry is non-existent. Instead, the industry in Britain is simply a more adaptive market. While America has the ability to fund large scale movies like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or DC’s recent efforts at competing, Britain has a much more interesting and varying approach. Rather than trying to produce constant blockbusters, the British industry focuses more so on the British public; For example, some of the largest films in Britain will be comedies, people like Edgar Wright who creates a film that keeps you invested not for it’s deep characters or emotional interest, but because you want to see the next joke or the next reference in the film. The market in Britain is a lot smaller, so they need to focus on the British audience and their interests in order to sell a movie.

The British film industry will prioritise on using British locations and themes within a movie. The most popular British movies would be the Harry Potter and James Bond franchises. While very much influenced by Hollywood, the themes tend to refer to Britain - In Harry Potter, they feature London often, getting on trains, walking through the countryside, even when Harry’s just walking in a footpath tunnel in a random field, the area is dim and generally not a lot to look at, something relatable to a lot of parts of Britain (unfortunately), because we see locations that are dark and generally ‘unpretty’ fairly often. In Bond, it relates to a more upper class part of British culture, the cool cockney man with a great suit, a great car and a cocky attitude that women seem to magnetise to. Take Bond as he is, a spy, going undercover to do a job that other people can not. When we look at an American movie about spies, you see something different - instead of the suave, sophisticated hero, you get a more relatable character to the American audience. Instead of being in a dark, dingy field in North Yorkshire, he’s stood on a beach or by the Statue of Liberty, because these are places that Americans are familiar with, causing them to relate to the underdog character and empathise with his struggles, while also relating to the location. The audience wants to see something they can understand, and the British audience understands the North Yorkshire more than they understand the Statue of Liberty, causing them to be more interested in a film about North Yorkshire because it is relatable to them, hence why Harry Potter and Bond are more popular in the UK than the US (although the US audience is still probably larger, it is proportionally a lot smaller) and it is because the UK can understand it more, due to it being created with them in mind.

However, like previously mentioned with Star Wars, some American films strive to be classed as British, and there are a few reasons this may be done. One reason is to simply expand the audience. Audience again is one reason, as the British audience is more interested in the British film, but there is another more financially significant reason behind opting for a British production - A film is an expensive endeavour, potentially costing millions to produce 2 hours of entertainment, and a lot of this money is unrelated to the costs of necessary equipment. While the cost of cameras, lighting, sound and actors vary, one thing will consistently add up, and that would be the cost of tax, added money on to the cost of something to provide money for government investments. In America, you would pay all of your taxes during your production, adding on a large amount of unnecessary cost. In Britain, the tax still needs to be paid to fund the NHS and other such British liberties, including funding to go back into the British film industry and support indie film makers, but you pay considerably less tax, exactly 75% of what would be paid, to be exact - the reason for this is that there is 25% of tax refunded in British films, more than enough incentive for JJ Abrams to seek out turning George Lucas’ American franchise into a British production, so that 25% of that film industry return pot money can be turned into paying the cast and crew more money for their services, allowing the industry to have more available money to continue to fund other films by that company or films by other companies produced in Britain (which will also receive 25% less tax to fund other movies), whether American or British. This is done through a series of funding bodies for UK film production, companies such as the BFI (British Film Institute), Creative Skillset or Into Film, which are a small number of many different companies this 25% tax could be funded into to help support more independent film makers intending to kickstart their career. Because of this, the British industry is a lot larger than it would otherwise be because there is a larger demand for film production in the UK, due to an extra incentive to create here, as well as allowing the promotion and production of other British films, whether through the same company or not.

Another useful feature of film production in Britain is a unique building and location design. While L.A. and New York have a certain look that can work well for a large variety of movies, they have a different appearance to that of London, which has an older appearance and a more stereotypically British look, allowing for a film that incorporates Britain into its narrative to be able to feature London and achieve an authentic look, giving it use in some contexts, and allowing more use for the British industry to provide.

The Hollywood industry will also be more inclined to use vertical or horizontal integration in film creation. Vertical integration relies on each part of the production of a film being done by different sectors of a company. Imagine Disney creating and funding a film, and they have a subsidiary (Marvel, for example) create and produce the film, while Disney's distribution companies will handle selling the film to retailers (which may also be owned by Disney). Horizontal integration would be different, with a Marvel film using other Disney brands such as music licensed by another company to help promote one another on equal terms. This is a very similar concept to Synergy, which is when two or more companies may work together on a product to make something larger in scale, another practice more common in an expensive industry like Hollywood, but could be applied between a smaller and a larger company to provide publicity for a British film.

Hollywood has a tendency to make a film franchise as opposed to a single film. Some of the biggest American films have been franchises, including classics like Die Hard or even things like Nightmare on Elm Street, to more recent films like the ever expanding Marvel franchise. This is a lot less common in Britain, with a lot of films being one or two films in a series, such as Trainspotting, which is only now in talks of getting a sequel, with the only notable examples of large British franchises being Harry Potter and James Bond. This is an example of the scale of Hollywood to Britain once again, with Hollywood having the time, money and talent to produce such large franchises constantly without problem, as it's more difficult for a British product to get the same publicity.


Stereotyping in the industry is a very common occurrence. America has their own stereotypes, the rich guy, nerds and other such stereotypes. The two main stereotypes associated to British film are that of the upper class and the lower class. Take, for example, Kingsmen: The Secret Service, a fantastic film about a lower class man who joins an organisation to become a spy, learning how to be a stereotypical posh and upper class character. He goes from being a commoner, such as in Trainspotting, to being a suave, sophisticated gentlemen like James Bond, because these two types of people are the most common assumptions and stereotypes of British culture, allowing their representation in the film to demonstrate the use of this small range of stereotypes to make a fulfilling plot, while a lot of American stereotypes may be irrelevant to a plot, instead.

Unit 8 : Understanding the Television and Film Industries - Contracts

Legal Contracts:

Getting a job in any industry can be difficult, with the film industry in particular requiring a lot of effort to find work. Once a job is found, usually a person will be required to sign a contract to state their intent and willingness to work on the project, with a list of terms that they have to work with in order to make sure they're working in line with what they are asked and required to do.

This is something that generally applies to everyone, even people working in transport, medical teams, actors and directors will usually be provided a contract by a production company that they have to sign, telling them about risks, any costs necessary, what they are and aren't allowed to openly discuss and any other information necessary to relay. When JJ Abrams came on as director of Stars Wars: The Force Awakens, he likely would have had to sign a contract with some guidelines, likely telling him what he can and can't talk about in relation to the film. Naturally such a big project they would have wanted to keep secret, and it can be assumed everyone was presented with similar terms banning them from talking about Star Wars.

What this means is that everyone on set, even people like JJ Abrams and Harrison Ford, would have signed a contract assuring confidentiality on the film. If somebody approached Harrison Ford and asked him what happens to his character during the movie, he would not have been able to answer too many questions, with the most he'd be allowed to say being that he plays a good guy, which wouldn't surprise too many fans. Any information about the film can not be discussed openly to anyone, or else they'll be breaking their contractual agreement and, by extension, the law, as well as potentially ruining the film for fans, all three being terrible for anyone in the industry. Likely if somebody broke their agreement of full non-disclosure, they would have to pay a large amount of money, and it's unlikely they'd be considered for another movie by the production company in the forseeable future, meaning that, if Harrison Ford went around telling people Han Solo has a 'friendly conversation' with his son on a bridge over a pointless bottomless pit, he could have been removed from the film - Although it's likely he would not have due to his plot relevance - and then be told by Disney that he isn't allowed to work for them again. By extension, this may have made Harrison Ford be known to break his confidentiality with studios and may give him a bad reputation amongst other companies, forcing him to be unable to work for any of the larger companies, something that even an aging actor should best avoid if they want another paycheck.

The contracts cover other things as well as being told what not to say, such as disclosing information on health and safety. Harrison Ford was likely told that the company was liable should he trip on a wire or fall into some unsafe equipment, or if he got himself into an unlikely situation where a door closes on him, and will also have been given guidelines on avoiding these situations and generally staying alive on set, which will cover the company largely in the event that he did get hit by a door and want to make a claim on the company, as the contract states guidelines on avoiding getting hit by doors, meaning he can't claim he was unaware there would be doors that close on set.

His contract likely discussed other things for him, such as whether he would pay any money, who he'd have to pay money to, whether he would be paid any money, who would be paying him his money, anything to do with money and other information such as details on management and production staff, who to contact in case of an emergency and possibly some form of instruction on schedules of shooting or meetings and who will be on set at what times, although this will more likely be presented at a later date.

There are other types of contracts, though. While sometimes present in film (such as the Marvel films) it is fairly common that a TV network will ask an actor to sign a contract that states they will exclusively work for that company until a certain date. Take The Walking Dead as an example. It was stated early on that, at the very least in relation to TV, the actors for Abraham, Eugene and Rosita would be exclusively with AMC as "season regulars" on the show, meaning that the actors would only work on AMC's The Walking Dead until otherwise instructed, being required to come back every season until, most likely, their character dies and they are requested to leave. A plus side to this is that it means the crew at AMC will know for sure that these actors will be staying with them for a while, meaning they can write the characters into major roles (especially so for Abraham and Eugene) and not worry about the actor leaving (such was the case early on in the show, with the actor for Dale leaving when offered a higher paycheck). This can also cause problems should the actor grow to resent the role or wish to move on (as was the case with the previously mentioned Dale), and will cause the actor to lose interest in the show and make them difficult to work with. While the actors will obviously not be kept at AMC's headquarters until their time is up and be allowed to look around for other work or other shows/movies to work on, due to their contract they will have to stick with AMC for at least as long as it takes for their contract to run out. This may last a season, or it may last what has so far been just under 3 seasons, with the poential to renew the contract should the actor wish to remain exclusive to AMC, or a chance to change it to be less exclusive and allow them to work on other projects, too.

Exclusivity rights for a company can also apply to members of crew as well as cast, with some directors or writers working specifically for a certain company.  Many directors may sign themselves as exclusively working for a certain company for a movie or two, or may sign themselves on to help direct a single TV show for a few episodes, as it can make it easier for the company to manage and can work out with them having to spend less time and/or money working with someone who is bouncing between several projects at once, causing it to overall benefit the company and usually help the contractor with allowing to have a stable job for a period of time.

Working Contracts:

The other type of contract would be that of someone being contracted for a job. For example, a very common type of job in the industry is freelance contract where somebody would work for anyone they apply for without being tied down to a specific company. This is commonly done so as not to associate an actor or director with one movie, franchise or company to make them more free to work on whatever they want to work on at any moment. This type of contract is different to what is mentioned above. It's more that a company will hire them to do a job for them, which is what the hired person is contracted for, being hired for this specific job, any signing of contracts in this instance would be simply to state that they are working for the company, although they would likely still have to keep the project quiet. The different working contracts available are:


Full-Time Permanent
Part-Time Permanent
Fixed-Term Freelance
Shift
Office Hours
Salaried
On Completion


A full-time contract would be a 39 hour week, regular company staff member entitled to all worker benefits, such as maternity and paternity leave, sick pay and pensions. Managerial, editorial, financial and, on occasion, marketing jobs tend to be more permanent, full-time working jobs as opposed to being part-time or freelance.


A part-time permanent contract would be a set amount of hours to a full-time contract, but considerably less than 39 hours, with similar (or the same) benefits of a permanent contract, but reduced to adjust to your lower working hours. Financial and marketing jobs are most likely to fall under this type of contract.


A freelance contract is a much more temporary job which will last for a very set period of time. It may provide some company benefits, but things such as pension will and holiday pay will need arranging by the contracted worker as opposed to the company. Many creative people, like the majority of talent on-set, will fall under this category, although some freelance contracts may, as mentioned before, be more permanent, working for a company for a longer period of time. Sales and marketing teams may fall in this category, too.


A shift contract will be prevalent amongst TV broadcasters, where people have set hours of the day to work, such as news readers or presenters of, for example, the One Show, where they go to work from 7pm to 8pm every day, but may also apply to a radio crew or other jobs that require being manned 24 hours a day by different shifts of people.


Office hours will, traditionally, be filled by those that work in an office. They work a typical 9-5 and will work in administration and other office based jobs, including legal and potentially production based teams based on paperwork with many assistants filling the jobs.


A salaried contract is given in monthly payments. It would be advertised as, for example, $24,000 per year, which would be divided by 12 to give $2,000 a month. Managerial and technical careers are most likely to have this kind of career, which is somewhere between permanent and freelance., but would be fairly uncommon in the film industry compared to others.


The on completion contracts consist of a contract that outlines the job required, and will give the full pay when what is required is done. This will be very common along with freelance jobs across all talent in the industry, but may also extend to some technical and editorial positions, providing a more stable supply of freelance workers.

Unit 26: Film Studies - Part 2, Task 2: My Relationship with Film

I like films. I very much like films, and I like to watch films when I can. Just because I enjoy films, does this mean I enjoy every film ever created? No, it doesn't.


For example, take the film I spoke about as the other part of the assignment, Captain America: Civil War. I enjoyed this film very much, and I thought the film was incredibly well made and interesting. Just because I liked this film, does not mean I will like other films. Frozen was a film, and while I didn't hate the movie, it definitely wasn't my kind of movie. The same could be said about other things, like a large number of rom-coms, and horror films that take themselves too seriously. Even other Marvel films aren't safe from being disliked, as I very much did not like Age of Ultron.


Personally, I like a film that is able to hold my interest throughout the whole thing. This doesn't mean there needs to be constant action. I enjoy some films, like Die Hard, due to the amount of action present, but I can also appreciate non-action based films, such as, say, "Flight", starring Denzel Washington. The film had a small bit of action during the actual flight part of the movie, but the majority was about the character recovering from alcohol and drug related problems, yet it was able to keep me interested throughout the whole thing because I wanted to know what happened to him. This is a good example of what a film needs to keep me interested, and that's a film that tries it's hardest to keep me interested.


I was not a fan of Frozen, as the plot and characters weren't aimed at me and they weren't too interesting to me as I was out of the target audience and had little interest in the ability to make dresses out of ice. Yet I watched the whole film, because there was constantly things happening to keep me interested (except for that bit with the rock guys, I don't really remember what that was). The film kept my interest despite the fact I knew early on that I would not be a fan of the film, because it managed to keep me interested with the amount of content presented to me.


For the sake of avoiding talking about Civil War again, I'll dedicate this post to discussing a different film that I enjoy. I'm going to choose to talk about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, a film I recommend everyone watch due to how surprisingly good you may find the film, and how simply weird and unusual it is as a film and in it's plot. Now, when I first saw this film, I thought it was simply a very crazy film with a strange sense of humour, and I said to myself that the film was very fun, and said that it had little reason to exist, but was very good in what it tried to do. I knew I had to find out more about the film, so I looked it up to see if there was anything I missed, and I read about the comics of it (I have yet to read them myself, hoping this summer will be a good time) and that some people saw the film as bad and unenjoyable. This was something I couldn't really understand, as I could see that the film was unusual but it fit my tastes of unusuality so well that it just came across as a movie that anyone should be able to enjoy as it never rests at being interesting to me.


What I had was a preferred reading. I saw the film and read it as a silly film that was intended to entertain with little purpose and to just spend time being strange and fun, while these people had an oppositional reading, expecting a more developed or serious comedy that obeyed a more strict set of rules. This is a difference between how people read and interpret a film. While these people may not have enjoyed a film I enjoyed, they may have enjoyed something I didn't, like Frozen.


The preferred reading for Frozen would be a light hearted adventure targeted at younger girls that was intended to entertain and possibly sell a product, where I was expecting a bit of a more mature kids film akin to Big Hero 6 or Wreck-It Ralph, something that sold a product while also just being a film that had a bit more going for it in terms of likable characters or an interesting plot, meaning I had an oppositional reading, while those who liked it and bought all their Olafs and Elsas would have taken a more preferred reading from the film.


Frozen was a mainstream success, with people talking about it online. Even now you'd be hard pressed to go on the internet without seeing something Frozen somewhere, as it had a massive online presence amongst a younger audience, with the song "Let It Go" becoming a massive hit on YouTube and the film being discussed regularly on many websites. On the other hand, Scott Pilgrim had a much smaller presence, only being relevant to people who were fans of the comics or those who had seen the film and wanted to just discuss what they'd seen. While I personally enjoyed Scott Pilgrim more, there was very little on the internet that really discussed much about it - occasionally you'd see something discussing whether they enjoyed the film or not, but there was a lack of fan content or any real talk about the plot and characters, unlike Frozen. This shows that a lot less people identified themselves as fans, and a lot of the fan content was created by much more hardcore fans of the film and/or its comics that loved and analysed every bit of Scott Pilgrim content readily available to them.


Arguably, when the fan community consists of such hardcore fans, it can be much harder to get involved in the community as they can be somewhat elite about who is able to participate in discussions or create fan content, while the sheer number of Frozen fans means that some will be much smaller fans than others and will therefore be readily available to discuss the film with anyone, giving it a more welcoming and larger fan base that will give a larger online presence.


Frozen did not interest me as a film or a genre, and I did not feel attracted to watch it, having only watched it months after release and simply because my brother had brought it around at Christmas. What also didn't help is that I watched Wreck-It Ralph just beforehand, and I couldn't be interested in a film that I saw as completely uninteresting in comparison to Ralph, and I had no attraction to be in the fan community or discuss it online, buy any products (I'm sure I'd suit an Elsa dress) or be tempted to watch the film again. It didn't attract my attention enough the first time around, and while I don't doubt that it's there for others, it's simply not there for me, as I'm sure would be the case with Scott Pilgrim, in that I saw it as a film I'd like to know more about, and others likely saw it as a weird film that they wanted nothing to do with it's craziness.


Would I have seen either film in cinema? Probably not, Frozen did not interest me from adverts, I only saw it on DVD release (I think so, anyway, it's entirely possible my brother had pirated it, I don't recall) and I only saw Scott Pilgrim when it was on TV. Neither film would have interested me when they first released, and I don't recall much advertisement for Scott Pilgrim before it's release that would have tempted me to go and watch the film in a cinema. To go back to Captain America: Civil War, a film that I watched in the cinemas, it was because of it's advertising. It made me excited, whereas I was not excited for either of these films coming out, and only discovered Scott Pilgrim years later, thoroughly enjoying it, but knowing that the lack of advertising hype and interest would not have ever tempted me to go to the cinemas for it.


Before watching both Scott Pilgrim and Frozen, I was not overly excited for the films, not expecting them to interest me, with my opinions changing during the watching, whereas with Civil War I went into it knowing it had a lot of things that'd likely interest me, meaning I went in with different expectations which set it up to be something I'd either really enjoy or really hate depending on whether or not it was good. While I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a fan of Civil War or Scott Pilgrim, I consider them good and am interested in the films and their creations, but I don't participate in the fandom of them because they do not interest me enough for me to want to be in a fandom of them. Disney has created a lot of people to become fans of their franchises, from Star Wars to Marvel to Frozen, many people are fans of Disney movies and will desire to interact with cast and crew, get autographs, participate in questioning the cast and finding out their thoughts and usually sharing their own opinions via social media. While I don't overly do this and don't participate in the fandoms, I consider myself a fan to the extent that I like the film and will openly discuss the fact that I like these films.


Scott Pilgrim and Civil War are examples of intertextuality, as well. Essentially where a piece of media (in this case a film) cross references another piece of media, like a book or comic that may be where it originated or something as a brand may be referenced. For example, Civil War stemmed from Marvel's Civil War comics, and was set as an established storyline in Marvel's comic universe that was largely used as inspiration for the films, as the Scott Pilgrim comics were for that film. Marvel also reference Star Wars during Civil War, making mention of the Empire Strikes Back during Spiderman's fight against Ant-Man, showing that the two films at least acknowledged each other in an intertextual way.

Unit 26: Film Studies - Part 2, Task 1: Producers and Audiences Case Study

Every film created will usually have an audience in mind. Certain aspects and characteristics of people that the producers will feel can take something away from the movie. If someone creates a comedy, they will have a type of person in mind that they feel will enjoy the movie, and it applies for a large majority of movies, with each one being created to have their own audience that they feel will be able to enjoy the film the most.


Take for a example, a film I saw recently, Captain America: Civil War. Definitely not my favourite movie ever, but it presented enough for me to, personally, greatly enjoy what it had to offer. The well developed characters having a conflict over something personal, the fact the villain was pretty much just an average guy who'd had a hard time, and the fact that Spiderman, Ant-Man and Black Panther were all just great characters that we need to see more of. Overall, the film was just an enjoyable watch, but what's most important is as to why it was.


Imagine if Marvel hadn't created this movie franchise yet, and decided they were going to start it, starting with Civil War. Looking at the statistics of some of the early Marvel films, other than Iron Man and the first Avengers, they didn't do very well, because they were just explaining the origins of a character and giving you the most basic information about each hero for you to build up an interest in the more complex characteristics as the films went on. The fact that every movie before this has led up to this moment (except for Thor and Guardians) has, in itself, helped advertise for Civil War and make people more excited, as they did with the Avengers films. Civil War in itself has made me more interested in watching the next Spiderman film, as well as made me interested in seeing Black Panther, two films I was a bit sceptical about simply due to a lack of interest, but has now made me excited. Marvel uses their own movies to advertise and generate hype for their next movies, and it clearly works in their favour due to how well they sell.


The Marvel films have a set audience built already based on the other ones. They like to aim the movies towards teenagers and young adults, as well as a few people surrounding this demographic that they can interest when possible. This will largely be based on the fact that these people will more likely have an interest in a superhero film with a lot of action, explosions and one liners that also have a large on-going plot that both requires watching all of the movies to understand, and to advertise for it. They aim at this demographic that they know will watch it, and have built a loyal fanbase from the quality of their movies, that will watch anything they create, whether it's good like Civil War or not as good like Age of Ultron, because they have advertised and targeted these people and will try to sell their product to them, as they are aware that these are the people who will watch it.


Despite the well known name and the probability it would sell tickets whether it was advertised or not, the only way to sell more tickets is to advertise the product, as it will make people excited and make them want to go watch the film. The first reveal of the film hinted at a plot that would carry over from Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron, showing Captain America and the Winter Soldier in a fight with Iron Man. Later they revealed which characters would be on which team, revealing a new look for Ant-Man and showing Black Panther for the first time, as well as a few more action shots of the Winter Soldier. People were interested in the new character and the new look, theorising a new set of abilities for Ant-Man and discussing their roles in the movie. There was an announcement of two villains being in the movie, but without any details of their roles, that made people interested in seeing how they would tie in to a film about two heroes fighting.


During this time, Batman vs Superman was released, a critically disliked film that the general audience was not fond of. It had a similar premise to Civil War, with two major characters fighting each other, but Batman and Superman were seen as underdeveloped, and they included other characters that had no need to be there, with the "vs" section of the film taking up very little time, and with the two making up over the fact that their mothers had the same name. The failure of this movie made people both excited and scared for Civil War. Some thought that Marvel's developed characters would make the premise better, while others feared that it would go the same way due to involvement of the villains and reunite them over something irrelevant.


We were eventually shown Spiderman. A character Marvel had fought very hard to be allowed to borrow off of Sony, who had bought the character almost 20 years ago. With an alliance between the two companies, a new look for Spiderman and a young actor, people were excited to see him tie into the film. The marketing was huge, but they kept Spiderman a secret for a long time, never officially announcing which team he was on, causing people to speculate about his involvement and cause people to talk about the film, and therefore make them want to go and see it more.


Everyone wanted to invite actors from the film onto their show. Chat show hosts wanted to talk to Iron Man and Captain America to ask them about the film, while others wanted to try and get Spiderman and Baron Zemo to discuss their roles in the film, giving the characters more publicity and enticing people to watch the film. Adverts were shown during movie premieres, on TV and even at sporting events, with a massive Civil War trailer shown at the Superbowl that revealed the Winter Soldier's involvement in the film that naturally made a large American audience excited.


Online people were generating their own hype, discussing the Winter Soldier, Baron Zemo, Crossbones, Spiderman, Black Panther, Vision and Ant-Man to great extents, having arguments about which side would win. The advertising included two hashtags to state whether you supported Iron Man or Captain America, allowing people to debate the film before it came out and who they wanted to win. People would share information and any potential leaks on Facebook and people would endlessly discuss it in YouTube comments or on Reddit posts about their thoughts on the film. People were excited and people were ready for the Civil War.


Earlier in the year Fox had a hit with the movie "Deadpool", introducing a new character portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, that blew up immediately and is seen as fantastic by a large audience. No doubt Marvel saw the reactions to this film and took some inspiration. Two scenes in particular remind me of a Deadpool-esque humour - One in which Captain America throws his shield, which then comes back to him, and Spiderman remarks that the shield is disobeying the laws of physics, and one in which Ant-Man climbs inside Iron Man's suit and claims to be Tony's conscience, and that they hadn't spoken in a while. This seems to suggest that they know people liked Deadpool's humour, and they wanted to incorporate a little bit of that humour into two of their most fun characters in the film. It's also likely that they saw the response Age of Ultron got, where they had a huge break in between action to focus on the Avengers going to the countryside to visit Hawkeye's family, which people were not fond of due to too much attention being given to a character that people simply were not interested in, causing them to change things up to be a quicker pace, and to focus largely on the parts people wanted to see, even during the slower parts, such as the recruitment of Spiderman and Black Panther's backstory, or Hawkeye (the weakest Avenger) fighting Vision (the strongest).


They knew the audience, knew the competition, knew what people wanted and worked with this to create a string of well made advertisements including allowing people a place to debate thoughts and theories, showed off new characters and hinted at a new set of villains with little attached information so that people would want to just find out as much as they can. The film was fantastic from an action and a story perspective, with likable heroes on both sides, some fantastic scenes (Captain America and Winter Soldier tearing Iron Man's armour) and an interesting villain in Zemo that referenced The Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron and other Marvel films to make it tie-in to a well developed franchise, and to create a movie that was, simply put, good. The producers knew what they wanted out of their audience and they achieved it through a well put together marketing campaign and their own previous movie history that helped the film achieve everything it wanted, making the marketing strategy a huge success, with the film quickly becoming the 19th highest grossing film ever, with a good possibility of passing a few films above it in the coming weeks.