Logo design

Logos can be designed in Adobe Photoshop (CS3 on the older PCs, CS6 on the newer ones), Adobe After Effects (CS3 on the older PCs, CS6 on the newer ones), Adobe Indesign (CS6 on the newer PCs), Adobe Fireworks (CS3 on the older PCs, CS6 on the newer ones) and other programs too.  Use youtube tutorials such as the ones below to guide you through the process:

http://www.rocktheshotforum.com/2012/07/20/how-to-design-a-logo-in-adobe-photoshop/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBVBxs5-hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQMxy_gT_A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiZcNV4m1lE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JznIqTDEawo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa9WLLV0zp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne-WI7zhG2U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k2Rwftrgzs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMqyshqGxVY

Cinema4D tutorials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipkoDGkLzrM

Foundation Portfolio - Evaluation Questions

AS Foundation Portfolio Evaluation Questions

In all cases, candidates should be encouraged to see the evaluation as a creative task and the

potential of the format chosen should be exploited through the use of images, audio, video and

links to online resources.

In the evaluation the following seven questions must be addressed:

1.       In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products? (e.g. comparison nine frame analyses of your film and an influential film)

2.       How does your media product represent particular social groups? (e.g. comparison stills from your film and the wider media)

3.       What kind of media institution might distribute your media product and why? (e.g. voiceover analysis of the institutions that appear at the start of your film and the other titles)

4.       Who would be the audience for your media product? (e.g. focus group video and audience profile)

5.       How did you attract/address your audience? (e.g. annotated analysis of your video)

6.       What have you learnt about technologies from the process of constructing this product? (e.g. photos of technology taken during construction with evaluation of what has been learned)

7.        Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt in the progression from it to the full product? (video comparison of the preliminary film and main task with voiceover)

NB  Q4 should be completed before you make your film.  Q1 can be partly completed before you start filming.  You also need to think about social groups (Q2) before you start to film.  Q3 can be partly completed before you start filming and then finished when you have made your titles.  Q6 can be photographed as you go along.  Qs 5 & 7 can only be answered when your film has been edited.

Marking criteria for the evaluation:

ü  Skill in the use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation.

ü  Understanding of issues around audience, institution, technology, representation, forms and conventions in relation to production.

ü  Ability to refer to the choices made and outcomes.

ü  Understanding of their development from preliminary to full task.

ü  Ability to communicate.

See these links for additional guidance:

http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/evaluating-your-as-coursework-to-be.html

http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/as-foundation-portfolio-coursework.html

http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/foundation-portfolio-self-assessment.html

http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/weekly-plan-for-main-task-term-2.html

Templates for planning documents

Some downloadable templates for planning documents can be found here:  http://www.dependentfilms.net/files.html

Example of an animatic - Definitely Maybe

How to write a film review - some useful links

http://www.theguardian.com/the-paperboy-movie/how-to-write-a-film-review
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english/creativewriting/movingimagesrev2.shtml
http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Movie-Review
http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/how-write-a-movie-review
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/
https://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/students/projects/1996-97/MovieMetropolis/howto.html

Production roles

Here are some roles and the associated tasks for both AS and A2 productions.  Please note that acting is not assessed as a role and therefore your actors do not need to be in your group.  Group members need to state their roles and will be assessed on the tasks connected with those roles (if you only act or  do not  take part in making the film you will get zero marks for construction).  Group members should have clearly defined roles and should take on more than one role.  If you are working on your own, you will execute all roles.

Producer 
The Producer is an organiser, in charge of the budget, hirer and firer of the crew, the implementer of the project.

Manages the team.  Completes: budget, action planning, time management, risk assessment and progress updates.

Director
The Director is the key creative person on a film or television project. The so-called ‘Director’s Vision’ shapes the whole movie and all of the other determinants involved in the making of the film – sound, lighting, production design and so on work in collaboration with this vision. In a sense the Director makes the film in his or her head before any shooting has begun.  The Director designs the film, orchestrates its emotional content and is the head of the creative side of the filmmaking process. In terms of preparing the actors for their roles it is often the case for the Director to meet with the actors during Pre-production and read through the script with them before any shooting takes place. Improvisation can also be attempted at this stage in order for the actors to explore their roles. Improvisation is basically acting without a script. The actors make up their actions and dialogue according to a brief set out by the Director. Some films are actually made entirely with improvisation and no script. Whatever the case, it is a powerful tool for Director’s to use when working with actors.

Is in charge of the shoot.  Completes: call sheet and works closely with the Cinematographer on the storyboard, shot list and shot schedule.

Writer

The first step in the making of a film is creating the script. The script is the blueprint for the whole movie. Of course there are films which are made without a script such as improvised projects, but generally the script is the starting point for most movies.

Whether the Director has written the script or is interpreting an already created one, the key when directing the film is to attempt to predict the audience’s reaction to the material.  A good script will be formatted correctly and include all of the action, scene descriptions and dialogue that will be featured in the finished film. It will not include any descriptions of shots or how the film will be realised – this is the job of the Director.

Writing the script is a very difficult and often undervalued aspect of the filmmaking process. An idea may start with a single moment or action, a line of dialogue, a character and so on.  A character biography can also be a useful tool for helping the actors prepare for their roles. This is basically a document detailing aspects of the characters life such as family background, social status, history, personality etc. Actors tend to like a character biography, and it should help them to prepare for their texts.

Writes the idea for the film.  Completes: initial ideas, pitch and script.

Editor
Reads the script, shot list and storyboard to understand the aims and context of the film. Edits the film on the editing software.  Creates drama, entertainment and continuity through cutting.  Works with the Sound Editor (this can be the same person) to add music, sound effects and additional dialogue.  Creates production logos.  Also researches editing techniques, writes 'skills progress' posts on the blog relating to ICT skills and completes title timelines.  Produces 'rough cuts' of the film.  Checks labels and posts are correct on the blog.

Sound Editor
Responsible for finding sound effects (including foley sound) and re-recording any unclear dialogue or sounds.

Sound Designer
Plans the arrangement of sound in the production - dialogue, music, foley, sound effects etc.

Composer
Responsible for finding copyright-free music or composing/ recording original music.

Cinematographer
The Director of Photography on a project is ultimately responsible for the film’s visual imagery. He or she controls the lighting and composition of the various shots which will be featured in the finished movie.

Responsible for filming.  Works closely with the director on the storyboard, shot list and shot schedule.

Storyboard Artist
Completes: animatic or photo-storyboard or drawn storyboard; shot list and shot schedule.

Location Scout
During pre-production, various members of the crew will visit possible locations to find settings that the action can take place in. When visiting locations it is a good idea to take photographs or shoot some videotape of the possible places. An overhead drawing can also help in terms of planning camera angles and lighting.  Film-makers should listen intently to make sure there are no sound problems such as air conditioners etc. There are other things to be considered such as power points and a room for the actors to wait in and for make-up to be applied etc. Sets will be built if a suitable location cannot be found or if shooting in a studio is a preferred option. Sets allow the film-makers’ to create anything the imagination can conjure up.
Responsible for finding suitable locations for the film.  Locations are photographed and a presentation is prepared to show the rest of the group.

Technical Director
Completes: equipment list and organises all technical equipment required for the shoot and is able to use it.

Set, Costume and Prop Design
The Production Designer’s role is associated with the visuals on a film. He or she designs any sets required, is involved in the selection of locations and is in charge of dressing the sets and locations with various props.
Responsible for mise-en-scene, including props and costumes.  Completes a list of the same and organises for the shoot.

Make-up Artist
Responsible for make-up.  Works closely with the Set, Costume and Prop Designer.

Marketing
Decides on the target audience for the film and produces a demographic profile.  Also responsible for audience testing and posts relating to audience feedback.


Suggested roles for group members

Group of four:

1 Producer, Location Scout, Production Designer (set, costume and props)
2 Director, Writer, Storyboard Artist (joint), Marketing
3 Cinematographer, Technical Director, Storyboard Artist (joint)
4 Editor, Sound Editor, Sound Designer, Composer

Group of three:

1 Director, Producer, Writer, Storyboard Artist (joint), Marketing
2 Cinematographer, Location scout, Technical Director, Storyboard Artist (joint)
3 Editor, Sound Editor, Sound Designer, Composer, Production Designer (set, costume and props)

2016 Exam Dates

AS

19th May, 2016

A2

8th June, 2016

"Coming soon...how to make the perfect movie trailer" - Advice from The Guardian

A slightly tongue-in-cheek explanation of how to make a movie trailer...

Action

• "In a world ..." before those ironically grandiose E4 continuity announcements, all you needed was a strong, sonorous voiceover to set the tone for any big-budget actioner. Nowadays, you have to be more inventive. Try assembling fake news footage into a glitchy, distorted montage, and be sure to include words like "epidemic", "catastrophic" and "unexplained". The Cloverfield crowd will go apeshit.

• You haven't got much time to introduce your characters, so aim to sum each one up with a single line of stereotypical dialogue. Loose cannon? "I don't take orders from nobody!" Nerdy scientist? "You don't understand! It's simply not possible!" Female character? "I'll wait for you."

• When it comes to music, the old standards – please rise, Carmina Burana – just won't cut it any more. Dubstep is increasingly becoming a viable alternative, with sub-Skrillex warblings lazily plastered over trailers for films as disparate as franchise smash-'em-up Transformers: Dark Of The Moon and second world war race-relations epic Red Tails.

Reading this on mobile? Click here to view

• Don't give too much away. Offer only brief glimpses of your most impressive CGI set pieces, accompanied by a quick fade-out and that irritating foghorn noise (or "BRRRRRRAHHHHMM" as it's become known) from the Inception soundtrack.

• Single words written massively across the screen are more impactful than whole sentences, so break your tagline up into its component parts and sprinkle them throughout the trailer. It doesn't matter if they're so far apart that nobody can piece together the meaning; chances are, they're not paying attention anyway.

• You don't want to blow your load too quickly, so take a brief pause for thought just before the climax and let one of your characters say something witty. Good luck bettering Jason Statham's timeless words from the new Expendables 2 trailer: "I now pronounce you man and knife."

• Don't forget, the title is the bit you want people to remember. Put aside at least ten seconds at the end for an agonisingly slow reveal.

Comedy

• Chances are you'll be switching between at least five songs during your two-and-a-half minutes on screen, so don't worry too much about each track. Just make sure they're all upbeat, contemporary and by Katy Perry.

• Record scratches are the easiest way of signposting your biggest and best jokes, but sadly overuse has rendered them less effective over time. Luckily, interrupting the music with the sound of someone falling into a dumpster/down a flight of stairs/off a trampoline works just as well.

• If, as is likely, your stars are all middle-aged white men, laying a hip-hop track over the trailer should score you some points with the irony brigade. Avoid the word "nigga", though

Reading this on mobile? Click here to view

• Improvisation is very hot right now, so don't be afraid to insert a few ad-libbed moments, especially if they relate to contemporary pop culture or anything vaguely sexual.

• With the increasing popularity of so-called Red Band trailers – which allow for more extreme sex, violence and language – there's no longer any need to include your "smart" material. Trust us: a few well timed F-bombs and a misplaced bikini will sell far more tickets than any amount of sophisticated wordplay.

• It can be hard to build dramatic tension when most of your trailer is comprised of jokes, so you might want to consider ending on a physical fight. This will align you with more anarchic Hollywood comedies like The Hangover and Project X, and give you an advantage over your more timid peers.

• In case of indie comedy, follow these rules but be sure to add plenty of Vampire Weekend, Sundance acclaim and Helvetica.

Drama

• A second not soundtracked by emotive piano music is a second wasted, so get that shit down straight away. Pianos are cinematic shorthand for both melancholy and euphoria so they're perfect for any dramatic scenario.

• Feel free to include all your most heavy-handed dialogue in the opening 30 seconds. This clues the audience in to the movie's key themes and messages, and requires very little effort on their part. If you can illustrate said dialogue with shots of light streaming through trees, even better.

• Any mention of the Oscars will grant your film instant credibility. Even the words "Academy Award nominee" are likely to bolster a movie's reputation, which is great news for Jonah Hill's career.

Reading this on mobile? Click here to view

• If you're lucky enough to have a real-life subject at the centre of your film, you'll want to make a big deal out of it. Avoid the phrase "true story" though; "real events" is much more 2012.

• Certain subjects might not cause a problem for critics, but could hurt your box-office take once the film goes on general release. Trailers for mainstream gay-themed movies like Brokeback Mountain and J Edgar often hide their homosexual leanings behind a veneer of artificial heterosexuality, just like FHM readers.

• When you finally unveil your title, the reveal needs to be stirring, emphatic and – most importantly – in a Serif font. Accept no substitutes.
• Finally, remember to always – and we mean always – put a funny bit at the end. Your audience needs to know that however gut-wrenching your war film/cancer drama/Holocaust epic might be, at least one moment is guaranteed to be chucklesome.

Charlie Lyne, The Guardian, 16 June 2012

What is 'narrative structure'?

What is Narrative Structure? 

Narrative structure is really about two things: the content of a story (i.e. what a story is about) and the form used to tell a story (i.e. how a story is told). 

Two common ways to describe these two parts of narrative structure are: story and plot.

Story refers to the raw materials of dramatic action as they might be described in chronological order in a film. 

Plot refers to the form of storytelling, or the structure the story follows. 

An example may be helpful.

If we want to analyze narrative structure, we can use Who? What? and Where? questions to look at the story or content of a movie.  ‘How?’  questions are used to examine plot structure. So, to describe the story in Star Wars, for example, we would need to answer the following questions:

·         Where is the story set?

·         What event begins the story?

·         Who are the main characters?

·         What conflict(s) do they face?

·         What happens to the characters as they face this conflict?

·         Who wins the conflict?

·         What rewards do they receive?

To describe the plot structure of the movie, we would need to answer these questions:

·         How is the major conflict in the story set up?

·         How are the main characters introduced?

·         How is the story moved along so that the characters must inevitably face the film’s central conflict?

·         How is the dramatic confrontation set up as the film draws to its close?

·         How does the film resolve most of the major conflicts set up at the outset?

From the audiences’ perspective, story and plot refer to the different ways movies construct meaning for spectators. Story is about trying to determine the key conflicts, main characters, setting, and events in a movie. Plot is about determining the stages at which key conflicts are set up and resolved. What’s interesting about most of the movies made in Hollywood is that, while the stories may change, the plot structure is virtually identical in most of the movies made by Hollywood.  

According to Bordwell and Thompson, the plot is what we explicitly see and hear while the story includes information that is inferred (suggested) to the viewer.

H O L LYWOOD AND THE CLASSICAL NARRATIVE STRUCTURE

The most common narrative structure in mainstream films is called the Classical Narrative Structure.

The Classical Narrative Structure

The Classical Narrative Structure is called this because it is the way most movies are made in Hollywood. It’s not classic because it is the oldest structure of storytelling or the best, but the most common. It is the storytelling structure in Star Wars, Buster KeatonÕs The General (1926), The Matrix (Andy and Larry Wachowski, 1999), and any number of other films we might think of.  It’s based on a three-act format that organizes the story in the following way.

Act I  The Setup

Here, we are introduced to the main characters in the story, their goals, and the obstacles they are likely to face to achieve their objectives. The main conflict in the story is introduced, as well as the major antagonist (the villain) who will stand in the way of the protagonist’s (the hero’s) objectives.

We can call Act I in a movie the Hook. It sets up the story so that the film engages the attention of the audience and suggests the story’s likely development. Act I generally takes up about one quarter of a film’s total length.

Act II  The Development

Here plot complications are added to the story. An increasing sense of urgency is created when the main characters encounter obstacles that stand in the way of their journey. The second act generally occupies the middle two-quarters of the film and it often includes a false resolution to the main conflict set up in Act I. Once the false resolution has been encountered, the action in the movie generally points inevitably toward a necessary climax.

Throughout Act II, Cause-Effect Relationships propel the main characters along. Cause-effect rela- tionships involve actions that force a reaction on the part of some character, leading to a new action and reaction, and so on.

Act III  The Resolution
In the final segment of the film, the results of the story’s main conflict come to dramatic con- frontation. This is called the Climax. It is the point where key struggles are waged and an eventual victor is determined. In Hollywood films, needless to say, the eventual victor is usually our hero.

Following the climax, Closure is introduced into the story, which simply means that all the major conflicts, issues, or ideas in the story are resolved. The so-called Hollywood ending is the most popular kind of closure in the classical narrative structure. Films with this kind of conclusion usually close with a sense that the protagonists in the film live happily ever after.

How to answer the Institutions and Audiences question in the exam

Give yourself enough time.  Split your time equally between the TV drama essay and the Institutions and Audiences essay.  You should start the second essay after one hour.



First of all you need to read the question.  The question will ask you about one (or even two) of the following:

• Ownership (this includes studios, production companies, distributors, exhibitors, funding sources, the BFI, corporations etc.)
• Cross media convergence (basically the combination of different media institutions or media content)
• Synergy (how different media work together - stylistic, merchandise and product placement, transmedia storytelling, marketing, simultaneous release, similarly timed release of linked products such as film and video game)
• technology
• production (how the film is made)
• marketing (how you are made aware of the film)
• distribution (how the film gets to you - DVD, Blu-ray, VoD, cinema release, TV broadcast, download, Youtube)
• digital (sound and images that are broken down into digital data which is then read by digital devices such as DVD players, computers and phones and formed back into sound and images)
• exchange (where, when and how the film passes from the distributor to you - e.g. you are at home in your bedroom, streaming a film from Netflix onto your tablet)
• technological convergence (this can be content or hardware)
• audience (the people who 'consume' the film)
• consumption (watching the film)
• institution (producers, distributors, exhibitors)

Often the question is 'dressed up' in fancy language.  Don't panic.  You can answer it.  Take your time and think about how you can 'work your way' into the question.

Make a plan!  Write down which case studies you are going to use and any key points you don't want to forget to include.

Essay Plan

1. State that you are going to be writing about the film industry.
2. If your question has a technical term, such as digital distribution, you might want to briefly define what that means.
3. If you are going to approach the question from a particular 'angle' or use the views of a media commentator such as Henry Jenkins then explain your approach to the examiner, e.g. For the purposes of this essay I am going to...
4. The question will ask you to develop a view or opinion on the topic.  Don't worry about this. All you will be doing is thinking about the issues for audiences (you and other people who watch films) and institutions (the people involved in the industry).  The examiner will be looking for you to explain, analyse and argue your points.  Just think of it like you are having a discussion with yourself where you are trying to form a balanced judgement on the question, with both the audience and institutions considered.
5. Give 5-10 developed examples that are relevant to the question area (don't forget that the question areas link up with each other and so a case study that you revised for one area may also be relevant for another).  Wherever possible, you should explain the issues for both audience and institution for each case study.  Remember to use paragraphs for each separate case study.
6. Use terminology accurately when writing about your case studies.
7. Try to include points about production, distribution/marketing and exchange in your case studies, but you don't have to cover all three in each case studies.
8. Try to include points about the past (a little), the present (mostly) and the future (some).
9. Conclude your answer by returning to the question and giving a meaningful view on the issue in your question.  Try to end strongly.  Don't just repeat yourself or make some 'wishy washy' statement like, "Yes, in some ways I agree with the statement and in some ways I don't".  This will be the last thing the examiner reads before (s)he gives you a mark so don't end on a low note!
10. Relax...it's all over :)

Synergy, Cross-Media Convergence, Media Ownership

Horizontal Integration, the consolidation of holdings across multiple industries, has largely displaced the old vertical integration of the Hollywood studios.

From the early 1920s to the early 1950s, the American film industry had evolved into a business controlled by a few companies, a condition known as a "mature oligopoly".  The most powerful of these companies, or studios, were the fully integrated 'Big Five': MGM, Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, and RKO.

These studios not only produced and distributed films, but also exhibited them in their own movie theatres - this practice of operating each stage of the production process is called Vertical Integration.  In 1948 the United States Supreme Court ruled that this practice was unfair to any competition and the major studios were forced to sell off their cinemas.

Today, three of these studios are part of big corporations: MGM is privately held, Warner Brothers is part of Time Warner, 20th Century Fox is part of the Fox Entertainment Group and Paramount Pictures is part of Viacom.


The big corporations usually have holdings across several different media - e.g. film, TV, radio, print and internet.  This is horizontal integration ("the consolidation of holdings across multiple industries") or economic convergence as Henry Jenkins calls it   http://www.phase1.nccr-trade.org/images/stories/jenkins_convergence_optional.pdf


The corporations have developed the practice of owning many media outlets, which run almost the same content - this is considered to be very economical, since it requires only minor changes of format and information to use in multiple media forms. For example, within a conglomerate, the content used in broadcasting television would be used in broadcasting radio as well, or the content used in hard copy of the newspaper would also be used in online newspaper website - this is called cross media convergence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18AC7f64k98

What has emerged is the new strategy of content development and distribution designed to increase the “synergy" between the different divisions of the same company. The corporations seek content that can move fluidly across media channels.  Henry Jenkins talks about transmedia storytelling (basically another term for cross media convergence) which is when a story, such as Dr Who or Harry Potter, is told across multiple media formats, e.g. film, television, print and video game.  Clearly a corporation can exploit its ownership of multi-media holdings to sell what is essentially the same product across a range of media, provided it has the rights to do so.  The BBC are able to sell the Dr Who story across different media because they own the rights.  http://convergenceishere.weebly.com/doctor-who-and-csi.html.  J.K. Rowling sold the film rights for  Harry Potter to time Warner Bros. but the publishers of the books are an independent publishing house, Bloomsbury Publishing, and the Pottermore site is partnered with Sony http://henryjenkins.org/2011/06/three_reasons_why_pottermore_m.html.

However, different rights owners can all benefit from the interest in Harry Potter by releasing products at the same time as the film is released. This includes merchandise and so when a James Bond film is released, companies like Sony, Omega, Aston Martin and Heineken create a synergy of their own http://brandsandfilms.com/2012/11/product-placement-in-pictures-skyfall/

Synergy can also work on a stylistic level. Synergy helps to establish a brand identity that you, the consumer, immediately recognise. This 'creative' form of synergy might involve a logo (e.g. Batman), a particular typeface (e.g. The Terminator metallic 'font'), certain images or a musical 'motif' (e.g. the James Bond theme). These stylistic 'idents' can be used across a range of marketing forms (cross media) - e.g. trailer, poster, website etc. - to establish a shared 'look' or 'sound'.

All of these synergistic elements help to raise your awareness of the film and increase the likelihood of you going to see it.

Synergy also takes place in combination with cross media convergence.  So when Twentieth Century Fox release a new film, News Corp (the owners) will simultaneously carry articles (this is the synergy)  and advertisements in their print media (cross media convergence), such as The Sun and the The Times and also include news items on Sky News (e.g. the premiere and cast interviews).

We also see synergy and cross-media convergence combining in the range of marketing devices used by distributors today.  They use 'old media' (e.g. posters, cinema trailers, TV spots, newspaper advertisements etc.) and 'new media' (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, official websites, blogs, transmedia storytelling websites etc.).  The synergy is that all the elements of the media campaign work together.  The cross-media convergence part is that the campaign includes TV, cinema, print, internet, social media, radio etc.  For examples of this, read your Cloverfield article and read about the viral marketing campaigns for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises:   http://filmschoolrejects.com/news/marketing-the-dark-knight-a-viral-revolution.php  http://batman.wikibruce.com/Home  http://mica.ac.in/blog/viral-marketing-strategy-dark-knight-rises/     http://builtvisible.com/the-most-amazing-content-marketing-campaign-ever/  https://prezi.com/vawol3_bp6o6/the-dark-knight-rises-marketing-distribution-and-other-stu/  http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-viral-marketing-are-warner-bros-missing-a-trick.php

Simultaneous release is another form of synergy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_release  http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/field-england-marks-uk-distribution-first

Time Warner is unusual in that it operates both horizontal integration and vertical integration. The horizontal integration is its ownership of different media outlets, e.g. CNN and HBO (television), Warner Brothers Digital Distribution (online), Entertainment Weekly (print and online), New Line Cinema and Castle Rock (film).  It also vertically integrates within its film division.  Time Warner can produce films (e.g. through Warner Brothers), distribute them through Warner Brothers Pictures (e.g. films by New Line Cinema or Castle Rock) and exhibit them through Warner Brothers International Cinemas.

Read here for a detailed analysis of media ownership that relates to the film industry:  http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc52.2010/MeehanCorporate/index.html

A key part of the article is this:

"In film, News Corporation owned the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Fox 2000 Pictures, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Blue Sky Studios (animation). Film distribution was generally through Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. News Corporation did not own movie theaters. The company synergized its films, using Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment to repackage them as videos and DVDs, Fox Music to deal with soundtracks, and Twentieth Century Fox Licensing and Merchandising to promote them and earn secondary revenues. In film, then, News Corporation was vertically integrated in production and distribution, horizontally integrated in its ownership of four studios, and synergized through connections to other operations."

The effects of new media on how film is produced and consumed

http://howardschoolfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-effects-of-new-media-on-how-film-is.html

How new distribution methods are offering opportunities for film-makers.

http://trueherostudio.com/producer-blog/how-new-technology-is-changing-the-film-industry

Advanced Portfolio - Self Assessment

Advanced Portfolio – assessment

1 Research and Planning:

Main Task

Initial ideas have been considered.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated. 

A pitch has been uploaded to the blog explaining: title, genre, location, time, characters, plot outline and key micro features (including use of match-on-action, shot/reverse shot and 180 degree rule).  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.
Pitch feedback has been recorded and uploaded to the blog together with an explanation of action to be taken in response to the feedback.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.
Research into similar products (textual analysis of influential film extracts) has been uploaded to the blog by every group member.  The posts are titled and labelled correctly and the student responsible for each post is clearly stated.
Extracts from influential films have been shown to the class (focus group) and feedback received.  The video has been uploaded to the blog.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.
A photographic storyboard or animatic has been uploaded to the blog.  Camerawork is clearly represented by the photos.  There may be a second version of the animatic with a voiceover explaining directorial ideas.  Camerawork, sound, editing and mise-en-scene are directions are included.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

The animatic has been shown to the class and feedback has been uploaded to the blog.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A shot list has been created.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A shot schedule has been created.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A script (if required) has been written.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

An equipment list has been created.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.
Costumes, props and makeup have been organised.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Location shots have been taken.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.
Set designs have been completed.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A call sheet or Facebook contact page have been created.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A budget has been drawn up.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A risk assessment (if necessary) has been completed.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Music and sound effects have been found and copyright free evidence or permission provided.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Skills progress has been updated.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Rough cuts of your film have been tested on an audience and feedback received.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Action plans have allowed you to establish good time management.  The posts are titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

A target audience has been clearly identified.  The post is titled and labelled correctly.  Roles for the task are stated.

Ancillary Tasks
An annotated image analysis of at least one similar product (for each ancillary task) has been uploaded to the blog with the correct title and label.  Group roles are stated.
Rough drafts and layout plans of ancillary tasks have been uploaded to the blog with the correct titles and labels.   Roles for the task are stated.
Audience feedback has been uploaded to the blog with the correct titles and labels.   Roles for the task are stated.


2 Construction:

Main task

Titles are appropriate and follow conventions.

Sound is used with images and editing appropriately.

Material that has been shot is appropriate.

The use of the camera is controlled.

There is attention to framing.

There is a variety of shot distances and angles.

There is careful attention to mise-en-scene.

Editing creates meaning for the viewer.

There is selective and appropriate use of transitions.

Ancillary Tasks

There is awareness of conventions of layout and design.

There is awareness of the need for variety in fonts and text size.

There is accurate use of language and register.

There is appropriate use of ICT.

There is appropriate integration of image and text.

Images are framed appropriately.

Mise-en-scene shows care - colour, figure, lighting, objects and setting.

Images have been manipulated appropriately, e.g. cropping and re-sizing.

3 Evaluation (each student should have done this):

http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/evaluating-your-a2-coursework-guide.html

Main Task
A nine frame analysis of an influential short film or trailer has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  Group roles are stated.
A nine frame analysis of your own short film or trailer has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  Group roles are stated.
A video explaining the synergy between your three products has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  Group roles are stated.
A video explaining what you have learned from audience feedback to your three products has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  Group roles are stated.
A photo montage representing your use of new media technology has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  Group roles are stated.

Ancillary Task  
An annotated image analysis that evaluates each of your two ancillary tasks has been uploaded to the blog and is titled and labelled correctly.  These should show how you have followed the conventions of your Group roles are stated.

AS Foundation Portfolio - Coursework Assessment

  You are assessed on three areas:

• Research and Planning (your blog)
• Construction (your film)
• Evaluation (7 questions)

See here for additional guidance  http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/foundation-portfolio-self-assessment.html

It is important that you follow the guidance on labels for your 'Research and Planning' - see here http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/labels-as-foundation-portfolio.html

Don't forget that if your film is on Youtube then it needs to be 'public access' and not 'private' so anyone can view it.  Your preliminary film also needs to available on your blog to view.

Your evaluations must cover all 7 questions.  Whatever you do, don't miss out any questions, even if that means having to answer one in a way other than how I have advised.  

Your evaluations should come under the label 'Evaluation' on the blog.  The title for the post is 'Evaluation - your name'.  All your questions should come under one post.  So, if there are three people in the group, there will be three separate posts each with seven questions answered.  There should be no other posts with the 'Evaluation' label on the blog.

Evaluating your A2 coursework - a guide

Everyone in a group should do their own evaluation, although you can all edit videos together and add your own individual voiceovers or annotations.

Question 1 is:
In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products?

You can answer this question by doing two nine frame analyses.

First of all, choose nine frames from your influential short film or trailer - each frame should enable you to write about the conventions in one area.  For example: 1. titles/graphics, 2. setting/locations, 3. costumes/props, 4. camerawork, 5. story 'setup', 6. genre, 7. characterisation/representation, 8. editing/effects, 9. music/sound/dialogue.

Then do a nine frame analysis of your own short film or trailer, comparing it to your influential media product and (using the same nine areas) considering whether you have used conventions in the same way, or developed them to create something slightly different or did you subvert the conventions of your influential product - this means that you chose to do something very different from what is typically (conventionally) done.

Question 2 is:
How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?

First of all, this question is asking you to consider synergy so read this http://howardschoolmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/synergy-a2-evaluations.html

Answer this question by creating a short video with still images from your video and your ancillary tasks that demonstrate key synergistic elements (e.g. uniform typefaces across all three products). Add a voiceover or annotations that explain how the separate products work together.

Question 3 is:
What have you learned from your audience feedback?

Again, I would create a little video to respond to this question.  You are really being asked to show the development of your products so you need early versions of your films and print products.  Use video and/or stills to show aspects of these early versions and then with a voiceover or annotations or actual feedback videos explain how your audience reacted to these versions and how you changed the products as a response to this feedback.  Finally, you should arrive at your finished products and the final feedback you received.

Question 4:
How did you use media technologies in the construction and research, planning and evaluation stages?

New media technologies are things like software (e.g. Photoshop), digital files (e.g. Word documents), Internet sites (e.g. Youtube, Blogger etc.), hardware (e.g. digital SLRs, camcorders etc.) and so on.  You could answer this question by creating a photo montage (a bit like the one below) and then add annotations to explain how you used the technology and at what stage of the production you used it.  You need to refer to your decisions and outcomes regarding technology.


Ancillary Tasks
Evaluate your ancillary tasks by annotating an image of your product (e.g. poster, advertisement, front cover, digipack etc.) together with an annotated image of a similar professional product. Obviously, you need to show how you have followed conventions and highlight examples of synergy across your two products.

2014 Examination dates

Year 12
TV Drama + Audiences and Institutions: 23rd May AM

Year 13
Critical Perspectives in Media: 10th June AM

Media ownership in the UK film industry - "The King's Speech" institutional case study

Here are links to information about institutions involved in funding, producing, editing and distributing The King's Speech (2010):

The National Lottery
http://www.lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/project/kings-speech


UK Film Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Film_Council
http://industry.bfi.org.uk/
http://industry.bfi.org.uk/kingoscars

The Weinstein Company
http://weinsteinco.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weinstein_Company
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/01/1094564/kings-speech-and-weinstein-formula-industrial-conquest

Momentum Pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_Pictures

Aegis Film Fund
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/01/the-kings-speech-a-royal-return-for-film-financing-fund/
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2011-03-01/aegis-film-fund-gains-from-kings-speech?ea9c8a2de0ee111045601ab04d673622
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-1714421/Oscar-glory-How-to-invest-in-films.html
http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/feature/2039807/killing-movies
http://www.presciencefilmfinance.co.uk/
http://www.screendaily.com/aegis-film-fund-to-invest-50m-in-film-productions/5000482.article

Molinare, London
http://molinare.co.uk/
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/customers/case-studies/film/kingsspeech.php
http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/molinare-to-shift-focus-away-from-equity-post-deals/5036121.article
http://www.postmagazine.com/Press-Center/Daily-News/2011/Molinare-supports-The-Kings-Speech.aspx
http://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/news-and-market-deals/fundraising-deals/2345123/production-house-behind-the-kings-speech-and-masterchef-backed-by-saphir-capital-partners.thtml

FilmNation Entertainment
http://www.wearefilmnation.com/the-nation
http://variety.com/2013/film/features/filmnation-at-5-1200465888/

See-Saw Films
http://see-saw-films.com/

Bedlam Productions

The British Film Institute
http://www.screendaily.com/territories/uk-ireland/kings-speech-bfi-gets-kings-ransom/5024247.article

http://www.independentcinemaoffice.org.uk/resources/how-to-start-a-local-cinema/capitalisation/screen-agencies

Other links:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/live/video/500

Some more articles and information:

 Funding and ownership of the Film Industry

The film and television industries in the UK and the US are made up of many companies that are all owned and funded in many different ways. I will first discuss the film industry and then move on to the television industry, focussing on the ways these two similar but different media industries are funded and owned in the UK and the US, referring to a range of contemporary and historical examples.

FILM INDUSTRY

The film industry in the UK is made up of a number of different parts. There are companies that are involved in Development, Production, Facilities, Distribution, Exhibition and Export. Skillset’s most recent research shows that there are ‘around 400 'permanent' (i.e. registered) companies in the film industry’ but this number can vary depending on how many film productions are being worked on in the UK at any time. Their research also shows that of these companies, ‘43% are production, 13% are distribution and the remaining 44% are exhibition companies’, meaning that much of the distribution side of the film industry is likely funded by foreign companies, often Hollywood studios that help to sell British films to US and international audiences.               

The British film industry does not have quite the same power and wealth as the big Hollywood studios and therefore depends much more on public funding and financial aid from government intervention. In 2012 it was announced that ‘some £285 million of National Lottery money is to be put into the British film industry over the next five years’.  The British Film Institute (BFI) will determine how this money is spent after taking over funding responsibilities from the UK Film Council which no longer exists. Though there will be spending in other areas, much of the funding will be put into the production and development of future British films.

The producers of The King’s Speech for example had to scrape together the approximately £10 million budget from the following companies:

Weinstein Company, The (presents)

UK Film Council (presents)

Momentum Pictures (in association with)

Aegis Film Fund (in association with)

Molinare Investment (as Molinare, London) (in association with)

FilmNation Entertainment (in association with)

See-Saw Films (as See Saw Films)

Bedlam Productions (as Bedlam)

Some of these companies, for example the American The Weinstein Company, would invest in production in order to gain the distribution rights and therefore a larger share of the profits when it is released. ‘The Weinstein Company (TWC) is a multimedia production and distribution company’, independently funded by its own profits, and ‘also active in television production’ showing it is both vertically and horizontally integrated. Vertical integration is where ‘a company expands its business into areas that are at different points on the same production path’ so when a film company owns the means to produce films and then also the means to distribute them, it is said to be vertically integrated. TWC is also horizontally integrated because it has acquired ‘additional business activities that are at the same level of the value chain in similar or different industries’. Not only can it produce films but it has also expanded into producing television shows as well.

Concerns were raised in the past about the major Hollywood studios’ oligopoly over the film industry. The so called ‘big 5’ studios were vertically integrated to the point where they owned the means to produce, distribute and exhibit their own films which meant that other films did not have a chance against the power of these big studios. The Paramount Decree passed in 1948 meant that the studios had to sell their cinema chains as this much vertical integration was seen as anti-competitive and therefore made illegal, diminishing the power of the old Hollywood studios.

However despite these moves to stop excessive levels of vertical integration, the film industry is still dominated in the US and UK by global companies such as Time Warner. Warner Bros. Pictures is a subsidiary of the global conglomerate Time Warner and produce films such as the Harry Potter franchise. But Time Warner also owns HBO, ‘the world's most successful pay-tv service’, the Turner Broadcasting System that ‘operates worldwide news, entertainment, animation, young adult & kids media networks and related businesses’ and Time Inc who are ‘one of the largest branded media companies in the world, with a portfolio of 96 titles’ which means they are horizontally integrated over television, film and print media. Warner Bros operates internationally all over Europe, Latin America, Japan and Australia leading to some concerns over huge companies like this and their potential influence over a global audience.

Bibliography:

http://www.creativeskillset.org/film/industry/article_6763_1.asp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18056288

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingsspeech.htm

http://weinsteinco.com/about-us/

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/verticalintegration.asp#axzz2Lir65Yba

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/horizontalintegration.asp#ixzz2LirnDseg

http://www.timewarner.com/our-content/

King's Speech: BFI gets king’s ransom?

24 February, 2011 | By Geoffrey Macnab

The UK Film Council invested £1 million ($1.6 million) in The King’s Speech through its now defunct Premiere Fund (then run by Sally Caplan) and is believed to have a net profit position as high as 34% in the film.
“The King’s Speech represents a great validation for the UK film industry as a whole and an amazing legacy for the UK Film Council,” Tanya Seghatchian, head of the UK Film Council’s Film Fund, commented after Tom Hooper’s film about the stuttering monarch won its haul of BAFTA’s earlier this month.
The legacy that Seghatchian is referring to isn’t just symbolic. The UK Film Council invested £1 million ($1.6 million) in The King’s Speech through its now defunct Premiere Fund (then run by Sally Caplan) and is believed to have a net profit position as high as 34% in the film, which was produced by See-Saw Films and Bedlam Productions. UKFC boarded the project at a relatively early stage, when Geoffrey Rush was already attached but before the casting of Colin Firth.
In advance of this weekend’s Oscars (for which it has 12 nominations), The King’s Speech has already made over $235 million at the box-office worldwide and could (some predict) gross as much as $400 million when its roll-out is complete. Even with the film world’s usually tricky accounting on recoupment, that’s a huge return on a film that cost $15m to make.
“It’s one heck of a dowry,” a UK Film Council spokesperson says of the benefits that may eventually come to the British Film Institute (BFI) via its stake in The King’s Speech when the BFI becomes the Lottery distributor for film in the UK in April. The fact that neither BBC Films nor Film4 invested in The King’s Speech strengthens the Film Council position yet further. (If a broadcaster had been aboard, UKFC’s net profit position would have been far smaller.)
“There absolutely will be real profits and everyone involved in the film expects there to be real profits,” says Tim Smith, Managing-Director of Prescience Film Finance, which co-financed the film through its Aegis Film Fund.
The assumption is that any profits that come the BFI’s way will be invested back into the Film Fund, although this is yet to be confirmed. Given that the share of Lottery funds for film will increase from around £27 million to around £43 million annually by 2014, this could provide a major fillip to British production.
“The BFI will be reinvesting the recoupment from The King’s Speech into making more British films, creating jobs and supporting UK businesses,” Nick Mason Pearson, Director of Press & Public Affairs at the BFI, commented this week.
The BFI shouldn’t start counting its King’s chickens quite yet. “Net profits” are a slippery and evasive concept. Ask a range of experts whether The King’s Speech really will generate the expected king’s ransom for the BFI and for Molinare (the post house which was also an equity investor) and opinions are divided.
“There aren’t that many films that return net profits,” notes Christine Corner, a Partner in Grant Thornton’s media and entertainment group.
The general principle is that the producers will take 50% of the net profits and the equity investors will take the other 50%. Given that exhibitors take 55% commission, the local distributor [in the case of The King’s Speech, Momentum in the UK and TWC in the US] might take 40-50% commission on what it receives from the exhibitor and the P&A costs need to be recouped, the potential for net profits can shrink fast.
“Distributors are extraordinarily good at not recouping,” points out one observer, warning that there may have to be a lot of auditing done in the coming months.
“From theatrical, there might not be much,” one leading UK-based film lawyer says of the likely profits. “There rarely is from theatrical. When the DVD is sold, that’s when overages might start to kick in.”
What gives the BFI grounds for optimism is that The King’s Speech was made for a relatively low budget and has already generated such huge box-office returns. Even given the scare stories about blockbusters that have failed to return any net profits, it would be very surprising indeed if The King’s Speech didn’t generate revenue for its equity investors.
Whatever happens, all those involved in The King’s Speech are bound to reap the benefits…except for the Film Council, which won’t be in existence to enjoy the rewards.
UK distributor Momentum, among the first to support the film as part of the first-look deal it struck with See-Saw in early 2008, didn’t have an equity position in the movie. However, The King’s Speech had made over $60 million in box-office returns in the UK and Ireland by mid-February. See-Saw’s sister company, Sydney-based distributor Transmission, has also done roaring business with the film.
Prescience’s Aegis Fund boarded early and likewise stands to benefit.
“The Aegis Film Fund is very important for Prescience and it (The King’s Speech) will heighten the success of that Fund, which is coming to the end of its second year. It has encouraged new investors into film and hopefully will be able to do so,” says Tim Smith. Prescience, he points out, also has a small profit participation in the film.
Crucially to the film’s financing, The Weinstein Company pre-bought The King’s Speech. It, too, is basking in the film’s success.
As for The UK Film Council, The King’s Speech simply came too late. The irony is self-evident. If Tom Hooper’s movie about Bertie and his speech impediment had appeared with the same fanfare a year earlier, it would have been very hard indeed for the British coalition Government elected last summer to justify dismantling The Film Council in the wake of likely Oscar glory. After all, this is the “biggest recouping project” the UKFC has ever supported. That’s why UKFC representatives past and present will be watching Sunday night’s Oscar ceremony with distinctly mixed feelings.

The King’s Speech, starring Colin Firth as a stammering King George VI and directed by Tom Hooper, was receiving advance buzz involving the words “Oscar” long before it officially opened. This happens a lot, and I tend to have a cynical response to it. I know when I’m being manipulated.

I finally saw it this weekend, in a sold-out matinee in a giant multiplex. There were kids there, and people had brought in lunch. It was a huge and mixed crowd. Yet from the opening scene, you could have heard a pin drop in that theatre, except during the funny moments, when the audience would burst into responsive laughter. Some woman’s cell phone went off, and she actually answered it, and people all around the theatre called at her, annoyed, to shut up. The huge crowd had cohered into a group. When The King’s Speech ended, and the credits began to roll, a man sitting beside me, who had silver feathered hair, shirt tucked into his jeans, and big white sneakers, said, with apparent emotion, “If that guy don’t win an Oscar, then there is no justice in this world.”

Produced in part by the Weinstein Company, headed by Harvey and Bob Weinstein, formerly of Miramax, The King’s Speech has all the earmarks of Miramax Oscar-bait: It is a film about a real person, and about overcoming obstacles. It is smart enough to please people who like smart fare, but it is also crowd-pleasing on a deep and visceral level. The reason to see it is the scene-work between Firth and Geoffrey Rush, who plays speech therapist Lionel Logue. The characters are funny with one another, cagey, and sometimes cranky; it is a meeting of the minds. Firth plays the stammer so realistically that you forget he has ever spoken otherwise, and Rush is marvelous, as the commoner who suddenly finds himself training the King of England to overcome a debilitating impediment.

The film is not perfect (the final section with the actual speech is drawn out to shameless lengths), but it works on an emotional level. The power of the acting, and of the story, makes sure of that.

 

The Weinstein Brothers have spent a couple of decades muscling their way into Oscar season. Their tactics are aggressive and unseemly, if not brutal, but Miramax’s run of success in the 90s had a transformative impact on the industry. Miramax championed smaller films, foreign films, difficult-to-sell films, and they got these so-called art-house films into the multiplexes. The independent scene changed forever.

When these films were challenged by the MPAA (and they often were), Harvey Weinstein was vocal and contemptuous in his objections, bringing a blitzkrieg of publicity to the film, whatever rating it eventually received.

Scandal (1989), a Miramax film about the Profumo affair, starring John Hurt and Joanne Whalley, came in originally as an X-rated film due to an orgy scene. There was a big controversy about it, lots of publicity, and then a two-second cut was made in the scene, satisfying the MPAA, and the film was released as an R. The film grossed $8.8 million in the U.S., a huge amount of money for a film of its kind, and Miramax was satisfied. InDown and Dirty Pictures, a book about the indie movie scene of the 90s in which Miramax naturally plays a large part, author Peter Biskind writes: “Harvey’s strategy was always the same: come in as an X, make as much noise as possible, and go out as an R.”

We saw this identical situation most recently with Weinstein-produced Blue Valentine, which was threatened with the deadly NC-17 rating, bringing an avalanche of publicity to the film before it even opened. Of course, it was finally released as an R-rated film. It was just business as usual with the Weinsteins.

The King’s Speech also had its ratings issues, due to one scene where Rush makes Firth shout out profanities in one of their therapy sessions, because the King does not stammer when he swears. The scene is hilarious, Colin Firth playing two things at the same time: manly gusto in shouting out the words “bugger, bugger, shit, shit, tits, tits …”, and also mortification at what he has been asked to do. The MPAA objected to the language of this scene, another example of how ridiculous context-less objections are. Weinstein, once again, did his publicity-garnering routine: “While we respect the MPAA, I think we can all agree that we are living with an outdated ratings system that gives torture porn, horror and ultraviolent films the same rating as films with so-called inappropriate language.”

Miramax’s films were not often obvious crowd-pleasers, at least to those who were used to sitting in gleaming conference rooms watching Power Point presentations showing demographic information. Their films were not easily classified. They were often esoteric, and had subtitles on occasion, all things which would have relegated such films as Life Is Beautiful to limited runs in smaller artsy cinemas. But the films struck a chord with wide audiences. Miramax marketed to the masses. The Weinsteins were not above re-cutting films to make them more accessible to American audiences, and directors who refused to go along with this found themselves shunned by Miramax. Their Oscar campaigns are by now notorious. If you were not aware that Shakespeare in Love was up for every Oscar under the sun then you were not at all paying attention to the world around you. That kind of thing can get tiresome, obnoxious, and it made you wonder what other films were out there, more difficult films, perhaps, that weren’t getting a shot because of the domination of Miramax.

The Weinsteins, since the sale of Miramax, have formed The Weinstein Company, and have distributed and produced such diverse films as Inglourious Basterds, Persepolis, I’m Not There, Rambo and A Single Man. Oscar-bait can be annoying fare. It can be blatantly manipulative and calculating, like a politician shaking your hand and telling you he really cares about you and your issues.

But the Weinsteins, with the one-two punch of the gritty-realistic Blue Valentine and the more elegant-worldly The King’s Speech, show that they are back at the forefront again, bringing challenging and yet also crowd-pleasing films to the cinemas of this country.The King’s Speech may very well be “Oscar bait”, and there were moments in the film when the heart-strings were too obviously tugged at. There is certainly a conversation to be had about the strong-arm tactics of the former Miramax in getting their films distributed and showered with Oscars. Biskind found that many people (former employees of Miramax and others) were afraid to talk to him on the record for his book because they feared retribution.

But these are business conversations, exclusive to the world of corporate gladiatorial combat. It feels very different out there in the dark at the multiplex, surrounded by a silent rapt crowd. Being a crowd-pleaser doesn’t necessarily mean that a film plays to the lowest-common denominator. It can mean that, but it doesn’t have to. If a film works, it works, and if it works for a large number of people, so much the better. Shakespeare wrote for the groundlings in the pit as well as the aristocrats in the balconies.

The Weinsteins have managed the trick of winning on the ground and in the air, sometimes awkwardly, sometimes brutishly. At the end of the day, though, it’s what’s up on screen that matters. All the marketing in the world can’t make a film that an audience truly loves. But the Weinsteins can, apparently.

Independent Film Finance Success Study - The King's Speech

If we want investors for our independent films then there is only question to consider:"What benefit will the investors get by putting money into this film?"

I've read plenty of indie film offer documents and prospectuses recently, and it's clear that they are doing their best to talk up the possibility of box office return.

But, sadly, we know that the reality for independent films is harsh.  Really harsh.  Even if the film gets international distribution and great box office returns we know most of that money won't filter back to the investors.

It is sobering to read the prospectus of a respected independent film fund only to find that 'You can be an extra!' and 'You get movie memorabilia!' are still being touted as serious benefits.  And this is a film fund which, by definition, is only open to high net worth individuals

So I thought I'd look at some reasonably recent film funding decisions to see what I can learn.  Why did investors put money into these independent films?

I'll start with a recent success story: "The King's Speech"

Investor 1: Prescience Film Finance/ Aegis

They funded the bulk of this - putting in almost $10 million.  So how do they make profit from their investment?

The answer is simple - they make profit by lending at 15% against the UK tax credit and against presale contracts.  They also loan against distribution in territories that aren't presold - at a higher rate of about 20%

This ensures that their return isn't really based on box office.  The investors can expect about 14% income from their investment based on fees ... and even the MASSIVE success of the King's Speech is only going to push this up to about 24% !  It is very telling that their business model is organised so that the difference in ROI between funding a failure and a hit is only 10%.

It's also interesting to see how Prescience Film Finance estimate the share they will get from box office return.  To quote one of the company directors:

"The U.S. is now worth exactly the same as the Philippines - but at least you know you’ll get a good deal out of the Philippines.  The U.S. market used to be worth 40%, but now it has to be discounted to zero."

So it seems that the key is that the 'investor' is simply loaning against presales.   That might be possible for $15 million productions - but how relevant is it to an indi film with a tenth of that budget?

It so happens that I recently chatted with a producer behind a direct to DVD title that fitted that description perfectly - it had a $1.5 million budget.  It even turns out that one of the presales was with Transmission - who was also one of the presales behind 'The Kings Speech'.

So I asked him, and his attitude was interesting:

"Presales are a tricky thing. We are producers with our own financing and presales are a must for us to internally green-light a project. 

As well, if a project can’t get acceptable presales based on cast, key crew and script, that would be an indicator that there is not a strong market for your film or it needs to be re-tooled.  

It is also a great check on whether the budget is realistic or not, examining the sales estimates vs. the actual sales numbers.  

Why is it expected [that investors have such a high risk of no return] in the film business?Financial discipline is the key."

The most curious outcome is that this seems to be in direct contradiction to everything I read - which talks about how presales have dried up completely in the last five years!

Investor 2: Molinare
They invested about $320k in the film.  The reason for this investment was one I hadn't considered before.

They invested the money as a post-production company to help get the work of post-production.

At first this seems to be the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion machine ... but if we think of it as a way of putting the post-production costs onto a deferred payment plan it makes more sense.

Mark Foligno started doing this to help his SFX company during the recession.  It was successful - which doesn't mean that they recovered their money in all the films they worked with, but they certainly recovered more than their total investment.  As well as this the company had enough post-production work for them to flourish during the lean times.

---

What I learned from this:
1. Post production companies can be a source of investment
2. Investors don't have to rely on box office returns for recoupment

For the second point to apply there is the problem of having sufficient pre-sales ... which is a major undertaking.  But it is possible for the right project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9liworj7pVk

‘The King’s Speech’: A Royal Return for Film Financing Fund

 

Harriet Agnew, of Financial News, reports:

“The King’s Speech” the Oscar-winning period drama being dubbed the most successful independent British film ever, almost didn’t get made at all. A host of high-profile production houses turned down the opportunity to back the project, but their loss has become one London investment boutique’s gain.

Associated Press

Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin accept the Oscar for best motion picture for “The King’s Speech” at the 83rd Academy Awards on Sunday.London’s Prescience Film Finance stepped in to provide two thirds of the film’s £9 million ($14.5 million) budget using its £25 million Aegis Film Fund.

Then the film, which already grossed $245 million world-wide, scooped a host of prizes at the 83rd Academy Awards in Los Angeles on Sunday, including the awards for Best Film and Best Director, while Colin Firth took home Best Actor for his portrayal of the stammering monarch George VI. James Swarbrick, commercial director at Prescience, believes that cinema takings will hit $330 million. He added that DVD revenue typically is the same.

Aegis began funding the film in November 2009. Swarbrick said: “We act like a media bank, raising finance for independent films.”

Aegis’s model is to securitize an up-front loan to a film producer against guaranteed future revenue streams, such as tax credits and distribution sales, which are payable once the film is completed. For “The King’s Speech,” the fund lent money against the U.K. tax credit at a rate of 15%, against presales contracts at 15%, and at a rate of 18-20% against distribution in territories that hadn’t been presold.

Equity film financing is notoriously risky – according to data from the UK Film Council, only 35 of the 333 UK films released internationally from 2003 to 2006 turned a profit for investors.

But Swarbrick said the Aegis fund is structured so that its returns are not dependent upon the box-office success of any individual film. “We make all of our returns from interest and fees charged from the loans,” he said.

Still, fund will share in the success because the terms of its loan entitle it to a share of any net profit–something Swarbrick said was “an unexpected bonus.”

Once the entire budget has been recouped, the profit is divided up, with half shared between the producers, directors and actors, and the remainder shared between the film’s financiers.

The Aegis fund launched in March 2009 and returned 13.8% after fees in its first year. Swarbrick said that its second year is expected to post similar returns, not including the profit share in “The King’s Speech” that Swarbrick estimates will add another 10% to the fund’s performance.