CHALLENGE 1:

AUDIENCE

Complex nature of new media audiences New Media erodes the boundary between producer and audience to such an extent that it makes little sense to talk about media audiences at all. The ways in which convergence, user-created content and social networking have transformed the audience are often thought about in terms of audience fragmentation The decline of the broadcasting schedule, rolling news and internet information and media downloaded in various ways breaks up the potential audience group for any media form. In this climate media institutions are desperately trying to provide 360 degree branding for their products to surround us with themselves across all the various converged media forms that we come into contact with (Big Brother/Doctor Who) Csigo suggests that media institutions are no longer interested in keeping the audience together, but in triggering engagment in people. The media world changes from a value chain (cultural products made and distributed to audiences) to social network (a complex system where producers and audiences are mixed up) A shift from push media (where producers push media at us and we receive and consume it) to pull media (whereby we decide what we want to do with the media and access it in ways that suit us.) The key term that is often used to describe the proliferation of people making and distributing their own video is long tail

CHALLENGE 2:

DIGITAL MEDIA

Digital Media distribution and consumption has allowed consumers to become producers or at least interactors, and thus far more active users of media. Web 2.0: Google/YouTube/MySpace/Second Life are all examples of media that make convergence possible and accelerate it. Far more homes are now equipped with Broadband. This results in an increase in time spent online compared to other media (such as TV) As far as the major studios are concerned, digital technology offers great potential to increase profits and dangers in equal measure. Digital distribution will certainly transform the film industry more than any previous technological change since sound. Once it becomes the norm to download films via broadband, the potential for a new form of blanket distribution is obvious not only do you no longer need multiple prints, you can also bypass the cinemas (although the big screen offers a separate experience that is likely to remain attractive). Digital film has the advantage of offering identical versions of the film to each viewer, and this will without doubt save billions of pounds at the distribution phase. Despite the hype over piracy and the digital-enabling of this illegal activity, industry commentators believe that one advantage of digital distribution will be control and security, as most piracy is the result of a cinema-goer with a hidden camera distributing a poor quality version of a film to parts of the world where it has not yet been released (because the prints are currently somewhere else) Simultaneous global distribution via the internet will put an end to this time gap and thus its exploitation by pirates. One issue for debate is about the quality of digital movies. Whereas some filmmakers and critics argue that the binary reduction of images in the digital compression process

reduces the complexity of image and light, it appears that just as music in MP3 comes without the parts that the human ear cannot hear, so digital films remove the degrees of texture that most viewers wouldnt notice anyway. In a world increasingly concerned with the impact industry has on the environment , it is hard to justify the use of a technology (film manufacturing) which involves a highly toxic process, when a cleaner alternative is available. Another interesting prediction that Randle and Culkin make is to speculate that film extras (another costly necessity for the film industry) may soon be replaced by digitally generated synthespians time will tell! To summarise, the digitalisation of film offers a wide range of new institutional practices. There are greater possibilities for the manipulation of the image itself (Dark Knight Two Face) the editing process becoming more creative and composite images can be produced to incorporate digital animation. Tone way process of film making and consuming is threatened by the interactive zeitgeist, so that the generation of media users who are immersed in online media and videogames are likely to require new forms of interactivity in the film medium. Digital technology has reduced the costs of film making so much that DV can be seen as widening access to the means of production for new creative media. And the convergence of media through digital technology creates new opportunities for distributing and exhibiting. Good news for independent film companies? Warp X

CHALLENGE 3: EXHIBITION

THEATRICAL

Digital distribution means that it is possible to bypass the cinema Producers must ensure that the big screen still offers an experience that is attractive Cinema is an institution that has survived many threats in its life. Most notably, it was predicted that television would make it extinct, but cinema survived by securing cinema release prior to TV broadcast and because of its social night out context. Later the VCR seemed to have put a bigger nail in the coffin, but this time cinemas redefined themselves in multiplexes, offering a broader leisure experience on an American model, together with the emergence of the blockbuster and its associated expensive marketing. Despite multi-channel television offering viewers the opportunity to download films to watch at their convenience, hard drive recording, specialist film channels that are now relatively cheap to subscribe to and online rentals making the visit to the local blockbuster unnecessary, cinemas still survive (as does the blockbuster) The question is will cinema always survive technological change, or is the latest technology a bigger threat because it is at the exhibition end of the chain? Whereas the changes in accessibility given above are to do with distribution, the pleasure of the filmic experience is determined greatly by the size and quality of the screen. Hollywood films in particular are still largely driven by spectacle and noise, as well as character and narrative (perhaps with an eye to the preservation of the cinema box

office) and people still want to see these films on the biggest screen with the loudest sound) This certainly ay explain the current resurgence for IMAX and the scenes shot for The Dark Knight How does the independent sector deal with this? Are they interested in bigger and better?

CHALLENGE 4: DISTRIBUTION
Tony Angellotti (from within Hollywood) : If you break it down and look at it as a business then the audience has the greatest power. Its the audience that tells you what they like. So if the audience likes a particular superstar, then Hollywood is forced to use the superstar and then that star becomes extremely powerful Toby Miller (academic) : In a world where money spent on the budget of a film often sees 50 per cent going on promotion as opposed to what you actually see on the screen, the idea that we have a world where the consumer can exercise authority is absurd. The industry relies on knowing which parts of the world and the media need its products and will pay for them. Do millions of people go to see Pirates of the Caribbean 2 in the first week because it is a good film or because it is so well marketed? Or both? The promotion crucial at this stage involves paid for above the line advertising, which will be funded as part of the project, such as trailers. Posters, billboards and various spinoffs which are of mutual benefit to the film and another commercial agency, for example a MacDonalds Happy Meal with a film theme. It also includes related merchandising and below the line publicity which is not paid for, but again generates mutual interest. For example, an interview with a star in a newspaper or a magazine and reviews (the former will generally be positive but the latter is, of course, the great unknown to the film producer)

Distribution is key. Many films never get seen. It is crucial NOT to see film distribution as a helpful stage in the life of a film whereby distributors treat all films equally and ensure faiir play in getting fims to the publics attention. Do you imagine This is England was given the opportunities of The Dark Knight? The key players, the big companies who control much of the industry, control distribution of their own products, and of others. Slumdog Millionaire nearly went straight to dvd because of vthe big studio belief that there was not an audience for it! Effectively films are loaned out to cinemas for a finite period and release deals are done that secure access to a certain number of screens at a time. In the UK film market, an increase in the quantity of screens showing films has not led to an increase in the number of films shown. Five major distributors dominate the UK film industry: United International Pictures, Warner Brothers, Buena Vista, Twentieth Century Fox and Sony. Roughly nine of every ten films seen in the UK are viewed as a result of these distributors. In most cases these distributors are directly linked to the Hollywood production companies who make the films. Theydeal with exhibitors who are no longer (as used to be the case) owned by the same Hollywood companies, but who do, for reasons of profit, prioritise Hollywood films over others. This of course has a direct impact on independent film making in the UK. Usually the blockbuster films we are familiar with are distributed via a blanket release, so even if a small UK independent company manages to get its product into cinemas, it is usually competing for attention with one or more films that take on the status of an event. One of the outcomes of the distribution arrangement outlined above is that half the films released in Britain do not reach the whole country. Perhaps surprisingly, given we live in the digital age, one of the obvious problems smaller companies face is a rather old fashioned one.

Every film shown in a cinema is a separate print of the film, projected via a reel. The major companies can afford to produce far more prints than the smaller companies, knowing the expensive outlay of funds at this stage will be worth it in relation to Box Office returns. A small company producing a less commercial product (Warp Films: This is England) cannot afford to do that, so people who do want to see more alternative films often have to wait until their local independent cinema has a print, and often there is little choice over where and when to see it. The UK Film Council is addressing this problem via its digital screen network the deal is that cinemas receiving financial support to equip themselves with digital facilities (thus avoiding the issue os prints) will in return be expected to show more films from independent distributors