the main theorists for each category.

Gender

• Laura Mulvey - 1975 - ' women are seen as sexual objects of desire, '
• David Gauntlett - 2002 - ' extra strong macho man still circulate popular culture '
• Mackillon - 2002 - ' men used in similar ways to women - emotional and sensitive '

Youth

• Stanley Hall - 1904 - ' young people seek excitement through drugs and sex '
• Hebrige - 1988 - ' youth as fun and youth as trouble maker '
• Osgerby - 1988 - 'crime, violence and sexual licence have been recurring themes in media's treatment of youths.'

Sexuality

• Dyer - 1993 - ' you cannot see sexuality ' ' you don't know someone is homosexual until they tell you.'

Disability

• Jessica Evans -  1988 - ' disabled people are seen as childish and dependant '
• Jordanova - 1989 - ' object to be owned '
• Barnes - 1992 - 'limited number of roles '

Ethnicity

• Pieterse - 1992 - ' Western expansion has led to racism being recycled '
• Malik - 1988 - ' whiteness has been naturalised - invisible norm'
• Stuart Hall - 1981 - ' Standard image of blackness being the social problem'

Class

• Gandall - 2007 - ' Lower class people are seen as the cultrural other '
• Richard butsch - 1992 - ' Almost all working class series, the male is flawed.' e.g. Homer Simpson.
• Medhurst - 1988 - ' Awfull cause not like us '

Regional Identity

• Andrew Higson - 1998 - ' identity is generally understood to be the shared identity of naturalised in habitants of a particular political geographic space'
• Beneict Anderson - 1983 - ' Media play a vital role in constructing a national identity.' 

Audience.

The target audiences of films have certain classes. A,B,C1,C2,D,E.

 One of the most common ways of identifying a target audience is the social-economic model. Even though this model, used by the NRS (National Readership Survey Ltd), has been used for a long time, it is still a useful way of identifying an audience and deconstructing a text. 

The basis for the system is money – AB audiences, for example, are assumed to have more spending power that CDE audiences. 

However, it is also presumed AB audiences prefer high culture (e.g. art-cinema, broadsheets and late night art programs on TV). While CDE, who stereotypically like Hollywood commercial films and watch more TV/films makes up a larger proportion of society making this the 'mass audience

Mass Audience

 mass audiences are basically large mainstream audiences who consume mainstream or popular culture (Marxist would claim that this audience is largely made up of the ‘working class’), such as Hollywood films, Eastenders, reality TV, Premiership football, simple Hollywood, tabloids etc. High culture, by contrast, is usually associated with broadsheets, opera, ballet and BBC Four.

Niche Audience 

 A niche audience is smaller than a mass audience but usually very influential e.g. those Marxist would define as upper class/middle class who controlled the media may wish to see ‘high culture’ programs hence the launch of BBC Four for those who wish to hear/see artistic high culture programs. Niche audiences don’t have to be this group, though, they can be any small dedicated group who advertisers feel are worth targeting/marking products for. Examples could include, certain films (e.g. 'adult' movies - which can not really be called ‘high art’), fishing magazines, farming programs.

'Even though some critics still believe that there is some truth to this model (hence why age restrictions exist and some products are banned completely) others felt that this model oversimplifies the situation. For example, David Morley did a nationwide ‘Reception Theory’ study in 1980 to determine how different audiences view the same text (he showed them all the same edition of Nationwide – a local news program shown after BBC One’s main evening news bulletin). He found that the way audiences interpreted a text generally fell under one of the following:

Exam practice question...

"Successful media products depend upon catering for the needs of a specific target audience." To what extent do you agree with this statement within the media area you have studied? 

In terms of this quote, Zombieland's target audience is Men aged 15-30 with a nationality of American and sexuality of straight. The class would be a C1-E (lower middle class to lowest grade workers.) As Hall and Holmes said, 'Any media text is created for a particular audience and will usually appeal most to this particular target audience'  I could relate this to Zombieland and how they had made it because all throughout the process of making it, they kept in mind that their target audience of men would like all the blood and gore that they were offering. 

They also used the casting stage of the production to relate to the target audience because they cast a young(attractive) actor to play the damsel in distress. this links to the theory by laura Mulvey who said women are seen 'as erotic objects of desire.' And Emma Stone fits that description of skinny, attractive and usually the victim. This all helps men to engage with the film. 

My other chosen film, Shaun of the Dead, the target audience were 15-30-year-old men who were straight and British who belonged to the classes of C1 to E. This film would have a Niche audience because of the content of the film. it is more of a fan-based film that would have liked zombies and the key actors in the film. in the production process of this film, they would have been thinking about this when they cast it with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Both in the program spaced which was written by Pegg. They even cast the extras from a fandom site of the program spaced. This would strongly relate to their audience. 

The film that made the most money was Zombieland because of its mass audience and use of marketing. To link back to the question, I agree with the statement because the Hollywood film catered for all aspect of its target audience, whereas the British film had a niche audience and did not make as much money. It also was made by a smaller production studio than the Hollywood film. 

The impact of Technology

The Technology Timeline. 

Movie Camera Development/black and white                                                                          1894 

silent era of black and white films                                                                                    1900-1927 

Edward A Turner and George Albert Smith invented colour                                                    1906

Scotsman invented television                                                                                                    1926 

Some synchronised sound appears                                                                                  1927- 1979 

Computers getting invented                                                                                                       1939

Technology improved                                                                                                       1970-1990 

Home Video invented                                                                                                       1970-1980 

CGI                                                                                                                                           1980's

non linear                                                                                                                          1990-2010

DVD'S replaced VHS                                                                                                                1995 

Internet                                                                                                                            1990s-2005 

Technology Has come a very along way and we can see it in films like avatar and all the technology
that was used in the making of the film.

Key quotes. (taken from Miss Stott's Blog.) 

“A broader version of conventional literacy, which enables all visual, aural and digital forms, seeking to enable people to become thoughtful producers and interpreters of media” (Peter Fraser)


“By looking at how culture is used and transformed by social groups, cultural studies see people not simply as consumers, but as potential producers of new social values and cultural language” (Toby Miller 2006) new media such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Blogger etc. is a classic example of consumers becoming producers and, as Miller says, ‘potential producers of new social values and cultural language’ because any individual can reach as mass audience.


Gauntlett (2007a) goes as far as to say that new media (and new media technologies) erodes the boundary between producer and audience to the extent that it makes little sense to talk about media audiences at all anymore: “Conventional research methods are replaced—or at least supplemented by new methods which recognise and make use of people's own creativity, and brush aside the outmoded notions of 'receiver' audiences and elite 'producers' (Gauntlett, 2007)

Exam practice question.

The continuing of media practices throughout the years has a huge effect on the audience for many reasons and one of huge significance would be that when making a film, the producers and directors want to emerge their audience into the movie and make them feel as if they are in the movie without characters. However with bad equipment , this would not be possible because the technology these days allow the directors and producers to do such things. They fully emerge their audience and they want to see more. 10 to twenty years ago, this would have been the same because then, people would not have known any better quality of technology but with the continuing of media practices in the film world, people these days have seen pretty much everything, making it difficult to create something new and exciting.This is very significant because it could eventually lead to the fall and collapse of the film industry now. (as we know it)

The theory that can relate to this would be Toby Miller's quote in 2006, " by looking at how culture is used and transformed by social groups, cultural studies see people not simply as consumers, but as potential producers of new social values and cultural language." because it shows that the viewers of the films are very important because they are the ones that can show interest in the technology. If they see that the technology is not changing or improving, they may find it boring and not go to see many more movies.

Apart from the audience, the other significant thing that it can change and help would be the cinemas because if you use a brand new type of filming equipment for filming a new film, it may not be compatible with the screening type of the cinema.

Marketing

Marketing Draft. 

My Two chosen films were shuan of the dead(2004) and Zombieland (2009). The Marketing budget for Shaun of the dead was ........................... the marketing budget for Zombieland was ........................................ .

Marketing to the right target audience is very important and as Hall and Holmes said in 1988, ' any media text is created for a particular audience and will usually appeal to this particular target audience.' which is very true and can be applied to all types of target audiences in film. It is important because without knowing who will be watching your film, how will you know what to put in your film? How will you know anyone will go and see it in the cinema.

Shaun of the dead Marketed to its target audience by releasing 2 trailers in about a month. This would of caught the attention of its target audience because after watching the first one, you would be more inclined to watch the second one. On the other hand, Zombieland, being a Hollywood film would of released two or three trailers. Giving them the advantage over the British film. The posters were also bigger in budget scale for the Hollywood film. Hollywood would of had the advantage here because of the budget they had. For example, Zombieland had two or three different posters advertising their film at the time and shaun of the dead would of had one or two advertising it. However both Hollywood and British would of had billboards with their posters on. But, Zombieland would of had the advantage because of the amount of posters it had in comparison to Shaun of the Dead.

I think that marketing is not as important as production because without the production, you would not have a film to market. I also believe that more money should be spent on the production step of the movie making process than the marketing because it uses more resources and completes the film in general. In Zombieland's case, I believe that the production would have been more important because of the amount of actors and extras and CGI in the film. Also, the budget for the whole film would have been higher altogether because it is the Hollywood film out of my two films. However in Shaun of the dead's case, the production would have been around the same as the marketing because the films budget would have been low.

Viral marketing would be a great addition to the marketing game because it is basically free to post a trailer to social media and youtube. It would also level the playing field because both hollywood andBritish film companies would be able to market their films for free.  Giving them more money to spend on different things in the films, just like the production.

Film History

In the 1930's , Film in America was being revolutionized because of the film, Wizard of oz. Directed by Victor Fleming, the film was the first major production to be in color. It was filmed in a three- striped technicolor. It boosted the film industry in America because other films started to do the same. However over in the U.k, Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! was a black and white Drama that did not compare to the american film.

In the 1940's, Film in America consisted of Comedy's, Dramas and westerns. The biggest movie in America at the time was Rebecca Directed by Alfred Hitchcock and this film made $6 million and in its day was very popular. However, the decade as a whole for America was dark following the attack on the u.s Pearl Harbour. Which evoked a spark in the film industry to create films that would boost moral in the war. In Britain in 1940, it was a different story. The British industry was making films to create false sense of what was going on over in Europe at the time. Again the budget for these would have been low because of the war and the fact that the films themselves would not have been that expensive to produce and make back then, because the lack of technology to produce the films that we do today.

In the 1960's, American studios returned back to financially supporting the British film industry. they supported those that especially used and capitalised the term, 'Swinging London' which was propagated by time magazine in 1966. Films like, ' the knack and how to get it' and 'Darling' (both in 1965) explored the term, Swinging London. Another event to mark film history in the U.K would be films like, ' women in love ' and ' Alfie ' using female and male full-frontal nudity in mainstream movies for the first time. Meanwhile in America, (1965) The sound of music was released boosting the industry into the 1970s.

The 1970 opened with a financial slump for America but in 1975, the film industry was boosted once again with films like Jaws, Star wars and close encounters. All of which were ground breaking in their approach to film. Star wars was the first of many and it invented the merchandise that we have today, like figurines.However in Britain, the film industry was struggling because America had stopped funding british films because of the recession. However, they still were making films like the Battle Of Britain.

The 1980's began with a huge recession that effected the film industry in Britain. Only 31 U.K films were made. this was down 50% from the previous year. The start of this decade also saw the emergence of self-financed British films. This was very different because when a film was made in the U.K, they were either American financed or had American director/producers. However, the 80's soon turned itself around in the film industry when the companies, like Channel 4 and Gold crest, started to make gritty comedies that were hugely popular in the U.K and internationally. To conrast this, America was Thriving in the film industry. They were making huge films like, Airplane and Riders of the lost Ark (which made 389.9 million US dollars in box office.)

At the start of the 1990's the  British film industry was on a low once again because of the lack of interest in the cinemas for British made films. However, once again, they had managed to turn this around when the film, Four Weddings and a Funeral was made. The film started a new trend in british film to make British set comedies, like Notting Hill and Bridget Jones. Both were as successful as Four Weddings. In America, cinema attendance was up mostly in multi screen complexes throughout the country. Altough the budget for a film in 1998 was $53.million, the films cost over $100.million to produce. This called for better stories and plots throughout the hollywood scene. This also lead to James Cameron's Titanic. (1997)

The 2000s hadn't had a huge impact on British film history because of the government not funding the British films. However this changed when Harry Potter was made. J.K Rowling did not sell all of the rights making the film British, which boost the film industry greatly. However in America, they finished the decade with the revolutionary Avatar ( 2009- James Cameron.)  which broke the record of the highest grossing film world wide. Which was previously James Cameron's own Titanic.

production cycle

In filmmaking and video production, pre-production formally begins once a project has been greenlit. At this stage, finalizing preparations for production go into effect. Financing will generally be confirmed and many of the key elements such as principal cast members, director and cinematographer are set. By the end of pre-production, the screenplay is usually finalized and satisfactory to all the financiers and other stakeholders.

During pre-production, the script is broken down into individual scenes storyboards and all the locations, props, cast members, costumes, special effects and visual effects are identified. An extremely detailed schedule is produced and arrangements are made for the necessary elements to be available to the film-makers at the appropriate times. Sets are constructed, the crew is hired, financial arrangements are put in place and a start date for the beginning of principal photography is set. At some point in pre-production there will be a read-through of the script which is usually attended by all cast members with speaking parts, the director, all heads of departments, financiers, producers, and publicists.

Even though the writer may still be working on it, the screenplay is generally page-locked and scene-numbered at the beginning of pre-production to avoid confusion. This means that even though additions and deletions may still be made, any particular scene will always fall on the same page and have the same scene number.

Pre-production is the process of fixing some of the elements involved in a film, play, or other performance. There are three parts in a production: pre-production, production, and post-production. Pre-production ends when the planning ends and the content starts being produced.

Production

(funded by production company)

• Principle photography takes place, in studios and/or on agreed locations (on average this takes 3 months). Hollywood has the advantage as vertical integration means access to studios, equipment etc. Also, they can afford to spend longer on shoots.

post production. 

This includes tasks such as the editing of raw footage to cut scenes, insert transition effects, working with voice and sound actors, and dubbing, to name a few of the many pre-production tasks. Post-production is the third and final step in film creation. It follows the pre-production and production phases.

finance2

Major USA Production/Distribution Companies

As Hanseen (2007) summarised, 'The Hollywood studio system era' of vertical integration that impacted production, distribution and exhibition (because the major companies owned the cinemas) came to an end in 1948; "when the USA Supreme Court issued its famous Paramount decision. The Paramount consent decree required the divestiture of affiliated cinema chains and the abandonment of a number of vertical practices" (Hanseen, 2007)

What this meant, in theory, was that the five major conglomerates (Fox, MGM, Paramount, RKO and Warner Brothers) and the partly integrated companies (Columbia, Universal and United Artists - N.B MGM have now bought out United Artists) who had made up the Hollywood studio system had to compete on a more level playing field with other companies. However, these companies did still have an advantage over independent studios because vertical integration could still take place at production and distribution levels - the court only ruled against cinema ownership (exhibition).

Distribution Companies

As McDougall (2008) summarised, five major distribution companies dominate the UK film industry:

- United International Pictures

- Warner Brothers

- Buena Vista

- 20th Century Fox

- Sony

None of these distribution companies are British, approximately 9/10 films seen in UK cinemas have been distributed by these Hollywood companies. In the majority of cases, these companies are either the same company who produced the film or are directly linked to the Hollywood production companies who made the film (vertical integration). Although the Paramount 1948 Supreme Court ruling now prevents these companies from owning the cinemas used for exhibition, films distributed by these Hollywood companies are still prioritized (for reasons of long term and short term profit) over films produced/distributed by independent companies e.g. Hollywood films generally gross more than a independent film and also because they make more films than independent companies cinemas can make more each year through supporting Hollywood films than they would if they started prioritizing independent films over Hollywood releases (doing this might prompt Hollywood to stop using this chain which would obviously impact profit for the cinema).

The fact that multiplex cinemas are often owned by American companies also has an impact here because they obviously have deals with the Hollywood distributors in the USA and UK that makes it easier/more cost effective for them to secure Hollywood blockbusters than it is for independent cinemas (it is basic business that works in the same way to Tesco's v independent stores).

Distribution is also expensive, Hollywood distributors can afford to spend millions on marketing and distribution while smaller independent companies struggle to compete. Aside from advertising, one of the biggest costs in prints (every film shown in a cinema is a separate 'print'). Each reel cost approximately £1000-£2000. When you multiply this by the number of cinemas in the UK, for example, it is easy to see why Hollywood companies can afford to 'blanket release' their products in the majority of cinemas while smaller companies struggle to do this.

In theory, this problem should be a thing of the past because we live in the 'digital age' and it would be straight forward for companies to simple digitally release their films to cinemas on the release date. This has a number of potential advantages:

1) Image quality could be improved. Have you every noticed 'scratches' on the screen at the cinema? The reason why you sometimes notice this is because the reels we get in the UK are the ones that have already been used in the USA cinema. Changing to digital distribution would solve this.

2) Piracy could be adverted if the film was released at the same time throughout the world.

3) It would cut costs dramatically and make it possible for British distributors to compete. Cutting cost could also mean more profits for production/distribution companies that they could then put back into films. 

The British Film Council even took steps to via the 'Digital Screen Network' to help equip independent cinemas with digital facilities. This has lead to more British films being shown in independent cinemas but the multiplex cinemas are not following this example because Hollywood films are still made on reels.

Why? Again, this links to economics and business - Hollywood distribution and production companies known they have a massive advantage over independent companies because they have more money. Through making films on reels they are ensuring they keep this advantage because it makes it harder for smaller companies to gain any market share without teaming up with Hollywood companies (to make D/E Category films) because they simply cannot afford to shoot 35mm pictures and print hundreds/thousands of reels without the financial backing from bigger companies.