Takings from 3D film have gone downhill in the past couple of years because of three main reasons. Firstly since 3D became a novelty a few years ago the 'wow factor' has worn off and people are less interested in the idea. Secondly to see a film in 3D at the cinema usually costs more than to see it in 2D and since the novelty has worn off anyway people are less inclined to pay more. And finally, many people don't want to see films in 3D such as in 2011 the film 'The King's Speech' is the sort of film that wouldn't work well if shown in 3D.
WHERE DO YOU THINK BRITISH LOW AND MICRO-BUDGET FILMS END UP BEING SHOWN?
Most low budget British films are not able to be shown in Multiplex or Odeon cinemas because they are competing with high budget Hollywood films, because of this most will end up being shown in Arthouse cinemas such as the Clapham Picturehouse because it is lower cost and there is less competition.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE GOING TO THE CINEMA MID-WEEK? WHO ARE LIKELY TO ATTEND THE CINEMA OUTSIDE OF OPENING WEEKENDS?
In most cinemas it is cheaper to visit the cinema mid-week than at peak times in the week such as friday or saturday evenings. This is one reason why more people are visiting the cinema mid-week, along with the fact that many more middle-aged people (especially parents) are visiting the cinema in the week to have a night out. This same group of people are the people who more likely to attend the cinema outside of opening weekends because they aren't so bothered about seeing the film as soon as it comes out.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE IN DVD SALES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS?
In recent years sites such as Lovefilm and Netflix have become increasingly popular. These sites mean that people can sign up to the site and then watch almost any film at any time for only a few pounds, Lovefilm also has a system that works on a monthly fee where they send you 2 DVDs per month that you pick off their website. Sites like these mean less people will buy DVDs unless they will want to see the film more than once because of the price difference.
Film piracy has also meant less people have been buying DVDs, if people want to see a film more than once they can just download if off the internet. Or, if again they only want to watch it once they can simply stream it off the internet too. These both mean a decline in DVD sales because people can spend less for almost the same experience.
SUMMARISE WHAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME ABOUT THE UK FILM MARKET OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, AND WHAT HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED?
Over the past 10 years the annual admissions for the UK have fluctuated very little and have generally remained around £170million. Another factor that has remained the same is the types of huge blockbuster films haven't changed, for example the final Harry Potter film was released in 2012, a production which had been running for many years by then.
However the UK film market has also changed in the past decade, for example now almost every cinema screen in the UK is digital where as in 2002 only 4 of the 3,258 screens were digital. VHS tapes barely exist anymore in 2012, where as in 2002 these tapes were still regularly sold across the country. Finally the main factor that has dramatically changed in the past decade is the total gross box office sales which have gone from £755 million to over £1 billion since 2002.
HOW DOES FILM PRODUCTION IN THE UK SEEM TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE HOLLYWOOD MODEL OF LARGE, POWERFUL STUDIOS?
Film production in the UK is generally much lower budget than when made in Hollywood Studios because Hollywood, being such a huge and powerful corperation, can easily make much higher budget films and therefore films which are more likely to contain very famous high-paid actors, and more special effects. The production of a film in the UK is unlikely to use any effects in the film, for example CGI, green screen or animation. The main reason for this is lower budget and different film genre. The UK's most famous film genres are costume drama and social realism, both these types of films don't require any sort of special effects as they are intended to look natural and real.
WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO A FILM PRODUCER OF THEIR FILM BEING BRANDED AS BRITISH? HOW IS IT ALSO ATTRACTIVE TO INVESTORS FROM OUTSIDE THE UK? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS THAT MAKES IT EASY FOR HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS TO DOMINATE OUR FILM MARKET?
The benefits for a film producer of their film being branded as British is that this appeals to a certain British target audience who are less interested in Hollywood style films and prefer British films more about social realism. It is also attractive to investors from outside of the UK for a film to invest in entirely British films because if a film is entirely British and is then made in Britain, the UK will offer tax breaks, excluding 20% VAT which could potentially save the production company huge amounts of money, also meaning investors will gain a higher profit.
It is very easy for Hollywood studios to dominate our film market because there are many ways that an American company can become part of the film production. For example if a film is made by a British company but this company is owned by a larger American group, or on the other hand if the production of the film is entirely British, however is then distributed by an American company in the UK and this company then takes a percentage of the box office profits. Both of these options mean that the film could be said to be not entirely British.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE COALITION GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN THE UKFC?
The coalition government decided to close down the UKFC because in their opinion it did not work well enough to justify its own survival. For example in its last 10 years it put £160 million of Lottery money into more than 900 productions. The UKFC was also accused of throwing public money at the art house, while also backing too much mainstream work that could surely find funding from elsewhere. It seemed that the UKFC told businesses what they could or couldn't make acing as some kind of state bureaucracy. Because of these reasons the coalition government decided that the UKFC was doing more harm than good and therefore decided to close down.
DO YOU THINK THE UK FILM INDUSTRY NEEDS A BODY LIKE THE UKFC/BFI? WHY?
In my opinion the film industry does not need a body like the UKFC/BFI because it seems like they share there funding without much thought as to which films the money is going to, also they take 20% of the gross box office takings and although they are unlikely to be making a profit from that they are receiving huge amount of Lottery money to keep them running. Also, even thought the UKFC/BFI is helping to fund the film, they are not the film's main source of funding, as without a film having the backing of a major US studio the film would struggle to make any profit. The backing from a US studio is the British film's way of obtaining money, resources and expertise.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE IN DVD SALES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS?
In recent years sites such as Lovefilm and Netflix have become increasingly popular. These sites mean that people can sign up to the site and then watch almost any film at any time for only a few pounds, Lovefilm also has a system that works on a monthly fee where they send you 2 DVDs per month that you pick off their website. Sites like these mean less people will buy DVDs unless they will want to see the film more than once because of the price difference.
Film piracy has also meant less people have been buying DVDs, if people want to see a film more than once they can just download if off the internet. Or, if again they only want to watch it once they can simply stream it off the internet too. These both mean a decline in DVD sales because people can spend less for almost the same experience.
SUMMARISE WHAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME ABOUT THE UK FILM MARKET OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, AND WHAT HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED?
Over the past 10 years the annual admissions for the UK have fluctuated very little and have generally remained around £170million. Another factor that has remained the same is the types of huge blockbuster films haven't changed, for example the final Harry Potter film was released in 2012, a production which had been running for many years by then.
However the UK film market has also changed in the past decade, for example now almost every cinema screen in the UK is digital where as in 2002 only 4 of the 3,258 screens were digital. VHS tapes barely exist anymore in 2012, where as in 2002 these tapes were still regularly sold across the country. Finally the main factor that has dramatically changed in the past decade is the total gross box office sales which have gone from £755 million to over £1 billion since 2002.
HOW DOES FILM PRODUCTION IN THE UK SEEM TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE HOLLYWOOD MODEL OF LARGE, POWERFUL STUDIOS?
Film production in the UK is generally much lower budget than when made in Hollywood Studios because Hollywood, being such a huge and powerful corperation, can easily make much higher budget films and therefore films which are more likely to contain very famous high-paid actors, and more special effects. The production of a film in the UK is unlikely to use any effects in the film, for example CGI, green screen or animation. The main reason for this is lower budget and different film genre. The UK's most famous film genres are costume drama and social realism, both these types of films don't require any sort of special effects as they are intended to look natural and real.
WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO A FILM PRODUCER OF THEIR FILM BEING BRANDED AS BRITISH? HOW IS IT ALSO ATTRACTIVE TO INVESTORS FROM OUTSIDE THE UK? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS THAT MAKES IT EASY FOR HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS TO DOMINATE OUR FILM MARKET?
The benefits for a film producer of their film being branded as British is that this appeals to a certain British target audience who are less interested in Hollywood style films and prefer British films more about social realism. It is also attractive to investors from outside of the UK for a film to invest in entirely British films because if a film is entirely British and is then made in Britain, the UK will offer tax breaks, excluding 20% VAT which could potentially save the production company huge amounts of money, also meaning investors will gain a higher profit.
It is very easy for Hollywood studios to dominate our film market because there are many ways that an American company can become part of the film production. For example if a film is made by a British company but this company is owned by a larger American group, or on the other hand if the production of the film is entirely British, however is then distributed by an American company in the UK and this company then takes a percentage of the box office profits. Both of these options mean that the film could be said to be not entirely British.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE COALITION GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN THE UKFC?
The coalition government decided to close down the UKFC because in their opinion it did not work well enough to justify its own survival. For example in its last 10 years it put £160 million of Lottery money into more than 900 productions. The UKFC was also accused of throwing public money at the art house, while also backing too much mainstream work that could surely find funding from elsewhere. It seemed that the UKFC told businesses what they could or couldn't make acing as some kind of state bureaucracy. Because of these reasons the coalition government decided that the UKFC was doing more harm than good and therefore decided to close down.
DO YOU THINK THE UK FILM INDUSTRY NEEDS A BODY LIKE THE UKFC/BFI? WHY?
In my opinion the film industry does not need a body like the UKFC/BFI because it seems like they share there funding without much thought as to which films the money is going to, also they take 20% of the gross box office takings and although they are unlikely to be making a profit from that they are receiving huge amount of Lottery money to keep them running. Also, even thought the UKFC/BFI is helping to fund the film, they are not the film's main source of funding, as without a film having the backing of a major US studio the film would struggle to make any profit. The backing from a US studio is the British film's way of obtaining money, resources and expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment