DISNEY China, convergence and franchising exemplified

UPDATE...

China had 4 of 2019's top 20 WORLDWIDE films. In September 2020 it was easily the world's biggest cinema market with the US covid-hit. Read an excellent analysis here.

As of the end of 2019, China now has 69,787 cinema screens, up 9,708 from 2018, according to the Communist party mouthpiece the People’s Daily, which added that more than 1.7 billion tickets were sold. The propagandistic publication went so far as to deem the current moment a “golden age” for the Chinese film industry’s development, as “the market bubble fades… and Chinese films continue to steadily improve.” (Variety: China’s Box Office Hit New Heights in 2019, as Hollywood’s Share Shrank. Good detail on how the Chinese market is shifting towards homegrown hits)

FURTHER UPDATES: Barr condemns Disney and Hollywood for 'kowtowing' to China.

Mulan shows how far Disney will go, self-censor, to maximise the Chinese market (Guardian).

Disney is so damned big it even owns one of its main TV subscription rivals, Hulu. The mighty mouse movie company now gets 50% of its revenues from its multiple theme parks, but is also as much a TV company as it is a film company - from its subsidiaries like ESPN (sports channel) to zeitgeisty series making baby Yoda a global phenomenon, there's more to Disney than movies.

It's buying spree was seen as crazy by some - but bear in mind that Marvel cost them $4bn ... and the last Avengers movie alone raked in $3bn from the box office, never mind its value in driving $5.99/month subscribers to Disney+.

It's even managed to get back into China, having been banned for years because of pro-Tibet movies it now has a Shanghai Disneyland (but it's 57% owned by the Chinese government!) and since 2016 it has been getting movies distributed there again. Their Mulan remake has changed a lot of aspects to avoid upsetting the Chinese government!

This article ends on an intriguing notion - because their stock market value has dropped by over $80bn since the coronavirus hit (a third of their value) ... could Apple sweep in to buy this giant???

Taking the Mickey: how Disney swallowed up all of culture.

Statista.com breakdown of China's surging global share

WOMEN Disney back Davis gender script check

I've posted on the issue of women's under-representation at all levels of the film industry, including the nature or narrative significance of onscreen roles, since 2008.

In that time the Bechdel Test has become quasi-law in parts of Scandinavia and the #metoo movement has blown the lid of the routinised abusive behaviour of powerful men in the industry.

Changes, but still statistically the central issue remains pretty similar.

I'm doubtful that this move will achieve a momentous shift, and not entirely certain it's an entirely good thing: content analysis devoid of context - useful to add precision to analysis of overall trends but a fundamental impingement on storytelling freedom (of expression) potentially?

However YOU see it, it is a significant move, and as it's Disney, now seemingly headed for a 40/50% share of the global film market, who are partnering with Davis to trial and develop the AI (which scans scripts for gender terms and roles), it COULD lead to fundamental changes.

Though what will they do if the AI pings that their Marvel movies are fundamentally problematic...?
....

The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media was founded in 2007 after the actor – who won a best supporting actress Oscar in 1989 for The Accidental Tourist – became concerned about the male-dominated entertainment her young daughter was consuming.

At the summit, Davis added: “We don’t have enough female role models to inspire change. We need to see it in fiction to create the cultural change we need. If we see more women on screen as corporate leaders, scientists and politicians, there will be more women in real life taking up these roles.”

Geena Davis announces 'Spellcheck for Bias' tool to redress gender imbalance in movies https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/09/geena-davis-institute-gender-media-disney-machine-learning-tool?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Disney bank on franchise not A-List stars selling

Dreddful...star power meant unmasking
Sly to exploit his appeal, rather obviously
ruining the concept of the masked Dredd

I've picked up on this theme a few times, and there is strong evidence to argue the point either way, but there clearly is some doubt emerging over the continuing veracity and vigour of the star system; movie marketing being centred on attaching and selling star names.

The now well-established dominance of the franchise system appears to offer an alternative - though its only Disney currently that seems to be banking on this, its tentpole productions shaving many $10s of millions from CGI-heavy budgets by casting young unknowns in key roles - AND tying them into multi-film contracts that will keep them on relatively low salaries, avoiding awkward renegotiations where actors have a strong hand. Look at the budgets for the first two Scream movies, or BJDiary, for examples of how actors can up their demands to stay in a franchise.

The Disney examples (Star Wars: Force Awakens and much of the MarvelCU, excepting Robert Downey Jr) shouldn't, i think, be seen as typical enough to dismiss the rule #1 of the film business, and Disney currently are an exception amongst the Big Six in taking this approach.

Some franchises/IP have sufficient pre-existing audiences to cope without stars. Harry Potter and the Hunger Games are good examples, so too Twilight (as horrible as those movies are, at least to non-teen, non-girl viewers like myself!).

Shocker: critics and audience hate this movie.

Hollywood showed repeatedly before The Dark Knight kick-started the current MCU hegemony that shoving a big name into an iconic costume is often box office poison: Stallone's abysmal Judge Dredd is the classic example; whether his star brand or performance, or the script, were to blame, fans hated it and a general audience couldn't suspend belief for 90 minutes to really get into Rockie/Rambo as the meanest (robo)cop of them all.

Gant Rule, British exceptions and the China factor

UK box office of $60m rivalled the US ('domestic') take

Cinema is at once BOTH a highly globalised industry utterly dominated by the big six US conglomerates AND a highly localised industry in which local stars, settings, even IP/cultural reference points, sell.

The Gant Rule is a useful means of explaining the US dominance, even as this is swiftly undermined by the surging scale and value of the Chinese market, pushing the typical US box office share of a typical global hit to well below the traditional 50%+ (closer now to 40% and falling). This has seen Hollywood squeeze in Chinese stars and settings, shoot alternative endings and extra scenes for different markets, buy up or partner with Chinese firms (with the complication of strict Chinese laws on exporting money), and generally be more sensitive about portraying Chinese as villains or simply the traditional crass stereotype of inscrutable, unemotional, indistinguishable masses (not that this has entirely disappeared).

Headline from  The Wrap

Universal spent millions altering the plot of World War Z (reshoots) so that the epidemic didn't start in China in a doomed attempt to get into the Chinese market. Censors there frown upon horror ('The country has strict laws outlawing any movies that deal with magic, horror or superstition.'). China limits the number of non-Chinese productions allowed in cinemas to just 34 a year - though this may rise in 2017 following negotiations with the WTO (World Trade Organisation). It is not making it easy for Hollywood to extend its global dominance:

...in other cases studios don’t alter their movies until post-production. Chinese censors cut large chunks out of several movies released last year, including 40 minutes from “Cloud Atlas” and 12 minutes from “Men in Black 3,” excising all scenes in Chinatown.
They also cut parts of the latest James Bond film, “Skyfall,” including a scene that featured the assassination of a nameless Chinese security guard.

Marvel had initially planned “Iron Man 3” as a Chinese co-production, a tactic that has been taken with films like “Looper” and “The Karate Kid,” in part because co-productions are not subject to China’s quota for imported films. Chinese censors must still approve them. [The Wrap]

Just 20 years ago China banned all foreign cinema:

China only opened its market to the Hollywood studios in 1994, when its own film industry had reached its nadir. “It wasn’t out of admiration for Hollywood but to save the Chinese film industry,” Rosen said. “People weren’t going to the movies.”
At the time, China only permitted 10 foreign movies to screen, then increased it to 20 before the current total of 34. Those additional 14 slots are all reserved for IMAX or 3D films. [The Wrap]

There is no questioning the ongoing utter dominance of the UK market by Hollywood - for figures read the annual BFI reports. BUT ... localised content still often retains an edge.

The US star helped market the film globally, but the British setting did not help US box office: boxofficemojo.

Localised here is a very broad concept - as is the legal definition of 'British production' for tax purposes:

The UK box office has consistently punched above its weight with family films adapted from British-authored material, fromCharlie and the Chocolate Factory (£37.8m) and Alice in Wonderland (£42.5m) toThe Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (£44.4m) and, of course, Paddington (£38m).

These are mainly Hollywood productions, but with enough of a lingering element of Britishness to give them a home market boost, and so undermine the Gant rule. The Bridget Jones franchise is a more direct example, although it too is ultimately Hollywood fare (Brit producer WT being an NBC-U subsidiary, Polygram at the time of the original).

Gant's latest box office column highlights The BFG as the latest to benefit from this element of Britishness.

He also noted the latest example of event cinema, an annual classical concert now programmed in an incredible 534 screens, plus a stylized limited re-release earning more than the original run:

Also flying the flag for event cinema was Secret Cinema’s presentation of Dirty Dancing. ...  The run of just six dates delivered a final box office of £1.90m. That’s more than the combined runs of the original 1987 release (£1.62m) and the 20th-anniversary rerelease in 2007 (£224,000).

The BFG towers over UK box office while Star Trek Beyond fails to prosper.

A little bit more on the rising influence of the Chinese market, from an article which looks at directors outraged by remakes of their movies, in this case Red Dawn. The original 1980s flick saw Russians invade a US town, the recent remake swapped Chinese forces for this...until it dawned on the money men that they'd lose out on the Chinese market...so this was belatedly switched to North Korean forces:

Milius was partially vindicated when MGMchanged the invading aggressors to North Koreans for the final cut, though that move was made to appease the lucrative Chinese market more than to cheer up the original film’s director.

How dare you remake my classic! When directors attack

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/sep/16/how-dare-you-remake-my-classic-when-directors-attack?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

MALE GAZE left behind in Deadpool?

A lengthy discussion here on the extent to which the 'pansexual' Deadpool character is or is not counter-hegemonic (underming hetero-normativity), given that the only relationship or physical intimacy (other than with a unicorn in the end titles) is with his girlfriend ... but also a very direct discussion of the male gaze, and how it might be subverted here.

Note how the writer homes in very specific moments; this is just what you need to do too when writing an analysis of cinema - in the micro elements we find evidence to discuss the macro environment in which these are created and consumed:

The film’s reluctance to make good on its hero’s pansexuality should not overshadow the little moments of daring, the subtle advancements, that have survived to the screen. In a medium characterised by the male gaze, it is implicitly radical to include a lingering closeup of a man’s pert behind, especially when that shot isn’t giving straight male viewers the get-out clause of replicating a woman’s point-of-view: everyone, male or female, is simply being invited to enjoy the image on its own merits.

UNIVERSAL tentpole franchise kings hiking ahead

ScreenDaily reports on the huge turnaround, after a poor 2014

IN THIS POST: Analysis of how Universal's shifting strategy impacts on WT; an outline of what this strategy is, with key figures; details of how the new horror universe was proposed in 2014, and how its taking shape in 2016; the Battlestar Galactica bid to take on Star Wars.

Working Title's conglomerate parent, NBC-Universal, clearly knew what it was doing in downgrading its subsidiary's relationship to 'first look' status*; NBC-U would have first refusal over any new WT production, but had no obligation to pick it up for distribution or to fund production proposals. WT have to find their own financing now, even if that still often means pre-signing distribution deals with StudioCanal or UIP, all part of the NBC-U (and Comcast) conglomerate. Gone are the days of massive block funding for WT.

*See this post for details on the new deal (and a definition of first look), signed in 2012 and due to run out in 2015; no news yet of any changes

This shift in approach, which may seem surprising given how successful WT have been, reflects a hardening of Universal's commitment to the tentpole strategy, and the franchising that largely underpins this. Anita Elberse, who uses the term 'blockbuster' in her book, would approve: she argues that this is the only viable approach for any major player in any entertainment industry (she also considers football and music among other industries - a very interesting, digestible read, I recommend it).

VERTICAL, HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION an illustration: Warp, Working Title, Marvel, Avatar

Some of NBC-Universal's film subsidiaries

Working Title is part of a vertically integrated conglomerate, NBC-Universal, itself part of a much larger parent company, Comcast. NBC-U turns over an incredible $25bn a year and combines production through such subsidiaries as Working Title, distribution through Focus Features, StudioCanal and Universal International Pictures, as well as exhibition arms ranging from the US TV network NBC to the subscription streaming site Hulu. Horizontal integration and the synergies from this are part of their strategy, with the films fuelling interest in the Universal theme parks for example. Working Title have been part of horizontal integration strategies ever since they expanded into the American market and sold off 67% of their shares to PolyGram (later bought by NBC-U). One of their earliest global hits, 1994’s £3m Four Weddings and a Funeral which grossed an incredible global £150m, had an OST (soundtrack) on Island Records … a subsidiary of PolyGram!

CONVERGENCE Working Title TV

IN THIS POST: This links into several posts on convergence and ownership issues, and explores just how converged a company WT really is ... and the influence of ownership on this. I briefly raise points discussed in detail in previous posts.

Screenshot of the Wiki.

WHAT THIS WIKI SCREENSHOT TELLS US...
Great academic research, eh?!
This tells us three key things before we consider more recent developments:

CONVERGENCE A list of resources

I'm working on a fresh guide on convergence (and the wider issue of digitisation). Instead of putting all the sources I'll use into one over-long post, or adding yet another links list, you can find here, with summaries and some notes, a list of further resources. Convergence is also dealt with in many journal articles and book chapters!!!

When I put together guides I'm inevitably summarising, reducing, a wide range of material; if you want to look deeper, this (and the Library/classroom resources!) is a good starting point.

Rob Carlton (senior OCR examiner) Medi@CHS blog
Rob is a useful source, as someone involved in the syllabus design for OCR, and his school blog has lots of useful links.


Hendry, Steph (2015) "Two Key Concepts: The Relationship Between Audience and Institution", in Media Magazine, April 2015.

The link above requires a login (ask myself or Librarian). Much of the analysis below is my own, but linked to Hendry's points.

Nice example of how large conglomerates integrate seemingly contrasting brands:

According to one definition, brand = product + personality. Knowing the brand means that the audience can feel reassured when they access a product produced by a familiar, wellloved brand. Consider the ‘personalities’ constructed by two very different institutions: Disney and Marvel. Both are associated with blockbuster film, but our expectations of their products may be quite different.

DIGITISATION, GLOBALISATION, CONVERGENCE Superhero hegemony in brief

Another critic (Jason Wilson) rather irked at the hegemony of superhero tentpoles. If you use the superhero tag in particular you'll find several linked articles analysing the rise of these films and this me-too strategy.

A quick summary follows of key points you can utilise to show your understanding of how (British and global) cinema functions ...

CONVERGENCE All the world's a Marvellous stage/silver screen

See Marvel section below for analysis; image source.

Age Of Ultron marks Whedon’s swan song in the Avengers director chair but it’s hardly the end of the saga. The two-part Infinity War story has been set in stone for 2018 and 2019, along with eight other Marvel titles. DC, looking to get its comic-book universe up and running, has also announced a hefty release schedule. In tandem with a fresh batch of X-Men sequels, Spider-man spin-offs and Fantastic Four reboots, that’s at least 25 new superhero movies over the next five years.  - Bernstein, 2015.  See later sections below for analysis of the Marvel universe, UGC, web 2.0 and extended narratives...

I'll add to this shortly [done!]; having blogged on convergence (TV-film) this morning, this caught my eye, and made me think of theatrical adaptations of Bridget Jones, Billy Elliot and such. This can go the other way - West Side Story being an early example, Les Miserables  a more recent (Working Title) example. WT have a long track record of exploiting IP (intellectual property), especially novels, for adaptation (Atonement, BJD...).

Do you believe in fairies? Does Harvey Weinstein?
The famously fractious producer has spent millions of dollars and run through a couple of casts and creative teams in a diehard attempt to transform the 2004 Miramax film Finding Neverland into a Broadway show. - Soloski (2015) - Finding Neverland review – Gary Barlow's dull songs sink muddled show.

Once more, if we consider Working Title and Warp, we can see how a process evangelised by some (take a bow Dan Gillmor, or Chris 'long tail theory' Anderson) as democratising, levelling the playing field, actually seems to favour the conglomerates (...take a bow Andrew Keen, John McMuria, maybe even Anita 'blockbuster [ie tentpole] strategy' Elberse)!

CONVERGENCE Toronto (TIFF) to add TV

See previous post for more, including analysis of how Kickstarter fits with this topic. There are further posts on convergence, including this detailed guide to convergence + digitisation.

“Film and television have been converging for years, with many filmmakers gravitating to television to experiment with that medium,” said Cameron Bailey, artistic director of the festival. “Primetime will highlight these developments internationally, spotlighting the growing intersection between these two moving-image cultures and industries.”

Benjamin Lee (2015, Guardian): Toronto film festival announces new focus on television.

As well as previous posts specifically on this topic, there is much more on convergence to be found on this blog!

The blurring of the line between TV and film has been increasingly evident: Shane Meadows following up This is England with two (soon to be three) C4 series, and Fargo one of many films adapted for TV series (Conal was yesterday recommending Daredevil, a fairly atrocious movie transformed into a critically acclaimed series).