Showing posts with label event cinema. Show all posts
Showing posts with label event cinema. Show all posts

Sunday, December 04, 2016

VOD + BOUTIQUE CINEMA history + UK services overview

An excellent overview of the radical shifts in the cinema industry, responding to digital disruption by diversifying, not least going upmarket...
On a recent visit to a Curzon cinema in London I sat (lay, really) on a steeply pitched chair that had been upholstered in red fur. Outside in the lobby, the snacks for sale included prosecco-laced ice lollies and popcorn flavoured with specific French cheeses; I chose a wedge of iced sponge cake that was on display under a cloche. Inside the screening room, I wasn’t the only one clacking tableware while we waited for the feature – Woody Allen’s Café Society – to start.
A pre-film advert played, promoting the Curzon’s app. Audiences were advised that, next time, they could simply stay at home and use their phones to stream selected newly released films direct to their TVs. Café Society had a 1930s setting, a jazz soundtrack, Allen’s usual Windsor font in the credits. But the preamble to it had been powerfully, pungently modern, illustrating the lavishing-up of many cinemas and the spread of home-streaming services, developments that have come to characterise movie‑watching in 2016.
As Allen’s film played I lay on the near-horizontal, watching it down my nose and trying not to fall asleep during the slow bits like an old man in front of the snooker – asking myself how we’d got here. To cinema seats resembling pool loungers. To phones that with the right software could call up hundreds of thousands of feature films. Just under a third of the UK population now streams films and this year sales of digitally streamed or downloaded movies outstripped sales of DVDs for the first time.

Full stream ahead? The brave new world of cinemagoing.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Bridget Jones Baby marketing

I'll add to this - your own photos etc would be very welcome

This post builds on an earlier post, which itself is long and detailed, looking at the international nature of the campaign and the trailers especially, but also looking back at the scale of this franchise - so lets start there.

The latest movie is at $180m worldwide - a good return, but well down on past entries. There should be a 4th based on those numbers. See my post on the Gant Rule (with BJB as an exception) for more details - such as this, the only territories with 8-figure returns:
  • Australia $13m
  • France $14m
  • US $24m
  • UK $60m






The basic: Premieres
This generates TV news and wider media stories (eg Mirror):

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

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

Sunday, February 14, 2016

WARP v WORKING TITLE WEB 2.0 comparing social media

Through various case studies I've noted a key difference between the two companies in how their social media operates: scale.

In theory, web 2.0 creates a potential level playing field for Indie minnow and (conglomerate subsidiary) mini-studio alike ... but it still takes skilled, paid operators to create and update content, and respond to user comments/posts ... not to mention doing so in multiple languages (Paul and Les Miserables are just two WT examples which had Facebook accounts in multiple languages; you have to look to the truly weird L for a Warp example: essentially a Greek film, its no surprise to find a Greek language presence!).

Although we do see some very smart content (the Le Donk Xmas card) on some Warp sites, the considerable investment that WT make (encroaching on traditional distributor territory in doing so) on content rich websites stands out: the huge interactive Tinker, Tailor... online/offline game, Hot Fuzz Pacman, Shaun of the Dead Space Invaders... even the Smokin' Aces comic book.

Three basic points:
  1. These combined materials are a vast learning resource freely available to you - the YouTube uploads especially
  2. Warp's shift towards TV (think convergence) is evident based on my sampling today (Feb 14th 2016), with This is England 90 and The Last Panthers most prominent
  3. As I note above, the lack of investment from Warp in maintaining these sites is also clear, with nobody updating the YouTube description for example for at least 6 months!
WARP
THIS BLOG TAG
WIKI 
IMDB (no separate TV division)
IMDB Warp Films US (limited brand)
IMDB Warp X
IMDB Warp Films Australia
THE-NUMBERS.COM
WEBSITE
YOUTUBE
TWITTER
INSTAGRAM
FACEBOOK 
WARP FILMS 10 (a dead link - they can't afford to maintain hosting fees?!)
TUMBLR (actually Warp Records, no separate Films site, another sign of limited funds; sample: '71 post)
TUMBLR TAG: warp films (plenty of UGC, and links from other companies, such as Australia's Madman Films (Snowtown, Shopping, Partisan all with Warp).

NEWS SITES
VARIETY Leading Hollywood trade magazine.
BFI (Google search) - see their review of 10 key Warp releases.

WORKING TITLE
THIS BLOG TAG
WIKI 
IMDB
IMDB WT2
IMDB WTTV 
IMDB WT AUSTRALIA
THE-NUMBERS.COM
WEBSITE
YOUTUBE
TWITTER
INSTAGRAM
FACEBOOK
TUMBLR - no official page, but tagged a lot (including Working Title Korea) 

BFI 
VARIETY (also a simple search, brings up different results) 


COMPARING WARP/WT FOLLOWER NUMBERS:
Twitter Warp 30k v WT 8k
Facebook Warp 50k v WT 24k
YouTube Warp 666 v WT 388
Instagram Warp 4k v WT 4k
Tumblr numbers not shown
TOTALS: Warp 85k v WT 36k
BUT ... on YouTube views: Warp 159k v WT 466k (on a new channel, launched 2013, replacing previous channels)


WARP
THIS BLOG TAG
WIKI 

IMDB (no separate TV division)
The shift towards TV is clear

IMDB Warp Films US (limited brand)

IMDB Warp X

IMDB Warp Films Australia

THE-NUMBERS.COM
Notably this site only picks up on FOUR Warp films! An indication of their lack of US success (though the likes of TisEng are missing)

WEBSITE
Four social media outlets listed/linked.
Click on the 'read more' link for further screenshots, links and analysis

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

UK Cinema 2013 review - BFI key facts

You can find a wide range of BFI reports here (see screenshot below).

I've been reading through their 2013 Statistical Yearbook report - as its a cool 252 pages long, the following are just a few of the many points you can pick up from a skim or a more leisurely read yourself.

2013 BFI Yearbook - Selected Points
Note: Definition of ‘UK film’
For the purposes of this chapter, a UK film is one which is certified as such by the UK Secretary of
State for Culture, Media and Sport under Schedule 1 of the Films Act 1985, via the Cultural Test, under one of the UK’s bilateral co-production agreements or the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production, or a film which has not applied for certification but which is obviously British on the basis of its content, producers, finance and talent. Most UK films in the analysis (including the major studio-backed films) fall into the first group – films officially certified as British.
[p.76; see longer quote at the end]
Only the US and Japan have a larger 'filmed entertainment' market than the UK (valued at £4bn).