WORKING TITLE EDGAR WRIGHT Soho movie shoot begins

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1070601-production-begins-horror-pic-last-night-in-soho

https://movieweb.com/last-night-in-soho-poster/

BJBABY too British? Japan, Greece, US etc considered

IN THIS POST:

A nuanced view of WT's strategy.

Starting with Saunders' excellent Telegraph article I'll look at arguments that BJB is too British for the US market; non-English markets experience a radically different Bridget through culturally-weighted translations (eg Spain) - and even censorship (Japan). Japanese subtitles reposition Jones as closer to a traditional stereotypical female through certain formalities of grammar. Greeks were among many non-UK/US (Australia/NZ/Canada?) audiences to be left none the wiser when Aretha's Respect kicked in at a key point in the original movie - iconic tunes that 'everyone knows' don't necessarily cross Western, English-language borders.

Saunders cites a number of academic studies in doing so - this is a much-studied franchise and cultural phenomenon, so challenge yourself and look out for more in-depth reading!

One such example that I will re-read in due course, not least as it presents intriguing arguments on the tensions between WT and Richard Curtis' script between appealing to the domestic and US markets: Jones is at once Americanised and critical of American culture ... is the book Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema (Abbott, Jermyn eds. (2008)). 

I'll get to view the film in due course - but your own (or second hand) observations from this would be welcomed (post a comment).

TOO CULTURALLY ALIEN FOR THE US MARKET?

Headline for the Saunders piece.

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):

'71 Distribution and Marketing

This overlaps with other posts, but as there are a lot of images, a new post makes sense.

OVERVIEW: KEY POINTS
This is a film with wider ambitions, and arguably a more commercial approach, than most of Warp's productions - as it should, with its ambitious £5m budget*, twice that of Four Lions. UPDATE, 2016: BUT...It flopped, despite the awards, critical acclaim, and gaining distribution in the US and 10 more territories (12 total including the UK) for a worldwide total of $3m: $1.6m UK,, $1.3m US and just $355k from 10 other territories. *According to this Screen article (cited in Wiki) it was £8.1m

According to IMDB, it is getting theatrical releases in France, Spain, Greece, Germany, Canada, USA, Australia, Middle East (eg UAE, see section below). However, we have seen past Warp films such as Tyrannosaur getting distribution in multiple territories, but not getting any marketing spend to give it a real chance (its specialist LGBT distributor didn't issue a trailer, and it limped to a mere $22k). The absence of any information on its US distributor does not augur well.

IMDB company list.

Boxofficemojo: Not every distributor took up the option for a theatrical release.

OPENING WEEKEND: This has become a key figure - if it is lower than expected a film is likely to be labelled a flop and the odds are high that the public will be deterred from seeing a 'flop', while distributors may hold back on further prints and marketing investment. What is significant about the table above is that almost all of '71's national releases saw most of the entire box office raised in the opening weekend - it failed to get a wider, longer release beyond then. The UK figure, in contrast, is just 21% - in this case it built well by word-of-mouth, as I saw first-hand at Bradfor's National Media Museum, where a low opening night (Friday) turnout would be hugely boosted by a review in that day's Guardian (UK broadsheet/quality) newspaper.

COMMERCIAL? COUNTER-TYPICAL FOR WARP? MAYBE NOT...
The 'commercial' element lies in pushing the action/thriller genre over the setting or any real exploration of the issues raised.

MARKETING Do viral campaigns REALLY work?

Another Vaughn flop sparked off this article...

They can do, but often fail to boost box office, even if the campaign materials have been enormously popular, according to Ben Lee. He cites the now classic case of a vibrant, highly engaged social media campaign that failed to stimulate comparable box office...

But although studios continue to distract attention from the movies themselves with such trickery, the proof is in the rather deflated pudding. In the summer of 2006, the most talked about film by far was New Line’s high-concept thriller Snakes on a Plane. As soon as it was announced, the film became online catnip, and fake trailers, artwork and fan fiction flooded the web. The official campaign capitalised on this outpouring with reshoots to include fan-created dialogue, a competition for bands to send in music for the end credits, and prerecorded messages from star Samuel L Jackson that you could send to your friends’ phones. But the buzz failed to turn into box office, and the film opened to a disappointing $14m in the US.
While adding some colour to a mediocre film’s campaign helps to increase awareness and online conversation, it’s failed to translate into an increase in box office. A study last year by Nielsen showed that the younger, more digitally aware consumers who would be the core audience for online stunts are losing interest in the cinema, with a 15% decline in their attendance year on year. It’s also worth remembering the importance of simplicity. Google conducted a survey which found that a film’s official trailer is three times more important than any other information source when it comes to influencing moviegoing decisions.

Lots of other useful examples in the full article!

Great publicity campaign, shame about the movie.

WT: The Theory of Everything

Working Title's latest could be taken as a 'chick flick' - the marketing heavily centres on the romantic narrative - but, even if it's hardly a four quadrant movie (youth appeal?!), the biopic format and the science sub-plot should help boost male appeal too (being stereotypical in the manner that distributors are).

THE TRAILER

You don't need to have viewed a film in full to get to grips with analysing, the trailer generally reveals a lot you can utilise: good examples of mise-en-scene and key information on characters and setting; genre/s and which are being emphasised - title font and soundtrack also contribute to possible semiotic analysis here; target audience/s; intertextuality; distinctive (or uniform) marketing for different territories. You may also spot age ratings (MPAA and BBFC); occasionally there will be a sharp contrast between the US (which tends to heavily penalise sexual content but go very lenient on violence) and UK (which tends to be more liberal on sexual content but stricter on violence - so, the BBFC passed Baise Moi with an 18 despite its unsimulated sex scenes, but sought to ban The Human Centipede; Meadows and Warp were disgusted when TisEng got hit with an 18 which sharply undermined its box office prospects).

TRAILER SCREENSHOTS

1: We open on a grand historic building in the South of England - a world away from TisEng's Shaun and the council estate he resides in

Hot Fuzz distribution and marketing

Not exactly a bang up to date example, but one I've been looking at for a comparison between the three Cornetto Trilogy WT/WT2 productions (also World's End and Shaun of the Dead).
tbc

SOURCES USED:
TheNumbers.Com: Distribution detail and box office data.
'Post and Send': a (p)review focussed on the archetypal rural community setting. 'Hot Fuzz was filmed in historic Wells in Somerset—England’s teeniest metropolis, apparently—that has a heritage dating back to Roman times. With the cathedral and market square, it’s not hard to see why it was chosen as a stand-in for the kind of place that elicits warm and fuzzy nostalgia on sight.'
'FirstShowing.net' - posters' intertextual references: An impressively thorough post, this dissects the many specific reference points reflected in the poster campaign for Hot Fuzz, clearly showing where the influences came from by putting the HF and existing posters side by side.
'TheWells' - how HF has sparked a tourist boom for the village it was set in!
'DillyMilly' - student blog post: usefully draws together several posters and trailers.
Student Prezi on HF Marketing: Not the best example you'll ever see, but useful e.g. of a Prezi nonetheless, something you should use for at least one Eval response.
MarketingMagazine - agency looks for product placement brands:

Exposure has been set the task of creating awareness below and above the line. Producers Working Title and Universal Pictures are now looking for partners for the movie."The film is a British take on an American cop movie and we are looking for brands that are British and are aimed at the 16- to 24-year-old male market," said Annie Kearney, senior account manager, Exposure. "Snack foods, FMCGs and entertainment brands including Heinz and Blockbusters have the right profile that we are looking for. We want brands that embody the irreverence of the film," she added.

CommonSenseMedia - alternative film ratings for parents: a US site that carries parental and kids' reviews, and generates a specific age rating recommendation from these, and its own editorial ratings

Parents need to know that what at first seems like a British parody of American cop flicks turns into a much bloodier (and funnier) homage to blow-'em-up blockbusters. The gun play and cartoonishly graphic violence rivals that of any Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer production, but at least the bulk of the gore is confined to the last third of the film. Like Shaun of the Dead, which was made by the same director and stars, this movie is full of colorful foul language, but it doesn't have the raunchy nastiness of similar movies. Expect cinema-savvy teens to want to check it out.

MovieViral.com - releasing interactive Shaun screenplay to market World's End: There are several posts linked through here; another flags up director Wright's use of UGC: 'Wright posted a link to a video that includes scenes from all three of his films on his twitter account today. Youtuber Joel Walden mashed up the different scenes from Wright’s movies into one 2:19 minute video. Hit the jump to see it.  [Read more…]'
OfficeNews - drinks to view Cornetto flicks with...: Something a bit different, a site flagging up the growth of DVD rentals within existing shops (off-licenses, mini-markets etc) as a replacement for the gradually dying video rental store, and suggesting drinks accompaniments for a range of films:

Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World’s End may be more associated with Cornettos than alcohol, but they’re all about beer and pubs. We recommend lager with Shaun of the Dead and bitter with The World’s End, with a cranberry juice in between for Hot Fuzz’s abstemious hero, Nick Angel.

s

4 Weddings Reunion

Listen yourselves here.

Students aren't exactly a prime demographic for BBC Radio 4, so its a fairly safe bet that none of you were listening to the latest episode of The Reunion, a series which brings back together those involved in major cultural, sporting and news events to reflect. This saw the director, producer and several of the cast reunited, along with archive material of Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell, the great Barry Norman on Film 94, and so forth.

At the time of writing you can still listen to it yourselves through the iPlayer.

UPDATE: GUARDIAN INTERVIEW WITH DIRECTOR/PRODUCER TO MARK 20TH ANNIVERSARY

SAMPLE QUOTE:
"A fabulous object, says Curtis, as Kenworthy heaves out a huge, leatherbound folder. It's the size and weight of a couple of Britannicas – a shooting schedule filled with miniature detail about the day-to-day demands on cast and crew. The volume, Kenworthy explains, is a relic of pre-computer film scheduling. "Four Weddings was on the cusp of old-style British film-making," Curtis adds. "It was the last movie I worked on that was cut on [original] film stock, not computer. I've always been grateful that it was shot by Mike in such a lively, gritty way. It's a sketch movie, and he directed it as if it were a drama."

A few interesting points from the R4 feature - though this is obviously far from a 'contemporary example' it is still useful to help to grasp how the industry operates, and to get a feel for how student productions do echo some characteristics of major feature film shoots!

• Given the role the film played in laying the foundation for the phenomenal success of Working Title as the leading UK film production company (discounting the Potter/Bond franchises), its easy to forget how very, very modest the budget was: just $4.5m (about £2.5-3m).
• Director Newell recalls how this meant even basic reshoots were generally impossible, and most shots had to be done 1st take - student filmmakers actually work under less (financially-directed) pressure than this! Unlike Newell and producer Duncan Kenworthy (his involvement predates WT picking up the film for development; he played the main role in putting together an attractive package, with name stars, tight script and distributor-friendly director attached), you're not considering the cost of overtime for salaried crew, plus catering, travel and accomodation costs and how to cover this from a budget which is already carefully calculated to see you through the entire production!

Paul/Avatar essay/guide

Watch the trailer below:

This is from the just released (13.3.2011 in UK, 20th in USA) Paul, a $40m WT production starring Nick Frost and Simon Pegg.
Here's WT's web page on Paul, packed with multimedia features - listed on http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/features/video/id/226/hd-trailer
 Paul and Avatar

Green Zone: WTs $100m flop

As IMDB seems to be shifting much of its content to IMDB Pro (which you have to pay for), some data may be getting harder to access, but we can still see enough to appreciate the level of funding WT can access, which places them way above any competitor (outwith the franchise producers of Harry Potter, Bond etc - essentially American productions
tbc...

GREEN ZONE [IMDB] [Wiki]
Managed a mere $35m in the US, and was a notable flop BUT initially ran on 3,000 screens, reflecting the confidence that Universal had; the expense of producing that many prints, and advertising in so many US cities is not undertaken lightly. It managed £5.4m in the UK on a peak of 419 screens (see IMDB). Critics argue the marketing focussed to much on the lead, Matt Damn, and tried too hard to play on the intertextuality he brings (if we apply Richard Dyer's star theory) to action films as the star of the Bourne franchise.
Centred on US marines in Iraq, there is little to suggest this was made by a UK company targeting a UK audience.
But we should note its British director, Paul Greengrass (who made his name with Bloody Sunday and went on to make a major impact with United 93)
YT trailer (-rated)

Greengrass' Bloody Sunday was highly controversial inside the UK, but won multiple awards across the wider world. It is seen as a masterpiece of the docudrama genre, which is broadly similar to the social realist style but specifically seeks to accurately reflect past events by re-enacting them.
Here's the trailer:


Greengrass would bring this approach to United 93 [IMDB], a symbolic movie in many ways: here we have a British company + director producing one of the most important filmic statements about 9/11, such an emotive issue for the American audience. By this time he'd directed Bourne movies, the extremely successful action/secret agent franchise. The $15m, low-budget production was a hit, making $30m in the US, an astonishing £28m here, and much more worldwide. It ran for a long time in the UK (5 months) on a peak 276 screens, but just 2 months stateside on a peak 1,795 screens.
Here's the trailer:


More on Green Zone marketing:
http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Green_Zone.pdf
http://www.worstpreviews.com/review.php?id=1295&section=preview
http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/03/21/was-green-zone-mis-sold/ 
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2686 
http://www.vulture.com/2010/03/did_green_zone_kill_the_bourne.html 
http://www.impawards.com/2010/green_zone.html - 
http://moviecultists.com/2009/11/05/new-green-zone-poster-features-matt-damon-cliched-tagline/ - 

MARKETING: Limitations - John Carter (2012)

BASICALLY:
A $260m budget Disney tentpole, with marketing and prints pushing this figure much higher, that didn't quite bring the house of mouse down, but just scraped its official budget back. The marketing is blamed. Despite the objections of Disney's marketing team, the director insisted on setting the tone for the marketing, with disastrous results:

1. the book/film's central romance is underplayed, undermining crossover female appeal
2. dropping the '...of Mars' from the title made it confusing, underplayed the sci-fi, and lost some of the built-in appeal of the existing IP, the hit book series
3. using an early 1970s classic rock track, Led Zeppelin's 'Kashmir', to underpin the trailer, was alienating for the core/primary youth target audience



Um...sci-fi? Romance? #epicfail

4. this case highlights the blurring of the dividing line between production and distribution 
5. it is also argued that the production cost ran out of control (see below)

Although the tentpole strategy, or what Anita Elberse terms the blockbuster strategy, is now central to the approach of all of the big six vertically integrated Hollywood conglomerates, questions have been raised about the bloating of budgets; bear in mind that a film really needs to gross 2-3 times its budget to truly go into profit on box office, with prints and marketing often equalling the production budget:

Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood.com noted, "John Carter’s bloated budget would have required it to generate worldwide tickets sales of more than $600 million to break even...a height reached by only 63 films in the history of moviemaking"

IT JOINS OTHER TURKEYS...

While on paper there have been bigger box-office turkeys in recent years – Breck Eisner's Sahara took $68.7m from a reported $160m budget in 2005 and Oliver Stone's Alexander managed just $34.3m from a $155m budget the previous year – the film already looks likely to be one of 2012's biggest loss leaders. Disney's statement hints that the film's true budget may be far higher than $250m; industry analysts have repeatedly speculated that it cost at least another $50m thanks to a gargantuan marketing spend, making it one of the most expensive films of all time. [Ben Childs]

You can find details on many more, including links to quizzes testing your flop knowledge, here.

Bottom line? 
Marketing shied away from the sci-fi (the producers had already dropped the ...of Mars from the film title, despite its presence in the books it is derived from), which may have been seen as a female-friendly move ... but also ignored the strong romantic element in the marketing. Frankly, bizarre thinking there. Some reckon this was the most expensive movie of all time, so the marketing had to be at least competent. It wasn't. (Later posters did get closer to the mark ... but it was too late).

READ/VIEW MORE: 
Poster gallery (impawards);
Screenrant explains why UGC trailers were better than the official ones;
Forbes (business magazine):
how the posters went from awful to ... okay;
the official site, games and all;
Apple gallery;
IMDB entry.

BEN CHILD'S REPORT

Critics have suggested that John Carter's failure to connect with audiences may have been due to confusing marketing as well as lukewarm reviews. Disney chose not to run with the "of Mars" suffix in the wake of traditionally poor box-office results for films that focus on the planet, and trailers also largely ignored the movie's central romance, something Hollywood tends to see as a surefire method of attracting female filmgoers.
"The movie is called John Carter, but aside from the fact that he can jump far and looks good without a shirt on, what else did commercials really convey about the title character?" wrote Ray Subers of the Box Office Mojo website. "Also, what was John Carter doing in this desert landscape occupied by tall green men, aside from fighting giant furry white creatures?"  [Source]

WT early days: MBL/WYWH

...

Marketing 3x wt case studies from DB3igs

...

Today we'll be building on our initial learning around WT's early history and subsequent development into the leading UK film producer.
Back when they started out it was all so very different...

We'll look at their 1st 2 films as WT: MBL (Stephen Frears, 1985) [IMDB] and WYWH (David Leland, 1987) [IMDB]
Chances are you've heard of neither before now, but one of them created a memorable (and slightly rude!) catchphrase: 'up yer bum'...


MBL cost just £650k, WYWH slightly more at £1m; both were acclaimed by film critics and both today are seen as classics. Lets tease out what makes these 2 early WT films so different from almost  all the subsequent releases (4Weds, NotHill, BJD etc).

Here's the trailer for MBL:

We'll look at marketing in some detail, but what expectations does this trailer create for YOU? (remember, part of this topic is the ability to think of how YOU operate as a film consumer)
Does it strike you as typically British - if so, why ... and if not, why?!

A key point to grasp for this exam is that you'll need very specific examples of actual films to write about - particular scenes/shots/elements. So, your note-taking needs to be very detailed and precise, ie your denotation of these scenes picked out as useful. These are effectively the same as quotes for an English Lit exam!

Lets now look at the film's opening - the DVD is available for you to borrow from the library (ditto WYWH and many more WT/Warp films, + some Ealing, Hammer...); I've found the opening on YouTube too:
As You watch this, consider again:
(i) what signifiers there are of Britishness, and what general representations there are
(ii) the general style or genre of cinematography, mise-en-scene etc
(iii) the readings available - do you think as a teen in 2012 you can follow the director/cast/editor's preferred reading?


The early WT was a brave, adventurous company prepared to take risks:

• the unknown Daniel Day-Lewis got his break in this movie (as Emily Lloyd would with WYWH)
• with the right-wing Thatcher government in place, supported by an almost entirely right-wing press, creating a film centring on an Asian character was unheard of and far from the commercial, money-making logic that later lead to so many Hugh Grant vehicles
• to make him gay too was guaranteed to attract 'flak' [THEORY TIP: Chomsky's propaganda model argues that five filters, including flak (criticism/attacks from media 'shoot down' radical ideas/texts), weed out radical/leftie thoughts from our media which exist to serve and reinforce the powerful, NOT to serve democracy]
• before WT hooked up with PolyGram and then NBC-Universal, it had to fight to find the financing for movies - Film4 was key to getting this film made, though it was only the success of the film at the EIFF that persuaded a distributor to fund a cinematic release and marketing campaign to go with it (it was intended to be a TV-movie only)
• with WYWH they went back to the past - but unlike the cosy heritage/costume dramas of today, they did so to present a countertypical, radical representation of the repression of women in wartime and 50s Britain

Turning now to WYWH, here's a few clips; as before -
As You watch this, consider again:
(i) what signifiers there are of Britishness, and what general representations there are
(ii) the general style or genre of cinematography, mise-en-scene etc
(iii) the readings available - do you think as a teen in 2012 you can follow the director/cast/editor's preferred reading?


Review your notes; what can you learn from these examples that might help you discuss any of the topic prompts provided by the exam board (see below)?

Candidates should be prepared to understand and discuss the processes of production, distribution, marketing and exchange as they relate to contemporary media institutions, as well as the nature of audience consumption and the relationships between audiences and institutions. In addition, candidates should be familiar with:

• the issues raised by media ownership in contemporary media practice;
• the importance of cross media convergence and synergy in production, distribution and marketing;
• the technologies that have been introduced in recent years at the levels of production, distribution, marketing and exchange;
• the significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audiences;
• the importance of technological convergence for institutions and audiences;
• the issues raised in the targeting of national and local audiences (specifically, British) by international or global institutions;
• the ways in which the candidates’ own experiences of media consumption illustrate wider patterns and trends of audience behaviour.

This unit should be approached through contemporary examples in the form of case studies

This Is England (Shane Meadows, 2006): Case Study

If the Richard Curtis/Hugh Grant series of WT rom-coms exemplify one prominent trait of contemporary British cinema, the gritty, low-budget social realism of films like this mark out quite a different trend within the UK's film industry. Whilst nothing like as commercially successful as BJD, Love Actually et al, it can certainly be argued that films like this are culturally vital to Britons' sense of self-identity.
PRODUCERS' PROMOTIONAL BROCHURE
This Is England promotional brochure

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Potential financiers of this film would have seen this brochure, which seeks to sell the idea before filming can commence.