Ok, so the film studio we’ll be looking at today is Marvel. This is the studio that has brought us almost all our modern day superhero films, from Spiderman to Thor and from The Avengers to Guardians of the Galaxy. This studio is famous for bringing comic book heros to life in huge box office action films.
Now, Marvel has had many many big box office films, herein I will outline their top 3
Unsurprisingly Marvel’s top grossing film is ‘Marvel’s The Avengers’, the film came out in 2012 and has been sitting pretty at the top of their box office listings for 3 years since, it earned a total of $623,357,910. Thats a lot of dough. Yet it is unsurprising that this film is sat here in the number 1 spot, dragging 6 superheroes together for an intense fight for the earth against an alien species isn’t gonna go down badly is it?
Next on the list is Iron Man 3, this film came out in march 2013 and earned a total of $409,013,994, that ‘s over $200,000,000 less than the avengers film released the year before, but just on the face of it you should expect the film to do a little worse, after all the avengers brings in fans from many different heroes and as such draws upon a few fan bases.
And third and final on my list is Spider-man (the one released in 2002) and just for reference it is quickly followed by its 2 sequels, the imaginatively named Spider-Man 2&3. I think the reason for this films success is the fact that these films kickstarted this age of superhero films, the most recent live action film before this was X-Men in 2000 and many people overlooked this film and it only grossed $157,299,717 compared to Spider-Mans $403,706,375. Thats almost two thirds less than Iron Man 3 and 75% less than The Avengers.
The main competition that Marvel have is DC. Marvel’s comic book counterpart, DC is responsible for movie adaptations of the following superheroes. Superman, Batman, Catwoman and The Green Lantern. They also have a range of new films planned for the next 5 years including Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, Shazam, Cyborg and a Green Lantern reboot, as well as 2 Justice league films. This seems like DC are posed to strike at Marvel, and hope to unseat them as the Superhero movie top dog that they are.
Marvel is owned by The Walt Disney Company, and The Walt Disney Company is a massively integrated company, both vertically and horizontally. As a vertically integrated conglomerate, Disney has a deep well of in house production companies it can call on to create, distribute and exhibit their films. This means that Disney owns companies that can create their films, this means the film studio, in this case Disney owns Marvel Studios. Disney also holds companies that can distribute (Advertise) the production. Disney does not as such own a company that can do this, but its various consumer products companies are responsible for any merchandise sold in relation to their films, and as such is a way of advertising the film. And lastly to Exhibit the film, or show it, disney owns so many different channels that they could show any films they have made on The Disney Channel or ABC Entertainment. This together highlights the vertical integration of the conglomerate.
This is not the end of the story however, Disney is also a horizontally integrated company, this means they own companies in many different areas of the media, i.e. book publishing, music label, radio stations, websites etc. And in this respect Disney is also a big player in the game, they own the following websites
family.com
AmazingMoms.com
Funschool.com
Disney Family (Family.com)
StarWars.com
among others.
Disney also owns, the browser based childrens game ‘Club Penguin’ they have 2 record labels - Walt Disney Records and Hollywood records - they have their own theatrical group, Disney theatrical productions and of course their various theme parks and resorts such as Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World Resort.
These things together make The Walt Disney Company both vertically and horizontally integrated.
How successful is this conglomerate?
Marvel is owned by Walt Disney which is one of the most famous companies in the world which is worth $142.92 Billion. Walt disney as a conglomerate own a wide range of companies within disney such as Walt Disney Animation Studios which has been running since 1923 and Pixar Animation Studios which joined the disney company back in 2006, These companies focuses on its younger fanbase with films like frozen and finding Nemo. Then you also have Marvel Studios which targets the teenagers with its superhero franchises Spiderman and the avengers.Not only does Disney make films they also own Television Groups like ABC which broadcast programs like The middle and Agents of shield which is in also made by Marvel and ESPN which is an american based sporting channel which broadcasts sports like NBA and major league baseball. As you can see Walt disney own a wide range of companies from animation to sport with all of these companies and investments has made disney one of the biggest conglomerates in the world.
What are the debates (pros and cons) of a few media conglomerates owning the majority of the media.
There has been many debates involving the fact that the media industry was once run by over 50 major media companies back in 1983 but now the industry is ran by 6 big conglomerates (also known as the big 6) these are Sony corporation , Viacom, Comcast, Walt Disney, time warner and 21st century fox. So what are the pros and cons only having only 6 conglomerates owning the majority of the media?
Well firstly some of the positives are that the quality of the films made with big budgets are of a high standard and with hollywoods biggest actor or actress this is what audiences have come to expect when they go to the cinema to watch a film. another positive is that because the size of these companies are so large they need to employ a lot more staff which will progressively help the economy grow.
the negatives are that the larger studios have been accused of only caring about making the big money and will make films that they know will sell and make the biggest profit possible whereas smaller more independent films care more about in depth storylines and less about big explosions tend not to get made. These conglomerates control what we see as an audience member when we go to the cinemas we are watching a film owned by of these major conglomerates who all make the same type of films with little variety because they knows its sells, whereas the independent films tend not to even make it to the big screens without the funding one of these conglomerates and they take all the credit for it when all they did was agree to put their name on it.
New subsection : What new technologies have improved our consumption of film? what is the future?
The way we view the media has changed in the past 10 years and it will doubt change in the years to come. From blu ray which allows us to watch films in High definition as you can see in this image, on the left we have ordinary DVD and on the right we have HD as you can see the colour is brighter and more sharp on the 1959 film sound of music. Special effect have gone from strength to strength from Steven Spielberg’s 1993 Jurassic Park which lead the way for the film industry in terms of CGI but it was james cameron’s avatar that has been groundbreaking with it being 60% CGI and only 40% being live action. The way in which we watch our films has also changed with us being able to watch films on the go whether it’s on train or just sat in a coffee shop, films have became a lot more portable we can now watch them on our phones and tablets.
I think the future for film is the home cinema. With HD laser projectors that can be used in your home this will give audiences the full cinema experience straight from their living room, with amazing picture quality. Peter Jackson has changed the film industry by shooting The Hobbit films in ground breaking technology which shoots the film at 48 frames per second a lot faster that the normal 24 frames per second. This is breaking tradition of films that have been shot this way for more than 90 years perhaps it time for a change? Peter has that shooting the film in 48 frames per second "hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness" and more lifelike images. I think that this will be future of the film industry within the next 5 - 10 years i predict all films will be shot in this way.
Introduce the BBC as a Public Service Broadcaster and explain what it is
Now lets talk about the BBC which stands for British Broadcasting Corporation they are a public service broadcaster.The BBC's ethos is to inform, educate and entertain They were the first Public service broadcasters in the UK they intend to cater to the public so there are certain rules that they have to follow set by ofcom who regulate tv and radio in the UK and also deal with complaints about certain programs.The BBC have to make sure they cater for everyone including race,religious beliefs and age so that everyone is benefiting by this public service, it shows programmes such as News, Drama, Sport, entertainment and documentaries and is broadcast internationally.
„How are they funded?
The BBC are solely funded by the tv licence so this means when you pay £145.50 for your coloured TV licence or £49.00 in black and white which can be paid either weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly this money goes straight to the BBC to help them fund all their programs even if you don’t what watch the BBC you still have to pay the licence fee. Not all channels are publicly funded, channels like ITV, channel 4 and channel 5 and many more are commercially funded channels this means that these channels are funned by adverts so companies will pay channels like ITV to broadcast an advert in between certain shows but the more higher the rating of the show the more it will cost to show your advert for example on the x factor final it cost £200,000 to air an advert for 30 seconds meaning that ITV made 16 million pounds off one program according to the mirror.
„How are they structured? (How are they regulated and managed?)
The BBC are structured under the royal charter the current royal charter came into action from 2007 this is done to set out the public purposes of the BBC and guarantees its independence, the current charter is set to run out in 2016. Under the charter set by the BBC is governed by the trust this means that they set the direction in terms of what's broadcasted by BBC in the interest of the licence fee payers, The executive board at the BBC are held accountable should these rules not be followed. The trust works with the national Audience Councils so they know the needs and concerns of audiences. It’s the executive board who are responsible for the management of the BBC All the directors across the BBC have come together in the organisation as part of an executive team according the BBC. They are regulated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) it is their responsibility for the broadcasting in the UK also there is ofcom they are the independent regulator across television, radio, telecommunication and wireless communication services in the uk
How successful are the BBC, have they had complaints about their management of programs, staff or services (find proof)
The BBC as a channel are very successful with grossing more than 27,0000 viewers each day and having more views than any other channel public or commercial according to BARB. with their highest grossing programme being Call the midwife grossing in 10.12 million views last week. But The BBC have faced a backlash of complaints with BBC2’s Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson over racist allegations. the independent quoted Danny Cohen who is the director of the BBC saying that Jeremy see’s no problem with what he has said which created a stir with members of the public later forcing him to apologize. With more recent incidents he has been suspended by the BBC with allegations of hitting a producer and it has been confirmed that next weeks episode of top gear will not be shown along with the two final episodes of this season. It seems as though the BBC are reluctant to fire the host because the show brings in Millions of views from all over the world with a petition that has been signed by 250,000 people to ‘reinstate’ Clarkson the BBC are yet to make a final decision.
„What debates are there about the usefulness of the licence fee? What alternatives are there? What is your opinion?
In recent years especially, many people are starting to complain about the TV licence and its usefulness in modern TV. As has been previously mentioned the TV licence is used to fund the BBC as a public service broadcaster, and as such there are no adverts on the BBC channels. Whilst this is a great thing there are so many other channels that show so many other programmes that most people watch their regular programmes on channels such as E4 and Sky and Comedy Central. These are all channels funded by advertising and gain nothing from the TV licence, so why should you pay for something that you aren’t using? It seems a valid question. It also seems a contradiction that the BBC have their IPlayer where you can watch BBC programming online without the need for a TV licence. So what even is the point? In my opinion the BBC should cut the TV Licence and instead opt to take advertisements as a new source of revenue, I highly doubt that they will have trouble finding people who wish to advertise on the BBC. I also think they should increase their online presence by maybe starting a subscription service for online streaming of TV ad free. Or maybe they could have their own set top box that charges a subscription fee similar to that of the TV license as well as taking on adverts, thus increasing the budget and the potential for new programming, this could mean more BBC channels and the ability to stretch the new younger audiences as the late channel 3 did
„Who are their competition and what programmes rival theirs?
So far as it seems BBC is basically in constant competition with most every other popular channel like channel 4, E4, ITV, Comedy Central etc. Where they have Eastenders ITV have Coronation Street, where they have The Voice, ITV have X-Factor. Where they have Strictly Come Dancing ITV have Dancing on Ice. The List stretches from just BBC and ITV, the BBC were trying to branch out by having programmes like Russel Howard's Good News on BBC 3 to try to counter some stand up shows on comedy central like live at the apollo. The BBC also has documentaries such as Natural World that are in direct competition to Documentaries like ITV's Animal Kingdom. As you can see the BBC really has its works cut out for it, especially when it comes to ITV.
„What New technologies have they developed and how have these new technologies changed the way we watch/use the BBC?
Well, in recent years technology surrounding TV's has taken leaps and bounds, from 3D tv's without glasses to 80-inch 4K TV's the way we watch its changing. One of the most prominent changes is how many people have smart TV's, smart TV's can connect to you internet allowing you to browse the internet via some browsers or watch TV on apps such as Netflix or 4oD, some TV's without this feature even allow it by plugging in a wifi dongle to the usb ports on the TV. So with how prominent and well used new smart TV's are, the BBC's recent move to make BBC3 an only online channel may be a calculated move to target the younger audience that BBC3 attracted through the medium most frequently used by that age bracket (the internet). Other notable advances in technology are the availability and low price of tablets and smart phones. This means in a nutshell that everywhere people go they have a media hotline right in their pocket, now the BBC obviously wanted to cash in on this, thus the IPlayer app was made (admittedly this was a while ago now, 2008) but even so the BBC are still trying to make their brand more accessible for as many people as possible as easily as possible.
„What technological development do you think is next for the way we watch television? (the living room of the future?)e??
In my opinion Microsofts Illumiroom is a step towards the inevitable future of TV, projection. Microsoft Illumiroom is primarily a concept for gaming, it uses a camera to scan the surface it is going to project onto (which is the wall behind the TV) and then a separate projector projects images around the edge of the TV either providing ambient immersion or literally expanding the bounds of your screen. I think that the future hold nothing but death for the physical TV and if this years CES is anything to go by the industry seems to be trying to predict the same thing whether its in LG's Hecto projector or Vivitek's multi projector set ups or even a Russian start-up company trying to make holograms a reality by projecting light onto water vapour. As well as Microsoft, Sony are making headway in the TV space, they have recently unveiled their Life Space UX Project, within the other products in this project LSUX unveils their 4k ultra short throw projector, this is basically a super high quality projector that sits at the bottom of a wall and projects the image at TV height, customizable between 21 and 50 inches screen size. The projector also has a portable version, as well as this they have developed a desk projector and a ceiling projector so you can watch while you work or whilst you sleep. Right now the only priced product is the 4K Short throw projector at $50,000. But I can’t help thinking it won’t be too long till they become common place. 
No comments:
Post a Comment