http://www.slideshare.net/CameronQuinn6/media-powerpoint-70087484

Roland Barthes

Roland Barthes' work is widely referenced within analysis of media texts because of his work on how meaning is constructed according to cultural ideas and influences. How audiences consume these media texts is influenced by their own understanding of society and their own viewpoints. Roland Gérard Barthes was born on November 12, 1915, in Cherbourg, France. When Barthes was an infant, his father was killed in a naval battle. Shortly thereafter, his mother, Henriette Barthes, moved the family to Bayonne, where Roland spent most of his early childhood.

He described five codes that are woven into any narrative.

1   The Hermeneutic Code refers to any element of the story that is not fully explained and hence becomes a mystery to the reader.

2   The Proairetic Code also builds tension, referring to any other action or event that indicates something else is going to happen, and which hence gets the reader guessing as to what will happen next.

3   The Semantic Code refers to connotation within the story that gives additional meaning over the basic denotative meaning of the word.

4    The Symbolic Code is very similar to the Semantic Code, but acts at a wider level, organizing semantic meanings into broader and deeper sets of meaning. This is typically done in the use of antithesis, where new meaning arises out of opposing and conflict ideas.

5  The cultural code refers to anything that is founded on some kind of real  information or law that cannot be challenged and is often use as a base for finding truth. This usually involves science and religion as the majority of people would class either one of these as the 'truth'.  This typically refers to sayings, cliché's and any other common meaningful word sets. It basically looks at wider cultural knowledge. In Hotel Babylon. For example in breaking bad, that life involving the use of drugs will never end well.

Alvarado's racial stereotypes theory (1987)

 Alvarado's Theory of racial stereotypes was coined in 1987. It has four key themes in racal representation:

Exotic: Ethnic groups other then white(especially the females) can be seen as exotic and sexy. The group most often stereotyped as this is Latino Americans. Females who are Latino are normally portrayed as sex symbols and very promiscuous people. They are shown as this by being in risqué costumes and normally being involved in controversial behaviour.

Dangerous: Ethnic groups can also be displayed as dangerous through their behaviour. This is a very prevalent theme through Rap music which makes it a very widely 'accepted' stereotype that black males are a very violent ethnic group.

Humorous: Much like the others any 'character' signed as this will give their entire nationality the funny part. There aren't any examples of this that I can think of from Music videos as this character trope is more applied to actual films and TV shows.  

Pitied: A perfect example of pitied is all the adverts for children's charities. They depicted all the starving children who are all of a differing ethnic backgrounds from white. Again this can't really be applied to music videos but a good example from TV is the ethnic minorities that live in 'Ghettos'.

Perkins five assumptions

Stereotypes are not always negative:

In Hotel Babylon we can see that stereotypes are not always negative by the way the immigrants are helping out and doing a good job for the hotel. This shows that immigrants can help out and do something positive for others.

They are not always about minority groups:  

Within hotel Babylon we can see that there are stereotypes that are focused on other groups, not just the migrant workers. An example of this is the officers that storm the building who are represented as careless and horrible by the way they show no emotion and take one of the workers away from his loved ones.

They can be held against ones own group: 

We can see in hotel babylon that groups of people aren't necessarily held to their own stereotype, this is shown by the way that the migrants are represented as more of an intelligent, useful workforce and therefore break their stereotype and gain respect from the audience.

They are not rigid or unchanging:

We can see in hotel babylon that stereotypes change within the opinion of different characters, as the people who work in the hotel treat the immigrants with respect, whereas the officers are very mean and thoughtless towards them.

They are not always false: 

We can see that the stereotype of the migrant officers being very mean can be true, as its part of their job to do this and if they didn’t then it would be pointless with them taking on this role.

    

Disney as a conglomerate

Disney as a conglomerate

Disney is a conglomerate

A media conglomerate, media group or media institution is a company that owns large numbers of companies in various mass media such as television, radio, publishing, movies, and the Internet. Media conglomerates strive for policies that facilitate their control of the markets across the globe.

Disney owns

• Walt Disney Studios
• Buena Vista Home Entertainment
• Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group:
• Touchstone Pictures
• Pixar Animation Studios
• Lucasfilm
• ESPN
• ABC Entertainment Group
• Marvel Entertainment
• Disney Music Group

Film Piracy

The movie industry excels in selling dreams. But since the dawn of the digital revolution, there is one narrative they've consistently and conspicuously failed to sell: that piracy is theft and consumers who indulge ought to feel guilty about it. Recent research by Ipsos suggests that almost 30% of the UK population is active in some form of piracy, either through streaming content online or buying counterfeit DVDs. Such theft costs the UK audiovisual industries about £500m a year.

Hypothetically, two movies come out on the same day: The Wolf of Wall Street and the new Transformers. You are allowed to see one in an IMAX theater and you will illegally download the other one online. Most people would choose Transformers over The Wolf of Wall Street due to the fact that there are robot dinosaurs and everyone else is going to see it in theaters. Those robot dinosaurs will look a lot cooler in a theater rather than on a laptop. Many people then realized how lacking the movie really was after walking out of their local theater’s showing of Transformers: Age of Extinction. Meanwhile, many of the same people went on to watch The Wolf of Wall Street online to realize that it was actually a really good movie. Most people don’t realize that this is at all a problem, and at first glance it’s not. However, after more in-depth research, the problem soon becomes apparent. Transformers: Age of Extinction only gained an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (Transformers, Rotten Tomatoes), one of the most critical and most trusted film-review sites online. The Wolf of Wall Street, however, gained a 77% rating on the same site (Wolf of Wall Street, Rotten Tomatoes). It was also nominated for five different Academy Awards. The Wolf of Wall Street is clearly the better film. Yet, besides the fact that Transformers was clearly not a great film, it somehow managed to be named the highest grossing film worldwide of 2014 and earned over one billion dollars in the Box Office (2014 Worldwide Grosses). The Wolf of Wall Street went on to be the most pirated film of 2014 with over 30 million illegal downloads (Spangler, 1) and didn’t even gross $117 million, giving the producers and the studio under $17 million after the production cost, which is not a much of a profit at all for such a high-budget film.

Piracy has become more of a problem in the past decade than it ever has before, specifically movie piracy. In fact, a study from Columbia University came out recently that said at least 45% of US citizens pirate movies actively, but that number bumps up to 70% if you include the younger demographics as well (Mick, 2). This act of pirating is growing more and more common every year and most people do it mindlessly, not realizing what it costs. Everyone has seen the text at the beginning of movies saying “Piracy is not a victimless crime,” and this is completely true. Piracy is extremely harmful to the movie industry and its effects are larger than anyone could imagine.

But Where Do These Pirated Movies Come From?

There are many different ways that people pirate movies. One of the most classic ways people pirate is by “leaking” them. This involves a person going into a movie theater with a camera or a phone and recording the movie as it plays. It is usually a poor quality, but many people still download these recordings anyways instead of going to see it in a theater. This usually occurs when it is only in theater since that is the only version most people are able to see. Sometimes these leaks occur before the movie is even premiered, often because it is filmed during a special premier before the opening night. This is referred to as a pre-release, and they tend to result in a 19% decrease in how much the movie makes at the Box Office (Hart, 2). Many people defend pre-releases because it gives a movie more publicity so more people would want to see it, but the facts state otherwise. Leaking a movie that’s in the theaters always tends to decrease how much the movie makes regardless of when it is released and sometimes even leads to the movie not even making as much as there was put into it.

One of the other common ways for a movie to be pirated is for it to be digitally hacked. This one has become more common lately as technology improves. One of the most extreme and recent examples was the Sony hacking. Though some people will claim that Sony faked the hacking, evidence shows that they were legitimately hacked. During this hacking, many of Sony’s movies were released illegally online, such as Annie and Fury (Note: Annie had not even been released yet). A hacking involves someone digitally cracking into the studio or company’s computer system and taking the movie from their files. This logically would actually decrease a movie’s Box Office revenue by even more than someone’s recording of the movie would because it’s a better quality.

There are more ways to watch a pirated movie other than just downloading it online. In fact, some people tend to start their own pirating businesses. It’s very inexpensive and easy for a person to start one of these businesses. More recently, people only need to buy a bunch of blank DVD’s, the same amount of DVD cases and a computer that can burn a DVD. From there, they must find a source to get the pirated movies from. Sometimes they will personally film them in a theater, or find a hacked or leaked version online and download it. After that, all they need to do is download the stolen films onto their blank DVD’s and sell them to anyone who is willing to purchase it. Within a short amount of time, this person has made a great deal of money that should have gone to the movie studios.

What Kind of Effect Does it Have?

Most people would just say that pirating has a small effect on the industry and that the studios already have enough money. They believe watching a movie online isn’t going to hurt anyone. The Motion Picture Association of America looked into this belief and discovered that piracy costs around $20.5 billion annually in the United States alone (Plumer, 2). In fact, a study back in 2005 estimated that a 10% decrease in worldwide piracy, including both film and music, over the course of four years would add 1.5 million jobs, $64 billion in taxes and $400 billion in economic growth (Kai-Lung). That, however, was ten years ago and is outdated. Those numbers are likely to be much higher today due to inflation and an increase in popularity of the film industry. This means that the studios are making much smaller amounts of money than they should be making from their films due to piracy.

Quit Talking Numbers. How Does it Effect My Movie Experience?

The decrease in money from studios will often decrease the quality of other movies and even sequels, but more often it will decrease the quantity. A studio is much more likely to throw all of their money into the next big franchise sequel than give half of it to the franchise and the other half to a movie like Twelve Years a Slave simply because Twelve Years a Slave won’t sell as well in theaters as the franchise movie will. Movie studios and production companies don’t look at reviews and DVD sales nearly as much as they look at the Box Office Revenue, or how much it makes in the theater.

In many cases, piracy of a film will even damage the likeliness of a franchise sequel. For example, the Kick-Ass movies came to an end due to lack of funding from piracy. According to Chloë Grace Moretz who stars as “Hit-Girl” in the series, Kick-Ass 2 was one of the most pirated films of 2013 despite having an extremely low Box Office Revenue (Highfill). Because of this, the plans for the third movie in the series have been cancelled. Whether or not you like the Kick-Ass series, it is clear that piracy has become a serious problem and will only continue to damage the film industry.

What About New Movies That Aren't Franchises Yet?

It is not franchise movies that need to be worried about, though; it is the movies by the independent filmmakers. Due to the increase in film piracy, production companies and movie studios are now much less likely to loan money out to an independent filmmaker with an idea than they are to a team of writers and producers working on a Harry Potter spin-off. When people think of the term ‘independent filmmaker’, they think of a man in his 20’s with an Associates Degree in Theatre that wrote a screenplay in two weeks. Though these people are independent filmmakers, I refer to the higher kind of independent filmmakers that actually make Oscar nominated films, but take out enormous loans to do so. Now, due to piracy, no matter how many Oscars their movie is nominated for, many filmmakers are having to foreclose their houses or take out further loans from a bank to make up for the losses in the Box Office for their film due to piracy. It also means that the studios do not get their money back that they invested with and therefore stop funding films without promises of success like Birdman or The Theory of Everything, both of whom won Oscars this year.

Now Let's Think More Economically...

The loss of money affects more than just the filmmakers and studios, however. It helps the entire economy grow due to tax and job increase. Pirating less films will mean that the studios will get more money, which leads to more movies, which employs people like hairdressers, electricians, actors, costume designers and countless other occupations. This will add more jobs to the United States and will also add more tax money to help the country.

But Is It Really Stealing?

Many people argue that piracy is not illegal because they are not technically stealing anything. Though they are not physically taking away anything from anyone, they are stealing intellectual property. Just because you can’t hold a movie file in your hands does not mean that it is not someone’s property. Downloading a film online is the equivalent of stealing a movie from a movie store. It may not come in the same fancy case as a movie at the store, but it still carries the same contents. By pirating a film, you are stealing the money that should have been paid had you watched the movie legally. You do not have a right to watch whatever movies you want to watch without having to pay for them just as I do not have a right to walk into the local Dollar General and eat their candy bars without paying first. As much as people may argue it, film piracy is stealing. It is not your property, so it is not yours to take without paying for it first.

Going Back to my Original Example at the Beginning of All of This...

The Wolf of Wall Street was 2014’s most pirated movie with over 30 million piracies worldwide. Let’s do the math to see how much money piracy actually robbed this movie of had these people gone to see it in a theater instead. In 2014, the average price of a movie ticket in the United States was $8.17 (Linshi, 1). When a person goes to see a movie in the theater, the money spent on the ticket goes to two different places. It is split between the movie studio and the movie theater, with more going to the theater the longer the movie has been out (Campea). For the purposes of now, let’s average that overall the theater and the studio would each get 50% of the ticket price. Now for the part with the actual math. If each illegal download of The Wolf of Wall Street, which more specifically evens out to around 30,035,000 downloads (Spangler, 1) equals one movie ticket that costs $8.17, and the movie studio only gets half of the amount from each movie ticket, that results in about $122,692,975 that was robbed from Paramount Pictures for just that one movie. That amount stolen was more than the movie actually made in the Box Office, and that is assuming that only one person watched each illegal download. Several of those downloads were most likely copied onto multiple different blank DVD’s and given out to others to watch illegally. That is even more money that was robbed from The Wolf of Wall Street. In the Box Office, the movie barely broke even out of how much they spent making the film. These numbers would have helped the studio, the filmmakers and the crew a lot more in order to make even more Oscar nominated movies. Unfortunately, these thirty million people seemed to overlook that.

Now the Real Question: How Do We Stop Piracy?

It all starts at home, just like it takes a spark to start a fire. Many people argue that “everyone is watching movies illegally online, so why is it different if I do it?” Well the same argument could again go for people that steal candy bars from a store. It may cost more than you like and others may do it, but it is not your property to steal. Like voting, if just one person takes a stand against piracy it will make a difference. Simply quit pirating movies or watching them online. There are many different excuses people use about watching movies online illegally, but it does not override the fact that it is illegal. Even streaming movies online is illegal if it is not authorized by the studio that made the film. If you aren’t willing to pay to watch the film, you aren’t allowed to watch it. This is the way the industry works.

What Can The Theaters Do?

A way for movie theaters to prevent piracy is to change their types of projectors. In the past, the government came up with a way to prevent the filming of a movie in the theaters. They did this by projecting an infrared spectrum over the projected film. This infrared image was not visible to the audience, but it would make the video on the camera someone brought into film the movie into a very low quality that would make the video almost unbearable to watch. Since then technology has improved to attempt to improve the quality of the filmed video regardless of the infrared. Though this has worked to an extent, film pirates have not yet fully recovered from the addition of the infrared. Only more research will be able to help improve the projectors so that this does not happen anymore.

What Happens if Someone gets Caught?!

When it all comes down to it, one of the major reasons you should avoid pirating movies is that its an enormous risk. Since it is illegal, there are certainly punishments for those that choose to break this law. These punishments are severe. For example, if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor in piracy, as in they only downloaded or uploaded a small amount of movies without the owner’s consent, the person would be punished with up to a year of prison time and would have a fine of up to $100,000, depending on the extent of the piracy. That, however, is just for a small offense. For someone that downloads or uploads movies illegally without the owner’s consent in large amounts will be charged with a felony. The punishment of this crime is up to 5 years of imprisonment and up to $250,000 in fines. The fine, though, can be more. In some cases, the fine is set as double what the person gained for pirating the films if they made money off of it, or it set as double the amount of money the person cost the studios he or she stole from (AlanS). In any of these cases, it is clear that movie piracy is not worth the risk.

Piracy is Clearly an Enormous Threat

Filmmakers are in danger of losing their jobs and the movie theaters are in danger of only showing films like Transformers sequels and Terminator reboots. Helping the film industry does not just entail not illegally watching a movie, it also entails going to see those movies in a theater to reverse the mistakes made by those who don’t realize the consequences. Some of the greatest films do not get the proper credibility in the theaters because people are too distracted by other films or because people would think it’s smarter to illegally watch it on their computer than paying to see it in a theater. As stated earlier, this has many more consequences than these people would think, such as taking away jobs, taking over $20.5 billion from the US film industry and decreasing both the quantity and quality of the very movies they are downloading. In addition, is it really worth spending five years of your life in prison just because you didn’t want to pay to watch a movie? It’s time to stop pirating and to stop making excuses for watching a movie illegally online. Film is a form of art. People use it to tell their stories.

Ex Machina Film Review

Ex Machina is a science-fiction thats storyline evolves around the fear of the future, artificial intelligence, and of the blurred line between human life and its imitations, of online surveillance shaping our experiences. Also, it involves the social fear of whether someone actually like you or whether they are faking it, which seems all so difficult with humans, however shows how terribly hard it is with a robot also.

One of my favourite parts about the production of the film is the sounds used within the main scenes. Each time there seemed to be tension the non diegetic sounds being played suited perfectly to what was going on and created an extremely good atmosphere for the audience. The visual effects on the robots were absolutely amazing, when looking at Ava there was almost nothing that could hint to the audience that she wasn't a real thing and made the film extremely good to watch, when Kyoko peels her skin away for Caleb to see the robot she is underneath goes to show how good the producers really were at their job and proved to the audience that this film was extremely advanced with their visual effects. Therefore, the producers did an extremely good job with what they did, and will certainly be able to thrive upon their new reputation that they will have gained.

There are certainly ethical and moral questions to be asked about Ex Machina, as Nathan seems to be a very sexist character, and perhaps they went too far with his character when doing this. This is shown by the way he treats Kyoto as a slave, and the way we see her cooking a lot of the time suits an offensive stereotype of a Womans job to do the cooking, the only other role she undergoes for Nathan is being used for sex, which will mostly likely cause a lot of commotion to the public, and will definitely be very offensive towards feminists. Therefore i believe the film went a bit too far with how sexist it was at certain points and should have been more careful about it.

The characters in my opinion were the best part of the film, i believe they all did an extremely good job with the role they were given. Nathan was possibly way favourite character, as there was always something suspicious about him and an on going tension between him and Caleb that he seemed to be aware of, however we never knew when the time was going to come before he went mad at Caleb which kept an ongoing grab for the audience. Caleb seemed very believable and showed us his vulnerability throughout the whole film, which foreshadowed his fate at the end of the film. His relationship with Ava was fantastic, and created a good hook for the audience as there was so many possible outcomes for their relationship and personal fate. Ava was extremely good at taking on the role of a robot due to her elegance in movement, and created a really believable character for the audience.

As i said, the soundtrack and characters relationships were my favourite parts about this film. However i also believe this was the films biggest mistake in my eyes. This is because, the relationship between characters were built up so much throughout the whole film that it made me anticipate something incredible, which it did in most peoples opinion. For example the tension between Nathan and Caleb was built up so much throughout the film, and we could see that the calm side Nathan was showing was slowly being built up into a lot of anger, and therefore the simple punch Nathan throws at Caleb wasn't enough in my opinion and should have resulted in Caleb trying to hide from Nathan and a big fight undergoing with him, Kyoko and Ava. Also, the fate of the relationship between Caleb and Ava should have been extended as it all happened so quickly, that it didn't really have an affect on me. Therefore i believe Ava and Caleb should have had an extra barrier towards escaping and Ava should have played along Caleb into trying to get past the last barrier in order to escape, and then eventually leave him. Finally, i believe the films complete ending was unnecessary as the film should have ended with Calebs fate sealed which would have hit the audience a bit harder. Whereas instead we see Ava get introduced to the real world, which was all unnecessary and didnt have much of an affect on me personally. Therefore, i believe the ending of the film was a huge anti climax, but the rest of the film was fantastic. 

Overall 5-6/10

Cam Quinn

The Seven Areas (Translations):

1   The issues raised by media ownership in contemporary media practice; (how does who owns a media company influence the type of film made and its potential success? For example do BIG companies make BIG films and therefore make all the money? Is it possible for small companies to succeed?) Which companies made Star Wars: The Force Awakens? How did this impact on the type of film that was made? 

The companies involved with the making of star wars the force awakens include: Lucas film ltd, Disney and Bad robot productions. These companies played a major role in the success of the film, and opened many oppurtunites to bring something new to the market in which star wars currently competes within. However, Disney played the biggest role in doing so, due to there net worth.

Disney are renown for creating films that are extremely memorable for the majority of the english and american population, which is proven by films such as finding nemo, toy story and monsters inc. These films are seen as more of a kids film, however due to the popularity of them also come under the four quadrant, where all audiences are interested by the film. This is relevant towards adults because there is such a high demand for their children to go and watch these films, and their parents will have to go along and watch also. Therefore, due to Disney's loyal reputation of continuously producing fantastic films, they have audiences that will simply go to the cinema due to the film being a disney film. This also means that due to disney being part of the production of star wars, their reputation also came along with it. Disney aim most of their films at kids, therefore star wars has key areas that will be aimed at children, this is done by characters such as Chewbacca which is really attractive towards a young audience due to the humour of the character. To emphasise this, merchandise is also produced such as toys, which children are all desperate to buy which helps market the film also. Therefore because Disney are part of the making of the film this has had a large impact on the type of film made, because disney usually aim their films worldwide and at most audiences, usually children. Star wars have decided to therefore market their film worldwide and at all audiences, this is shown by the different languages on each trailer, scenes worldwide within the the trailer.

The money in which Disney has means that the budget for films that they are involved in is very high and have a lot of freedom on what they spend their money on, such as marketing, costumes, technology and scenery. This is shown by the scenes being in Abu dhabi which would cost a lot of money to send each person involved over there and to film. They also have clearly spent a large amount of there budget on marketing which is shown by the common occurrence of adverts on tv, billboards in major cities around the world and many more, which would cost a lot of money. The fact the film is filmed on film and not digital means that the cost of production would be significantly higher than most other films recently produced, as digital is a lot cheaper to produce. Also, disney gave star wars the freedom of using the technology such as cgi used on Maz to make a realistic character. Disney also gives a film the opportunity to hire big stars within films to attract audiences, this is a major role within a film because some people go to the cinema just to see there favourite actor, for example people might watch star wars to see harrison ford. 

Therefore overall, having a big company involved such s disney opens many opportunities, especially with marketting which has recently became a very expensive thing to do. However big companies do not necessarily create successful films, this is due to the writers of the film and happens a lot with many disney films, and sometimes profit is not even achieved. Therefore, small companies do not always create small, unsuccessful films, for example the purge spent $3million on their first film and ended up making a revenue of $89 million, this was a  very successful film and has continued a prequel. They achieved this without any real famous actors as well which proves that having big companies involved is not always necessary if you can produce a good story line.

• The importance of cross media convergence and synergy in production, distribution and marketing; (how do companies work together to produce, distribute and publicize a film? How can Disney use their size to promote and publicise a film? How can small companies work together to promote their business' when making and promoting a film?) Who publicised and distributed the film? How did these companies work together? What roles did they undertake?  

Responsibility for producing, distributing and marketing star wars the force awakens lies solely on Disney. This is due to their freedom of being able to invest large amounts of money into the film and the size of their company. 

Furthermore, due to Disney being a large, successful company, their reputation is so highly thought of by audiences around the world, which allows them to have a monopoly position within the market they currently work within. Therefore, this played a big role in JJ Abrams decision to work alongside disney to produce the film. George Lucas came up with various ideas of basing the film around the elderly characters, however disney wanted to bring in new, young characters, and therefore JJ Abrams had the choice of choosing between the two, and decided to ignore many of George Lucas's ideas that were put forward for the film and went ahead and did most work with disney to produce a film that had younger characters, which allowed the film to work within the four quadrant. This option for JJ Abrams made the production of star wars a much more easier job, this is because he had so many different ideas thrown at him which meant that he could analyse each one and know from the beginning roughly how successful the film could possibly be. Although Lucas has sold lucasfilms to disney in 2012, he was still there as a source of canonical information, as someone who may know the details or relationships of certain characters that perhaps were only briefly touched on in the six films so far, but the new scripts will tell a new story. Therefore Lucas will still play a large role within star wars, sourcing key information on the background behind the previous films.

The three step motto used in an article for creating hype for an unknown brand was 1. Start early 2. Go big 3. Endear the cast to audiences all across the world. This is exactly the technique used in the production of star wars the force awakens, starting early by working on the film as soon as Disney took over, going big and spending large amounts of money, and endearing the cast to audiences across the world through the used of many different types of marketing. Disney were lucky enough to let the natural chemistry between and charisma of its cast do most of the work, and used this when publicising the film;  Disney made sure to use a fair bit of  nostalgia into the marketing campaign, with Harrison Ford’s Han Solo and Chewbacca featuring heavily. When Han said, “Chewie…we’re home,” in the first trailer, it was the same sentiment being echoed by longtime Star Wars fans who still had a bad taste in their collective mouth from the prequels. Don’t worry, the marketing campaign seemed to say, the Millennium Falcon and Star Wars as a whole is back in good hands again. Audiences couldn’t help but associate The Force Awakens with the original trilogy, forming a positive brand association from the start. Therefore, Disney gained a great reputation from the star, and from then on, all that was needed was money to further publicise the film across the globe to many different audiences, which was far from a problem for the multi billion pound company.

• the technologies that have been introduced in recent years at the levels of production, distribution, marketing and exchange; (how has the introduction of digital film, 3D, DVD, Blue Ray, internet streaming, downloadable content, home cinema influenced the types of films made, the way we watch them and the way we 'buy' them?) Research the types of technology utilised during these stages of the film production process of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

The recent introduction of digital filming has become very popular amongst many production companies therefore the flexibility and immediacy of digital filming makes a lot of sense, but while this format is still evolving, other companies are still using film as a way to produce their films.

With Interstellar shot on Imax 65mm and projected in 70mm, and the new round of Star wars films committed to anamorphic 35mm, the continuing impact of this well-developed technology should not be underestimated. While expensive and demanding, its unsurpassed image quality, rich colours, deep tones and textural details continues to attract passionate film-makers such JJ Abrams, who are still fighting to save the format from obsolescence. In a culture that is continually looking for smaller, faster and more convenient ways of doing things, we can often abandon a technology before it reaches maturity. Film is still technically superior in some ways and dedicated craftsmen are still refining it. The rapid evolution of digital film is understandable in many ways, however Abrams believes film still has a lot to offer.

Also, the recent uprise in illegal internet streaming has meant that many individual are deciding to watch films illegally on websites such as put locker. Websites such as put locker now also have the ability to make films available before the official release date, therefore this means that they are becoming more and more attractive by offering something that is out of the producers hands. The fact that this is now possible will have many negative affects on companies such as disney, this is because people will now no longer go to the cinema to watch films, purchase them from stores or rent them online. Therefore the overall revenues that a certain film makes will decrease rapidly, and for some films profits will not even be reached, this means that production companies need to work even harder than ever to produce extra revenues in order to cover the amount lost through illegal streaming. Overall, this may mean that the film industry will all be ever so similar, as companies are more reluctant to taking risks, and will automatically try and produce a film with similar content to those who have brought a lot of success. 

However, this has not had much of an affect on star wars due to the prequel being so successful, and many fans being so obsessed with the films. Therefore, a large amount of profit was still made from star wars the force awakens, although maybe no way near as much as it should have been due to websites such as put locker allowing their viewers to watch in HD.

the significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audiences; (how and why have film companies had to alter the way they work now everyone has web enabled phones, PC's, consoles etc? How have audiences changed their viewing habits now we no longer need to go to the cinema to watch a film) Link this area to Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

New technology has meant that audiences can now watch their favourite films on many different devices within their household, therefore the popularity with buying dvds has decreased massively and the majority of suppliers have completely stopped buying them. This means that film companies have almost stopped making their films on dvd's as they aren't selling all of their units, therefore they have had to alter the way they distribute their film.

This has been done by allowing people to rent films on their tv's through sky, bt, talk talk etc... and has become very popular and is very easy to do. Due to this, companies such as blockbuster have recently shut down and has almost had the same affect on hmv. Therefore over the past 10 years audiences have changed their viewing habits massively, from buying films and watching them on a dvd player to simply downloading them on their tvs and watching them instantly.

Over time, things are getting easier and easier for audiences to view films and therefore companies like disney have started to react to this. Due to web enabled phones and so many people being on them a large amount of the time, marketing has become a huge area within the film industry. Adverts are so easily reached to audiences as they are constanty on the internet and therefore its easier to attract audiences to come and watch their films. This was seen with star wars the force awakens as every few webpages would include an advert for the film, and therefore attracted many people to come an view the film at the cinema.

Therefore overall, new technology has meant that it is becoming easier for audiences to view films, however easier for companies to market their films. This can be seen as negative, as profit on dvd's are no way near as much as before however many more people are watching the films, which is the target for a company to do so. 

• the importance of technological convergence for institutions and audiences; (can you think of examples of how different technologies have come together to help the film industry?)  Consider, amongst other things, the many ways that the film was marketed.

Technological convergence has slowly become a crucial component in the changes to the film industry. It has allowed for makers to improve the quality of films, and to make them more complex and dynamic. Whilst also becoming easier and easier to access. The ease of distribution has also increased dramatically through technological convergence, this is because its cheaper and faster than ever before to distribute to cinemas as each cinema doesn't require an entire film reel. Also, converting to DVD is now almost instant.

Film companies would always rely billboards, buses and posters to advertise their film before, however technological convergence has meant that audiences can be reached through Facebook, twitter, snapchat, Instagram and many more social media sites, at a reasonably low cost. Therefore there is a wider range of people in which companies can now target their films at, with specific age groups being an option, For example, doing most of the marketing on social media for a film aimed at teenagers would be very beneficial, as the majority of teenagers look at social media every day and adverts would get to them very quickly. 

Due to celebrities now also using social media, it means that they can have a  large role in helping market the films themselves. For example, Channing Tatum has almost 10 million followers on his twitter account and therefore his tweets reach a large majority of these people. And with one single tweet, this can be more affective as tens of thousands of billboards across major cities. Therefore marketing has become a lot cheaper and more affective within this area.

As mentioned before, technological convergence can also have a largely negative affect on the revenues created by a film company due to websites such as put locker allowing films to be watched for completely free online, and could perhaps cancel out any positive affects that have occurred from technological convergence.

• the issues raised in the targeting of national and local audiences (specifically, British) by international or global institutions; (how do film companies try and attract their audience? Do they do different things in different countries?) How was the film marketed in the USA, Europe and the rest of the world (particular focus here on China).

Disney was very strategic about how they staggered their trailers for The Force Awakens. They first aired two teaser length previews that focused heavily upon symbols from the old movies like X-Wings and Tie-fighters to let old school fans know that these would, in fact, be Star Wars movies set in the familiar, beloved universe (No Gungans this time). Then they released their longer two-and-a-half minute ad during halftime of a Monday Night Football game on ABC. A large amount of hype surrounded this trailer’s release. This was very successful and effective for previous viewers of the star wars prequel and members of the uk and US, however did not reach others worldwide. Therefore, Disney decided to make specific trailers for each major country. For example, china was one of the countries that was top of the list, this is due to chinas economy and population. Disney did this by launching  an aggressive marketing offensive, screening the trailer on the Great Wall -- and putting 500 Stormtroopers on it -- and enlisting a local pop star as a cultural ambassador. This helped to put extra millions of eyes on the film, and made the film successful on the chinese box office.

This technique is used by many major film companies, and was seen in the film 'Skyfall' where James bond was seen in shanghai, which also helped to target an audience within china.

Therefore, targeting the US and the UK was the easy part for Disney, with the only major factor being the amount of money spent. Whereas to target other countries Disney had to offer something that was attractive to the countries, with an environment that meant something to the citizens of that country, for example the great wall for citizens of china. Otherwise, there would be no other way of being able to reach any other audiences.

• the ways in which the candidates’ own experiences of media consumption illustrate wider patterns and trends of audience behaviour. (what is your opinion on the above? Do you see the developments as a good or bad thing?) Link this area to the film. Find figures for audience consumption on the different platforms for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

I believe the introduction of technology within the film industry is having a massive effect, however a very minimal one at the same time. This is due to the fact its changing the way people work in a massive way, however the changes are simply cancelling themselves out due to the opposite affect occurring. For example, new technology has meant that overall costs for a film to be produced is increasing, however revenues are also increasing at the same time. New technology also means its easier to reach audiences, however its also easier to stream free copies online etc...

In my opinion the film industry is simply a matter of money, and without it, its very hard to be successful at all. There are a lot of films that make a fair amount of profit without it, however its very rare to make a huge amount. This is shown by the success of companies like disney, as they have the ability to hire big names, spend lots on marketing and use various special effects. And as time goes on, there will become less and less room for low budget films due to the demand of audiences increasing rapidly for special effects. Critics are also becoming more harsh, therefore low budget films will be criticised dramatically.