Internet Piracy B1 Level 4

"To what extent does internet piracy pose a threat to the film industry?"

The following essay will explore to what extent internet piracy poses a threat to the film industry. not needed. The first point that can be determined, is that the rise of piracy has had a negative impact on Hollywood and the film industry. The main reason being it loses them money and people are more inclined to stay at home and watch films. why is this a thrteat to the production of cinema? Reinvest in new film - not quality it is 'Spectacle' = suoperficial films = guaranteed audience, lowest common denominator & won't take risks. In my opinion, a way to look at piracy in a positive light is that it allows/encourages audiences to view non-mainstream films; with this in mind, if less people are going to the cinema, the film industry is not prepared to take risks on new styles/ideas of film. This keeps the production of films with simplistic and formulaic narratives, excellent disguised through the use of CGI and special effects. This becomes apparent with ongoing franchises such as Die Hard and Fast and the Furious, where more films are made as they have a guaranteed audience. excellent

In order to explore fully the impacts of piracy on the film industry, a context that must be looked at is technology. The main technological factor being the resurgence of 3D technology. This can be seen as an attempt to increase cinema attendance, offering a quality that can not be received from pirated movies at home. This is on the basis, sites such as Megaupload can not be used in order to stream and download movies of a 3D quality, also raising complications for those who do not own 3D polaroid glasses. Being promoted as an exclusive experience, the multiplexes have raised the cost of ticket prices and added the extra cost of glasses, to view a film in 3D. Due to 3D’s use in multiplexes currently, it is hard for directors not to try and integrate it into their movies in the hope of them achieving a film that is successful at the cinema. This could involve changing parts of the narrative in the movie, in order to incorporate 3D. From the critics perspective, the main purpose is to make a profit and it doesn’t do much to improve the standard of the film being made. The critic known as Mark Kermode also has a fairly negative outlook towards the idea of 3D. All correct & well applied, but now must tie into the 'threat' to the industry question P - E - E?

Another context that can be discussed in relation to piracy is social context. With people being able to view vast amounts of films online for free, they develop a greater range of film knowledge and understanding. Sense of entitlement to free film experience,  not aware iof the consequences on future film production & bland, superficial cinema This raises the expectations for films, establishing a desire for movies that have a more complex narrative and meet the needs of the postmodern audience. An example of where smaller films have been released to larger audiences is the film We Need To Talk About Kevin. The internet acts as a resource to easily gaining access to free films, without paying anything. A reason why people choose to do this is because it is more affordable and easier than having to travel to the closest multiplex for a screening; especially when it can all be done from the comfort of your own home. The main impact piracy has on the multiplexes is the decrease in cinema attendance, hence the resurgence of 3D as previously stated when referring to the technological context. However - argue against - CINE LITERACY - audience are aware of more than just Hollywood output & may become more interested in exciting new things happening in art cinema or foreign film i.e. Ringu, Pans Labrynth, but also UK films such as This Is England etc...

Is the film industry JUST Hollywood - if not do other types of cinema see piracy as the same threat or actually an opportunity to compete for audiences attentions - ie distribution

The final point that the essay will explore is the economic context relating to piracy. This links strongly with the 3D technology used, on the basis the studios and directors use a lot of money in order to incorporate the technology; alongside the multiplexes which spend money in order to accommodate the technology in their facilities. This is all done so that it will be economically profitable in the long run, gaining profit through the rise in ticket prices and extra costs of glasses. A film that acted as a turning point for most films now to be filmed in 3D is Avatar. Due to it’s success, films have begun to stick to the same features, replicating similar plots and focusing more on being visually pleasing than the narrative. This links in with the creation of several sequels, on the basis the original film was successful. In doing this, appeal is also gained through the use of the same stars and directors.

Again - New directors & talent can practice their skills & upload them, SWEEDing - this is the same technology that allows Piracy to occur - also CINE LITERACY = our future film directors with a good knowledge of film cos its free

no £ investment but IDEAS/CREATIVITY investment

In conclusion, the response by the film industry to counter the ever growing use of piracy to view films, was the establishment of 3D. The selling point being it offers a much higher quality than home videos. In order to meet the expectations of the audiences now, I believe the film industry should go back to focusing on making better films with a richer and more risk taking plot, as well as keeping the audience’s interest not just through making the film visually pleasing, but intellectually satisfying as well. It is likely to remain the case however, films will continue to be made in the same way as it generates profit from a guaranteed audience.        

Has a good sense of argument & for the most part answers the question directly.

Strong analysis of the context & how it affects the industry mostly linked to question (not just statements of fact but actually applied & explained with its purpose/affects)

25/30

Internet Piracy - Mid Level 3 C1

To What Extent Does Film Piracy Pose A Threat to the Film Industry:
I believe this statement to be true but only to a certain extent, I believe that it will affect the major hollywood companies a lot more than smaller Independent as they have a smaller budget so they don't have to make as much back, sometimes they release there film straight to DVD too so they can make there money back faster and easier as people can buy them to watch at home. Good - What about how this affects the Industry in terms of reinvesting money into new talent & interesting ideas?
With the constant development in Technology the threat of piracy in the film industry is ever growing, places like Mega Upload (now closed down) allowed people to stream and and download for free when they want where they want. This means that people don't got to the cinema as much as they can watch films before there official release online. This factor would heavily affect the film Industry as it means that they are not getting as much money which forces them to make films in 3D to get a larger income as it is harder to pirate, but not all of the audience likes 3D film. What types of films are being pirated though - indies, UK films or mainly Hollywood? Film Industry is not just Hollywood.
As it is very easy to watch films now people become desensitised to things like gore and horror but have a growing desire for better more interesting story lines, but due to piracy the big budget Hollywood films are focusing more on visuals than story so people aren't watching them as often or watching them illegally. People begin to find that these smaller budget Independent films have a lot more of a story line and are more engaging so they watch these more which is boosting profits for these smaller companies and directors as people will recommend them to there friends. Good - but is piracy affecting these types of films? Is it good that audience can access & watch a greater variety of films 'cine-litaeracy' this is an investment in future film directors/talent. Sweeding?
With piracy growing the Hollywood directors are less focused on there films as they are in need to make profits so they re vamp old film franchises, or continue existing ones as they already have a garnered audience. They also do films classed as 'Geri-Action' which means they bring back actors who typically or are well know for playing action characters as people will come to watch them. This means that they will get a larger income as everyone body already recognises and knows the franchise on films and we will watch them even though they are probably going to be twice as bad as they previous one. So explain - why is this a threat to the film industry - no investment in quality but bland & lowest cultural output - guns, bangs & boobs
 The Film industry has been in a similar situation before when TV'S?? and VCR were released. I believe that for the film industry to survive they must adapt to the audience and what they want. Instead of focusing on the visuals go back to the story line that people got attached to and went back to watch or recommended it to friends. With the modern day audience more up to date with technology the major Hollywood companies could take a leaf out of the books of Independent Films and release the films on all platforms at the same time and let the audience choose when to watch which has proved very popular for some films. But what about foreign or independent cinema - is it seen as a threat to this aspect of the film industry? Or just Hollywood. People are getting paid less & have to do more with the budget - it is being invested into the 'spectacle' of SFX & 3D - is this in itself a threat to the future of cinema? Are people more engaged with making films themselves & could this be seen as part of the industry or at least feeding into it? Sweeding.

19/30 - some sense of argument to be expanded on

REINVESTMENT into the Industry - threat (economic)

Internet Piracy E3

To what extent does the Internet piracy pose a threat to the film industry

Piracy has always been always been a issue for the film industry, but now in our contemporary society, Internet piracy is the biggest the industry has ever seen. Why - what are they sacred of and how does it affect film product/reinvestment into new directors & films/risk taking - need to elaborate on your answer after all it is asking you 'to what extent IS this a threat'
The way morden technology is evolving means that any thing the film industry are doing to prevent piracy such as putting the films in stereoscopic 3D - why does this stop piracy, what else should they be doing to prevent piracy encourage audiences back into the cinema? are not working, as the technology Is being developers?? that allows people to pirate them still. People can still pirate the film from torrent websites such as pirate bay and torrent hound, these websites are seen as organised crime so they get shut down occasionally by the FBI. But it is not long before the websites are up and running again. Example - Megavideo? But look at the question - how much of a threat is this to the production, distribution & exhibition of new films - the future of cinema, people are loosing their jobs in the industry, working for less?
Piracy also make it easier for people to watch films from home, so they can watch it with there friends and family. Piracy is most common with people of younger generation. The reasons behind this is due to fact they are to young to see the films in the cinema, so they resort to piracy to watch them and they can have there friends round and make an event of it. Answer the question - this is irrelevant - Threat to future of cinema?
As piracy is organised crime, the criminals make money from this, this is one of the biggest threats for the industry, as people are making money from the pirated films the industry are not making any money's from these film, this means people stop paying to see the film, this means a decline in film profit so this is why you can only see blockbusters at cinemas now a they know they are defiantly going to make money from then, they also release the films in 3D as well to body there revenues. There is some degree of negotiating with the question here but need far greater elaboration & argument to make it stick. Quality of films? Example - the Avatar effect?
Internet piracy, has become a big problem to the industry, this mean they are losing money, and the problem with piracy is worse than it has ever been, just because of the Internet.At no point have you actually referenced any films, box office figures, cinema attendance, films that have been well known to be pirated or about the argument that this causes greater cinema literacy - investment for future director which will make & distribute their own films via the internet. Is this where film is headed - sweeding etc? is this a good thing? Do people pirate independent or low budget UK films? Is this just a problem for Hollywood?

Mock Exemplar 18/30 C3

Film censorship is motivated by fears about audiences and technologies don't need to write out the question again, get straight into your answer/thesis statement to an extent, along with several other factors that influence it just as strongly. The main fear fuelling this being people of all ages being able to view videos with unsuitable content from video nasties. Good This became accessible after the invention of VCR. It became a fashion to watch films on VCR in the 1980’s instead of going to the cinema. The nature of these particular films was different to the footage shown in cinema at the time. Not only were they based on horrific and scary context, they were low budget too. Along with this, video nasties were seen as a scapegoat for the political and social problems in the 1980s. why is this motivating censorship – who is involved? The economy of multiplexes also became a concern.

This doesn't actually give any argument – you are not taking a position on this.

The invention of Betamax and VCR gave the public the opportunity to watch uncensored films at home. Explain why? Due to VCR? ~format wars was VHS & Betamax allowing longer recordings and becoming a fashionable item, it soon because the stronger product out of the two. During the 80’s it became fashionable to stay in and watch films instead of the previous trend of going to the cinema. This caused cinema attendance to drop massively. It was a popular option not only because it was during the time of a recession but because it was easy to pirate films. Due to the popularity and simplicity, pirated copies were mass produced and distributed across Britain. Good, but what were the fears about this technology? Relate to the question

At the time, easy access to video nasties caused allowed people of all ages to view footage with content that was seen as unsuitable and violent. Not only were they uncensored, they were not viewable through multiplexes meaning the only possible way to view was through VCR. Good – can you link this to your argument? The main audience for video nasties were teenagers. Not only did parents fear the way this affected their children but the government feared loss of control. This created a larger sense of fear in society due to a Moral panic that the video nasties would influence people negatively. Mary Whitehouse & her group caused the outcry – important you have this – traditional values. What argument does this bring up about censorship – do you agree that this is what prompted these fears, were they correct?

As a result of this, the which one? government used this as a scapegoat for all social and political problems that had risen at the time. Which were...? Margret Thatcher stated the videos should be banned due to the problems they caused. What problems? The government used media to share this opinion, creating more fear in society. Again – you must relate back to the question here.

Overall, i feel film censorship motivated the fears of audiences and technologies along with several other factors. The main one being the government and their fear of losing control. Because of technological advances the public do have access to uncensored footage, allowing them to view more brutal and possibly unsuitable videos, although over 30 years the brutality of video nasties is seen as weak and viewable in comparison to now. Desensitised It can be argued that these films are unsuitable but overall they have had a huge impact on today’s films and piracy. What about the directors of these films, critical acclaim, mainstream?

Your opinion is at the end but this should be included in your introduction – is it true that technology & audiences getting hold of these films caused the fear or was it a morality & conservative pressure group that blew it out of proportion? What happened to these films eventually? They were all banned in the UK – is this because of technology?

Very little in here about actual censorship until the last paragraph, no mention of the BBFC or regulation of Home Video. You must address the focus of the question otherwise it just become facts.

18/30

Mock exemplar 28/30 A2

-->
“Film censorship is motivated by fears about audiences and technologies.” Discuss this statement in reference to the concerns expressed about uncensored and unregulated video content in Britain in the early 1980s. [30 marks]

I feel that film censorship is strongly motivated by fears about audiences and technologies – don't need to write out the question however there are some other factors that motivate film censorship which do not fall into either of the above categories. Just start here...? Through improvements in technologies such as VHS players which were now??? present in many British homes the public could easily get easy access to unregulated and uncensored films known as video nasties, why were they unregulated & why watch them at home? these led to fears that the quality? Morality – a 'Moral Panic' of society in Britain could fall if they were allowed to remain being easily obtainable to the public. These video nasties were a sort of scapegoat for any troubles within the country possibly arguing that film censorship could be motivated by personal ideals but i will explore this later in the essay. Good point – look forward to it. These VHS tapes and video nasties also presented a great threat to the multiplexes as the viewers could now view previously unobtainable footage from the comfort of their homes, leading to fears of an even greater economic decline. For cinema attendance

Through the technological improvements that took place throughout the 1970s the public now had the option of both Betamax and VHS on which to watch films at home. Despite its better quality betamax was soon defeated as VHS not only allowed for a longer recording but had also become a social trend throughout Britain as visiting the multiplexes had been in the past. It did however have a darker side which played a large role in its triumph over betamax which was that VHS tapes were easier to copy and therefore pirate. It was this piracy that led to unregulated tapes being produced in mass numbers and therefore widely distributed across the country. This piracy of tapes allowed prices to fall therefore making it a much more appealing option for the public than to visit their nearest multiplex creating a fall in cinema attendance. Good & accurate but need to make it clear how does this affect censorship or regulation?

The main fears of what audiences of watching came with the introduction of the video nasties. These tapes allowed the viewers to see content that had been deemed either to horrific or obscene for the screens of the cinemas. Good The films focused on the genres of horror and pornography. Through being uncensored they were able to explore much darker concepts than anything before them had been, such as the idea of rape or extremely gory deaths. Refer to specific films please Through these new themes came a certain sense of intrigue which appealed in the main to teenage audiences as it was new and captured their attention and curiosity. This led to great levels of fear in parents as they no longer had any control over what their children were watching and no guarantee that the film was appropriate as it was unregulated. This created a great sense of moral panic as many adults felt that what their children were watching was wrong and should be banned altogether. Good.

Amidst this moral panic the government saw a window for them to take advantage and use this for their gain. This argues that film censorship was not motivated by fears about audiences and technologies but rather as a tool to defeat the scapegoat which took the blame for a broken Britain. In the 1980s Under Margaret Thatcher the conservative government claimed that it was the fault of these video nasties for the state of some of the problems in Britain, Her government held very traditional views and felt that these tapes were not appropriate for viewing by anybody and should be gotten rid of. Through the media the government pushed the idea and created a larger sense of fear that it was these films damaging youth and the morals of the country, therefore rallying greater support for their disposal or censorship and also taking more blame away from Margaret Thatcher for the violence and poorness of the country. This gives the idea that it was not fear of how the audiences react but rather through the use of power to create a fear that had previously not been there in force for a governments own gains. Very good – how does this frame the Censorship debate?

Eventually in the year of 1985 the regulation of home video came to be through an organisation called the BBFC meaning the British Board of Film Censorship. After being given permission by the conservative government the BBFC was allowed to apply age ratings to home video allowing the videos with the worst content to be flagged warning any potential viewers of what they would be watching. This shows that film censorship was done for the benefit of the audiences as they now knew what they were viewing and the country could have proper control over what was being distributed. Good – so 'legislation' could keep up with the new technology. What were these fears though – shouldn't the public be free to watch what they think is appropriate – shouldn't they decide themselves?

In conclusion i agree with my original point that film censorship is strongly motivated by fears about audience and technologies. It is the fear of the kind of content audiences are exposed to and through improved technologies the ease they can obtain it which pushed censorship forward as a major issue and led to home video being censored so strongly. Good Although other factors like the governments traditional conservative views affected censorship i still feel that fears for the audience and the advancements of technologies were more significant. The same issues of piracy causing film censorship to be difficult are still around today but in the form of internet movie piracy rather than VHS piracy, the audience however are now 30 years on a lot more desensitized to what they see it is almost as if films need to be extremely horrific just to capture our attention and become popular. An example of this is the human centipede (put in year of release) a film viewed by many teenagers despite almost all of them being disgusted and horrified. All viewing however knew what they were about to watch which leads me to the conclusion that films should  have age ratings and content warnings but that films should never be censored as it is the viewers choice if they are sufficiently warned to undertake the viewing of the film.



Good use of P E E, all contexts & significant events discussed & applied to the question
A sense of argument throughout & strong introduction which answers the question
Refer to films of the era



28/30

Mock exemplar 25/30 B1

-->

“Film censorship is motivated by fears about audiences and technologies.” Discuss this statement in reference to the concerns expressed about uncensored and unregulated video content in Britain in the early 1980s. [30 marks]

Film censorship was put in place to both protect audiences and to try and conquer the power of technology in relation to illegal distribution of unregulated films in the early 1980's. Although, this was not fully the sole reason why film censorship was put in place. Margaret Thatcher, Mary Whitehouse, the rise of home video and piracy along with cinemas losing money were all things that influenced film censorship. Good intro, main contexts addressed

During the 1980s there was a significant rise in the use of home video, people saw this new craze as fashionable and as a status symbol. The two home video systems were VHS and Betamax - who were competing in format wars against each other. This eventually saw VHS win this war, with the defining aspect that VHS had a longer tape recording of 3 hours, compared to Betamax with a recording time of 60 minutes. Nevertheless, the rise of both home video systems allowed much more efficient piracy for audiences and unlimited access to unregulated films. Good Film censorship was not able to rule out these unregulated films and cinemas began losing money because people were staying at home and watching films, instead of the cinema.  That they couldn't see in the cinema such as these low budget Horror Films

The early 1980s resulted in many video nasties being made and consequently banned by the BBFC. Good A common occurrence with these videos was that they were horrors usually with quite graphic content. Initially many of these films were banned in cinemas, but with home video people could watch them at home - regardless of the audiences age. There was moral panic with the conservative party (who were in charge at the time. Margaret Thatcher who led the party at the time used home video as a scapegoat to blame for the UK's problems of the time. What sort of problems were in the UK? Video nasties were seen as a threat in influencing people to go and copy what they saw from these films. Also these films were spreading messages the government did not agree with and the conservative party being right-wing wanted to have control over what audiences were watching. Good – 'Moral Panic'

The BBFC were the actual group who enforced the 1984 Video Recordings Act which banned many video nasties. Excellent Initially video nasties were banned in cinema, but there was not really a rule to deny their distribution through home video. The recording act meant that all films including video nasties had to be sent to the BBFC for classification. At the time the BBFC were quite lenient with films Good and were more influenced by the conservative party who were consistently linking video nasties to nearly everything negative that was going on in Britain. Screenings of video nasties were shown to both conservative party members, as well as the National Viewers and Listeners Association, who feared these films would lead to people acting them out in real life.

Film censorship is partly motivated by audiences as the government did genuinely believe people would be more likely to commit the acts they saw in video nasties. Technology is a huge factor as without home video, video nasties could not be watched. Looking at today's cinema, many of these video nasties have went onto become hugely successful and many of them have been re-made and distributed in cinema, this is because they have a guaranteed pre-sold audience and this shows that the government of today would not censor these films as they would be economically successful in cinema. Also 'video nasties' are basically non-existent in today's film as so many films are such graphic and violent (The Human Centipede), audiences have become de-sensitized to them. I do not believe films should be censored as they are a matter of audiences personal choice, argument – good if you don't like something don't watch it. Their was no real evidence and there still is not that video nasties are/ have been corrupting society as The 1984 Video Recordings Act did not lessen crime or boost morale values in society. Interesting position...

Points are explained in detail & related to the question fully

All major contexts & events/institutions involved are included

A sense of argument around the debate is present

A good intro that answers the question

25/30

5.4 Lesson Plan: Digital Cinema Distribution

What a Projectionist did...& what they do now but ...

Mark Kermode on Digital Cinema

Video Essay on Digital Distribution

 

Lesson 5.3 UK Digital Screen Network - an AS Stud...

Context: Social, Economic & Technological: Why is ...

Task

Homework/Classwork for Thursday 9th May

Exit Pass - Digital Cinema Network

 Video Essays - Internet Piracy & Censorship

What a Projectionist did...& what they do now but without needing any skill

Exit Pass - Digital Cinema Network

Homework/Classwork for Thursday 9th May

Lesson 5.3 UK Digital Screen Network - an AS Stud... 

 

1. Work your way through the activities 

>Bluewater films in 4 categories

>Make notes on the contexts affecting the Digital Film Network (who, what, why?) 

2. Write an 300 word response to this question 

>Include 3 points - economic, social & technological

>Include a conclusion - has it succeeded in encouraging a more diverse screening of films? Is digital cinema improving the quality of the cinema experience (rather than having a human professional projectionist or movies or organic reels of 'film')

Video Essays - Internet Piracy & Censorship

Lesson 5.3 UK Digital Screen Network - an AS Student's view

Starter:

http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/locations/bluewater  

What films are being screened - research & categorise

Mainstream

Independent

Foreign (subtitled)/

Specialist/Classics

Do they give their audience a diverse range of films?

Question - how is this impacted by the Digital Screen Network/Digital Distribution?

Digital screen network

1). What is the digital screen network?

It is a £12 million investment, a national lottery investment which equips 240 screens in 210 cinemas across the uk with digital projection technology which gives the audiences a greater choice of film.

2). How can it help independent producers and exhibitors like picture house?

It will help independent producers and exhibitors like picture house because it enables them to distribute a vaster amount of films across their screens, which will therefore increase their audience numbers. It also increases the amount of times that one film is shown and enables them to show a greater selection of films which appeals to a wide variety of people and specialized films that are not generic hollywood films.

3). What will it mean for audiences?

It will mean that audiences get the chance to watch a wider variety of films, such as critically acclaimed films. It also means that film distribution can be increased as it is cheaper to reproduce the films as they are digital as opposed to 35 mm film, which is very expensive to reproduce.

4). How does your local area benefit?

My local area benefits from this as two out of the three cinemas in the city have one digital screen each. One of the cinemas is independent and one is mainstream. This benefits my local area, because it enables local people to be able to watch specialized films, which are of interest to the local people it also will increase the number of people who use those particular cinemas, because films are shown more often, therefore helping the entertainment industry and the local economy.

5). How does it impact on your film consumption?

The use of digital screen technology impacts my individual film consumption, as it offers a wider variety of times for me to watch the film, it also allows me to be able to see independent films that i may not have otherwise been able to watch.

6). What will this technology also provide to cinemas?

The technology will increase the amount of people who use the cinema, therefore increasing its profits, it will also bring the cinema a wider audience base and have a more varied audience. 

 

Arguments from an AS student (at a rival 6th form college)

 

New digital cinema production affects the films and other products that cinema city and vue produce and distribute, because digital technology enables the cinemas to screen more films, because it is cheaper to use digital technology as opposed to a 35mm films reel, which is extremly costly and difficult to use. Digital technology also enables the cinema to screen 3D films, which widens the audience and gives them a unique selling point. The use of digital technology, enable the cinemas to exhibit a wider vairety and more screenings of each films, therefore increasing the audience and increasing profits that the cinemas and the films make. It affects how the audience consumes the product because it offers the audience a wider variety of films to watch and the experience of 3D and watching live streaming concerts and sporting matches at the cinema. 

 

This enable us to increase our individual consumption of films, because of the increasing ways in which we can access them, however this also has its disadvantages because it will decrease the conventional ways to watch a film and will decrease profits made by cinemas and film companies, therefore leading to a decrease in film making within the film industry. Piracy is has an effect on our consumption of films, because although it is exploiting the film company, directors and actors, however it increases people film consumption. Although it increases the amount of people who watch the film, it does not increase the profits that are made, because people are getting it on dvd or downloading the film illegally.

From my own personal viewpoint i believe that the digital cinema production is effecting the british film industry, in both good and bad ways. I think that the introduction of digital technology into cinemas, is a good point as it increases the amount of films and screenings you can show at a cinema, because they are cheap and easy to use as opposed to 35 mm film, which is expensive and was difficult to use. I also think that digital technology is better, because of the diversity and advancements that it has, which diversifies what the cinema has to offer to its audiences. Although, i think that the advancements in the media, could possibly decrease the amount of people who go to the cinema and also increase piracy, because of the variety of ways that you can play films.

 

Homework Tasks 1 & 2 for next Thursday 1st May

Is Internet Piracy widening access to films enabling audiences to understand the production process & in the long term to become producers?

Hi All

Apologies for missing class on Friday - If anyone wants help with their mocks/independent learning about 3D & Piracy then please come see me after school next week before Thursday's lesson.

Please find attached the homework I would like you to complete for next week (Thursday) 

1. Peer assess your homework - 

2. 35 min timed mock exam on 3D & Piracy

Essay Plan

Introduction - your thoughts on the debates - is it only bad for Hollywood or does it open up new audiences for non-mainstream film? 

Audience watching for free online = less preared to take risks (Die Hard 5???) 

How the film industry is trying to adapt - who gains, who looses, how have they tried to tackle it?

Possible examples: Megaupload, Avatar & 3D resurgence, Digital Distribution (not on film anymore sent to screen via the internet) how many/which sites do you know to watch/stream illegally & why do you do it?

Main Body (Point > Example > Explanation > Argument (use the debates critics, directors, studios)

Para 1. Technological Context (internet, Megaupload, 3D, Digital Distribution) 3D forced on directors?

Para 2. Social Context audience watch more & potentially a greater range, improving their 'film literacy', a desire for 'better' movies, sharing indie & smaller films to a bigger audience ie: We Need to Talk About Kevin), cinema attendance vs home cinema/streaming movies

Para 3. Economic Context (cinema attendance, the Avatar effect, 3D more expensive tickets) Piracy = less risk taking & Big Dumb Movies & sequels, eating into film production profits = less reinvestment into new talent (directors or stars)

Conclusion

Debates around the threat of piracy (remember Home Video?) how will the film industry have to respond to meet audiences expectations/what do they want? Better films?

Coursework Results as of Today - check against your TMG

Context: Social, Economic & Technological: Why is Cinema Attendance down?

5.3 Lesson Plan 3D, Reasons & Debates

Video Essay on Digital Distribution

Mark Kermode on Digital Cinema

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/09/projecting_the_future.html

http://ccnasfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/mark-kermode-on-digital-distribution.html

Digital Cinema - The Media Student's Book

Digital cinema, distribution and exhibition

The current film distribution system dates back a hundred years. In the beginning, film prints used to be sold to cinema owners who played them in various cinemas until they wore out. Gradually, the idea of a ‘film exchange’ through which films could be rented for much shorter periods developed from around 1911 onwards.
In the UK, new films generally open on a Friday. The busiest days in the cinema are Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Monday is the weakest day for the box office and Wednesday is boosted by schemes like the ‘Orange Wednesday’ programme, sponsored by the mobile telephone company. In a multiplex, new films go onto the bigger screens displacing last week’s films which move to smaller screens. Occasionally, specialised films occupy smaller screens and some films stay in the multiplex for several weeks. This in itself was an innovation in the late 1980s.
The opening ‘three day weekend’ is exploited via heavy advertising and promotion to bring in the largest audiences and it certainly still works with the 15-25 audience. But older cinemagoers (who, in the UK, offer the main opportunity for expanding the audience because they visit the cinema so infrequently) often prefer midweek nights and matinees (morning or afternoon). The industry model struggles to cope with this idea and the box-office charts ignore it. Certain films, especially dramas and costume pictures such as Atonement (UK 2007), might do good business in midweek which is not reflected in the chart position.
The current ‘theatrical’ model doesn’t work in many ways. Why run the same film for seven days if the cinema is virtually empty for four of them? Would there be audiences for different kinds of films (revivals, foreign language films, children’s films, documentaries etc.) at other times during the week? Unfortunately the bookings policies of the cinema chains and the distributors make this difficult for all but a relatively small number of specialised cinemas.

Installing and setting up the digital projector, photo by Duncan McGregor/National Media Museum

For a few years now, one way of developing a new distribution model has been promoted – the switch to digital projection. The UK has installed more digital projectors in cinemas than some other film territories – largely as the result of a UK Film Council investment scheme related to the Digital Screen Network (DSN). Although it hasn’t perhaps had quite the anticipated impact just yet, this scheme has changed some practices.

What digital projection offers

A standard digital film print arrives at the cinema on a portable hard drive the size of a small attache case and holding a data file of around 150-200gb. The projectionist uploads the print onto the digital projector and, if the cinema uses ‘automatic’ projection procedures, constructs a menu for the film’s projection (including perhaps opening curtains, masking, trailers and ads etc.) There will also be a digital key (a KDM or key display manager) to unlock the print for screening.
Once loaded, the film could stay on the projector for several weeks, being projected as and when appropriate (i.e. according to the deal with the distributor). The projector system’s server or hard drive can store a minimum of 1.5 terrabytes. The portable hard drive could then be sent on somewhere else.
The print won’t deteriorate through usage whereas celluloid prints wear each time they are projected and are often destroyed at the end of a long run in cinemas because they have developed so many scratches – often because of incorrect handling. The projectionist no longer risks back injury from handling several large and heavy reels in preparing a film for projection – but it still takes up to 4 hours to load, write a show list and test a digital print (depending on the size of the digital file).
Digital prints are cheaper to duplicate than celluloid prints (which cost around £1,000 each) and this should mean that more digital copies of smaller specialised films can be made available to cinemas at roughly the same time. So perhaps 40 or 50 small cinemas could receive a digital film copy in the same week rather than 10 celluloid prints taking a month to reach all the cinemas. In this way, smaller cinemas could benefit from advertising and promotion at the start of a film’s cinema window. At present the promotion only helps films released in London – weeks later when a film reaches smaller cinemas outside the capital, the impact of promotion is much less.
The different handling arrangements via keys also means that ‘occasional shows’ rather than a full week become possible. Digital projectors of cinema quality are now becoming available for mobile touring circuits as well.

Digital projection during the 2010 Bradford International Film Festival, photo by Duncan McGregor/National Media Museum

The second benefit of digital projection is that it can be used for other forms of entertainment. Sporting events, opera and ballet performances, music shows and interviews with directors and stars can be beamed by satellite feed providing an important alternative source of income for cinemas. Such screenings may bring a different clientele to the cinema – one used to paying for ‘exclusive’ access to major events.
Thanks to Duncan McGregor, Projection Team Manager at the National Media Museum, Bradford for invaluable help in preparing this material and for providing the images of the projector.

Digital Cinema - How Stuff works

Digital Distribution

For the business side of the movie industry, the most compelling aspect of digital cinema is distribution. In today's system, production companies spend a lot of money producing film prints of their movies. Then, working with distribution companies, they spend even more money shipping the heavy reels of film to theaters all over the world, only to collect them again when the movie finishes its run.

Because the distribution costs are so high, production companies have to be extremely cautious about where they play their movies. Unless they have a sure-fire hit, they take a pretty big risk sending a film to a lot of theaters. If it bombs, they might not make their money back. (See How Movie Distribution Works for details.)

If you take the physical film out of the equation, things get a lot cheaper. Digital movies are basically big computer files, and just like computer files, you can write them to a DVD-ROM, send them through broadband cable or transmit them via satellite. There are virtually no shipping costs, and it doesn't cost the production company much more to show the movie in 100 theaters than in one theater. With this distribution system, production companies could easily open movies in theaters all over the world on the same day.

The digital distribution system also helps out the individual theaters. If a movie sells out, a theater could decide to show it on additional screens on the spur of the moment. 

Making it Happen

It's a given that at some point, digital cinema will replace the old film system. The question is when and how.

George Lucas and many other filmmakers say it's already time to make the switch to digital production, as its quality is comparable to film and it's much easier and cheaper. Others aren't ready to give up the old standby so quickly, noting that despite what Lucas says, digital video hasn't yet reached the level of film. As technology improves, however, digital video will likely find more converts. Eventually, digital production's main obstacle will be nostalgia and familiarity. Film has served Hollywood well for decades, and it will be hard to give it up.

Digital cinema makes a lot of economical sense on the distribution front, but it would involve huge changes in the industry. For one thing, distribution companies wouldn't have nearly as much work to do -- it's a good bet it would cut down their workforce considerably. Even if the result is a cheaper distribution system, the restructuring could be a major hurdle.

The other obstacle is piracy. To make off with an illegal copy of a movie on conventional film, a bootlegger either has to hold up a delivery truck or sneak a camcorder into a theater. In the first case, bootleggers have to use expensive machinery to make video copies, and in the second, the pirated tapes really don't look that great.

But if a movie were already in the form of bytes of data, anybody could make an exact copy by hooking into the data stream. To make broadband and satellite transmission feasible, the movie industry will have to come up with advanced encryption schemes.

To movie theaters, the main obstacle to digital cinema is money. Today, it costs somewhere around $150,000 to convert a film theater auditorium into a digital theater auditorium. Most movie theaters aren't going to do this unless they're compensated in some way. After all, the production and distribution companies will save millions and millions if the switch to digital is successful, but the theaters will be conducting business as usual.

In the end, the most important question about digital cinema is how it looks to the audience. Digital cinema's proponents cite market research showing that audiences generally prefer the look of digital movies to filmed movies, but many movie buffs aren't so sure. Digital cinema will have to win over a large majority of movie fans before it can completely take the place of film.

Another concern is the convergence of home entertainment technology and professional theater technology. Today, there is a huge gap in image quality between high-end digital projectors and home models, but they are actually built on similar technologies. As home theater projectors improve and drop in price, will people still bother to go to the movie theater? In the past, the difference between film and conventional TV was huge, and theaters still had a hard time packing in crowds. In order to keep the business alive, theaters may have to add a lot more than new projectors.

Fortunately, transmitting video digitally also opens up possibilities for improved surround sound, varied programming and interactive cinema. If production companies and theaters fully explore the scope of the new technology, digital cinema may be the biggest thing to happen to movies since the talkies.

Digital Distribution - Wiki

Impact on distribution

Digital distribution of movies has the potential to save money for film distributors. To print an 80-minute feature film can cost US$1,500 to $2,500,^[25] so making thousands of prints for a wide-release movie can cost millions of dollars. In contrast, at the maximum 250 megabit-per-second data rate (as defined by DCI for digital cinema), a feature-length movie can be stored on an off-the-shelf 300 GB hard drive for $150 and a broad release of 4000 'digital prints' might cost $600,000. In addition hard drives can be returned to distributors for reuse. With several hundred movies distributed every year, the industry saves billions of dollars.
The digital cinema rollout was stalled (as can be seen by major equipment purchases and future commitments to new equipment during this time); exhibitors acknowledged that they would not purchase equipment to replace projectors since the savings would be seen not by themselves but by distribution companies. The Virtual Print Fee model was created to address this (some claim by Frank Stirling at Boeing - Boeing was involved in digital cinema deployment at that time) and this was successfully done, accelerating the rollout of this technology and with it the reduction of the barrier to entry. Given that digital projectors make low volume distribution at last an economic possibility it is the studios' support of the VPF model that has accelerated the introduction of competition, both in terms of alternative distributors and also alternative content including cinematic series.
Due to rapid conversion to digital projection, film prints have become an ever dwindling minority in theatrical releases.

Live broadcasting to cinemas

Digital cinemas can deliver live broadcasts from performances or events. For example, there are regular live broadcasts to movie theaters of Metropolitan Opera performances. In February 2009, Cinedigm screened the first live multi-region 3D broadcast through a partnership with TNT. Previous attempts have been isolated to a small number of screens. In December 2011, the series finale of the BBC dance competition series Strictly Come Dancing was broadcast live in 3D in selected cinemas.^[29]

Criticism and concerns

High profile film directors such as Christopher Nolan,^[30] Paul Thomas Anderson^[31] and Quentin Tarantino have publicly criticized digital cinema, and advocated the use of film and film prints. Most famously, Tarantino has suggested he may retire because (although he can still shoot on film) he cannot project on 35mm prints in most American cinemas, because of the rapid conversion to digital.^[32] Steven Spielberg has called digital projection "inferior" compared to film, and attempted at one point to release Indiana Jones 4 on motion picture film only.^[33] Paul Thomas Anderson recently was able to create the most 70mm Film prints in years for his film The Master (2012 film).
Roger Ebert publicly criticized the use of DCP's after a cancelled film festival screening of Brian DePalma's film Passion (2012 film) at New York Film Festival caused by a lockup due to the coding system.^[34]
The theoretical resolution of 35 mm film is greater than that of 2K digital cinema. ^[35][36] 2K resolution (2048×1080) is also only slightly greater than that of consumer based 1080p HD (1920x1080).^[37]