Saturday, 27 April 2013

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

Starter:

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?

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

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




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.
Probox refurbish
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.
Probox
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]


Sunday, 21 April 2013

Homework 2: MENTOR PAIRS Preparation for next weeks lessons

We will be using next week's lesson to draw together the arguments & contexts you have identified from these resources. Please work in MENTOR PAIRS through the links below, ensure you are taking notes from the videos & articles under the 3 contexts


On your blog, create a Mind Map with the 3 contexts in different colours with the significant points with this question in the middle:

The resurgence of 3D is a response to the film industry's fears of internet piracy”

In class you will be expected to prepare an argument from the point of view of the following - look for them in your notes [i.e. make sure you have them] 
 
 
The studio's view (The Avatar effect/Megaupload, falling cinema attendance)

The critic's view (Mark Kermode/Dredd 3D/Avatar/Internet Piracy)

The director's view (Scorcese/Scott/del Toro/Cameron) “Wedded to the Medium”
 

Homework 1: Mock Essay (use your notes - timed 35 mins)

 “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]

Time yourselves: Plan (5 mins), Write (30 mins)
Use your notes to answer the question

The concerns expressed about uncensored and unregulated video content in Britain in the early 1980s include discussion of :

The Moral Panic about the uncensored and unregulated Video Nasties & the move to BBFC regulation of film in the home. 
Pro-censorship groups such as the National Viewers and Listeners Association (Banned) Conservative MPs wanting restrictive laws for access to films on video
The dawning of the home video age - format wars (VHS and Betamax), the fashion & rapid take-up in the UK of home video in the 80's

Remember the question is an exploration of contexts, therefore I would recommend you plan as follows
Intro - answer the question with your opinion on the statement, choose the 3 contextual points that affected Film Censorship - THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO WRITE IS DO YOU THINK IS WHAT ARE THESE FEARS & ARE THEY JUSTIFIED, back it up briefly with reasons:

Economic
Social/Political
Technological
See your notes & the post '
Notes on Video Nasties/Format Wars'

Paragraph 1. Home Video fashionable (Format Wars - VHS easier to copy) & Piracy
Paragraph 2. Unregulated films (Video Nasties) & Banned Horror

Paragraph 3. The Moral Panic: Conservative government & National Viewers & Listeners Association

Paragraph 4. BBFC (the censor) eventual regulation of Home Video

Conclusion - your opinion: "Film censorship is motivated by fears about audiences and technologies" 
Arguments:
  • 1980's, but is this relevant today with access via internet Human Centipede? 
  • Are we de-sensitized now so these low budget Horror films look tame in comparison - all of them have been remade mainstream.
  • Were they right to do so, were these films morally corrupt? - should film be censored ever? 
  • These films & their directors are critically appreciated now, Wes 'Scream' Craven, Sam 'Spiderman' Raimi

Thursday, 18 April 2013

8:30 - 9:30 set work Evil Dead Key Scenes


Lesson Observation starts at 9:30-10:30

Can each of you please ensure you know about & understand the following:


1. What do the Directors of these Video Nasties have in common - what did they go on to do?

2. How have these 1980's banned Video Nasties films been influential on contemporary horror films?

The Evil Dead
Sam "Spiderman" Raimi's low budget horror film tells the story of a group of young people who intend to spend some time at an isolated log cabin in the woods. Soon after arrival, they inadvertently unleash the forces of darkness and, one by one, are turned into rampaging zombies. Luckily for the special effects department, the zombies can only be stopped by the act of bodily dismemberment.

The Evil Dead was first seen by the BBFC in August 1982. Reaction within the BBFC was divided between those who felt the film was so ridiculously 'over the top' that it could not be taken seriously, and those who found it 'nauseating'. Realising that there was likely to be an equal division of opinion amongst cinema audiences, the BBFC's Director at the time felt that the best course of action would be to tone down the most excessive moments of violence and gore. It was hoped that cuts could retain the film's humour whilst neutering the most graphic violence. In total 49 seconds of footage was removed, taken from several scenes, before an X certificate was awarded. This included reducing the number of blows with an axe, reducing the length of an eye gouging, and reducing the number of times that a pencil was twisted into a person's leg.

It was unfortunate for the distributors of The Evil Dead that their film was released at the height of the 'video nasties' scare. At the time, there was no formal requirement that films must be classified for video release and this loophole had encouraged some of the smaller and more enterprising distributors to release a number of uncensored films on video that would not have been acceptable for cinema release. Although The Evil Dead was quite different in tone to many of the so-called 'nasties', in that its tongue was firmly in its cheek, it was not entirely surprising when the video version (which had already been cut in line with the BBFC's cinema cuts) was added to the list of 'video nasties'.

Although the cinema version had been approved by the BBFC, there were concerns that the lack of an effective age rating system on video - and the easy availability of videos once they entered the home - would inevitably lead to underage viewing. The video version was therefore seized from a large number of shops around the UK and, in many cases, the shop owners simply pleaded guilty to supplying an obscene article rather than incur the added expenses of trying to defend the film. Ultimately, the distributors themselves were taken to Snaresbrook Crown Court, where they successfully argued that the film was not obscene. The Evil Dead was therefore removed from the 'video nasties' list by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) in September 1985.

With the introduction of the Video Recordings Act in 1984, under which all videos were now required to be classified by the BBFC, The Evil Dead needed to be formally submitted for a video classification. Despite the acquittal of the film at Snaresbrook and its subsequent removal from the DPP's list of video nasties, the BBFC remained concerned about the acceptability of the video version in its current form. Of greatest concern was that, regardless of the verdict at Snaresbrook, the film had nonetheless been found obscene by other courts around the country. Under the terms of its designation under the Video Recordings Act, the BBFC was obliged to avoid classifying any material that might be found obscene.

Furthermore, given the stricter tests imposed on the BBFC by the Video Recordings Act - which required that the BBFC should consider the suitability of a video for 'viewing in the home' - there was concern about whether the film as it stood would be acceptable under the new Act. Because the expressed purpose of the Video Recordings Act was to remove 'video nasties' from the shelves, it might seem indefensible at this stage to approve for video release what Mary Whitehouse had called the 'number one nasty'.

Accordingly a decision on The Evil Dead was put off until 1989, by which time the initial furore about the film had died away. Nonetheless, given the notoriety of the film - and the fact that it was the BBFC's cut and approved version that had been subject to prosecutions - it was decided that further cuts would be required before issuing a certificate for video release. The BBFC's lawyers advised that one or two minor cuts would be insufficient, since the BBFC needed to arrive at a noticeably different version of the film to avoid classifying something that had been found obscene. In many cases, scenes that had already been subject to cuts for cinema release were simply subjected to slightly deeper cuts.

However, some scenes that had previously been approved intact for cinema release were now also reduced. Most famously this included the sequence in which one of the female characters is assaulted by a tree. In total a further one minute six seconds were removed from the video version, meaning that The Evil Dead had now been cut by a total of one minute 55 seconds. This reduced version was agreed by the BBFC's lawyers to comprise a 'significantly different' version to the one that had been prosecuted and was thus classified 18 in January 1990.

In 2000, the uncut version of the film was finally resubmitted to the BBFC. The BBFC recognised that standards had changed since 1990 (and certainly since 1982) and that modern audiences were more accustomed to the excesses of horror films. Compared to films like Scream, The Evil Dead now looked rather tame. The BBFC therefore agreed, in line with the views of the public that the BBFC should only intervene when material was illegal or harmful, that The Evil Dead could now be classified 18 without cuts. The uncut DVD was released in 2001.


Task:
Watch the following clips from the EVIL DEAD (1981) & EVIL DEAD 2 (1987), both on the banned films list Video Nasties

Decide on which scene you will remake in 3D (remember - coming at cha!)



Backdrop 1

Backdrop 2

Backdrop 3








Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Evil Dead 2 1987 (Sam 'Spiderman' Raimi)



Spend the time building a set & a character http://www.evildeadapp.com/

Notes on Video Nasties/Format Wars













5.1 Lesson Plan



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBXUyuv4Q0

http://www.deadites.net/evil-dead-games/evil-dead-game-app/ 


see your classnotes & 'Notes on Format Wars/Video Nasties' post
-->

see 'Film Piracy - Megaupload/video' post

5.2&3 Lesson Plan (Resurgence of 3D)

Who is this & what does he have to do with the 3D?

Starter:
  Cinematography & 3D
What do you think was going on with cinema attendance?
Genre – which does it lend themselves to?



New Info: Opinions on 3D experience - all students write on a post-it
  • Which film (example)
  • Better than 2D & why?
  • Cost?
  • Opinion
Pass the question

-->
Create Meaning

Analyse arguments/opinions on their use of 3D: Avatar, Dredd 3D, Hugo, Pacific Rim, Prometheus – (reading articles & watching interviews)



Group 1. Grace

The studio's view (The Avatar effect/Megaupload, falling cinema attendance)


Group 2. Benn

The critic's view (Mark Kermode/Dredd 3D/Avatar/Internet Piracy)



Group 3. Layla

The director's view (Scorcese/Scott/del Toro/Cameron) “Wedded to the Medium”
 

-->

Check Learning – Split into mixed 3's - share your understanding across the team, this should take a about 20 mins to work through creating a mind map using:

  • Technological
  • Social
  • Economic

Apply to demonstrate:
Share your findings with the class as Mentor pairs Mind Map on A3 using highlighters your shared knowledge: write the exam question in the middle and use the notes to write analysis points under the contexts


How is the resurgence of 3D a response to the film industry's fears of internet piracy?”



How has internet piracy affected film production, distribution & exhibition?”


Share - take photos of the content (in 3D!) on your smart phones & post to your blog
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/rec-3d/id433485620?mt=8   69p  
or  3D free app (not as good - you will need later)

Review: - 5 mins

Word picture: 1 x context that has most affected the resurgence of 3D (photograph a 3D image to demonstrate - download the app?)


Apply to demonstrate - remainder of lesson, show what you have learned:

"3D is a gimmick, it lends itself to certain 'tacky' genres, & forces the director to make cinematography decisions to make it work rather than to create meaning"

Create A 3D Evil Dead remake trailer – 
Use the Plasticine models/make up/cut out paper (mix animation with live action - make it really 'schlock'

Split the class up & cover a scene each
Download the '3D phone' app & record/photograph onto your iphones

Example of what i'm after... (remember to show you understand about camera choices)

Evil Dead remake 2013



How to make stop motion animation




either iphone app (it's free)
iMotion HD
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cTcT_JrMg9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

or just take pictures frame by frame - make sure you have the 3D camera app first (it's free!)

Homework: Mock exam on 3D/Internet Piracy (30 mins use your notes - see essay plan post for assistance) - we will mark them in class next Thursday.