Working Title films research - synergy

Working title is 67% owned by Universal Studios. Universal Studios are owned by Vivendi. Vivendi own a multitude of global companies for instance Studio Canal, Odean, MP3.com and Universal Records.


Love Actually is a Working Titles Film. It had 4 production companies:

• Universal Studios
• Studio Canal
• Working Title Films
• DNA Films

Because this film was budgeted for more than £80 million, Working Titles could not give it the green light with out involving Universal Studios. Universal Studios called on their parent company- Vivendi, to gain more support on the production whether this be for advice, or money. Studio Canal- (also owned by Vivendi)- Universal Studio's sibling got involved in this film. So because Working Titles is partly owned by Universal Studios, who is owned by Vivendi, who owns other production companies, Love Actually gained more support.

As Love Actually was such a major success it was distributed in many foreign countries. The distributers involved were:

Universal Pictures (USA)

Filmes Lusomundo (Portugal)

Mars Distribution (France)

Studio Canal (France) 

United International Pictures (Argentina), (Germany), (Switzerland), (Spain), (UK), (Italy), (Netherlands), (Singapore), (Japan)- all theatrical

Argentina Video Home (Argentina) (DVD), (VHS)

RTL Entertainment (Netherlands) (TV) (RTL5)

Universal Pictures (Spain), (Benelux), (Brazil), (Netherlands), (Canada)(DVD)

Universal Studios Home Entertainment

 All a 4 of the distribution companies which are in red are owned by Vivendi. This shows a strong use of Vivendi's 'children'. This convergence is known as vertical integration. This is where all aspects of a film- (studio, distribution and exhibition) can be done under one company-in this case Vivendi.

Love Actually doesn't have it own official web page. It has been released on DVD, Blue Ray and CD soundtrack. This synergy of merchandise work together in creating a long term distribution and exhibition plan.

Past Exam Question

Q: What significance does the continuing development in media technology have for media institutions and audiences?

 

Ever since technology has been invented it has always been developing, however in recent years there has been a surge in the technological advancement. This has been helped not only by the film institution, but also made films more accessible, and pleasurable, for the audiences.

The Hunt for Gollum is a short (38mins), non profitable, internet based film made for under £3000. This film would not have been able to be made at such a high quality if the technology wasn’t at the stage it is today. It is a prequel to Lord of the Rings, so the special effects and fantastical settings are crucial to keep the ambience of the film. As it is a low budget film, digital enhancing techniques like rotoscoping and Matte-composition were used in the post production stage to create effect and to add emphasis. This is similar to green screening, where a background or landscape is added to the shot post production. This enables it to be shot cheaply and time effectively in an abstract place, for example the shot of Gollum in a cave was filmed on Chris’s (the producers) flat roof. Another reason that this film could be made on such a low budget was due to the availability of HD cameras on the high street. With technology on the rise more and better quality appliances are hitting the high street, making them more accessible. Technological advancements have also aided the distribution and marketing of this short film. It can only be viewed internet; 10 or so years ago, watching a film on the internet would not have been possible as the connection and speed wouldn’t have supported it. Nowadays with broadband speeds of around 20 megabits films can be readily uploaded and viewed on the internet. This has not only made it easier for the institutions to publish films, but it has also made it easier for the audiences as they can watch it at a convenient place and time.

 

An example of where technological developments have aided a ‘major’ film would be ‘This is England’. The filming of this was much similar to how it would have been done many years ago. The advanced part comes in post production; the distribution and the marketing. The average film is 35mm, however a new more efficient way has been introduced; digital screening. It uses a 10mm film, and is 10 times cheaper. There are 240 screens in the UK alone where digital screened films can be viewed. Another film that was digitally filmed was the microwave schemed ‘Shifty’.

 

Marketing has also benefited from the development of technology; in the past, after being released in the cinema the life of a film would fade out. WebPages have not only kept the spirit of the film alive but they have increased their ‘shelf life’; ‘This is England’ has a stunningly interactive webpage which is still contributing to the profits as the initial costs of setting it up are quickly repaid. A webpage is one of the best forms of advertising as unlike TV or magazine adverts, only an initial large sum is needed. This is England’s webpage advertises the film- which is out on DVD and BlueRay, and also the soundtrack used. HES (Home Entertainment Systems) are also an excellent example as to how the advancements have benefited the audiences. Pause, fast forward, stop, rewind, volume, language, subtitles, surroundings, cost and neighbouring people can all be controlled when a film is viewed in the comfort of your own home.

 

As with any new technological advancement, there will always be an illegal or deviant alternative. ‘Shifty’, a film budgeted for around £100,000, used a viral campaign to advertise and raise awareness of its presence. This method involved spam/chain emails being sent round to everyone. Although this scheme acquired a lot of attention, most of the publicity it gained was infamous, and this quickly became a controversial manner. 

Working Title have further benefited from advancements. They are able to make high end quality films for a smaller budget- leaving them with more profit. They have also been able to release their films onto a wider range of formats. Like ‘This is England’ and ‘Shifty’, Working Title publish a lot of their films onto the digital screen network, as the definition and picture quality difference is unnoticeable. Also, because they work with films aimed at a niche market, or which have a low budget; going straight to DVD or BlueRay release can increase profits (or in some cases just reduce their losses).

The advancement of technology in recent years has benefited both the institutions and consumers significantly. New equipment and systems have been developed to aid pre production, production, and even post production; it has encouraged mutually high end and low budgeted films, for both the mainstream and niche market. The modern world is hasty, with limited time and money, technology has noticed this and changed with it to ensure its place in the future of entertainment.

The Hunt For Gollum

www.thehuntforgollum.com

It was made for £3000. The actors/actresses, editors, makeup artists, producers, director and everyone else involved in the making of this film worked for free, out of their love for Lord of the Rings. Chris Bouchard was the director and producer of this film. It can only be viewed on the internet, and it is a non profit film. It is a short film of 38 minutes and it was in May 2009. The 3 main reasons that this was able to be filmed on a low budget, but with the appearance of a high budgeted film is: technology, commitment and artistry. With out the development of technology and the beauty of artistry, Matte screens and Rotoscoping would not be possible, there for forcing them to film it ‘live’- which would be expensive and time consuming.  The commitment and dedication of the crew who put them selves out to do this project, for no money, but they still managed to keep the morel and quality high. As it is only viewable over the internet, it has travelled round the world quickly, by November the same year it had been viewed in New Zealand, Brazil, Switzerland and Israel. It has since been viewed in many more countries globally.

Behind the scene

- It took ages to cast.

- The makeup took around 1-1.5 hours per shoot.

- As the project became more heard about, more volunteers came to lend a hand or expertise.

- It took 10 days to train for the choreographed main fight scene. In which there were 45 actors/actresses involved.

- They used basic household cosmetics to do the special effects and makeup. The materials for the Ork head masks were all bought from the local chemist.

- The Ork head mask was a whole piece, and thus made it difficult to move their mouth or to frown etc. consequently before each take, they had to touch up the masks with makeup.

- The fighting props had to be safe, for example the Ork machetes and blades were made out of wood and were painted to look like metal.

Visual Effects

- Stephen Menzel was one of the main artists, and Adam Thomas was the chief composite artist.

- The still shots of landscapes were matte paintings, for instance when Aragorn was climbing to the top of the hill, and there was a statue- the statue was a matte painting super imposed. Also when the camera has a tracking, aerial shot of the whole forest- this is a matte painting- it was not actually filmed there as this alone would have exceeded their low budget.

- All the matte paintings and shots went through special effects at least 7-8 times to get the effect that Chris desired. For instance the above forest shot was passed through 25 times before he was happy with it.

- Another technique they used to get the middle earth look on a low budget was Rotoscoping. This enabled them to film somewhere simple, like Chris’ flat roof, but make it look more epic. This is done in a similar way to green screening, as the background (a matte painting with atmosphere added) is added during the editing stage rather than in the filming.

- Rotoscoping was also used to correct the errors on the Orks face. It was able to take away and disguise the crease and faulty lines.

- Chris contacted the person from Lord of the Rings who created the Gollum character, asking if they could use the original design. The creator agreed and the ‘Hunt for Gollum’ special effects team went about making a model replica using the computer model given to them.

Discuss the issues raised by media ownership to the UK film industry? (research and essay)

case study one:
-Working Titles is 67% owned by Universal- disadvantages and advantages
-Tim Bevan is co-founder of Working Title and is also the UKFC chairman.


Case study 2(http://www.harbourpictures.com/index.html)
Harbour pictures is a london based film and televison production company. Its has been working on feature films since 1999 (went into tele in 2006) Calendar Girls, which became the 7th highest grossing British film in the UK, with over £20 million at the UK box office and approximately $100 million internationally. produced films such as :calender girls, kinky boots and is workiing currently onfilms such as: Map of The Universe, First Impressions, and also Millionaire Donkeys and An Indian Wedding which are both Ealing Studios and funded by the UKFC.


 Case study 3
Ealing Studios (1931) had made 60 films before they were taken over by Rank Organisation. In 1955 BBC bought them. (give advantages of having BBC backing) the fils then begaan to be made at MGM studios (USA production company) .in BBC films depaartment ealing films continued to be made using shot on 16mm and occasionally 35mm films, 16mm was gradually reduced use in 1980 as BBC developed PSC (portable single camera). in 1995 it was purcheased by  National Film and Television School (uk), then sold to Fragile films (UK) in which valiant and shaun of the dead were produced.Other studies- (listed) ( http://www.deadline.com/?s=optimum+releasing )-Sam Mendes’s Neal Street Productions (Focus Features),


-Aardman Animations (Sony Pictures Entertainment),
-Ridley and Tony Scott’s Scott Free ( RSA)(Twentieth Century Fox),
-James Bond factory Danjaq Productions (what's left of MGM).
-Harbour Pictures (Calendar Girls), DNA Films (Never Let Me Go) and Marv Films (Kick-Ass) once  had first-look deals with Disney/Miramax,
- harbour.. signed a deal with Buena Vista distribution (aka. walt disney) also made kinky boots
Issues raised
-convergence :)
money :S
solely uk :S
advertising and use of name :)




Essay

Many,  if not all entertainment media companies are re-owned or work with other corporate giants during some time in their existence. This change, or share in ownership can increase profits and marketing and make the initial company more sucessful. The UK film industry has many production and distribution companies. However, when these companies are bought or work with giant corperations (primarily based in the USA) they become not 100% British, and therefor not 100% of the profits go back into the UK film industry. One the other hand, working with US companies can increase awarness, scale of distribution and also the overall budget.

An example of a British produced film, that was distributed by a US giant production company is  The full Monty. This was produced by RedWave, a UK production company, when The Full Monty was looking for a distribution company, 20th Century Fox snapped up the oppertunity. They tried to get the producers to change the name of the film because US citizens wouldn't understand the english phrase 'full monty'. Peter Cattaneo (the director) wouldn't allow this to happen. 20th Century Fox also wanted to change some of the content of the film, however- again this was not allowed to happen. The Full Monty became an English classic and a worl wide hit with a gross profit of $45,857,453 (USA)- (last updated 26 April 1998). In the first weekend alone it was released on to 387 screens.

Working Title is a perfect example of a convergence of a British production company with a US giant. Working Title is responsible for many english classics such as 4 Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually, Notting Hill and Hot Fuzz. In 1999 Universal Studios bought a 67% share in the company. Although Universal are the majority share holder, they don't make or autherise all the desisions. Each year Working Title produces around 4 films; one film by new talent(for example Shaun of the Dead, as Simon Pegg was an up and coming actor), one film by an established director (usually appealing to a niche market or arthouse cinemas), One film with european funding, and one major film (intended to appeal to the mainstream audience for example The Boat that Rocked). Universal Studios are only interested in this last film type. The rest of the films produced by Working Title have no imput, from Universal, and consequently Universal only receive profit from the fils they support. Any film produced with a budget of under $80 million can be greenlighted without having to notify Universal. Having Universal as a major share holder has many benifits such as; acess to higher budgets (up to $120 million), they can distribute to wider audiences globally because Universal in the top 6 companies of film production globally, also having a world reknowned name like Universal is almost like a guarrentee of quality, and therefor encouraging more of an audience. Tim Bevan is the co-founder of Working Title, and he has recently become the chairman of the UKFC, this connection allows Working Title acess and inside knowledge of what film ideas are coming to light.

 

Harbour Pictures is a London based film and televison production company. It has been working on feature films since 1999, (it went into television production in 2006). Over the years they have produced 2 major english classics: Calendar Girls, (which had the 7th highest gros profit in British films, it generated over £30 million at the box office and around $100 million internationally) and Kinky Boots. Harbour Pictures worked closely with Disney and Miramax, although these major companies dont own a share in Harbour, they still give all the benifits and advantages that they would do if they did own them. Harbour are currently working on films such as; Map of The Universe, First Impressions, and also Millionaire Donkeys and An Indian Wedding which are both Ealing Studios and funded by the UKFC. Media ownership can create many issues, however these can be the same as those companies just working (converging) together. Harbour Pictures is now working with Miramax, BBC Films Pathe and the UK Film Council and more, they receive the money, marketing and logo recognition from them whilst  they still remain a 100% British- encouraging the UK film indstry.

A company which has been repeatedly re-owned- yet still 100% British is Ealing. It was first set up in 1931 and made 60 films before they were taken over by Rank Organisation. In 1955 they were bought by the BBC. This was a major advantage to the initiall company as they new they'd get marketing on the BBC website and even one the televison and radio chanels. The BBC film department continued shooting films on 16mm and occasionally 35mm films, however when PSC (portable single camera) was developed, the use of 16mm was reduced. In 1995 it was purchased again, by the Nation Film and Televison School (a UK company), and finally it was sold to Fragile Films (a UK production company) in which Valiant and Shaun of the Dead were produced. Ealing had many owners in its time, and each has contributed to its sucess. The main issue with this media ownership change is the lack of identity; the customer wont be able to reconise the company name or logo, as it has change so often. however in this specific example I think the change in ownership is an advantege; its possiby stopped them from bankruptcy, its increased awarness via large organisation names such as the BBC, and it has been able to create many rememberal films. The best aspect abput this company is that it has managed to stay solely in the UK- supporting the UK film industry.

Many other small UK production companies have converged with US giants, without out getting re-owned and therefor keeping the UK film indusrty alive.

-Sam Mendes’s Neal Street Productions (Focus Features),

-Aardman Animations (Sony Pictures Entertainment),
-Ridley and Tony Scott’s Scott Free- RSA(Twentieth Century Fox),
-Danjaq Productions, which produced James Bond (MGM),
-Harbour Pictures (producing Calendar Girls and Kinky Boots), DNA Films (Producing Never Let Me Go) and Marv Films (Producing Kick-Ass) all had first-look deals with Disney/Miramax

To conclude, the main issue raised by media ownership is the efect on the British film industry. Once companies are owned by US based orgaisations, most of the profit will go to them and not back into the UK film industry. There are however many appealing advantages to being owned by a US giant; Budgets seem limitles, famous actors associated with the US company are interested in being in the UK films and the US brand names and logos  are like a guarentee stamp on the film, enticing a wider audience. Further more it allows the films produced to be distributed world wide- consequently turning over alot more profit.

Exam Questions Preparation- Technologies

History


Any update or modernisation on the technology front will inevitably lead to competition; this usually ends up being a head to head between two companies. For example;

• During the late 1970s to early 1980s there was a war between VHS and Betamax. In the end VHS won as it had a longer playing time, faster rewinding and fast forwarding times, more simple technology, and crucially it was cheaper. VHS was owned by JVC.

• When DVD came out it had no rivals or competitors. This is because DVD was just an expansion of CDs, so it was already backed by Sony, Phillips and many other major companies

• The next technology revolution also became a war. Blue Ray versus HD-DVD. In 2005 Blue Ray hit the market, it had 66% extra storage space than HD-DVD, also the picture quality on Blue Ray was a lot more vivid and defined. Like DVDs, Blue Ray has the backing of major corporate giants such as Sony, Sharp and PS3.

Methods of Consuming Films

Since films have been released in the late 1800s, there have always been new methods and prototypes of releasing and distributing them. One of the earliest methods was a roll of film screened in a cinema. Later methods involved digital screening (in which a 10mm film is used rather than the traditional 35mm), VHS, Betamax, DVD, HD-DVD, Blue Ray and Downloads.

Downloads

http://sy10.ukfilmcouncil.ry.com/14.10.asp

As downloads are a relatively new concept, it is mainly the younger categories who use it as a means of viewing films. 33% of 15-24 year olds (the highest cinema going age) said that they regularly or occasionally watch downloaded/shared films. As they age increases the percentage of people who watch downloaded films decreases. Only 25% of 25-34 year olds watched downloaded films. Out of all the age groups surveyed (7- 55+) just 5% said they regularly or occasionally downloaded films. Only 1.5% of 55+s watched downloaded films.

In my opinion downloads have lowered the standard of film. They can be downloaded onto laptops, Ipads, Iphones, Ipods, Ipod shuffles and many other small technologies. Laptops have a reasonably sized screen (similar to that of an old TV) on which watching films is satisfactory, however the smaller technologies for example the Shuffle (which has a screen size of about 5cm²) the screen is not big enough to view the film properly, also the ambience disappears. The initial idea of films was to be viewed in the cinema, on a large screen; it was the cinema going which was part of the experience. Viewing on small screens not only looses detail and the beauty of film, but it looses the experience.

On the other hand, downloads have made films more accessible to a wider range of people. In the modern world many people don’t have the time to go to the cinema, and also in the current economic situation, many people don’t have the money to either. Downloading films is a fast and cheap method, however some people choose to take advantage of this system and download them illegally. Illegal viewing of films has been around as long as films them selves, so this is nothing new; however as legal downloading becomes more and more popular, illegal downloading is increasing at a higher rate.

Effects of DVDs and other home entertainment technologies

Originally, films were advertised, and then screened in a cinema, then that was the end of their life span- this usually lasted between 1 and 20 weeks- depending on its success.

Traditionally, the trend was that they were advertised, screened in cinemas, and months later released onto DVD or other home entertainment packages. The film would have its prime time for around 1-10 weeks still, but it would never really disappear, as it’d always be on DVD etc or even viewed in an art house cinema.

Recently, the trend has changed again. Although some mainstream films are still done in the above way; due to the amount of competition in the film industry some films never make it to the cinema, instead they go straight out on to DVD(etc). If a film is on a home entertainment system it can never die; so home entertainment systems are strengthening the industry, because as long as the film is still ‘alive’ it is still turning over profit, of which some money will be put back into the industry.

The Film Distributors' Association

This website explores and explains what happens to a film once it has been produced; including aspects like 'competition' and 'marketing plans'.

Distribution

Films exist to be watched; the better distributed they are, the more viewed they become. There is a colossal group of people working in the heart of the film industry to try and achieve the highest audience possible for each film.

Not all films are distributed into cinemas. Many low budget films are distributed straight onto home entertainment. Each film is distributed slightly differently however the main stages are:

• Released in cinemas
• Released onto Home Entertainment packages like DVD and Blue-Ray
• Payed occurrences on t.v
• Free-to-air t.v, where the film can be repeatedly shown on that channel

Distribution is carried out by one or more distribution company, for instance 'Working Title' (see previous blog), Universal Pictures, Studio Canal and Walt Disney.

This is an ordered sequence of events, ending with the film having been distributed. I have taken this of the FDA website.

1. Producer/company acquires rights to film a story or treatment
2. Screenplay is developed
3. Production finance and cast and crew are confirmed
4. Principal photography takes place, in studios and/or on agreed locations, followed
   by some months of post-production, editing and scoring
5. Master print of finished film is delivered to local distributor
6. Distributor determines release strategy and release date
7. Distributor presents the film to exhibitors and negotiates bilateral agreements
   to have the film shown in cinemas

Target Audience

Before deciding on how to distribute a film, you have to fully understand the target audience your film is aimed at. This becomes even more crucial with smaller titles and low budgeted films because they only have a small amount of money to use, so they have to get it right first time. Target audiences are deterred from general knowledge,genres, focus groups and past statistics and data. Marketing can be expensive, so it is important to know where to advertise and at what times. For example the 45+ age group tend to be persuaded by trailers on the t.v, however it usually takes 2-3 weeks before they decide to go out and see it at the cinema; where as a group of 15-16 year olds may turn up at a cinema one night and choose from what is on. So different age groups have to be targeted differently to make the most out of the budget they have.




Advertising and Release Dates


There are just under 2000 films relased each day, world wide; so there is alot of competition. It is important to release your film at an appropiate time. For films targeted at the younger age groups(school goers) the October half term is a prime week to release, as children will be off school, and it will be dark, cold and most likely rainy- this is the perfect weather and week for going to the cinema.


The seasons/weather also ditermine how films are advertised. In the summer there is no point advertising heavily on t.v as people will be outside, enjoying the weather. A better strategy for the summer would be to advertise on bill boards and on the sides of busses as people would be out and about are more likely to see the film.



Funding for Distribution


The funding for distribution would  could from the film's budget, investments from distribution companies and lottery based companies. The UKFC (a lottery funded organisation) has a fund specialising in the distribution of films: 'Prints and Advertising fund' donate £90,000 annually. Other of the UKFC's funds also help distribution for example: 'Regional Screen Agencies', and the 'New Cinema Fund'. It is the convergence of all these aspects which result in enough money being raised.

Working Title

Working Title Films

         http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/
Working Title Films is a British film company based in London(although it also has offices in Los Angeles and Ireland). It was set up in 1983 by Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe. In 1992 Radclyffe left Working Title, and Eric Fellner joined.Tim Bevan was also appointed the chairman of the UKFC in 2009. Universal now own 67% of the company, this is a major benifit for Working Title as on the more mainstream funds, theire marketing budget is supported by universal, making it a lot bigger. It is a film production company, however it also dabbles in producing TV series. financially they have a high end production budget of up to $25 million, the owners (Bevan and Fellner) consult with the studio executive from its parent company; NBC Universal. Working Title is known for having few employees. It's a profitable organisation, who use their profits to invest in new films. Working Title produce both major blockbuster hits along with smaller less public successes. It works with films of all genres-from Atonement to Mr Bean's holiday. However, it mainly produces films of a rating of PG or above. The reason for this could be due to competition. Dreamworks and Disney are 2 of the biggest production companies around- these both specialise is U and PG films, so if Working Title produced films in this category too, they would not have as interest as the main demography would be viewing other, bigger production companies films. Working Title work in convergence with the UKFC. Many UKFC funded films for instance One Wish and Blood Oil are distributed by Working Title.

An example of a well known film produced by Working Title is Love Actually. Released in 2003, this Rom-Com Drama was nominated for 2 Golden Globes and many other awards. It was directed and written by Richard Curtis and it contained some very well known actors; such as Bill Nighly, Colin Firth, Kiera Knightley and Gregory Fisher. With so many famous actors/actresses the budget of this film is consequently high; it was estimated for £30 million. [With using famous faces it costs a lot more, however more people are likely to view the film, making a higher profit and consequently being able to make a net profit: this can work just as well using the opposite idea. Less well known faces cost less money, there for needing fewer people to view it in order to create a profit.] In the opening week, Love Actually was released onto 126 screens, taking in a profit of over a million dollars. Because it was predicted to be such a hit, it was translated into 3 languages:English, Portuguese and French. Over all, it came out with a Gross profit of around 59.3 dollars, which is roughly 38 million pounds. Love Actually has 4 production companies; Universal Pictures, Studio Canal, Working Title Films and DNA Films. Due to the fact that it was released in so many countries, there are 9 different distributing companies; such as Universal Pictures and RTL Entertainment. Although Working Title is an English production company, Love Actually was filmed in both England and France.

An example of a less well known film which was produced by Working Title is Long Time Dead. This was released in 2002 and was directed and written by Marcus Adams. This was a low budgeted film and was rated a 15 in the UK by the BBFC. As it was not a major mainstream film, it was only produced in English. In its opening week it was released into 233 screens, and it made just over £580,000; its overall gross profit was £1.5 million. It has a running time of 94 minutes(which is considerably less compared to Love Actually's 135 minutes). The production companies for this film are; Working Title, Film Council, WT2 Productions, Midfield Films and Studio Canal. It was distributed by United International Pictures and Focus Features. Because it was only released in England, and because it was a low budget film, fewer and less well known companies were used. However, also due to its length and its nature of being a first time low publicity film it was granted £1,000,000 from the UKFC from the 'Intermin Production Fund'.

A further, well known film, produced by Working Title is Hot Fuzz. Written and directed by Edgar Wright, Hot Fuzz was released on the 14th of February 2007. This- coincidental is valentines day (and although its not the typical loved up valentines day film, it's a funny genre that is bound to be enjoyed), the following week is the school half term holidays- this mainstream, well publicised film was perfectly position, as it would get more viewings due to the kids being off from school. Like Love Actually, Hot Fuzz had many famous actors/ actresses for example; Simon Pegg, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighly and Nick Frost. Hot Fuzz is of an action, comedy, mystery genre. Due to some graphic images and vocabulary it was certified by the BBFC as a 15. Filmed only in England, it was released on 825 screens, making just under $6 million in its opening weekend. Its overall gross profit was $23 million. This was exceedingly good, as it was budgeted for $16 million. The production companies involved are; Big Talk Productions, Ingenious Film Partners, Studio Canal, Universal Pictures and Working Title Films. There were 17 different distribution companies for example; Paramount Pictures, this is because of the amount of countries it was released in. Due to this being a more mainstream film, more well known companies are involved, because the demography will notice them on the film and subconsciously remember them.

For each film there is likely to be more than one production company. From the case studies i have looked at, it would suggest that some production companies have a tendency to work on the same films. In the case of Working Title, the production company that appear to be the most connected is Studio Canal. The main reason for companies converging together is to get more productions. this is because if Working title is asked to produce a film, they could suggest that Studio Canal is another good production company to hire as well. This 'favour' could work both ways.

Working Title Films website

The website has a theme of dark, duck egg blue running through it. The whole page has a blue  border, surrounding a white background on which the text and pictures lie. This border aids the eye to focus on the main part of the page, and it help to keep the eye on the page. The general lay out, colour scheme and text is very sophisticated. Moving graphics are used, but not in a childish, in-your-face way. Down the left hand side, there is a column of the contents, this denotes organisation, which connotes easy navigation of the site. Under the moving graphic banner at the top the page is split into two columns. Each column has a main picture on the left, sided by smaller pictures on the right. Each picture has anchors, enabling the audience to be clear and precise on each topic. Overall the website looks very slick and clean. It would appeal to a demography of around 15-36 year olds (this is the 1st and 2nd most popular cinema going age); both genders, as the blue is stereotypically a male colours, but the metallic, soft finish appeals to females also; and the middle and higher end of the hierarchy, this is due to the connotations of blue which are associated with royalty and wealth, also the formal, neat lay out would encourage a 'brighter' more academic demography- this could be the aspect which is intended for people to see and then choose them as their production company. This website has many different aspect to it, it shows trailers, new releases, archive, downloads, on release and many other aspects. This synergy of information is what makes it so concise and practical. A wide range of genres of films is represented on the opening page of the website. It shows children orientated films for example Nanny McPhee and also action films like Green Zone. The aspect of this website that I don't feel meets the required standards for its demography is its history, and information about itself. There is no where which says what it aims to do- no mission statement and in general there is no 'personal' aspects, leaving the audience to feel slightly alienated and estranged by the website.





Since i last looked at the Working Title website (prior to the October holidays- 2010) it has been updated to be more interactive, appealing and to synergise more. The main aspect that has changed is the size of the rolling images. Previously there was solely a band going across the top with rolling images on, now as soon as you go to the website, the whole of the visible page is a rolling image. This instantly gains more attention as it is bold, moving and fills the whole screen.