From Megapics to Indie Flicks: Film within the Media Environment

The New New Hollywood (Same as the Old Hollywood?) Began semester looking at how, after WWII, Hollywood's pre-War mass audience became increasingly segmented. The studios focused on making fewer, but increasingly larger, event films: blockbusters. While the rest of the film "market" was divided into audience segments: low-budget genre films, art cinema, & various independent productions. Even after the Paramount Decision forced the studios to divest their theaters (exhibition), they still controlled distribution.

The New, New Hollywood (Same as the Old Hollywood?) In many ways, this situation remains the same today, only more so. Blockbusters are now Megapictures. Independent and foreign films and some low- budget genre pictures play mainly to segmented, “niche” audience groups. But distribution (and most financing) remains largely in the control of the major studios. And the studios, now part of huge media conglomerates, are more powerful than before the Paramount Decision. Some even own theater chains again.

Film within a Media Environment There has, however, been a major shift in cinema, in how films work, at least in Hwd. Increasingly, films are no longer just films. Not just that they are increasingly seen on video, or that they are shot digitally. But now, a film no longer considered as a single product (much less as a work of art). Rather, part of a larger marketing strategy, which profits not just from theatrical box office, but from a wide range of ancillary media and products.

The Economics of Filmmaking The goal of Hollywood filmmaking is no longer simply to make money at the box office. Domestic theatrical revenues are an ever smaller part of total revenues for films. Rather, the goal is to make films that can generate revenues from multiple media (video, television, music, theater, books, computer games) and licensing of ancillary products.

Media Conglomeration Generating profits from multiple revenue streams has become increasingly important as Hollywood studios have become part of larger media corporations. See p. 682 for listing. Moreover, each media form serves to cross- promote the others: what is called Synergy. This cross-marketing also extends to other companies, who advertise the film in exchange for "product placements" within the film or by advertising "tie-in" products based on the film.

The Concept of "High Concept" To market across a range of media--film, games, books, toys, etc.--it helps to have a basic marketing "hook" or concept. The idea of "high concept" refers to films based on a single, simple "concept" that can be easily understood and therefore easily marketed. "High concept": often described by quoting Spielberg's line that if a movie can be summed up in 25 words or less, it usually makes a good movie. Or by examples like "Die Hard on a bus" to sum up Speed.

But often, high concept films are those that can be reduced to a single marketing image, which can shared across various media.

Making Films Financially "Safe" Early "high concept" films such as Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance, and Top Gun became blockbusters by marketing their concept. I.e., w/out major stars (at the time) and huge budgets. But increasingly, Hollywood has come to base marketing on: "Bankable" stars (and directors) "Pre-sold properties"--already well-known from some other medium: tv shows, comic books, computer games-- or "sequels" and "franchises" where the stars and/or characters are readily recognizable. Marketing special effects, (esp. CGI), fast cutting, and other spectacular visual effects. Recently, 3-D.

Megapictures Thus, the cost of making these sorts of films has gone up and up. From $14 million a picture average in 1980 to $60 million a picture average in 2000, with many going far over that: Titanic estimated at $200 million, Avatar at $238 million, Spiderman 3 at $258 million. Some guess $300 mil for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Moreover, marketing costs (esp. for tv ads) have soared even more. Often, amounts to half or more of what a film cost to make. With less expensive films, the marketing costs can easily exceed what the film itself cost.

Megapictures The increasingly extravagant spending on megapictures has three main driving forces: 1) As we have discussed, the desire for the blockbuster "home run" (Titanic is model here: 600 million domestic; 1.2 billion foreign; and unknown amounts from video & other markets). 2) The idea of the "tentpole": a successful megapicture is the necessary pole supporting all other media products & revenue streams. 3) The money that comes from pre-selling foreign rights & non-theatrical revenue streams allows studios to spread their risk.

Megapictures and Indie Films Starting in the 1980s, lower-budget Indie films began to have sustained commercial success in the U.S. Much like "alternative" music, Indies gained appeal from their opposition to the conventional big-budget Hollywood movies. But Indie films were made possible by some of the same factors that led to megapictures. That is: video, cable tv, and foreign pre-sales helped finance the Indie film movement.

Stranger Than Paradise Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise (1984) was almost the perfect inverse of megapicture. Shot in long takes on grainy black & white film, with black between scenes, with no stars, no effects, and almost no story, for $110,000. It gained critical success (won prize at Cannes); platformed release gained word of mouth, and eventually grossed $2 million.

U.S. Independent Films Indie movement allowed filmmakers to make films that, because of their low-budget and video sales, could afford to gain acceptance through critical/public word-of-mouth. It also allowed some films from many who had been denied access to Hollywood--women, African-American, Chicano, Asian, gay/lesbian. Often, these filmmakers brought new perspectives/approaches to their films based on their own cultural/racial background. Julie Dash's Daughters of the Dust (1991) is a good example.

U.S. Independent Films Unfortunately, independent films suffered in some ways from their own success, particularly when Quentin Tarantino's $8 million Pulp Fiction grossed $200 million in This raised the bar, so that the moderate successes of Jarmusch, Dash, & others, while they paid huge percentage returns, became less enticing to independent distributors. Since the 1990s, most independent production companies have been forced (mainly to gain distribution and financing) to become part of Hollywood studios.

Digital Cinema The distinction between megapictures and indie films can be seen in the technologies they use. Many independent filmmakers have made use of inexpensive digital video. At the same time, George Lucas, using a much higher level of technology, has moved toward a completely digital cinema. Digital cinema holds the promise of making the premise of indie filmmaking come true: that anyone could make a film.

Digital Cinema: Issues But even you are able to make a film, who will see it? In other words: the issue is still distribution. Control of distribution remains how corporations control what films are seen. Digital/online distribution holds the promise of escaping corporate control, opening doors for low-budget & independent filmmakers, But It is also difficult to gain attention in a crowded, “cluttered” media environment. Thus far, the “films” that have attract attention are either humorous (or sometimes scandalous) videos, or Products of corporations who can afford to market their products. Thus, filmmakers should pay attention to alternative means of distribution and marketing.