Full circle: A24, Blockbusters, and Streaming. (C2066542) (Re-uploaded media as approved by CW)

Photo by Paul Deetman on Pexels.com

Digital disruption.

Everything everywhere all at once. The name for A24’s most financially successful film to date can almost serve as a somewhat ironic metaphor for the pivotal effect the rise of streaming services reckoned on the film industry throughout the 2010s. Whilst the sector had faced disruptive technologies before, nothing quite shook up the established business model of the industry than the mass abundance and anytime, anywhere nature that streaming afforded to viewers. Not only were IT-backed streaming services gaining vast piles of data to algorithmically provide viewers with tailor-made content, but they were also ushering in a golden age of television, moving writers from top movies towards the financial abundance of Silicon Valley. What resulted was what your local Reddit page may scoff at today: the mass influx of sequels, remakes, and franchises. In a time where competition is high, and uncertainty is abundant, Hollywood’s risk-averse nature showed, and the big-budget blockbusters of the franchise era replaced mid and low-budget films. One thing was clear: the film industry was struggling, and corporate imperatives were starting to clash with artistic vision. Nevertheless, while the tentpoles and high-concept movies were having their heyday, one New York-based distribution company saw a gap.

A24: Critical acclaim, marketing astuteness, and strategic partnerships.

Spring-breakers trailer (2012). A24.

Spurred on by the abundance of similarity within the industry at the time, alongside several major ‘Indiewood’ studios closing between 2008 and 2010 , three industry veterans created the independent film distributing company A24. Unlike previous generations of independent distributors, A24’s strategy to capitalize on the hit-and-miss nature of independent cinema was to diversify the risk by investing in shrewd viral marketing strategies. An example can be found in their 2012 hit Spring-Breakers, where their now trademark neon colour pallet met iconic imagery and quirky soundbites that struck a chord with young audiences on up-and-coming social media networks. Their gamble paid off, and whilst major studios spent huge sums on trailers and billboards, Spring-breakers (2012) flew to no.1 at the box office . Alongside their marketing wisdom, A24 quickly discovered that streaming was the future. In 2013, a year after its establishment, A24 struck deals with DirecTV and Amazon TV in return for exclusive video-on-demand and streaming rights . The result of such ventures was multi-layered; not only did A24 have a new stream of ancillary revenue flooding in, but it also had both access to mass streams of data analytics to refine their practices, and a new port of entry to their majorly online young audiences. Backed by Silicon Valley, A24 went on to distribute several successes in the periods between 2013- 2016, including Ex Machina (2015), Room (2015), and The Witch (2016). However, as A24’s popularity as a brand grew, so did its ambitions, and the next port of call was production.

Expansion: Production, Zeitgeists, and Voice.

Moonlight trailer (2016). A24.

Moonlight (2016)- a tale of a young black man’s journey to manhood- was the company’s first production. Writer/ Director Barry Jenkins told The Guardian he went with A24 because it “was the one place that was like: ‘make this film your way.’”. The investment proved a financial and critical success, winning the Oscar for best picture alongside making over $60m off a $4m budget. Fast forward to 2024, and A24 has given directorial debuts to Greta Gerwig, Jonah Hill, and Bo Burnham, alongside producing hits like Uncut Gems (2019), Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022), and Aftersun (2022). Most impressive, however, is the cult-like status the company has amassed with fans, becoming synonymous with notions of ‘indie cool’. Notable is their website, which hosts exclusive merchandise, podcasts, and a membership program. The company also transitioned into television, benefiting from the post-pandemic streaming boom with productions like Euphoria (2019) and Beef (2023). However, A24’s success seems to lie more  in artistic expression than corporate strategy. As filmmaker Lulu Wang told The Guardian, “A24’s brand is intertwined with the identities it works with, it’s known for championing unique voices”. Fans don’t disagree, with one fan telling Vulture, “A24 stands out because it’s new; the intensity of its movies brings out emotions in ways films never had before.”. In an era dominated by remakes and franchises, supporting a brand like A24 feels like supporting risk-taking, creativity, and filmmakers with a distinct point of view.

Uncertainty.

Photo by Genie Music on Pexels.com

Due to their winning formula of corporate strategy mixed with creative freedom, A24 attracted $225m worth of investment in 2022, making the company now valued at $2.5 billion. Alongside their increased worth, A24 has plans to expand, with their biggest project to date, Alex Garlands Civil War, set to release in 2024. From mining existing franchises, such as a prequel to the Friday the 13th series, or talks of an upcoming Elon Musk biopic, A24 shows little sign of slowing down . Although, as A24’s head of film told Bloomberg, they are “excited by the idea of changing the mainstream,” it brings up feelings of uncertainty towards the company’s future. To expand, it seems they may have to move towards the IP-driven franchise films it sought to escape in 2012 while risking losing its cinephile audiences . The expansion also comes at a time of deep uncertainty in Hollywood as record-breaking strikes and fears of AI loom over the industry’s already falling box office post-COVID-19 . Whether they succeed in – or fundamentally change- the mainstream remains unclear. What seems evident, however, is that the success of A24 at least provides a template for how artistic freedom can collaborate with financial success in an era of risk-averse franchises.

TV and Film Gone Green by Ditching Green Screen: Sustainable Innovation Through the Lense of ‘The Mandalorian’ [21068606]

What is ‘The Mandalorian’?

Currently in its third season, ‘The Mandalorian’, first released in 2019, has lead the innovation of virtual production in both Television and Film. The series immerses itself into the Star Wars universe, where we follow a lone bounty hunter running away from imperial forces across the galaxy. The well-established Sci-fi universe meant that the production thrusts itself into producing a magnificent array of visual effects to bring this fictional world to life.

Video Created by Star Wars on YouTube, 2023

With a great demand for outstanding visual effects, came the introduction of a revolutionary innovation that has altered the way TV and Film in the genre of sci-fi and fantasy is filmed. Ditching the green screen and introducing virtual production of ‘StageCraft.’

What is StageCraft?

Created by a pioneering company known for their ground-breaking creations in visual effects, ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) partnered with Epic Games (Creator of ‘Unreal Engine) developing a virtual production set made up of LED walls that are programmed to show a photorealistic 3D world. The screen walls are known by the cast and crew as ‘The Volume’, which is 20 feet tall, 75 feet in diameter and covers 270 degrees of the set, illuminating an immersive set for all the cast and crew.

For shows like ‘The Mandalorian’, fans expect to be transported to an alternative world, or galaxy, which creates a complex task for the filmmakers on each of the projects. Green screens are used so that during post production, they can later add the special effects or CGI. This meant that during production, the actors and crew have to use their imaginations and guess what the visuals will end up looking like. Consequently, film productions use multiple lighting techniques around the set in order to irradiate the green screen glare and create realistic lighting that would match the final image on the screen.

By using the LED video walls, it irradiates the need for additional lighting techniques and the excessive post-production process, as it already delivers the lighting and imagery needed to bring the worlds to life. Additionally, everyone involved in the production is more immersed and inspired whilst creating the project, making sure everyone is on the same page while filming

How is it sustainable?

In the last couple decades, industry policies regarding cinema have made suggestions on how to become ‘greener’ and more sustainable. The aim? To reduce the industry’s overall negative environmental impact. The ‘SPA’ (Sustainable Production Alliance) is a combination of the worlds leading film, television and streaming companies, supporting the objective of advancing sustainable initiatives. The Green Production Guide, prepared by the ‘SPA’, is an online toolkit designed to reduce industry carbon footprints by evaluating ways in which productions can be more environmentally friendly and energy efficient. One thing the guide, and other sustainable missions analyse, is the switch to LED technology, as it converts a higher percentage of energy into light, producing less heat, and in return less carbon emissions.

StageCraft aligns itself with sustainable industry governance, as ‘The Volume’ uses LED’s for its video wall, using 70% less energy then incandescent lights, further cutting its carbon emissions. Not only that, but it can bring locations to the comfort of ‘The Volume’! The production avoids having to travel sets, props and crews to distant locations, lessening fuel and time waisted.

Marissa Gomes (ILM visual effects producer): “You can switch from the Iceland to the desert locations all within the same day of shooting”

Video created by StudioBinder on YouTube, 2023

This groundbreaking technology has forced productions into a more efficient workflow, that draws pre and post production into one space. With crews covering 30-50% more pages a day, not only is virtual production sustainable environmentally, but it also saves time and money.

The Star Wars franchise has been used to explore film and TV’s environmental impact, due to its high production value. With the research conducted by ‘The EIF Project’, Star Wars, including ‘The Mandalorian’, continues to affiliate with improving sustainability goals.

StageCraft going global

Some other productions that have used StageCraft included ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ (2022), ‘Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania’ (2023), and most recently ‘Percy Jackson and the Olympians’ (2024). Permanent volumes have been built in Los Angeles, London, and Sydney, whilst ILM have alluded to their ability to provide “pop up” sets, which allows multiple productions to reuse and access the video wall soundstage. Large productions can invest in StageCraft, which can eliminate other production elements that take up a lot of time and money, adding to the positive long-term efficiency, rather than having to create large sets from scratch and wasting materials.

The Future

Overall, the system looks more realistic then a green screen, and allows for quicker setups in a controlled environment. There is one drawback of this new technology, which is limited camera movement. This is for moving shots where someone could be running away for a long amount of time. But just as there were drawbacks of green screen, companies light ‘ILM’ continue to create and improve, whilst also having a sustainable practice in mind. The innovation initiated for “The Mandalorian” is beginning to revolutionise the film industry and push for standards towards sustainability.

The Continued Innovation in Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and its Role in Cementing a New Era for Animation (21097232) 

Figure 1: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse still.

Since Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)‘s release, its impact on animation and the film industry has been immeasurable. Its innovation was cosmic, from its soundtrack and stylishness to its groundbreaking technical achievements. Its sequel, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023), transcends this, solidifying a newfound respect for animation while still feeling fresh, culturally relevant and technically pioneering almost five years later.  

The Landscape of Animation 

The first film is especially celebrated for its more stylistic approach to animation in comparison to the current landscape of animated films at the time that were still focusing on perfecting the CG (Computer Generated) standard set by Pixar’s success. Following Into the Spider-Verse, we see this style receiving backlash in the poorly received live action adaptation of The Lion King (2019) as well as the delay of Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) due to a call to redesign sonic due to the uncanny valley effect of its initial depiction. 

Figure 2: X user @seanhalfcourt describing The Lion King (2019) as “soulless”.

Figure 3: Sonic Redesign via Business Insider 

The distaste for more realistic animations showed audiences appetite for more artistic integration in animation. This is reflected in huge releases such as Puss In Boots: The Last Wish (2022), Arcane (2021), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtle Mayhem (2023) and The Bad Guys (2022)

Figure 4: Example of Inspiration of Spider-verse films via The Things Animated on YouTube.

The creators of Across the Spider-verse responded to the success of their stylized animation by gradually elevating the prioritization of expression in their creative choices throughout the film as shown in the behind-the-scenes video below. 

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxoQtEvAVnWDffRZD66dIaKSQKOCE7h7D0?si=nLMfGbzeqaoVqVBx

Figure 5: Behind the Scenes Across the Spider-verse clip via Stream Wars on YouTube (Timestamp 5:52-6:15) 

Despite more competitiveness from other studios, Across the Spider-Verse even as a sequel had the same status as a seminal masterpiece as shown in its nomination in the Animated Feature Film in the 2024 Oscars. It’s worth noting the nominations in the category this year have caused a lot of buzz amongst animation fans with many seeing it as a turning point in the way animation is received and awarded. 

Figure 6: User @nikhilclayton on the Animation category expressing “There’s intent and thought been put into this category that fills me with so much f***ing joy” 

The nominations we’re also less exclusively for a family audience. The “upset” of Pixar’s Elemental (2023) could be connected to its lack of stylization and targeted demographic. This suggests that there is a shift in how seriously the animation medium is being taken. The cultural economy is now valuing animation as a form of artistic expression rather than infantilizing it to a purpose of just children’s entertainment.  

Identity, Representation and Plot Complexity

Figure 7: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse still. The film has been praised for its diverse representation.  

Animation ability to convey complex narratives and meaningful messages for wider audiences is showcased in the way Across the Spider-Verse deals with the theme of identity. One of the ways in which the film gained respect is in how it respects its audience. It’s exploration of race and representation is unlike anything seen before in a film for such a young audience. It doesn’t fall into the trope many animations fall into when it comes to ethnic representation where race is presented as through clumsy metaphors that arguably just reinforce stereotypes, e.g. Zootopia (2016) or use abstract symbolism, e.g. Elemental (2023) that obscure the message. The film counts on the audience to understand Miles’ struggles with identity.

Figure 8: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse still 

The medium of animation allowed for the multiverse concept to be completely maximalised making way for the film to explore the depths of Miles Morales’ Black and Puerto Rican identity and the dynamics of that with his father being a cop, new-found superhero status, middle class background and “implicitly political” existence at his school. The multiverses often create a sense of lack of belonging reflecting Milles’ complex existence as character.  

The advancement animation techniques in Across the Spider-verse combined with its representation both on screen and behind the scenes reflect a larger cultural phenomenon of the rise of diversity in animation and in Afrofuturism in film. We can see this in the booming of Africa’s animation scene the critically acclaimed Entergelactic (2022) and success of the Black Panther franchise. 

The Film as Homage 

Across the Spider-verse serves as celebration of the comic format using animation as an evolution to comics. This is shown in the technological advancement of variable rate animation, used by animating on 2’s in the first film and then in animating on 3s in the second film as explained in the video below: 

Figure 9: Video by Not The Robot via YouTube 

It’s clear that the sequel came out after the increased culture of digitalization exasperated by the pandemic. An example of this being used by the creator’s advantage is in one of the most unique points in the film which was the Lego scene, animated by a 14-year-old prodigy found-on YouTube.

Figure 10: “My Journey Across the Spider-Verse: from Hobbyist to Hollywood” by Preston Mutanga. 

In The Cult of the Amateur, Keen (2007) explains the idea that we live in a “self-broadcasting culture” meaning there is a lack of distinction between trained experts and uniformed amateurs, in this example this is utilized in a positive way. This nostalgically connected with many fans who have made home-made animations with Lego, trumpets the influences of The Lego Movie on the Spider-Verse franchise and propels a young talent.

Overall, Across the Spider-Verse and its significance in representation and advancement in animation technically and reputationally marks that the pivotal move towards the stylization of animation and rich themes brought on by the first film are here to stay for the medium. We are certainly in one of the most exciting eras of animation history. 

All Images and Videos are included with Fair Usage. 

“Long live theatrical cinema!”: Dune: Part Two and the Importance of Preserving Cinemas and the Cinematic Experience Post-Pandemic (C2040733)

Figure 1: Timothee Chalamet as Paul Atreides in Dune: Part Two. Source: (comingsoon.net)

Dune: Part Two, which released in cinemas this weekend, is the definition of a cinematic experience. Seated in a packed-out cinema, I was mesmerized by the film’s masterful balance of the themes, gripping storyline, and stunning visuals that fill its almost three-hour run time. With this film, director Denis Villeneuve has crafted a sci-fi epic that feels destined to become one of the defining pieces of cinema of this decade. You can watch the trailer for the film below:

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures on YouTube (2023)

The experience was no doubt enhanced by the fact I saw the film in a near full cinema, with only a few empty seats in the house. There was something special about the collective experience, sharing in the moment and in the awe that the film inspired with a room full of fellow moviegoers. This made me reflect on my experience watching Part Two’s predecessor, the first instalment in the franchise, Dune.

The world was in a very different place back when the first film released. Few will need reminding that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions were put in place that forced cinemas to temporarily close. This took a huge financial toll on cinemas, with Cineworld, the world’s second largest cinema chain, making a record £2.2bn loss in 2020. It is no surprise then that cinemas were eager to reopen their doors as soon as possible. In 2021, with cinemas allowed to reopen, restrictions easing, and a slate of blockbuster films set to release that year, theatre owners were optimistic moviegoing would return in full swing.

However, the pandemic saw the adoption of emerging digital technologies that opened new avenues to distribute and monetize content in the film industry. One such avenue being the simultaneous release, a new model of film distribution that several film studios adopted during the pandemic. In short, this is where a film is released both in cinemas and on a streaming service on the same day.

So how does this link back to Dune? Well, in a then unprecedented move, Warner Bros. announced in 2020 that their entire cinematic slate for 2021 would use this simultaneous release model, with 17 films hitting the studio’s streaming service HBO Max on the same day that they released in cinemas. This decision stirred massive controversy among theatre owners and filmmakers, upsetting a model of film distribution that had been in place for decades. Included amongst this 17-film slate was Dune, the decision to release the film on HBO Max enraging director Denis Villeneuve, who claimed it showed “no love for cinema”. Warner Bros. claimed this move was only temporary and was intended to provide an alternative option for consumers who did not yet feel safe to return to the cinema, but this did little to ease the concerns of struggling cinema owners and disheartened filmmakers.

The result of this decision was a decline in cinema attendance, with consumers favouring watching new films on a streaming service rather than going to the cinema. A survey found that 49% of individuals, who were considered regular pre-pandemic moviegoers, no longer went to the movies like they used to. Speaking from my own experience, you could almost feel this decline in film attendance when watching the first Dune movie. Watching the film in an almost empty cinema, where only 3 other groups felt the need to experience the similarly awe-inspiring first Dune film on the big screen, pales in comparison to my experience of watching Part Two, where I was surrounded by fellow moviegoers who were just as gripped by the film’s grandeur as I was.

Thankfully, due to COVID-19 restrictions now having been eased, Warner Bros. have ended their distribution of films through the simultaneous release model. Recently, they signed a deal requiring them to release their movies exclusively in cinemas for a minimum of 45 days. This has meant that Dune: Part Two is currently playing exclusively in cinemas, a release model that Denis Villeneuve has much preferred. You can see his comments on his more positive experience releasing the second film below:

Source: Kermode and Mayo’s Take on YouTube (2024)

Dune: Part Two has also been massively successful at the box office, raking in $178 million globally in its opening weekend alone, far outperforming its predecessor. This is a hugely positive sign for cinemas, who will get to keep around 50% of the profit from these ticket sales. What this shows is a willingness from audience members to return to the cinema and a renewed interest in experiencing films on the big screen following the pandemic. Hopefully this trend continues, and the cinema industry can fully recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic that hit it so hard.

My experience of watching Dune: Part Two also shows that cinemas can still create a shared experience, a sort of “grand cultural happening” as Rubin puts it, something that streaming services simply cannot replicate. It is vital that cinemas and the cinematic experience are protected because, as Villeneuve himself states:

“Cinema on the big screen is more than a business, it is an art form that brings people together, celebrating humanity, enhancing our empathy for one another — it’s one of the very last artistic, in-person collective experiences we share as human beings”.

Denis Villeneuve (2020)

To quote Villeneuve one last time, “Long live theatrical cinema!”

All images and media are used under fair usage for educational purposes.

Has Internet crowdfunding allowed everyone to become a film producer? (C21084920)

Without the same support large organisations receive, it can be difficult for some producers to make their films economically sustainable. News ways of funding is changing the film production landscape – making space for independent filmmakers.

The Creative industries are recognised worldwide for both their cultural and economic importance. In the UK, there is a dedicated department known as the DCMS (The Department of Culture, Media and Sport) whose aim is to support the Creative Industries position within society. The DCMS officially recognises nine subsections of the creative industries such as advertising, publishing, film and museums.  

According to the British Council, one role of the DCMS is to provide funding for the Arts within the UK, for example by providing an annual grant to organisations such as the British Film Institute. However, these funds are limited and can be difficult for smaller, independent or localised artists/projects to access/be accepted to.

Money Currency” by Andrew Pons/ CC0 1.0

Massimo Salvato, an Italian film director and producer, experienced these funding issues while making one of his films. The ‘Shaman of Rust‘ is a documentary-style film which follows Jonathon Sherwood and a group of fellow artists as they are forced to move around different empty shops in Newport, Wales, in order to make space for the council’s new shopping centre development. The film was produced on a minimal budget, with the majority of filming completed by Salvato himself and some footage, for example, the controversial destruction of the Chartist mural wall in Newport’s John Frost Square, being filmed opportunistically on a mobile phone by a friend of the director.

Trailer for The Shaman of Rust, Dir. Massimo Salvato, 2013.

When unable sustain the economic stability required to finish the production and, unfortunately, with little interest from major production companies, Salvato, feeling that the documentary was of social importance and the urgency to bring these issues to public light, turned to newer methods of crowdfunding available through the internet. Salvato started a Kickstarter campaign, in order to raise money for editing equipment – therefore allowing him to finish the post-production work needed before ‘The Shaman of Rust’ could be distributed. Kickstarter campaigns allow funds to be raised for various projects through a pledge and rewards system. This means that individuals can pledge an amount of money affordable to them and receive a reward from the project manager once the campaign has succeeded in its financial goal. For example, Salvato had pledges ranging from a simple £1 all the way up to £2,000 with rewards such as an email-exclusive clip of the film or a one-of-a-kind artwork produced by one of the artists starring in the film.

Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

With this crowd-sourced funding, Salvato was able to reach his financial goal, therefore being able to edit the film and eventually release and distribute it to the public. The new source of funding for film production provided by the internet allows a greater chance of projects maintaining economic sustainability and provides a possibility for anybody to express themselves that the media of film as well as exploring personal or localised issues that may not otherwise by funded by large, organisational bodies who produce for profit, rather than social awareness.

So… has internet crowdfunding actually allowed everyone to become a film producer? 

Despite Salvato’s success, ultimately sites such as Kickstarter are a road less travelled. Crowd sourcing via the internet is still a reasonably new phenomenon. In a way it is a symbiotic relationship – films are made in the view of public scrutiny with the benefit of crowd input, while the filmmaker gains funding with allows for freedom in aspects such as inception, production and distribution

It is part of a wider shift in culture since the development of the Internet age. It signifies the change in the audiences’ position in relation to the product. Rather than being passive consumers, the digital era’s ability to allow us to interact and engage in the creation of product, for example, contributing financially to a film, transforms our position into the of a ‘produser’. Elizabeth Bird suggests that this new interactive environment changes the way an audience should be viewed and valued.  

However, while the Internet’s interactive interface allows both filmmakers as well as film supporters access to crowdfunding platforms, this doesn’t mean that every filmmaker has an equal chance of their crowdfunding campaign being successful.  

The production of crowdfunding campaigns is often described as a story-telling process – selling the story of you, your product and the journey beyond, flowing naturally, but vastly engaging the audience . The necessary time and resources required to successfully manage this story-telling process are simply not available to all the smaller production companies or independent artists attempting to crowdfund leading to many failed campaigns. Similarly, films are an intangible concept that, without footage already filmed, is difficult to envisioned and therefore less likely to gain investment from audiences.  

Ultimately, the internet’s crowdfunding platforms can enable independent filmmakers access to funding that they would otherwise be unable to gain. However, the success of this access is unequally distributed between those with the resources to entice backers and those without.  

All media and images are used with fair usage for educational purposes.

Is Crowdfunding the Independent Filmmakers’ financial saving grace? (C21116531)

Cover image by Cottonbro Studio via Pexels.com

Despite positive change and development within the creative industries, the post-pandemic era occasionally reminds us of its ongoing disruptions, affecting the resources many have relied upon in support of their creative endeavours. Independent filmmakers who already faced many challenges beforehand are now met with a greater burden in securing traditional means in financing their work within the UK due to the decline in support and financial success of independent films.

Finding funding for films has always been a challenge, more so for independent projects that heavily rely on creative grants offered by organisations such as Film Cymru Wales or seeking financial support from private investors. As the UK enters another recession, the cost-of-living crisis has presented itself as another blow towards independent filmmakers, with many private investors and companies already reconsidering their investments in independent film projects due to production costs increasing by around 20% during Covid-19. A further blow facing the sector is the funding cuts by the British Film Institution (BFI). Back in September of 2023, a 10-year strategy Screen Culture 2033 was revealed, heavily affecting the funding towards independent filmmakers. The new BFI Filmmaking Fund’s budget is around £18 million per year, a 28% decrease compared to the £25 million per year under the previous round of funding.

These financial and economic setbacks do pose a threat towards the ‘sustainability’ of the independent film sector, with many organisations voicing their concern about its future as it undeniably progresses towards “market failure”. However, this new reality has caused many independent filmmakers to look at alternative ways and practices towards financing their projects.  

Crowdfunding has provided the independent sector with new prospects for finance and visibility, giving it reason to be optimistic. These creative environments, which are centred on community-based finance, provide an alternative to modern financial institutions and governments. These new internet platforms now provide independent creatives with access to a wide pool of donors to support their niches and small-scale initiatives, while circumventing traditional gatekeepers.

Independent filmmakers now have the opportunity to create and build their own community which has expanded their reach and possibilities for support and success beyond their friendnetworks. Crowdfunding has become an important source for creating value, these platforms as such have removed the middleman and created a more intimate bridge between the artist and its audience. Unlike traditional practices of filmmaking, crowdfunding allows individuals or project backers to participate in the films development as they receive updates on the project’s progress. Most crowdfunding projects in exchange for support reward their donors by creating packages. These rewards vary depending on the amount donated, acknowledging the individuals participation towards the project.

Crowdfunding has given the independent filmmakers greater creative freedom and control over their projects. Some traditional settings would see filmmakers wait months before receiving news if their funding was approved or not. These Platforms now allow creatives to set financial targets, whereby they can visually monitor their progress. Other benefits of these platforms such as Kickstarter, Seed&Spark, and Greenlit ensure your visibility by creating creative-only spaces that give filmmakers a better chance of funding, while other crowdfunding platforms such as Filmocracy offer a streaming service for filmmakers to showcase their finished works.

Shutterstock

However, the guarantee of funding through these platforms is not as simple as it may seem. This community-based funding requires filmmakers to build online communities through other social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram as the crowdfunding space alone won’t guarantee the financial support and success of the project. In effect, the use of other socials stimulates a type of “herding”, as new contributors are likely to follow the actions of earlier donors due to peer influence, which has been shown to produce a better successful rating in projects meeting their financial targets.

Filmmaker Isaac Tomiczek ( I Just Stabbed Someone, and Tyler) took to setting up a Kickstarter to fund his project Blockbuster Boys. Tomiczek’s previous works had received backing from grants and investors yet when asked in an interview why the shift to using a crowdfunding platform, his response echoed the growing concerns for the independent film industry.

A few years ago, development funds in the UK film industry were rife… Post-Covid, that culture is nearly non-existent in the UK – Isaac Tomiczek

Unfortunately, despite his best efforts, Tomiczek was unsuccessful in reaching his financial goal.

Source: Blockbuster Boys by Isaac Tomiczek via YouTube

The campaign itself managed to raise £37,134 of its £39,000 target backed by 231 donations. Despite 95% of the funding raised, due to Kickstarter’s “all or nothing” policy, any campaign that fails to reach its financial target within the 30-day window will lose access to all made pledges.  

The current climate within the creative industries is proving to cause a significant strain on funding that might potentially affect the future sustainability of independent filmmakers. Crowdfunding in many ways has been a saving grace in opening forms of funding, whereas other means are no longer possible. However, with many filmmakers turning to platforms such as Kickstarter with a high failing rate of 60%, “Film and video” contributing to 30% of projects seeking funding on the platform, conversations within the industry must take place in looking at alternatives in finding ways to support independent filmmakers to protect the future of the independent film industry.

All images and media are used under fair usage for educational purposes.

Inequalities across the film industry: What is happening behind the scenes for those off screen? (C21074886)

A critical analysis of inequalities across sectors in the film industry through the lens of the SAG-AFTRA strikes.

Last year, film and television productions across the world were brought to a halt. For the first time since 1960, the American Actors’ Union (SAG-AFTRA) and the Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) joined each other in strikes against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). Though striking separately, the two unions shared many of the same concerns around the effects of streaming, unregulated use of AI in the film industry, and the need for better pay and working conditions. Because of SAG-AFTRA’s ‘Global Rule One’ policy, stars such as Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt affiliated with the union walked out of the premiere for their new film Oppenheimer.

Source: ITV News via YouTube (2023)

WGA officially called an end to their strike on September 27th, followed by SAG-AFTRA on November 9th, with both unions having reached agreeable terms with Hollywood. 78% of SAG-AFTRA members signed off on their deal, which included an 11% wage increase for background actors, protection and compensation over the use of digital AI, and a £32m residual bonus for streaming participation.

After a nearly four month pause to the industry, the future finally seems brighter for screen actors as they continue to build “sustainable careers”. But just as it takes a village to raise a child, the film industry relies on the collective work of wider creative crews to bring a production to life. So what is happening behind the scenes for those off screen?

Many creative professionals seem to have been forgotten about when discussing the impact of the industry’s strike season, particularly those across the British film industry. Christopher Ross, president of the British Society of Cinematographers, stated that although the strikes were for US unions, “almost every project is tied in with either US money or US talent”. American productions use British film studios for their generous tax incentives and local experienced workers, pouring billions into the UK economy by doing so. In 2022, a record of 6.27 billion pounds was spent on film and high-end television production in the UK, 90% of which came from American productions.

From costume designers to cinematographers, all UK film departments were expected to support the strikes with nothing to gain from it. Without work or financial support, 80% of jobs were affected. Many workers were forced to find labour elsewhere, downsize, or burn through their savings. So what did those struggling behind the scenes have to say about the situation?

Figure 1: Images by Leo Whitfield

I spoke to Emma Boswell and Katya Nelhams-Wright, founders of The Helicopter Girls. Known for working on productions such as Fast X and Bridgerton, the company provide major film and high-end TV productions with cutting edge aerial cinematography using drone technology. They commented that they saw a 70% decrease in work as a result of the strikes, which is unlikely to pick up until the Summer of 2024. Productions that have gone ahead during this time remained unprofitable to them, as rates were slashed by 50-75%.

This translates across to the experience of the freelancers The Helicopter Girls work with. Leo Whitfield, a freelance FPV drone pilot, said he only worked a total of five days on small projects during the strikes. Financially he became reliant on family and friends and even had to sell some of his professional possessions. Although freelancers are highly relied upon in the creative industries, the policies of being self-employed mean that they fail to access any appropriate financial support.

After speaking to both The Helicopter Girls and Leo, I was left wondering: is there anything that could have been done differently to support them?

In Canada, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) donated $2 million to support those out of work. ‘Wellness webinars’ and advice on how to find temporary work was also provided to those struggling. Whilst the UK government acknowledged impact on their local film crews, their ‘create income replacement scheme’ petition fell short of 70,000 signatures, and so did not provide their creative industries with the same support they had done during COVID-19. The Helicopter Girls and Leo also confirmed that a lack of communication regarding the strikes’ progress left them feeling isolated and uncertain about the future, from both UK and US unions alike.

Screen actors’ are the face of cultural value in the film industry by nature, but those behind the screen are equally responsible for some of the most memorable shots and costumes. There’s a structurally inequal food chain that lies within the film industry, which unfortunately fails to recognise the contributions of those behind the scenes appropriately. The aftermath of last year’s strikes has seemingly created a promising future for the film industry, but I worry that its only created a bigger divide between workers on and off the screen. Discourse in the industry needs to shift its thinking as we’re left to ponder what the future looks like. Is it possible for actors’ to use their visibility to harness support for those unseen? Is it possible for the DCMS to protect their unseen creative workers by mirroring the models used by Canadian unions? For now, the answers to those questions lie in the hands of the people at the forefront of an industry that favours those captivating our screens.

HOW THE PANDEMIC STOLE CINEMA – Or did it? The Digitalisation of Films in a Post-Pandemic Landscape (C21063987)

Source: An Empty Cinema by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels

Please take your seats and turn OFF your phones; the movie is about to begin. COVID-19 certainly changed the world as we know it: people were told to stay indoors, workplaces and non-essential establishments had to shut, and so the world stood still. Fast forwards to May 2021, after 3 national lockdowns, indoor venues were allowed to re-open, with the hopes to return to ‘normality’, however, one key cultural industry was left struggling to recover from the aftermath of the pandemic: cinemas. With subscribers of streaming platforms having drastically increased over the pandemic, not only has the demand for cinemas now been put into question, but also the need for film culture preservation.

This blog will highlight the long-lasting effects on the struggling industry, by discussing how the digitalisation of content for consumption on streaming platforms altered audience watching habits.

Source: Woman Applying Hand Sanitizer by Anna Shvets on Pexels

Screening or Streaming?

Over the pandemic, cinemas experienced great financial difficulties, as a result of having to close down their indoor venues to the public. One of the UK’s most successful chains, Cineworld, experienced a revenue loss of “more than 80% from $4.3bn pre-pandemic to $852m last year [(2020)]” stated the Guardian (2021). In early 2020, new releases like the 007 movie, No Time To Die (2021), was initially pushed back seven months, to discourage people from visiting the cinema and reduce the risk of spreading the virus. 

On the other hand, popular subscription services, The Guardian (2021) comments, “such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video soared by 50% to 31m as locked-down Britons turned to the small screen”, due to more people required to stay indoors. Data from Business of Apps (2024) demonstrates how Netflix saw a 9.43% increase in subscribers between the fourth quarter of 2019 (167.09m) and the first quarter of 2020 (182.86m). The latest statistic from Netflix shows that in their fourth quarter of 2023, the number of subscribers reached 260.2m, thus highlighting the prevalence of streaming services, even after pandemic ended. 

Source: Person Holding a Remote Control by freestocks.org on Pexels

Times are Changing:

One must ask: what effect does this have on the film industry? Through film digitalisation, as suggested by Benyon et al. (2015), can be used to “[increase] numbers of audiences consume the arts through digital channels and devices… it also has significant impact on current practices for the production, distribution, and the creation of meaning for audiences”. In May 2021, new releases, like Cruella (2021), were made available in both theatres and on streaming-service giant, Disney+, though with an charge additional to the customers’ monthly subscriptions, to booster the income of re-opened cinemas, whilst also appealing to potential customers who still did not feel comfortable with being in crowded spaces. 

This emerging habit, however, explains how the digital consumption of films altered the modes of viewing, over the course of the pandemic, where people feel less inclined to visit a physical venue and now prefer home movie streaming. Research by Zhao (2024) demonstrates that 56% of participants surveyed have a reduced motivation to visit a movie theatre, since the emergence of COVID, and with more people being inclined to set-up a ‘home-cinema’ system – such as paying for streaming services – to get more from their money’s worth. Arguably, cinemas can be seen as a dying cultural economy, as well as the film industry, where less money is being put towards the distribution stage of movie releases in cinemas, and more towards the consumption stage on online streaming platforms.

Source: People Sitting Inside the Cinema by Tima Mirochnichenko on Pexels

The Future of Cinemas:

With its existence under threat during the pandemic, cinemas are now coming up with new, creative ways and making improvements to their business models to secure their position as global institutes of culture. Such is the case with the ‘Barbenheimer’ phenomenon that was quoted to have “saved the summer box office” by The Guardian (2023), with its unique marketing strategy by releasing both films on the same day, and encouraging audiences to see both at cinemas for a special summer double-feature. Moreover, since the outbreak, cinemas across the UK, began offering the unique opportunity to experience ‘event cinema’, which includes the screening showings of theatre productions and concerts at a reduced price, including Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour Concert.

All of this is done in an effort to re-establish the need for cinemas as a hub for socialising and culture, where the means of consumption are “not replicable in alternative distribution channels”, as suggested by Weinberg et al. (2020). Though the film industry is constantly evolving, through the digitalisation of content for consumption on streaming platforms, cinema is not a dying art form – it is a transcultural phenomenon, which offers us an escape and one which must be preserved at all costs. 

Please share your thoughts on how much you value the relevance of cinemas and why we should strive to protect this cultural industry down below.

All images and media are used under fair usage for educational purposes.

Leave a comment

Crowdfunding: an effective tool for the film industry (21078099)

Figure 1: Lopez(2018)

Crowdfunding is redefining the future of the film industry. This unique innovation spreads funding slightly away from traditional studios, media companies, private equity firms and producers, opening up new possibilities for film production.

Crowdfunding allows individuals or project backers to participate in the film development process. Film project initiators mostly use rewards-based crowdfunding, where even a small investment in the film’s budget is rewarded in some form. Participating for as little as $10 can result in rewards such as posters, t-shirts, DVDs, etc.

The creative industries have been grappling with the challenge of the creative threshold for years. Regardless of who provides the financial backing for a production, ultimately, creative control should be solely in the hands of the creator. This imbalance of control is particularly pronounced in the film industry and involves aspects ranging from single-perspective diversity issues to abuse of power.

Traditional film financing models usually rely on film production companies, investors or funding agencies, sources that are often not readily available to independent producers. This situation results in limited creative autonomy for creators, and creativity is often controlled by funders.

However, the rise of crowdfunding in the film industry has provided independent filmmakers with a revolutionary way to finance their films. The limitations of traditional financing models gave rise to the rise of crowdfunding. The emergence of crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo has allowed producers to interact directly with their audience and gain greater creative autonomy by raising funds from the general public to support their projects. Crowdfunding gives anyone with a good idea access to a global pool of contributors and a global marketplace, and it works especially well for creative projects like films.

Crowdfunding brings greater creative freedom and control to filmmakers. With online platforms, they can showcase their ideas to a global audience and attract financial support from around the world. In addition, crowdfunding helps filmmakers assess market demand and audience interest at an early stage, reducing the risk of project failure. It also provides a platform for creators to showcase their work, helping them build a fan base and brand presence.

For independent filmmakers or the general public, crowdfunding provides the ideal financing channel to solve the most vexing financial challenges in film production. It allows ordinary investors to participate in projects with high production costs, easing the pressure on investment. In addition, crowdfunding can also be viewed as a marketing tool for researching the market and testing the waters in advance. Through crowdfunding on the Internet platform, a portion of the potential audience can be targeted in advance to gather a large amount of popularity and attention, and this form makes the film market appear more civilian and stimulates the enthusiasm of the masses.

Boy, a New Zealand film, received positive reviews and was a 2010 Sundance Film Festival nominee. It was screened at over 50 international film festivals. Even though the movie broke records at the box office in New Zealand and won multiple awards both domestically and abroad, no distributor in the United States was prepared to invest the funds required to market the movie.

To solve this problem, the filmmakers crowdfunded the film through Kickstarter, exceeding their funding goal. Overall, the Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign was funded by 1,826 anonymous donors who donated $110,796.22, exceeding the funding goal of $90,000. It highlights the audience’s support for the film. In addition to providing financial support for the distribution campaign, crowdfunding on Kickstarter aids in increasing the message’s reach.

Figure 2: Rolleston(2010)

In addition, women have found space in the crowdfunding arena as filmmakers and have produced films that address women’s issues and emphasise the importance of gender equality. As an example, Anita Laufer has successfully funded several short films through crowdfunding, including her short film The Descent, which presents a female perspective of Caribbean immigrants in the 1960s.

Cecil Emeke is renowned for using internet crowdsourcing as well. Emeke is heavily dependent on her generous online following because her films frequently tackle controversial subjects like gender and race, which are difficult for mainstream production companies to “sell.” Emeke’s critically acclaimed crowdfunding projects, such as Ackee & Saltfish and The Strolling series, have helped her gain international recognition.

These examples demonstrate the widespread use of crowdfunding by British female filmmakers, both in the past and present, to fund their productions. For instance, Juliet Ellis raised nearly £15,000 for her movie Morning in 2017.

Figure 3: IndieGogo (2017)

Crowdfunding has become one of the most important avenues for film production, providing creators with greater creative freedom and control. It not only helps to solve the problem of a shortage of funds but also promotes cultural diversity and social dialogue, bringing positive impacts to the film industry. In the future, crowdfunding will continue to play an important role in promoting the development and innovation of the film industry.

How Digitalising the Film Industry will stop the Corruption of Innovation and the Reliance on the Blockbuster Formula (C1943857)

Sourced from Flickr, from Biblioteca de Arte. 

The modern film industry is now bringing in more money than in any other era and has produced some of the most successful films at the box office. So why is there less originality in our modern blockbusters? The most notable films are currently part of a franchise or remakes/sequels of known properties. This has led to problems such as:  

  • The corporate takeover of the creative industries  

  • The decline of true freedom of expression in the modern age  

  • Audiences are getting used to the formula and do not want deviation 

  • The future decline of the industry  

I will be looking at these problems, why they are present and how they can be solved. 

Looking first at the modern film landscape and the highest-grossing films of the last decade, we can see that only one of the top thirty-five films is not a remake, sequel, or part of a larger franchise, this being 2013’s Frozen. If we then compare to the 70s and 80s, there is only one franchise film in the 70s out of the top ten and six original films in the top ten in the 80s. Why is this?   

Disney is the main culprit of controlling franchise films and billing the top of the box office. Owning both the Marvel film rights and Star Wars, Disney can consistently bring out the highest-grossing movies, and no other company can touch them. These films are usually very crowd-pleasing and are made to draw in the largest audiences with inoffensive subject matters and a formulaic story structure. This has been the standard for far too long, and many people only go to the cinema to watch franchise films instead of something new. This is a problem for the future of the industry.   

This is not to say creativity does not exist in the modern film industry, but if the highest-grossing films from the last decade are not flexing innovative ideas, then what are the problems? The modern film industry can breed more creativity and fresh ideas in different avenues. A24 is an independent film production and distribution company that produces new independent cinemas and distributes them to cinemas and streaming services. However, the most popular of these, 2018’s Hereditary, took at the box office less than a ninth of the 35th top-grossing film of the last decade. So why are people choosing to watch something they are familiar with instead of something they have never seen before? 

The comfort of consuming the more oversized franchise products makes it easy to create a franchise film in the modern age and market it to a modern audience. This is because franchises such as Marvel and Star Wars are available on the most popular streaming services and there are usually one of these films in the cinema at a time as three Marvel films come out each year. This means a regular consumer of blockbusters who usually only goes to the cinema to see franchise films are now even less likely to watch an original film. Because the formula has been proven to create a big blockbuster and make a guaranteed hit, it is both safer for the company and more comfortable/convenient for consumers. 

Martin Scorsese once described Marvel movies as theme parks and how they are “not real cinema”. This caused much discourse online about if he was right, and many took Disney’s side in the debate. This is expected from modern consumers who mostly only watch films like this and do not branch out and watch something new.  

But maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel. Streaming services are usually seen as killing the film industry by taking away audiences from the cinema and letting people passively watch shows and films at home. Nevertheless, this does not consider all the boundary-pushing contemporary films on streaming services. Old and new directors can have complete control of their films because they are on a lower budget on a streaming service. Films like: 

  • The Irishman 

  • I’m Thinking of Ending Things 

  • Uncut Gems 

  • Marriage Story 

  • Power of the Dog 

These are all examples just from Netflix that are original films, from respected directors such as Charlie Kaufman and were critically and commercially successful. Though they did not make as much money as the franchise films as they were released online, the digitalisation of the film industry allowed these to flourish in this new medium. 

Sourced from Flickr, by Mehmet Can  

I believe the digitalisation of the film industry and the popularity of streaming services will improve the types of films being made. To stand out on these streaming services, creators must continually make films that present something new from the competition and create original, boundary-pushing content. Though most people believe the digital age has hurt the film industry, creativity is still thriving but in a new type of distribution. Streaming is the new breeding ground for innovation and creativity, further digitalising the film industry. I believe this will solve the problems of a future crash in Hollywood caused by formulated productions. 

All images sourced from Flickr.

Images and multimedia used in accordance with fair use for educational purposes.