Working Title Films began as a small independent production company in the UK that struggled to find funding until partnering with larger media companies like Channel 4 and Polygram. After Polygram was acquired by Universal Pictures, Working Title became majority owned by Universal Pictures' parent company NBC Universal. While now part of a large conglomerate, Working Title retains creative autonomy and produces films appealing to both UK and global audiences, maintaining their British identity while benefiting from Universal's financial backing and global distribution.
Working Title Films started as an independent British production company but had to seek financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Channel 4 to fund their films. They were eventually acquired by Universal Pictures, making them part of the large NBCUniversal media conglomerate. However, Working Title has retained a degree of creative autonomy and independence while benefitting from Universal's financial support and distribution capabilities. Their relationship with a major studio allows them to focus on development and production rather than chasing funding but also brings pressure to achieve commercial success.
- Working Title Films started as an independent British production company but sought financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Universal to fund their films.
- They are now majority owned by Universal Pictures, but have maintained considerable creative autonomy and their operations remain based in London.
- While gaining security and resources from Universal, Working Title still must ensure their films are commercially successful to meet Universal's expectations.
- Their involvement with a major studio allows them to focus on development rather than chasing funding, but some argue it requires compromising their independent spirit to appeal to large audiences.
This document provides an overview of the film industry, including its history and key stages of production, distribution, marketing and exhibition. It describes how the industry evolved from the classical Hollywood studio system dominated by a small number of major studios, to the modern Hollywood system of independent production and financing by major studios and conglomerates. It also discusses how technological changes like television and home video impacted cinema attendance, and how the industry has adapted through multiplex theaters and pursuing profits across various distribution windows.
G322 section b using your case study new versionstaylorchs
The document discusses the issues raised by media ownership and consolidation in the film industry, using Working Title Films as a case study. It describes how Working Title started as an independent production company but sought financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Universal Studios. While this provided security, it also meant Working Title had to consider mass audience appeal. The document analyzes how Working Title both retains creative autonomy but also faces pressure to achieve box office success for its studio owner Universal.
Institutions and audiences overview of industry-1reigatemedia
The film industry is dominated by six major studios that are part of large media conglomerates. These studios produce big-budget blockbuster films aimed at mass audiences using established concepts to minimize risk. They distribute films through numerous windows to generate multiple revenue streams. Conglomerates maximize profits through synergies where different business units collaborate based on successful film brands. Independent films have difficulty accessing major distribution networks and target niche audiences through film festivals and limited art house cinema releases.
AS Media Ownership Skyfall and Ill Manorsolliedwyer
1) Large conglomerates like Sony have advantages in producing and distributing films due to their financial resources and ability to use cross-promotion across their subsidiaries.
2) Independent films like Ill Manors have difficulties marketing and distributing on a smaller budget without the resources of a major studio.
3) Independent companies try to compete through viral marketing and niche audiences, while conglomerates use extensive global marketing campaigns and product tie-ins.
The document discusses the film industry today, including ownership and production, distribution, and exhibition. Major studios are now part of large media conglomerates, creating an oligopoly in the industry. Blockbuster films made by the major studios often follow a high concept model to appeal to mass audiences. Independent films are typically shown in art house cinemas and have smaller budgets and audiences. Distribution and wide theatrical releases are now prioritized over production. Marketing budgets for major studio films often exceed production costs.
The document discusses strategies for successful Australian film distribution and marketing. It analyzes case studies of films that were successful with word of mouth marketing starting small, like Samson and Delilah, versus those that failed launching too big, like Red Hill. Word of mouth and film festivals are identified as important marketing tools. Online and digital distribution are growing methods but still undervalued in Australia. Producers are taking on more distributor roles and will need to integrate distribution planning earlier in the process.
Working Title Films started as an independent British production company but had to seek financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Channel 4 to fund their films. They were eventually acquired by Universal Pictures, making them part of the large NBCUniversal media conglomerate. However, Working Title has retained a degree of creative autonomy and independence while benefitting from Universal's financial support and distribution capabilities. Their relationship with a major studio allows them to focus on development and production rather than chasing funding but also brings pressure to achieve commercial success.
- Working Title Films started as an independent British production company but sought financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Universal to fund their films.
- They are now majority owned by Universal Pictures, but have maintained considerable creative autonomy and their operations remain based in London.
- While gaining security and resources from Universal, Working Title still must ensure their films are commercially successful to meet Universal's expectations.
- Their involvement with a major studio allows them to focus on development rather than chasing funding, but some argue it requires compromising their independent spirit to appeal to large audiences.
This document provides an overview of the film industry, including its history and key stages of production, distribution, marketing and exhibition. It describes how the industry evolved from the classical Hollywood studio system dominated by a small number of major studios, to the modern Hollywood system of independent production and financing by major studios and conglomerates. It also discusses how technological changes like television and home video impacted cinema attendance, and how the industry has adapted through multiplex theaters and pursuing profits across various distribution windows.
G322 section b using your case study new versionstaylorchs
The document discusses the issues raised by media ownership and consolidation in the film industry, using Working Title Films as a case study. It describes how Working Title started as an independent production company but sought financial backing from larger media companies like Polygram and Universal Studios. While this provided security, it also meant Working Title had to consider mass audience appeal. The document analyzes how Working Title both retains creative autonomy but also faces pressure to achieve box office success for its studio owner Universal.
Institutions and audiences overview of industry-1reigatemedia
The film industry is dominated by six major studios that are part of large media conglomerates. These studios produce big-budget blockbuster films aimed at mass audiences using established concepts to minimize risk. They distribute films through numerous windows to generate multiple revenue streams. Conglomerates maximize profits through synergies where different business units collaborate based on successful film brands. Independent films have difficulty accessing major distribution networks and target niche audiences through film festivals and limited art house cinema releases.
AS Media Ownership Skyfall and Ill Manorsolliedwyer
1) Large conglomerates like Sony have advantages in producing and distributing films due to their financial resources and ability to use cross-promotion across their subsidiaries.
2) Independent films like Ill Manors have difficulties marketing and distributing on a smaller budget without the resources of a major studio.
3) Independent companies try to compete through viral marketing and niche audiences, while conglomerates use extensive global marketing campaigns and product tie-ins.
The document discusses the film industry today, including ownership and production, distribution, and exhibition. Major studios are now part of large media conglomerates, creating an oligopoly in the industry. Blockbuster films made by the major studios often follow a high concept model to appeal to mass audiences. Independent films are typically shown in art house cinemas and have smaller budgets and audiences. Distribution and wide theatrical releases are now prioritized over production. Marketing budgets for major studio films often exceed production costs.
The document discusses strategies for successful Australian film distribution and marketing. It analyzes case studies of films that were successful with word of mouth marketing starting small, like Samson and Delilah, versus those that failed launching too big, like Red Hill. Word of mouth and film festivals are identified as important marketing tools. Online and digital distribution are growing methods but still undervalued in Australia. Producers are taking on more distributor roles and will need to integrate distribution planning earlier in the process.
Lionsgate would be the best distribution company for the filmmaker's thriller film aimed at teenagers. Lionsgate specializes in distributing similar thriller and teen-focused films like The Hunger Games and Twilight franchises. They have experience marketing to the target teenage audience. While Paramount distributes some thrillers, they focus more on big budget blockbusters and look for well-known directors and actors. Lionsgate would be more open to distributing an independent thriller. If a distribution deal cannot be secured, self-distributing to film festivals could generate buzz but success is unlikely as most festival films do not find audiences and the festivals do not target the film's intended teenage demographic.
This document discusses concepts related to film distribution and viral marketing. It provides an overview of distribution, explaining that distribution is the process of releasing completed films to audiences. It discusses the concept of vertical integration in Hollywood and how distribution works differently in the independent film sector. The document also covers logistics of distribution, including transporting prints to theaters. Additionally, it examines viral marketing and provides examples of successful viral campaigns, such as for The Dark Knight and Hotmail.com. Teaser campaigns are also discussed.
The document discusses film distribution and the differences between Hollywood and independent films. Film distribution refers to marketing and circulating movies in theaters and home video. A film distributor secures placements for films between producers and exhibitors. Hollywood studios have an advantage through vertical integration, owning production, distribution and exhibition. Independent films often struggle to find distributors after completion.
This document discusses different types of media institutions that could distribute a media product and why. It analyzes large institutions like Warner Bros, Disney, and Universal Studios that have huge budgets and widespread marketing and distribution capabilities. It also discusses smaller independent companies like Working Title Films and Bedlam Productions that have more limited budgets. The document concludes that for a large-scale thriller film, Universal Studios would be the best choice due to its large budget, successful history distributing thrillers like Psycho, and potential for huge profits.
The document provides an overview of key concepts related to film distribution, including:
1) It defines film distribution as everything that happens between production and exhibition, including acquiring legal rights, marketing, and releasing prints/files to cinemas and stores.
2) It discusses major distributors that control much of the industry through vertical and horizontal integration, as well as the top 5 distributors in the UK.
3) It explains important distribution concepts like local distribution, the advantages of major studios over independent producers, and the transition to digital distribution and projection.
This document provides information about Working Title Films, a British film production company, and discusses their approach to film production and distribution. It outlines Working Title's history from its founding in 1984 through various ownership changes. It analyzes some of Working Title's most successful films like My Beautiful Laundrette and Four Weddings and a Funeral. It also discusses how Working Title uses co-production strategies to share risks and access international markets. In summary, the document examines Working Title's evolution over time, their template for success blending British and American elements, and their continued ability to produce a diverse range of films.
The document discusses different company structures in the film industry such as conglomerates, horizontal integration, and vertical integration. It also examines the role of distribution companies in getting films from production to exhibition by organizing certification, securing exhibition outlets, arranging prints and marketing. The major film distributors that control around 90% of the market in the UK are United International Pictures, Warner Brothers, Buena Vista, 20th Century Fox, and Sony.
This document discusses different types of integration in the film industry: vertical integration where a company owns production, distribution, and exhibition; horizontal integration where a company expands into other areas of the industry; and synergy, where products are promoted within films. It provides the example of how Sony used these integration strategies for the film Casino Royale, with Sony phones, laptops, and cameras featured and the film distributed by Sony-owned companies. Casino Royale also exhibited horizontal integration through involvement of other production companies like MGM.
Film distribution involves launching a film into the marketplace and sustaining public interest. Major film distributors like Paramount, Warner, and Universal dominate worldwide distribution. Distributors can be involved in film production, acquiring distribution rights, or distributing films made by their parent company. Effective distribution requires careful positioning, circulation of film prints, well-timed releases, and extensive marketing that sometimes costs as much as production. Marketing employs various techniques like posters, trailers, advertising, and promotions to generate buzz and interest in films.
The film distribution process begins with an idea that is developed into a synopsis to attract interest. The rights are then purchased by a studio or investor. A team is assembled to produce the film. Once complete, the film is sent to the owner who licenses it to a distribution company. The distributor determines copies made and shows the film to cinema buyers, who negotiate lease terms and select films. Cinemas receive copies in advance and show the film for weeks before returning prints to complete the distribution cycle.
A film distributor is an independent company that markets and circulates movies to theaters and home viewers. Distribution involves finding the largest possible audience for a film. Distributors aim to convince exhibitors like movie theaters to show the film. They arrange screenings and use marketing techniques. Once contracted, the distributor ensures enough film prints are made and shipped to theaters on opening day. They also create advertisements. As an example, the independent film Bullet Boy was released on 75 prints in the UK through the distributor Verve Pictures, who aimed to appeal to diverse audiences through newspaper ads and a poster conveying the film's tone.
The document discusses the structure and ownership of media companies. It describes different types of ownership including private, public service, independent, conglomerate, and vertical and horizontal integration. It provides examples of each type, noting advantages and disadvantages. The document also discusses cross-media convergence, synergy, and changes to Apple's structure over time.
Film distribution involves making a movie available to audiences through various platforms over time. Initially, films are typically shown in movie theaters. Then, around 16 weeks later, films are released on DVD and streaming services. After a few more months, films are released on pay TV and subscription streaming sites. Around two years later, films become available on free-to-air TV. Standard distribution aims to maximize profits by releasing films across different platforms over an extended period to maintain interest and generate income from multiple sources. Simultaneous distribution releases films on all platforms at once to appeal to different audience preferences but risks less promotion and investment.
The document provides information about FilmFour, a British film production company. It discusses some of FilmFour's most successful films like Trainspotting and Four Weddings and a Funeral. It also addresses issues like representing diversity in British cinema, competing with major Hollywood studios, and adapting to changes in film consumption and technology.
This document discusses key concepts related to media institutions and the film industry. It begins by defining terminology such as institution, codes and conventions, and ideology. It then focuses on the film industry, discussing the patterns of production, distribution, exhibition and consumption. It notes the contemporary trends of digital distribution and their impact. Finally, it discusses how a study of a production company like Film 4 could link to issues of media ownership, audiences, and practices in the contemporary media landscape.
This document discusses the film distribution process. It explains that a film distributor chooses which films to distribute, decides on the number of film prints and marketing budget. The distributor negotiates the release date and theaters, and pays for prints, advertising, and a percentage of ticket sales. They monitor the film's exhibition and can implement changes. The distributor also conducts advertising through various media and maintains the film's brand image. Film ideas are often pitched to studios with a simple high concept premise that can be easily marketed.
Here is a 5 sentence paragraph using terminology from the document:
Large companies like Sony benefit more from synergy and cross media convergence than smaller companies due to their size and being conglomerates. As a conglomerate, Sony owns subsidiaries across different media like film studios, record labels, and electronics manufacturers. This allows Sony to leverage synergies between these divisions to promote linked products from its movies, soundtracks, and electronics. Smaller independent companies like those behind Ill Manors lack this vertical integration and diversity of ownership, limiting their ability to coordinate synergistic campaigns. The uneven playing field advantages conglomerates that can utilize their portfolio of companies to maximize profits through cross-promotional opportunities not available to smaller firms.
Distribution involves releasing films in the marketplace and involves either vertical or horizontal integration models. Films are usually launched on Fridays and marketed through various traditional and new technologies. Film distribution has unique procedures where success or failure of theatrical releases determines subsequent home media releases. Distribution is transitioning to digital with encrypted files being sent directly to cinemas for screening.
Film distribution is the process of marketing and releasing a movie to the appropriate target audience. During development, the distribution company considers who the intended audience is and whether the story and characters will appeal to that group. The distribution process involves the producer obtaining rights, filming, post-production, and the distributor developing a release strategy. They then present the film to exhibitors to negotiate showings in cinemas and launch a marketing campaign to the targeted audience.
The document discusses the film distribution industry and the debate around whether audiences or distributors hold more power in influencing what films are made and seen. It provides definitions of key terms like distributor and describes the roles and responsibilities of distributors. Some key statistics are presented on worldwide spending on films, average production and marketing costs, and revenue streams. The types of UK distributors and factors considered in acquiring and releasing films are also summarized.
This document discusses genres in filmmaking and how different institutions approach film production and distribution. It explains that genre is defined by form, content, and technique. It also discusses the differences between a high budget film from a major studio versus an art house or independent film. Major studios have more money to widely distribute their films, while independent films have smaller niche audiences. The document also compares the American film conglomerate Disney, which spends over $150 million on animated films like Frozen, to British institutions like Film4 that independently fund lower budget films around $9 million like Attack the Block.
What kind of media institution might distribute yournicoleherring
Working Title Films would be more suitable than Paramount Pictures for distributing our thriller film Flash due to Working Title's focus on British films and talent as well as their ability to work with smaller budgets. While Working Title has fewer resources for marketing than Paramount, their connections could help the film find audiences in the UK and beyond. Self-distribution is also an option but comes with challenges around marketing, legal issues, and audience reach.
Lionsgate would be the best distribution company for the filmmaker's thriller film aimed at teenagers. Lionsgate specializes in distributing similar thriller and teen-focused films like The Hunger Games and Twilight franchises. They have experience marketing to the target teenage audience. While Paramount distributes some thrillers, they focus more on big budget blockbusters and look for well-known directors and actors. Lionsgate would be more open to distributing an independent thriller. If a distribution deal cannot be secured, self-distributing to film festivals could generate buzz but success is unlikely as most festival films do not find audiences and the festivals do not target the film's intended teenage demographic.
This document discusses concepts related to film distribution and viral marketing. It provides an overview of distribution, explaining that distribution is the process of releasing completed films to audiences. It discusses the concept of vertical integration in Hollywood and how distribution works differently in the independent film sector. The document also covers logistics of distribution, including transporting prints to theaters. Additionally, it examines viral marketing and provides examples of successful viral campaigns, such as for The Dark Knight and Hotmail.com. Teaser campaigns are also discussed.
The document discusses film distribution and the differences between Hollywood and independent films. Film distribution refers to marketing and circulating movies in theaters and home video. A film distributor secures placements for films between producers and exhibitors. Hollywood studios have an advantage through vertical integration, owning production, distribution and exhibition. Independent films often struggle to find distributors after completion.
This document discusses different types of media institutions that could distribute a media product and why. It analyzes large institutions like Warner Bros, Disney, and Universal Studios that have huge budgets and widespread marketing and distribution capabilities. It also discusses smaller independent companies like Working Title Films and Bedlam Productions that have more limited budgets. The document concludes that for a large-scale thriller film, Universal Studios would be the best choice due to its large budget, successful history distributing thrillers like Psycho, and potential for huge profits.
The document provides an overview of key concepts related to film distribution, including:
1) It defines film distribution as everything that happens between production and exhibition, including acquiring legal rights, marketing, and releasing prints/files to cinemas and stores.
2) It discusses major distributors that control much of the industry through vertical and horizontal integration, as well as the top 5 distributors in the UK.
3) It explains important distribution concepts like local distribution, the advantages of major studios over independent producers, and the transition to digital distribution and projection.
This document provides information about Working Title Films, a British film production company, and discusses their approach to film production and distribution. It outlines Working Title's history from its founding in 1984 through various ownership changes. It analyzes some of Working Title's most successful films like My Beautiful Laundrette and Four Weddings and a Funeral. It also discusses how Working Title uses co-production strategies to share risks and access international markets. In summary, the document examines Working Title's evolution over time, their template for success blending British and American elements, and their continued ability to produce a diverse range of films.
The document discusses different company structures in the film industry such as conglomerates, horizontal integration, and vertical integration. It also examines the role of distribution companies in getting films from production to exhibition by organizing certification, securing exhibition outlets, arranging prints and marketing. The major film distributors that control around 90% of the market in the UK are United International Pictures, Warner Brothers, Buena Vista, 20th Century Fox, and Sony.
This document discusses different types of integration in the film industry: vertical integration where a company owns production, distribution, and exhibition; horizontal integration where a company expands into other areas of the industry; and synergy, where products are promoted within films. It provides the example of how Sony used these integration strategies for the film Casino Royale, with Sony phones, laptops, and cameras featured and the film distributed by Sony-owned companies. Casino Royale also exhibited horizontal integration through involvement of other production companies like MGM.
Film distribution involves launching a film into the marketplace and sustaining public interest. Major film distributors like Paramount, Warner, and Universal dominate worldwide distribution. Distributors can be involved in film production, acquiring distribution rights, or distributing films made by their parent company. Effective distribution requires careful positioning, circulation of film prints, well-timed releases, and extensive marketing that sometimes costs as much as production. Marketing employs various techniques like posters, trailers, advertising, and promotions to generate buzz and interest in films.
The film distribution process begins with an idea that is developed into a synopsis to attract interest. The rights are then purchased by a studio or investor. A team is assembled to produce the film. Once complete, the film is sent to the owner who licenses it to a distribution company. The distributor determines copies made and shows the film to cinema buyers, who negotiate lease terms and select films. Cinemas receive copies in advance and show the film for weeks before returning prints to complete the distribution cycle.
A film distributor is an independent company that markets and circulates movies to theaters and home viewers. Distribution involves finding the largest possible audience for a film. Distributors aim to convince exhibitors like movie theaters to show the film. They arrange screenings and use marketing techniques. Once contracted, the distributor ensures enough film prints are made and shipped to theaters on opening day. They also create advertisements. As an example, the independent film Bullet Boy was released on 75 prints in the UK through the distributor Verve Pictures, who aimed to appeal to diverse audiences through newspaper ads and a poster conveying the film's tone.
The document discusses the structure and ownership of media companies. It describes different types of ownership including private, public service, independent, conglomerate, and vertical and horizontal integration. It provides examples of each type, noting advantages and disadvantages. The document also discusses cross-media convergence, synergy, and changes to Apple's structure over time.
Film distribution involves making a movie available to audiences through various platforms over time. Initially, films are typically shown in movie theaters. Then, around 16 weeks later, films are released on DVD and streaming services. After a few more months, films are released on pay TV and subscription streaming sites. Around two years later, films become available on free-to-air TV. Standard distribution aims to maximize profits by releasing films across different platforms over an extended period to maintain interest and generate income from multiple sources. Simultaneous distribution releases films on all platforms at once to appeal to different audience preferences but risks less promotion and investment.
The document provides information about FilmFour, a British film production company. It discusses some of FilmFour's most successful films like Trainspotting and Four Weddings and a Funeral. It also addresses issues like representing diversity in British cinema, competing with major Hollywood studios, and adapting to changes in film consumption and technology.
This document discusses key concepts related to media institutions and the film industry. It begins by defining terminology such as institution, codes and conventions, and ideology. It then focuses on the film industry, discussing the patterns of production, distribution, exhibition and consumption. It notes the contemporary trends of digital distribution and their impact. Finally, it discusses how a study of a production company like Film 4 could link to issues of media ownership, audiences, and practices in the contemporary media landscape.
This document discusses the film distribution process. It explains that a film distributor chooses which films to distribute, decides on the number of film prints and marketing budget. The distributor negotiates the release date and theaters, and pays for prints, advertising, and a percentage of ticket sales. They monitor the film's exhibition and can implement changes. The distributor also conducts advertising through various media and maintains the film's brand image. Film ideas are often pitched to studios with a simple high concept premise that can be easily marketed.
Here is a 5 sentence paragraph using terminology from the document:
Large companies like Sony benefit more from synergy and cross media convergence than smaller companies due to their size and being conglomerates. As a conglomerate, Sony owns subsidiaries across different media like film studios, record labels, and electronics manufacturers. This allows Sony to leverage synergies between these divisions to promote linked products from its movies, soundtracks, and electronics. Smaller independent companies like those behind Ill Manors lack this vertical integration and diversity of ownership, limiting their ability to coordinate synergistic campaigns. The uneven playing field advantages conglomerates that can utilize their portfolio of companies to maximize profits through cross-promotional opportunities not available to smaller firms.
Distribution involves releasing films in the marketplace and involves either vertical or horizontal integration models. Films are usually launched on Fridays and marketed through various traditional and new technologies. Film distribution has unique procedures where success or failure of theatrical releases determines subsequent home media releases. Distribution is transitioning to digital with encrypted files being sent directly to cinemas for screening.
Film distribution is the process of marketing and releasing a movie to the appropriate target audience. During development, the distribution company considers who the intended audience is and whether the story and characters will appeal to that group. The distribution process involves the producer obtaining rights, filming, post-production, and the distributor developing a release strategy. They then present the film to exhibitors to negotiate showings in cinemas and launch a marketing campaign to the targeted audience.
The document discusses the film distribution industry and the debate around whether audiences or distributors hold more power in influencing what films are made and seen. It provides definitions of key terms like distributor and describes the roles and responsibilities of distributors. Some key statistics are presented on worldwide spending on films, average production and marketing costs, and revenue streams. The types of UK distributors and factors considered in acquiring and releasing films are also summarized.
This document discusses genres in filmmaking and how different institutions approach film production and distribution. It explains that genre is defined by form, content, and technique. It also discusses the differences between a high budget film from a major studio versus an art house or independent film. Major studios have more money to widely distribute their films, while independent films have smaller niche audiences. The document also compares the American film conglomerate Disney, which spends over $150 million on animated films like Frozen, to British institutions like Film4 that independently fund lower budget films around $9 million like Attack the Block.
What kind of media institution might distribute yournicoleherring
Working Title Films would be more suitable than Paramount Pictures for distributing our thriller film Flash due to Working Title's focus on British films and talent as well as their ability to work with smaller budgets. While Working Title has fewer resources for marketing than Paramount, their connections could help the film find audiences in the UK and beyond. Self-distribution is also an option but comes with challenges around marketing, legal issues, and audience reach.
Sony is a large international conglomerate that produced and distributed the James Bond film 'Skyfall'. As a major Hollywood studio, Sony was able to utilize extensive cross-promotion across its various business divisions, including music, games, and consumer electronics. It also had the financial resources and industry clout to engage in widespread early publicity campaigns. In contrast, smaller independent films have far more limited marketing budgets and opportunities for synergistic promotion.
Summit Entertainment is a film production, distribution and sales company founded in 1991. They initially handled foreign film sales but later expanded into fully financing and producing their own films by the late 1990s. Summit distributes their films both theatrically and on home video formats internationally through partnerships with other major studios like Universal and Sony. As an independent studio with access to over $1 billion in financing, Summit would be capable of distributing films internationally but likely requires partnerships for domestic theatrical distribution in large markets like North America.
The document discusses company structures in the film industry, including conglomerates, horizontal integration, and vertical integration. It then focuses on distribution, explaining that distribution involves getting films shown and promoted between production and exhibition. The major distributors that control most film distribution are identified as United International Pictures, Warner Brothers, Buena Vista, 20th Century Fox, and Sony.
The document discusses the film industry process from development through distribution. It begins with the four main stages of a film: production, distribution, marketing, and exhibition. Production includes developing the script, pre-production, shooting, and post-production. Distribution gets the film to audiences through deals with cinemas. Marketing promotes the film. Exhibition is how audiences view the film. The six major Hollywood studios that dominate the industry through ownership are Disney, Warner Bros., Fox, Universal, Sony, and Paramount. Ownership occurs through horizontal integration of acquiring similar companies, and vertical integration of owning all aspects of filmmaking under one parent company.
This document discusses potential options for distributing a horror/thriller film produced by the author. It analyzes several major distribution companies like Lionsgate and Film4 Productions and concludes they may not be the best fit due to the independent and low-budget nature of the film. It also discusses the possibility of using film funding companies like Creative England and the British Film Institute to fund production and self-distribution. Overall, the author determines that seeking production funding and self-distributing may be the best approach to ensure a profitable outcome, though success cannot be guaranteed. They ultimately created their own distribution company called "J&M Productions" to include in the film's opening ident.
This document discusses key aspects of producing an independent film, including institutions, funding, production values, marketing, similar products, and distribution. It would produce the film independently and seek co-funding from multiple companies. Around 50% of the budget would go towards production values like setting, lighting, and sound. Marketing would utilize film festivals and social media. The film's target audience of 30-40 year olds and university graduates would be reached through newspapers and online platforms. It would be distributed by StudioCanal UK, known for independent films.
Optimum Releasing would be a suitable distributor for the independent British thriller film. As an independent UK film company, Optimum specializes in distributing similar low-budget, British independent films and thrillers. They have had success distributing films with small budgets that appeal to younger audiences. Their marketing strategies, like using social media, would be a cost-effective way to promote the film to its target teen-adult demographic. Optimum also has experience distributing similar thriller genres to the one in the film, so they understand how to market and release that type of film.
Film distribution is the process of making a movie available for audiences to view. A film distributor is responsible for marketing the film and distribution deals are important for financing films. Distribution methods include theatrical releases, film festivals, trailers, posters, TV advertisements, social media, DVDs, and streaming sites. For a micro-budget independent film like Abridged without stars, it would be difficult to get distribution from major companies. Smaller distributors focused on independent films may be more appropriate. The filmmakers plan to promote Abridged using social media sites like Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr with a trailer and hashtag campaign.
This document discusses potential film distribution companies for a small, low-budget horror film production. It analyzes Film4, Lionsgate UK, and Studio Canal UK as options. Film4 is identified as the preferred choice as it specializes in smaller, UK-based films and has a track record of distributing successful horror titles. Though Lionsgate and Studio Canal also have experience with the genre, they tend to focus on higher budgets than the production being considered. Film4 could provide national distribution through its Channel 4 and E4 platforms, targeting younger audiences, and may allow global reach through partnerships.
Warp Films would be well-suited to produce our film given its small budget and focus on creative freedom. Additional funding could come from Film Four and the BFI film fund. Studiocanal would be an ideal distribution partner since they have experience distributing similar independent and British films through previous collaborations with Warp Films and Film Four. Their success in distributing niche films in the UK market makes them a good fit to handle our film.
The document discusses the film industry and provides details about the production and distribution stages. It focuses on the films Straight Outta Compton and I, Daniel Blake as case studies. Production involves creating the film and is handled by a production company. It notes that Straight Outta Compton had a larger budget since it was produced by a major Hollywood studio, while I, Daniel Blake likely had to use public funding sources common for British films. The distribution stage gets the completed film in front of audiences through theatrical release, home media, or digital distribution.
The document discusses the film industry and provides details about the production and distribution stages. It focuses on the films Straight Outta Compton and I, Daniel Blake as case studies. Production involves creating the film and is handled by a production company. It notes that Straight Outta Compton had a larger budget since it was produced by a major Hollywood studio, while I, Daniel Blake likely had to use public funding sources common for British films. The distribution stage gets the completed film in front of audiences.
A film distributor is responsible for marketing a film and getting it distributed to theaters, home video, and television. For the film opening described in the document, a major studio like Universal Pictures would be best suited as the distributor, as the genre (action/spy) has a mainstream audience. Universal has its own distribution arm, United International Pictures, which distributes many action and spy films. Choosing a major studio and distributor like Universal would allow the film to be broadly marketed and distributed globally to reach its intended mainstream audience.
This document discusses how films are produced and distributed through case studies of three production companies: Working Title Films, Warp Films, and Twentieth Century Fox. It explains that Working Title Films, as part of a major studio, has financial backing that allows it to greenlight films based on their marketability and profit potential. Independent Warp Films has stricter financial constraints and relies on public funding. While major studios have advantages in equipment and resources, digital technology has helped independent films compete on similar levels through lower production costs.
The document discusses how film distribution works, focusing on the role of distributors in marketing films to audiences and getting them exhibited in cinemas or on television. It notes the differences between film distribution systems in the US and UK, with US studios often controlling production and distribution, while UK distributor Film4 helped finance and distribute independent British films but struggled to appeal to both domestic and international audiences. The role of distributors in the film industry and challenges of independent films finding distribution are also examined.
The document discusses issues related to media ownership and concentration. It notes that a small number of large conglomerate companies, through mergers and acquisitions, now dominate markets like film production and distribution in the U.S. These conglomerates have advantages like financial resources and the ability to leverage synergies across business units. However, they also face disadvantages like pressure to appeal to mass markets. In contrast, independent studios have challenges in areas like financing and distribution but can take more creative risks. The document uses examples like Skyfall and Ill Manors to illustrate these points.
A film distribution company that might distribute our crime thriller film is Kaleidoscope Film Distribution (KFD). KFD focuses on thriller genres and has released similar films to ours. As an independent company based in London, KFD is likely to be reasonably priced and help appeal our British film to a UK audience. Self-distributing through a program like 4-Wall Select could also allow us to retain full control and profits, showing the film in their New York theater for a guaranteed week.
Media ownership refers to the process by which companies can own media outlets. It can be examined by looking at advantages and disadvantages of both large conglomerates and smaller independent companies. Sony and MGM produced the film Skyfall as a large conglomerate, benefiting from cross-promotion across industries, while Ill Manors was produced independently with a smaller budget of £100,000 but greater creative freedom. Independent companies face challenges distributing films on a smaller marketing budget.
st barts online sixth form course guide 2017-18adamrobbins
This document provides information about courses offered at St Bartholomew's School Sixth Form for the 2018-2019 academic year. It begins with an introduction from the Head of Sixth Form and information about exam results from 2017 which were in the top 25% nationally. It then provides details on over 30 A Level and BTEC courses available, including course content, assessment methods, potential careers, and entry requirements. Extracurricular opportunities are also highlighted through activities like Extended Project Qualifications (EPQs) and the school's wide range of clubs and sports.
This document provides a list of 13 revision questions to help prepare for an upcoming exam on media studies. The questions cover topics like the exam structure, what can and cannot be done during video clip viewings, essay writing time limits, technical areas to discuss for TV drama analysis, definitions of key concepts like representation, gender and sexuality, and what should be considered when writing about regional identity, ethnicity, and the film industry question.
The document discusses the impact of piracy and digital distribution on the film industry. If downloading films becomes common, it could negatively impact cinema revenues and film production. Simultaneous online/theater releases may also hurt cinema revenues. Digital screens provide cinemas flexibility in screening films, but their economic effects are unclear. The economic crisis may harm the industry's finances. Ensuring diverse films receive theater releases is important to support specialized/foreign films and cinema variety.
The candidate discusses how their personal experiences with media consumption illustrate broader audience trends. Films are no longer only viewed at cinemas, but can now be watched at home on televisions, phones, and other devices. Media companies have adapted by offering deals to attract viewers and purchasing rights to show films on television channels. This has taken viewers away from cinemas and placed them in similar home viewing situations, while also changing how films are marketed through ubiquitous blockbuster advertising that can drown out smaller film companies.
The film industry involves three main components: production, distribution, and consumption. Production is the making of films, distribution is promoting and releasing films in cinemas and home media, and consumption is audiences paying to view films. The US film industry has significant advantages over other countries due to its large domestic market and capital resources, dominating the global distribution of films. However, increased digital technologies have benefits for independent and low-budget filmmakers by enabling new forms of distribution outside the traditional system.
This document provides an introduction to new media technologies and how they are changing the relationship between media texts and audiences. It discusses several key aspects of new media, including:
- Web 2.0 and how it allows for user-generated content and a more democratic spirit on the internet.
- The concept of convergence, where technologies and media industries are combining platforms so content can be distributed across multiple channels.
- How audiences have become more active in consuming, sharing, and creating media online rather than just passive receivers of content from media companies.
- The democratic potential of new media where everyday people can now participate in journalism and media production through platforms like blogs and user-generated content sites.
The film industry involves three main stages of production: pre-production, production, and post-production. It also involves four key phases: production, distribution, marketing, and exhibition. While the major studios once dominated during the "Old Hollywood" era, their control decreased after regulations in the 1940s. However, today the major studios have regained control through mergers and as parts of larger media conglomerates, exploiting synergy across their businesses. Now, independent producers develop packages that studios finance and distribute globally across various revenue windows.
This document provides context and instructions for a film industry exam focusing on Working Title Films as a case study. It outlines that the exam will require demonstrating awareness of: [1] broad contextual issues in the media industry like ownership, convergence, and globalization; [2] how new media impacts the industry; and [3] using case studies to support arguments. Students should focus on the levels of production, distribution, exhibition, and consumption of films through case studies of companies like Working Title Films. The exam question may ask students to discuss how media products reach audiences within a studied media area or how institutions target specific audiences.
The document discusses how several emerging technologies and economic trends may impact the film industry. It raises questions about how the credit crunch, digital screens, piracy, downloading films, YouTube, and mobile viewing could influence what films are available and accessible to audiences. It also questions the importance of retaining audiences for cinemas and whether there should still be a British film industry amid these changes.
CGI has changed audience experiences and perceptions of reality in cinema. IMAX cinemas have had impact through their widespread appeal, targeting audiences with immersive experiences marketed effectively. DVD technologies have changed viewing habits by challenging traditional film-going in theaters and reselling content consumers already own through extras. New digital technologies have changed home movie-making and allowed independent distribution over the internet in some cases. Blockbuster films have become global merchandising enterprises. Streaming and downloading films online is increasingly popular and may replace DVD watching.
The document summarizes the major film studios in the United States as of 2007, referred to as the "Big Six". It lists the parent companies of each major studio, their film production and distribution subsidiaries, and their market share that year. It also discusses several smaller "mini-major" film studios that have had varying levels of success, including Lionsgate, Summit Entertainment, The Weinstein Company, and DreamWorks SKG.
The document discusses trends in media consumption among young people and how they relate to Working Title Films. It notes that young people have short attention spans unless something grabs them instantly, and they prefer instant gratification over slow narratives. They also tend to watch media alone on personal devices and are used to amateur visual styles from YouTube. As a result, young people may find films too long and passive compared to other media. The document asks the reader to reflect on which Working Title films they have seen and how, and whether those films seem intended for their demographic.
Working Title films target British audiences by portraying an idealized version of Britain that is overwhelmingly white, middle-class, and avoids contemporary social issues. This "comfortable" portrayal differs from films by British auteurs like Mike Leigh that are more provocative. The films also seem to appeal to notions of Britishness represented by characters like Hugh Grant's bumbling Englishmen. When targeting international audiences, Working Title films emphasize stereotypical British settings and landmarks that foreign audiences would recognize to make the films more appealing and marketable overseas.
Working Title Films is a British film production company founded in the late 1980s by Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe. It is based in London and produces both feature films and television shows. One of their breakthrough successes was the 1994 romantic comedy Four Weddings and a Funeral, directed by Mike Newell and written by Richard Curtis. Curtis has written several other popular romantic comedies for Working Title Films and is known for his portrayals of middle-class lives in London. Working Title Films has helped promote British talent both in front of and behind the camera on many of their films.
This document summarizes information about the film production company Working Title Films from several sources. It discusses Working Title's production of different genres of films, its success launching new directors and actors, its $600 million deal with Universal that gave it independence, and its strategy of maintaining tight budgets to achieve profits even on modestly performing films. It also provides details about Working Title's production process, departments, and discussions to expand into television production through a partnership with NBC Universal.
This document summarizes information about the film production company Working Title Films from several sources:
- Working Title Films is known for producing blockbuster comedies, period films, dramas, and films by directors like the Coen Brothers. It has launched the careers of many directors and actors.
- The company gives filmmakers independence and low budgets to take creative risks, as with "United 93" and "Catch a Fire". This approach can lead to both artistic and commercial successes.
- Run by Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner, Working Title has about 40 staff members and offices in London, Los Angeles, and Australia. It also has a lower-budget offshoot called Working Title 2.
Rupert Brooke was an English soldier and poet who wrote "The Soldier" shortly before his death during World War I. In the poem, he expresses his wish that if he were to die in a foreign land, that patch of earth would forever be considered part of England. He also hopes that his body, which was shaped by England, will enrich the soil and that his heart and spirit will live on eternally, continuing to experience the sights, sounds, and feelings of his native England.
This poem reflects on what it means to die abroad while serving one's country. It suggests that even if buried overseas, a piece of that land will forever belong to England since it contains the remains of a soldier who was born, shaped and given life by England. The soldier's heart and soul, now shed of evil, will live on as a pulse in the eternal mind.
This poem reflects on dying in a foreign land and how that land will always be a part of England. Even though the soldier's body rests overseas, his heart and spirit remain English as he was shaped by his homeland - the flowers, fields, rivers, sun, laughter with friends and gentleness of heart that made him who he was. A piece of England now resides in the foreign soil where he is buried.
1. FILM INDUSTRY: USING YOUR CASE
STUDY
PART 1: The issues raised by media ownership
Some background
• the pre-war studio system was based on a principal of Vertical
Integration where the studio had ownership of all stages of a
film’s life from pre-production through production, distribution
and finally, exhibition.
• The Paramount Decree put a stop to this in 1948 but since the
mid-70s we have seen a re-assertion of Hollywood’s power as
the studios have been integrated into huge media
conglomerates (A conglomerate is a collection of diverse
companies not bound by common activity or product, but often
reinforcing – even promoting each other’s interests).
• The danger here is that a sort of oligopoly emerges (the control
of a market for a particular product by a small group of
companies in which no one company is dominant…but where the
combined of the companies makes it difficult for other companies
to enter the market).
What are the issues raised by this for:
PRODUCTION – film production is dominated by films made by the
major studios. Projects are given the green light because they:
can reach large, global mass audiences
have huge potential spin-offs in other areas of media (games,
merchandise etc)
• It is difficult for films made by small independent production
companies to compete against products made by huge media
conglomerates.
• Films that appeal to particular sections of the audience are
more difficult to get made (films for older people).
• Also, it is difficult to make a film that reflects local/national
themes or issues and films in a sense need to have universal
(or at least trans-atlantic appeal if they are going to be made.
DISTRIBUTION & EXHIBITION –
• Independent films have to seek a distribution deal with a
distributor to make sure their film reaches an audience. By
contrast, the major studios have their own distribution arm,
and the distribution and marketing planning of a film can
begin months (even years) ahead of release.
1
2. •What is more, the studio can bring the huge financial power to
bear on the distribution and marketing of the film to make
sure that the film is given the very best chance.
• Independent distributors cannot compete with the spending of
the distribution arms of major studios.
AUDIENCE –
• The argument here is that audiences are bombarded with
films from major studios.
• Smaller, more independent films are edged out of the
marketing spotlight, often go unnoticed and are difficult to see
(at least in cinemas).
• This raises serious questions about the range and diversity of
films that reach the cinema.
• More challenging, intelligent and artistic productions
(independent and arthouse films) are overlooked in favour of
mainstream blockbusters etc.
CASE STUDY – Working Title Films
A film producer creates the conditions for making movies. The
producer initiates, coordinates, supervises and controls matters
such as fundraising, hiring key personnel, and arranging for
distributors. The producer is involved throughout all phases of the
filmmaking process from development to completion of a project.
Working Title’s first film My Beautiful Launderette (Frears, 1985)
was part-financed by Channel 4. It is quite typical of the industry
that a small independent production company should seek co-
production deals, financial support and investment from larger
media companies. Interestingly, because the investment came from
Channel 4 it was originally intended that this would be a made-for-
TV film, but the film was highly praised at the Edinburgh Festival
and subsequently came to have a theatrical (cinema) release.
Tim Bevan of Working Title describes how they financed films in
those early days:
“In those days for me, and still now if you are an independent
producer, you get a script or project and get a bit of money
from the UK and the rest from pre-selling to distributors
around the world. This was not a totally satisfactory state of
affairs because you have no single strategy for releasing the
film and it's very hard to make your money back.”
“Before that we had been independent producers, but it was
very hand to mouth. We would develop a script, that would
take about 5% of our time; we'd find a director, that'd take
about 5% of the time and then we'd spend 90% of the time
trying to juggle together deals from different sources to
finance those films. The films were suffering because there
2
3. was no real structure and, speaking for myself, my company
was always virtually bankrupt."
After a few years, Working Title developed a close working
relationship with Polygram (a large media company that was
mostly active in the music industry). Although Working Title had a
strong independent ethic, it had to seek financial support and
investment from other media organisations. At that stage, Working
Title was what Tim Bevan describes as “a company that’s
independent in spirit but with studio backing”’
Polygram Filmed Entertainment was sold and merged with
Universal Pictures in 1999.
Universal Pictures is a division of Universal Studios
(http://www.universalstudios.com/). Universal Studios is part of
NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media and
entertainment companies in the development, production and
marketing of entertainment, news and information to a global
audience. Formed in May 2004 through the combining of NBC and
Vivendi Universal Entertainment, NBC Universal owns and
operates a valuable portfolio of
• news and entertainment networks,
• a premier motion picture company,
• significant television production operations,
• a leading television stations group
• world-renowned theme parks.
NBC Universal is 80% owned by General Electric, with 20%
controlled by Vivendi.
Universal Pictures (or more specifically their
division Universal Pictures International) own a
majority stake in Working Title Films. Essentially,
Working Title Films now make films for Universal.
Essentially, Working Title Films is now part of
Universal Pictures which is part of Universal Studios
which is part of NBC Universal: a major multinational,
multimedia conglomerate.
NBC Universal is an example of a company that is able to have a
major impact on the market partly because of horizontal
integration (it operates so many different industries which
(potentially) can all have a positive impact on each other. The ways
in which its different companies and subsidiaries might work in
combination is an example of Synergy.
3
4. What does this change in ownership mean for Working Title?
We might assume that this is a bad thing in terms of the
independent creativity of the company. However, the two co-
chairman (Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner) are keen to emphasise
that as part of their arrangement with Universal, they can still
green-light their films:
What's the difference in your relationship with Universal
than it was with PolyGram?
Tim Bevan: “Previously we didn't have the power to green-light
ourselves but now we have considerable creative autonomy and can
in fact green-light something if we want to. I should also point out
that we really try and keep our budgets as low as possible and we
won't green-light a film if we think the budget is greater than what
we think the film is worth.”
The success of their films has secured Working Title a degree of
trust from the studio bosses in Hollywood: "They are unique
because they do everything so well," says Universal chairman Marc
Shmuger: "how they work with the talent, and the incredible
responsibility with which they manage productions and costs.
What's unusual, even unprecedented, is how consummately capable
and responsible they are.”
It is significant that Working Title have stayed in England and
although they have a small office in Hollywood, their operation is
very much based in London. The core pool of talent on which they
rely is also English. Variety Magazine describe them as being
“transformed into one of the cornerstones of Universal
Pictures while remaining true to their British roots and indie
spirit.”
In writing about media ownership you can argue that
Working Title has not been completely swallowed up by
Universal and instead has simply gained the security to make
the films it wants to make.
Fellner says: "I guess technically not owning the company means
we lost control, but the way the film business works is that it's
people-driven rather than structure-driven. Tim and I are by
profession film producers, and the business of Working Title is
producing films. By dint of that we get to run it how we want.”
"The production company itself will never be a profitable company.
The value is not in ownership of the company but in part ownership,
as we ultimately have, of the rights of any film made."
4
5. Bevan says: . "We turned the whole thing upside down. We were
now part of a big structure, so we spent much less time on finding
the money and much more on developing decent scripts ... It's no
surprise that two or three years after [1992] we started to have a
considerable amount of commercial success from those movies."
According to Bevan: "When we were independents we were very
wary about the studios. But what we realised through our
experience with Polygram is that being part of a US studio structure
is essential if you want to play the long game in the movie
business. Six studios control movie distribution worldwide. The
various supply engines, like talent agencies and marketing people,
understand the studios and everyone who is playing seriously in the
film business will be part of a studio structure."
So how involved are Universal?
Universal's involvement will vary widely from project to project.
Bevan gives two contrasting examples - Pride and Prejudice,
starring Keira Knightley and with a budget of just over $20m, and
The Interpreter, a thriller directed by Sidney Pollack and starring
Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. "With Pride and Prejudice they said
OK - they hadn't met the director, they didn't question any part of
the casting, when they saw the movie they were delighted with it.
The Interpreter is patently a huge movie, one of their cornerstone
films of the year. By the time you've taken into account marketing
and so forth, it's a gigantic investment. Collective heads are on the
line for a film like that, rather than just our heads."
In other words, if there is a lot of money resting on the film,
Universal will want to be more heavily involved. If not, they are
happy to trust Working Title to make the correct decisions.
With Universal’s backing, Working Title have considerable financial
clout and can invest in large-scale projects. It is worth noting that
“They have a bigger development production fund than the whole of
the UK Film Council.”
"If an independent producer wants to get a film off the ground then
Bevan and Fellner can make it happen on a big scale. They are
world players but have a big impact in the UK. Can they get a
project off the ground just by picking up the phone? Yes."
Being part of Universal does not mean, as some of you have
suggested in essays, that Working Title Films do not have to worry
about money any more.
Yes, they do have the security of bigger budgets for production and
they don’t have to chase around for deals with independent
distributors.
5
6. But, they still have to come up with projects that are going to work
and indeed, you could argue that there is more pressure on them to
secure the sort of box office success that Universal expects.
What can we conclude from the Working Title experience.
- Independent production companies simply cannot sustain
themselves and grow without investment from major media
organisations?
- Investment is necessary if production companies are not
going to spend all their energy chasing funding. With the
security of studio backing, they can devote their energies to
the development of the film.
- It could be argued that Working Title has managed to retain
its British identity and made resolutely British films despite its
involvement in Universal. Interestingly, however, you could
argue that the version of Britishness that it promotes is
packaged for American audiences and distorts the reality of
modern British life.
Historical/Heritage Dramas – Atonement (literary
adaptation), Elizabeth, Elizabeth: the Golden Age
White upper/middle-class rom-coms; Bridget Jones’s
Diary; Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Four Weddings and
A Funeral, Love Actually, Pride and Prejudice.
• Looking at it very cynically, you could even argue that
Working Title shows how it is not possible to sustain a
genuinely alternative/subversive approach to film-
making. It is ultimately necessary to ‘sell-out’ to a big
audience and ultimately ‘sell-out’ in terms of chasing
the biggest audience. It is arguable that My Beautiful
Launderette (1985) the first Working Title film was also
the most radical/controversial/political/subversive.
• It is also interesting to note that Working Title has a
very strong and long-standing relationship as producers
of films by the highly successful American film-makers
Joel and Ethan Coen. They have described their role as
very hands-off and it is difficult to see these films as
being British in any real way. Also, with films like
Sydney Pollack’s The Interpreter (starring Nicole
Kidman) Working Title are also now involved in
producing very mainstream American films and it could
be argued that their involvement is a further step away
from their British roots.
• The recent film State of Play is an interesting example
of the Americanisation of Working Title. It’s made by
a British Director (Kevin Macdonald), has a British star
(Helen Mirren) and is based on a British TV drama set in
6
7. Britain (State of Play written by Paul Abbott). However,
no doubt to appeal to an American audience, the film’s
action has been transplanted to Washington DC and the
film stars a major Hollywood star, Russell Crowe.
7