UK films urged to be more 'mainstream'

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Stuart

To understand the reasoning, you have to understand how Hollywood works. This is something the UK Film Industry seems not to understand at all.

Think of it this way. A blockbuster film may cost $200 million, but it can bring in anywhere up to $1 billion. In the case of something like Avatar or some of the Harry Potter films, over $1billion

That pays for a lot of smaller films to be made. Some of these may be quite profitable. Profit which can be put to other smaller films.

We have some of the most actors and crew on the planet, yet we seem to make only a few films.

I think the problem is that the UK film industry needs to pull it's finger out and look at Hollywood for how it needs to be managing the business side of things. We also need to look at how our local authorities help the film companies, after all, a single large production can bring tens of millions of pounds into a local economy. Something which, even when the economy is a better state, no local authority can afford to turn down.

The UK film industry produces some brilliant films, but there seems to be a snobbery about producing big budget crowd pleasing films. It seems to prefer funding many arthouse films instead of one large budget mainstream film. Having said that, Film Four and BBC Films are doing a sterling job of producing good (and profitable) mainstream films.

Hollywood's way of doing things works. They do produce a lot of high budget "blockbuster" films, but that enables them to produce many more art house films than we can afford to.

One final question. Name me a major film series that is entirely funded by (and therefore showing a profit for) the UK film industry? I'll give you a clue. Harry Potter and James Bond don't count as they are funded by Hollywood.

The trouble is that we do not have any major studios in the UK, which is what America and France have.

Until that is the case, we should continue to make arthouse films, which are the ones that have won international awards rather then the blockbusters America makes.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The trouble is that we do not have any major studios in the UK, which is what America and France have.

Tell that to

* Pinewood Studios
* Shepperton Studios
* Elstree Film Studios
* Ealing Studios
* 3 Mills Studios
* Twickenham Film Studios
* The Paint Hall
* Dragon Studios

All are counted as major international studios

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Tell that to

* Pinewood Studios
* Shepperton Studios
* Elstree Film Studios
* Ealing Studios
* 3 Mills Studios
* Twickenham Film Studios
* The Paint Hall
* Dragon Studios

All are counted as major international studios

Thery are just studios were they do some production work, I am takling about:

Warner Brothers

Paramount

Sony Pictures

Universal

MGM

20th Century Fox

StudioCanal

Pathe

Gaumont

etc

That is what I am talking about

[Kymmy]

Which as usual is utter rubbish, all the ones listed are major film studios that can fund, produce and distribute films, exactly the same as the US companies mentioned..

You also have to remember that a lot of the US studios don't even fund their own films..

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Which as usual is utter rubbish, all the ones listed are major film studios that can fund, produce and distribute films, exactly the same as the US companies mentioned..

You also have to remember that a lot of the US studios don't even fund their own films..

I think there is a difference. The big American studios will be involved in all aspects of a film, from greenlighting it, through filming, post production, to Marketing and distribution.

The studios you mention are only ever involved in the filming and post production of a film. They do not develop their own projects, fund them, or get involved in the marketing and distribution.

In fact, looking at the Pinewood website (Pinewood own a few of the studios you listed), they call themselves a production facility rather than a studio).

[danielf]

Why exactly does Cameron feel he should tell the Film Industry what type of films to make?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Why exactly does Cameron feel he should tell the Film Industry what type of films to make?

He wants a rival to Hollywood!

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by danielf

Why exactly does Cameron feel he should tell the Film Industry what type of films to make?

Probably wants to cut more Arts funding..

[Hom3r]

Well George Lucas would rather films made like the UK, as its taken over 20 years for Hollywood to accept his latest film, and hes paid for most of it from his own cash.

Director George Lucas says it took 20 years to get his latest film made, "because it's an all-black movie".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16525977

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Well George Lucas would rather films made like the UK, as its taken over 20 years for Hollywood to accept his latest film, and hes paid for most of it from his own cash.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16525977

He has made a lot of films in the UK, Star Wars and Indiana Jones

And anyway he tries to have as little ties to Hollywood as possible, all they do is distrbute and market his films!

[Mr Angry]

I think that one of the key things here (from Camerons perspective) is the reliance on funding from cross collateralised finances.

Many of the creative arts industries and trickledown businesses in the UK are wholly or majorly dependant on state funding of one sort or another.

Many "arts" based businesses are simply unsustainable and are, in effect, slush funds where treasury / state funds are used to sustain otherwise unsustainable "projects" which are all interdependant.

The British film industry became one of the first victims of austerity when the UK Film Council was shut down. Cameron is trying to encourage creative types to be less dependant on funding and more entrepreneurial in their approach to film making / funding.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think that one of the key things here (from Camerons perspective) is the reliance on funding from cross collateralised finances.

Many of the creative arts industries and trickledown businesses in the UK are wholly or majorly dependant on state funding of one sort or another.

Many "arts" based businesses are simply unsustainable and are, in effect, slush funds where treasury / state funds are used to sustain otherwise unsustainable "projects" which are all interdependant.

The British film industry became one of the first victims of austerity when the UK Film Council was shut down. Cameron is trying to encourage creative types to be less dependant on funding and more entrepreneurial in their approach to film making / funding.

The History of the UK film Industry is full of attemepts to rival Hollywood, but they have all failed in the end, like Rank and the Grades

When Hollywood does faces a major decline like Broadway after the 70s, only then will the UK film industry will be dominant in World Cinema!

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I think there is a difference. The big American studios will be involved in all aspects of a film, from greenlighting it, through filming, post production, to Marketing and distribution.

How much though of the US film industry is based round one company.. The studios have been pulled apart, merged, pulled apart again. Most funding comes from 3rd parties and most distribution has to involve many companies due to the separation of media formats.

I don't honestly think that even Cameron is aware of how inaccurate his usage of the word "mainstream" is in this instance.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

How much though of the US film industry is based round one company.. The studios have been pulled apart, merged, pulled apart again. Most funding comes from 3rd parties and most distribution has to involve many companies due to the separation of media formats.

I don't honestly think that even Cameron is aware of how inaccurate his usage of the word "mainstream" is in this instance.

The other companies involved in distrubuting the film via the man media formats are mostly owned bt the studios themselfs, for example:

Warner Brother owns Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Television Distribution, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, DC Comics, Warner Home Video, Time Inc (owner of many magazines), Turner Networks (owner of cable channels like CNN and Cartoon Network) and the CW (major US network)

Paramount owns MTV Networks (owners of MTV and Comedy Central), EPIX and Showtime Networks (movie channels in USA), Paramount Home Entertainment/CBS DVD, CBS, CBS Television Studios, CBS Television Distribution and Simon & Schuster