(Q6)

This is the 'samsung 42 intelli zoom' and this is the actual camera we used for filming.

Who would be the audience for our film? (Q4)

Our film is aimed towards a teenage or young adult audience. Our film fits with the market of other films aimed towards this age group such as ‘Superbad’ (2007). Our characters and humour we wish to portray is similar to Superbad's which allows us to presume our film will be a success.

After doing a survey and finding out our potential market was for 16-24 year olds, we did further research. This age usually goes with demographic groups D and E: blue collar workers and the unemployed or students. The research also suggested they would want to just enjoy the film without having to think about what’s going on known as the ‘Hypodermic Needle Theory’. Our film will be purely for entertainment purposes but will also cater for personal identity meaning the audience can relate to the characters and their life, allowing the audience to become more engaged.

The boys, though dressed like geeks, all have a small amount of fashionable clothing on: a checkered shirt for Stuart, ‘DC’ trainers for Bob and the cool ‘Batman’ belt for Tom. All these will allow male viewers to relate themselves to the characters from first glances and as a result become more engaged with the film. Female viewers will also relate to Stacey from an early stage, an example being when Stacey applies her makeup. Also, she could make some female self-conscious viewers to feel more confident about themselves when stuffing her bra. Perhaps members of the audience will do the same and realise they are not alone; the result at the end of the film is Stacey stops doing this and still looks beautiful, something perhaps young girls may see and follow. All these little details allow the audience to engage with certain or all characters less than one minute into the film.

Also, audience feedback suggested that viewers would expect sexual references. To do this subtly we included the ‘Male Gaze Theory’ shown when Stacey shows her belly as she pulls down her shirt and also stuffs her bra. This was using the enigma code and allowed us to feed the audience many little facts surrounding each character with them being hidden, leaving the audience in their hypodermic needle state. One example of this is when you first meet the character Tom. He is eating a muffin watching ‘Loose Women’. The fact he watches ‘Loose Women’ will feed the audience the information that he is a bit feminine or is pro equal rights for women.

After evaluating our film we came to the conclusion that it would have to be certified as a 15. This was not our intention as we would have liked it to be a 12A, widening our potential market. However, our film contains strong language and sexual references. An example of strong language being used very early on in the film is Bob saying "oh shit" during the opening or Tom's shirt having the word "bitch" written on it. The reason our film can’t be a 12A is because the strong language is frequent. We also viewed other comedy films to help us reach this conclusion. ‘Superbad’ (2007) and ‘Role Models’ (2008) both contain similar jokes and themes to our film and both are rated 15. Both were rated 15 due to sexual reference and strong language.

Which institution would distribute our film? (Q3)

Originally, we debated whether or not our film would be for a niche audience or a mainstream. However, after researching the difference between black comedy and conventional comedy and realising our film is a conventional comedy we decided our film was for a mainstream audience. This led to the realisation that the larger film institutions would distribute our film rather than smaller ones, such as British film which usually leaves their distribution to be handled by larger American intuitions anyway ( an example being 'Working Title' and 'Universal Studios'). Also, we would need a film institution that focuses or at least has some experience with comedy genre distribution.

Horizontal integration would seem like the obvious choice as both institutions are equally respected and both have a voice within their partnership. A good examples of horizontal integration can be shown with the relationship of 'DC comics' and 'Warner Bros' in creating 'Batman Begins' (2005), 'The Dark Knight' (2008) and due to release in 2012 'The Dark Knight Rises'. One article speaks about how 'Warner Bros' saw potential in 'DC comics' and how they "will target the teen audience and feature super heroes from the DC Universe, such as Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and The Flash". Both companies had equal opportunities within one another to make profit. DC owned the rights to 'Batman' and has an already huge fan market what could ensure the film’s success. 'Warner Bros' could produce the film to such a standard that fans would not be disappointed. This 50/50 contribution from each institutions led to the result of a still surviving horizontal integration. However, if one of the two did not offer the 50% contribution then I am certain this conglomerate partnership would be vertical. Baring this in mind, I have realised our institutions is not already large like these two and therefore has little to offer. In conclusion, a horizontal integration partnership would be a near impossible task for small, British based institutions, unless with another British based institution which in return wouldn’t promise profit.

As we are not an American institution the chances of our film being a success without the help of an America distributor is very unlikely. This partnership of a British based institution with the help of American based one can be shown through 'Working Title'. After 'Working Title's' hit film 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' (1994) making a profit of £244 million worldwide, Americas 'Universal Studios' bought a share of the institution and in returns funds them up to £35 million for each production.

 The partnership has made over 95 films to date but at the price of 'Universal Studios' owning now 67% of the British institution. This is a success story of a good long lasting vertical integration conglomerate partnership.

However, this will not always be the case shown from the famous 'Pixar' vs 'Disney' split. Both being American based institutions; both being masters of animation. 'Pixar' was founded in 1986 and was originally a low budget institution nearly ruined due to lack of funds. After a new investor the institution released a few short films such as 'Tin Toy' (1988) and started being recognised for its possibilities. Directed by John Lasseter (an ex-employee of 'Disney', previously fired for his wild, 3D animated picture length dreams), Pixar released 'Toy Story' (1995) grossing over $40 million its first weekend. 'Toy Story' was largely funded by 'Disney' who joined during 1992 after seeing some potential in the new 3D animation software. 'Toy Story' and films that followed such as 'A Bug's Life' (1997) wouldn't have been successful without the help of 'Disney'.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Pixar Animation Studios Inc. said Thursday it ended talks with Walt Disney Co. to extend a five-picture deal for Disney to distribute Pixar films.
Pixar, the computer animation pioneer founded by Apple Computer Inc.'s Steve Jobs -- and the maker of the hit "Finding Nemo" -- said it would begin talks with other companies to distribute its films starting in 2006. "After ten months of trying to strike a deal with Disney, we're moving on," Pixar CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "We've had a great run together -- one of the most successful in Hollywood history -- and it's a shame that Disney won't be participating in Pixar's future successes."
The move was a clear setback to Disney, which reaped a financial and critical bonanza from the partnership and has struggled with its own strategy for animation.
Disney said Pixar's final offer would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars from the existing distribution deal and was not sweet enough going forward.
"Although we would have enjoyed continuing our successful collaboration under mutually acceptable terms, Pixar understandably has chosen to go its own way to grow as an independent company," Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner said in a statement.

The article goes on to say the reason they split: "Pixar had complained that the terms of the distribution deal were tilted too heavily in Disney's favour". This showed to me that even good vertical integration, conglomerates can split due to both institutions not backing and meeting the other's demands regarding distribution. Though the partnership has since been restored it is now a horizontal integration partnership. 'Disney' suffered major losses and has come to terms that 2D animation (the art they specialize in) has become obsolete and without 'Pixar' as a partner 'Disney' could face its doom.

7 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip (taken from the documentary 'The Pixar Story') also explains the split of conglomerates from 'Pixar' and 'Disney' workers that was involved within the argument.

This split taught me that one partner would have to be submissive for the distribution process and as we are a British based institution that partner would have to be us.

This self-taught submissive rule leads me back to the 'Working Title' relationship with 'Universal Studios'. The submissive 'Working Title' is now a huge institution and has flourished, releasing films of the same genre as us with the distribution help of 'Universal' such as 'Ali G' (2002). 'Universal Studios' also realises many of its own comedy films such as 5 time award winning '40year old virgin' (2005). This would lead me to the conclusion that due to their expertise in vertical integration partnership our institution 'Emerald Productions' would team up with 'Universal Studios'. In return we would most likely be giving them a large percent of our institution ownership.

What potential opportunities could 'Universal Studios' offer our institutions?

Now, the best chance of not just our film being a success but also our institution's, would be by teaming up with 'Universal.' I have researched a short list of possible profit growing opportunities. 'Universal Studios' owns its own theme park; any film that grows a large public interest usually gains its own ride, shop, arcade or park lane named after it. Each of these would grow a potential market for our DVD sales and also interest for a possible sequel for our film. Also, 'Universal' has a large range of merchandise, not just sold within its theme park boundaries, but all across the western world. Merchandise for our film could vary from toys/figurines to shirts with possible memorable quotes from the film. 'Universal' has knowledge regarding the British market shown by 'Working Titles' success. This helpful feature will put out film in the best cinemas in Britain such as the 'Odeon' and possible 'Multiplexes' in America.

(Q2)

 An example of the male gaze theory I spoke about during the presentation.

Example of the class differences I spoke about during the presentation.

In what ways does our film use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real comedy films? (Q1)

We stuck to basic convention rules for comedy to illustrate our genre. Our opening had to inform our audience that they were about to watch a comedy film, setting the atmosphere. This is why we used other traits of fellow comedy films to form this information. The music from our opening is funky and uplifting, similar to all other mainstream films targeting the same audience which we are (15-24year olds).

Our characters looked the part; they can easily be compared with other geek trios of the same genre.  

The similarities between both parties of geek are obvious. They all look geeky physically and via their clothing. We have a geek with glasses and a geek who is slightly overweight. Also, we have ‘Tom’ who is ginger, though not related to these geeks he can be compared to ‘Napoleon’ from ‘Napoleon Dynamite’ (2004).

Our character ‘Stuart’ also has hair like Napoleon, frizzy and curled what also can connote he is a geek through the physical conventions of comedy.  

Most comedy films show their titles early on within the clip. However, we debated to challenge the stereotypical convention and to show our title at the end of our opening. One other film has done what we intend to, for example ‘Step Brothers’ (2008) also showed the title at the end of its opening, challenging the ‘normal’ method. I cannot find a video of good quality to illustrate this point. However, we chose to put our title after the character Stacey is introduced so the 'girl' from the title 'About a girl' can be understood to be Stacey.

Our opening suggests to the audience that we have sub-genres within our comedy. Stacey connotes this will be a romantic film, leading to a rom-com. The fact she is also a main character instead of an extra highlights she isn’t just present for the male gaze theory but instead that she’ll play a key role in our film, further connoting this film has a romantic sub-genre.  However, due to the age of all four characters we can also connote that this film is a teen comedy, like 'Superbad' (2007) which is the film we drew inspiration from.

‘Superbad’ influenced our film as it has a similar plot to our film as well as it being a huge success.

“Superbad” turned to be very popular in the USA. But, at first, nobody even dared to speak about it possible success, “Superbad” was predicted to be a sleeper hit, but now the situation has completely changed, “Superbad” is a bona fide box-office favorite.

What a shit! A movie produced for less than $20 million with two dubious actors playing main roles “Superbad” became one of the most warmly accepted comedies of the summer 2007! Already in the first week it gathered $33.1 million (box-office gatherings). Although the majority of critics predicted only $25 million (during the whole season).

This article highlights the success of ‘Superbad’ and shows teen comedies are up and rising. This success influenced us to do a similar film to ‘Superbad’ but with a British twist. So we took the teen conventions for example costumes, physical appearance and prop. This stealing of conventions should hopefully guarantee our film will be a success.