How has Working Title adapted to changes in the film industry?

Everything within the film industry changes over time, and Working title is no different. Since 1984, when working title was founded, there have been many changes throughout the entire film industry. We saw the creation of HD, 3D and 4D films, which all helped recreate the idea of a children's film. In the film industry Working title may appear, in comparison to most other film production companies, to have not changed since it was originally started. In fact, it has changed just as much as others over the past 27 years.
Working Title is known most commonly for its many rom-coms, which became very popular in america due to the repetitive idealistic British and American relationship, which appeared in almost every rom-com they made. For example: Notting Hill, is the story of a British man falling in love with a famous American actress. This is very popular in the united states because they lap up the idea of British romance and also the imagery of rich famous Americans (which appears in most of Working Titles rom-coms) pleases the audience, because they enjoy seeing other people portray their positive sides.
Working Title uses the same actors in many different film genres to link one audience to a different aspect of their films. The use of Rowan Atkinson in both 'Johnny English' and 'Four weddings and a funeral', is very effective, because it makes the audience of one film want to watch the other. The two films are completely unrelated, but the fact that an actor influences whether or not to watch a film, shows us how Working Title effectively use this sales technique.
Working Title use DVD sales in many different ways in order to gain the target audiences attention. When shopping recently, I noticed that there was several working title films, being sold in a bundle, the films involved were, Love actually, Bridget Jones' diary and four weddings and a funeral. There was only three bundles left on the shelf, which shows us that Working Title has been creating many films that all follow one genre. This is an interesting technique because it means that their audience never falters.
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is the main film that shows Working Titles adaption within the Film Industry, it is the first film too have a completely new spin on the Working Title audience, the film is a thriller based upon the book by John Le Carre. The film was not as much of a success on the classic Working Title audience as their other films were. This is due to the fact that Working Title has never taken this angle before. The thriller of the mind, was so far from being what Working Title usually produce that Universal refused to finance it at all. Studio Canal took the risk instead and helped finance the first ever Working Title Thriller.
In my opinion the film was a success, it showed a new side to Working Title and it proved that they were in fact adapting to the film industry. The Film gave Working Title a completely different audience and was very highly reviewed even though it was such a jump from classic Working Title films.
The leap from Rom-coms to thrillers did however give Working Title one advantage. It gained the audiences of European countries and helped show small independent film companies how they can adapt to the film industry as well.

Johnny English

The second trailer from Working Title is the incredibly well known Johnny English. Armed with Rowan Atkinson and millions of juvenile jokes 'Johnny English' hit off immediately. But looking back at the trailer several years on, I realised that I must of been insane to go to the cinema and watch this. The trailer not only has the cheesiest voice over ever, it also brings attention to the worst aspects of the film. The only part that I can see within the two minute trailer that sells the movie to me, is the fact that we get an image of Rowan Atkinson for almost every single second. I feel slightly conned of a childhood when I peer into the depths of Johnny English, and realise that it became so successful only because it targeted an audience of children and their kind parents. Now, I am not going to just insult a trailer because I have seen the full film, I also think that there are many good points. For one, the over use of Rowan Atkinson's face is a clever technique that means the audience can predict that if they liked other films staring him, they will also like this one. Another sales technique I noticed was the positioning of the cheesy voice over. At one point in the trailer we see Johnny English covered in excrement whilst the cheesy voice says, "From the producers of Mr. Bean". This is effective on the audience because Mr. Bean normally came hand in hand with looking filthy in supposedly funny situations. Throughout the trailer the over use of well known actors and bad jokes gives the audience the slight giddy feeling where they are so stunned by the trailers random sequence of events that they suddenly find themselves in the cinema watching the full film in 3D with premiere seats and large popcorn. To conclude, The trailer for Johnny English contrasts well with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, because they both target different audiences and use sales techniques that were more common when the film was made.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Is a highly well thought of Thriller of the mind from Working Title. The trailer seen above shows very little of the film itself, but it does portray a very strong image of what the film is about. Some trailers, like that of the 2010 film 'Monsters', do not show the film for what it truly is. This leads to many people sitting in the cinema waiting for the Smurfs to bring Dobby back to life.

In this trailer however, several very strong techniques are used. Firstly, the intense and jumpy music has been fitted to each segment of the trailer so that it flows effectively. I must admit to watching the trailer through several times just to intake nostalgia after watching the film in the cinema. This was mainly down to the fact that the trailer was so effective on the audience. Secondly I realised that text had been subtly used throughout the video at several points to add dramatic effect. This works well because it brings up many questions that the audience eventually ask themselves, whilst watching the film. The third interesting effect I noticed was the gaps between each snippet of film. The longest time within the trailer that the scene does not change was for 3 seconds. This added a very jumpy effect to the film which fitted well with the music, the change between scenes does not only keep the audiences attention, but it also entices them into watching the film to find out more. To conclude, this trailer is not only incredibly effective on the audience it also manages to do what very few trailers ever manage to do, which is to portray the idea that the film is a thriller in under 2 minutes. 

The Life Aquatic

I recently watched another Wes Anderson film and because I own a media blog I thought I might as well write about it.
The film is based around Bill Murray playing a character called Steve Zissou. Steve makes some form of documentary out at sea. The point of why they make movies is never really mentioned and is therefore quite vague.
Throughout the film Steve Zissou hunts down a large shark that killed his friend called 'The Jaguar Shark'.
A young reporter joins the Zissou team (Which is made up of several people dressed in red hats and blue suits) so she can document Zissou's life.
Owen Wilson plays Ned, who is Steve's potential son, but it is never specified whether or not he really is Zissou's own child.
As with most of Wes Anderson's films the constant small quirky details add a lot of humour and effect. The film follows the 180 degree rule by creating the entire set in one piece. This means that when a character moves through the boat, the camera can follow them walking up stairs and through doors, in one continuos shot. This is amazing to watch and every time a scene like this takes place it becomes very effective on the audience.
At one scene in the film Ned and Zissou are talking and Steve mentions that if Ned was in fact his real son he would of called him Kingsley. Zissou then keeps mentioning to Ned about the idea of changing his name to Kingsley Zissou. A little while later in the film a small card is pushed under Neds door, we then see a point of view camera shot as Ned looks at the card. It is informing Ned that he has had his name changed to 'Kingsley (Ned) Zissou'. Not only is the build up executed brilliantly, it also a classic style of Wes Anderson, to add up small detail to create a quirky joke. This is shown in almost all of his films. For example, in the film Rushmore (1998) the main character, Max, has two small badges, one for perfect attendance and the other for punctuality. After moving schools he awkwardly allows a friend to choose a badge. The way in which the scene is executed makes the situation more realistic and entertaining.
Throughout the film Zissou seems to be very different from Ned's memories of watching him in earlier life, as time goes on Zissou slowly changes from being a slightly arrogant and jealous, to becoming true, pure and happy. This is shown at the end of the film (after Ned has died in a helicopter crash) when Zissou gives Ned's team zissou ring to a small boy. The credits then roll and the Zissou team walk nostalgically onto their boat (which is partially destroyed from a pirate attack and because it is quite tacky and old anyway).
So many scenes in the film involve small and funny detail, but it is hard to describe them to an audience who may not have watched the film. For me to easily explain why this film was amazing it would take every human in the world to first watch it with me, and then for them to all listen to me perform a presentation on it.
I have posted a link to the film below and hope that out of the zero people who read this blog, that at least one of you decides to watch it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/

Film Consumption and its a effects (Also available in 3D)

But it doesn’t stop there, as time goes on everybody’s televisions seemed to become squashed into a large tablet on a stand. Then of course they sprouted extra channels and a high definition mode for those lucky few who have previously blinded themselves at the cinema watching 3D films to finish off the job.  Now the commonly used ways of film consumption have already been stated, but let us not forget the many other ways for humanity to diverge upon a film. There is of course ‘Apples’ large contribution to the film industry, not only does I-Tunes sell an over powering amount of films but the iPhone and iPod touch have now become the best way to watch films on the go. I once owned an iPod touch and after wasting £50 on iTunes cards and films I came to the conclusion that it was a massive waste of my money and time. But for many months I was happily sitting staring at a tiny 3” screen, there is obviously a very good marketing technique for portable film devices because my addictive personality soon became under threat by the large expanse of films that I could watch all day long. Luckily enough I sold my iPod so as to not fall prey to film marketing. For the first time in my life I realised that technology had affected the love I had for watching films to the extent of making me spend excessive amounts of money on films that would soon be on television anyway. To conclude, the technology for watching films is of course always improving, so I really wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years I was watching a film in 5D with a fan blasting the smells and whether conditions of the film at me. It may seem like a strange idea to us now but looking back thirty years people would not of expected us to be watching films in 3D*.

New technology is the most interesting part of modern society; without technology adapting constantly we would not be able to progress. Films and the ways we watch films change together, one affects the other and they both change together. When 3D films first entered our lives the majority of people jumped to the occasion and blinded themselves with blue and red glasses. Because of the sudden excitement surrounding 3D films, directors decided to start making films based entirely around the 3D aspect of viewing. I remember watching “Spy Kids” in 3D when I was younger and not caring at all about the plot, only the 3D effects managed to keep me entertained.

This just shows how easily and audience is entertained, we all suck in whatever new technology there is in a search for more enjoyment. But what happens when 3D has become so mainstream that it no longer has any influence on customers? Probably just another even more ludicrous attempt to grab the public’s attention, like 4D, or films where the audience votes for the outcome (this would most likely work because an audience normally only wants to see what they like). As time moves on so does film technology and its attempts at marketing itself. Since 2009 the sales for 3D films have repetitively increased, this is probably due to the fact that not all films have yet to be consumed by the 3D world. However, not all films are 3D obviously, the majority of people in fact have been sitting at home and watching films on there own televisions. Since 2003 the amount of money that has been spent on T.V and DVD has gone up by over 80 million. As a large amount of the population enjoy staying at home with the lights dimmed and the curtains closed it is obvious why showing films on television is such a successful idea, even online films have shot up in the last 3 years to an astonishing amount. The fact that television is doing so well is all down to the technology of course.  With the computers and laptops that are available today who wouldn’t stay at home watching films and avoiding work? The large expanse of online streaming websites means that people can download a video for free (and slightly illegally) and watch it a few minutes later. The other reason that home cinema entertainment has become so loved is down to the fact that we literally can have home cinemas. When we turn our 28” plasma 3D screen T.V there is no need to leave the house for a few days.

Over the years televisions have had there own stylish evolution. Starting off as a partially wooden box with 3 channels and quickly gaining mass to allow the whole family to all enjoy BBC news together.

The ways in which technology have effected film consumption are that it has made people more aware of films and it has aloud larger amounts of people to access films cheaply and in many different environments. One day films may die off because the nostalgia that comes with watching a film you enjoyed has been corrupted by new technologies and extravagant business plans. But at this current date technology is merely allowing people to watch films in easier or more interesting situations, and in my eyes there is nothing wrong with that.

*Thirty years ago they may not of thought that we would be watching films in 3D but they did think that we would be driving around in hover cars...

Robin Lubach