We’re going to delve into this debate today by analysing the defences offered for the practice and seeing if they hold up. We will also look at how nepotism affects the industry and if anything must be done about it.

Great Expectations

Some people have fought against the idea that nepotism is solely responsible for their success or that the practice is wholly beneficial. Firstly, Lily-Rose Depp argued that you must still meet certain criteria to attain work. Therefore you can argue that people with family connections don’t automatically receive jobs because of them. Their success is just more visible.

Many children of famous artists have also found themselves struggling under the weight of the expectations set by their famous family association. Gwyneth Paltrow said that “nepo babies” often must work twice as hard to prove they weren’t unfairly given a job because of their name.

Finally, some claim the practice simply amounts to parents helping their children succeed. Which frames those critical of nepotism as fighting against those simply trying to be kind.

Privilege

But while raising interesting points these arguments are quite flawed. “Nepo babies” may not automatically get jobs because of their family but they have a way to be seen by industry higher-ups that others don’t, purely because of their relatives which is unfair. Their family status also often comes with financial safety. Giving them an advantage over people from disadvantaged backgrounds due to the average amount of unpaid work they put in to get their foot in the door. “Nepo Babies” success also narrows the opportunities available to new artists from underrepresented groups through “perpetuation of a narrow…talent pool“, further promoting the industry as an area only open to those with connections and money. This has been cited as a problem by many and the defences of nepotism seemingly overlook the similar serious struggles industry professionals from diverse underprivileged backgrounds go through. 

This doesn’t mean that “nepo babies” aren’t talented. Nor does it mean that they don’t face problems within the system or their personal lives. Also while we should call out nepotism, it doesn’t mean “nepo babies” should be shamed for their heritage or following their family into the industry. Nepotism is a systemic issue and serious structural work must be undertaken to make the industry less beholden to famous players’ whims.

What Should We Do?

Personal biases plus the industry’s insular, profit-driven nature ensures that nepotism will always remain in some form. But opportunities for change do exist.

Firstly, more financial support must be given to create and showcase films outside of the dominant industry producers. Independent films offer more opportunities for non-connected cast and crew. Their viewing can boost the careers of those involved and motivate others to get involved. And more financial support will relieve the monetary stress felt by independent creatives.

Secondly, the industry must be forced to give more resources and opportunities to talent from underprivileged and diverse backgrounds. Although it won’t wholly solve the nepotism issue it will allow for higher profile promotion of opportunities available for up-and-coming non-connected talent. Some also suggest the implementation of methods like blind auditions and representation targets to create fairer outcomes.

Finally, it’s important not to let unfairness be normalised. Where possible it should be called out for perpetuating an unequal industry. These points should represent a starting point for discussions on how to make the industry less nepotistic.

Also Read: Deep Brain’s AI: Transforming Hollywood’s Landscape in 2024

The post Nepo Babies and Industry Privilege: Unpacking the Controversy appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we will look briefly at how media figures who started on applications like Vine, YouTube, TikTok, etc. began breaking into films. We will analyse why video creatives have begun to enter films. As well as how it could impact the industry’s future.

Influencers Come To Films

Films featuring well-known internet personalities have been around since at least the late 2000s. Films like Press Start: The Movie and Ryan and Sean’s Not So Excellent Adventure were made by YouTube creators as passion projects and extensions of their online personas. Then 2009’s Mystery Team and 2010’s Fred: The Movie became the first movies starring/directed by YouTubers to receive cinematic releases. While neither financially succeeded Fred: The Movie became the first part of a trilogy. Mystery Team marked the debut of many recognisable modern actors. Additionally, they both opened up the possibility for further movies to be released cinematically. Allowing them to capture audiences outside of their niche online fandom. 

And as the years have progressed we have seen more influencers/creators from various platforms make their film debut as stars or directors. Vine stars like Liza Koshy and TikTok stars like Addison Rae have popped up in films as varied as Boo: A Madea Halloween, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts and Thanksgiving. Plus films like Talk To Me and Arctic have seen directors emerge who made their start on YouTube. The generation that has grown up with video creation and social media is now becoming part of the wider filmmaking industry.

The Power of Influence

So why have influencers become more prominent in filmmaking? The first explanation is that having a well-known online creator/influencer attached to a project works well from a marketing standpoint. Allowing marketers to automatically sell the project to the creator’s/influencer’s audience. While giving exposure for the creator/influencer to wider audiences that may not have heard of their content. Thus making their involvement a cynical marketing/self-promotion ploy. 

However, it would be naive to assume that these moves are done purely for that reason. Many people have dreams of being part of the film industry and being a video creator/influencer helps to develop useful film industry skills (whether it’s screen presence, knowledge of how to use cameras, editing etc.). Essentially it allows creators to learn skills that could benefit a move to filmmaking/acting. This makes filmmaking/acting a natural progression for many influencers/creators.

And crucially as well as the above-mentioned skills these personalities have a unique relationship with their audience. Like film stars and celebrity directors, these creators/influencers use different platforms to amplify personalities/work that makes people interested to see what they do. That said, these figures can interact with fans in a more direct and personable way. They don’t have to make newspaper statements or television announcements they can just open their accounts and speak directly to their audience. Allowing them to have more of a feel of authenticity and relatability. Which makes it all the more intriguing to see what these influencers are doing. As these influencers aren’t Hollywood stars or high-profile creators, they are social media users like us. Or at least appear to be. Which can benefit marketers, the creatives and the audience’s sense of investment in a project.

The Future

With popular media sites like YouTube and video-sharing platforms like TikTok inspiring users to take up video making and content production, coupled with filmmaking institutions encouraging influencers to make films, we will likely see more figures begin to become part of mainstream filmmaking. Which could result in some much-needed variety in filmmaking and performance perspectives.

However, as I have stated previously many apps that allow influencers to gain prominence privilege certain voices over others. Limiting the possibilities for marginalised creators and showcasing eye-catching content over experimentation and sometimes overall quality. This means the potential for more diverse filmmaking and casting could be squandered for attention-grabbing headlines and self-serving self-promotion of popular figures. Will artistry trump marketing with this shift? Or is it likely to be a mixture of both?

Also Read: Behind the Name: The Origins and Reasons for Actors’ Stage Names

The post The Vine Social Media Generation Enters Film appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we are going to look at several challenges the MCU has been facing recently. We will review how they could respond to them, and whether we think their response will be enough.

Far From Satisfactory

So what problems is the MCU encountering at the moment? Well firstly, as Tatiana Siegel has pointed out, the franchise has had to drastically change its plans after Jonathan Majors, who was to play Kang the Conquerer, the MCU’s next big villain, was charged with domestic violence. The MCU, therefore, has to change all of its plans to pivot away from Majors. This will require time and money to do as the character was apparently already a major part of several upcoming projects.

A tall order but as the world’s most successful franchise the MCU has access to the capital to shift things. However, the franchise has also just had its worst box office performance ever with The Marvels. Regardless of its overall quality, The Marvels marks the first time an MCU film has made an outright box office loss. Which could signal the start of more uncertainty in the studio’s box office footing.

Additionally, we have seen many stories about Marvel butting heads with its creatives. VFX artists who work for Marvel have recently made moves to unionise in the face of large workloads and a lack of adequate time management and compensation. The studio has also faced many accusations of undercutting its creatives work through constantly changing direction and underpaying its writers. Something that might not be viewed favorably in the aftermath of the industry strikes.

Plus with much discussion about Marvel potentially losing its audiences as they age or become alienated by the number of intertwined movies, Marvel could be in trouble if it doesn’t think of solutions fast.

No Way Out?

So what is Marvel planning on doing? Well as Siegel stated there are talks about the potential of bringing back the original Avengers stars for a new film which could regain fan confidence and box office attendance. Marvel has also already announced that releases would be slowing down to try to retain good-quality output.

There is also potential to reinvigorate the franchise with the release of the new projects that Disney got from Fox. Coupled with the incorporation of the Netflix properties.

And Marvel is also taking steps to change the direction of some of its upcoming projects. Marvel even plans to have dedicated executives oversee the development of its television projects. Which will hopefully produce more focused results.

Marvel’s Endgame

It is entirely possible to see Marvel bounce back. Dialling back the number of productions to combat audience fatigue and allow more time for creatives to make good films and deal with the troubles currently faced by too many titles and Jonathan Major’s departure is a positive thing. However, the MCU is still at risk if it doesn’t fix its attitude towards creatives and think about its overarching goal.

With some of its VFX artists now unionised (which could hopefully influence more artists) Marvel will have to operate with more regard for its workers if it wants to keep them on board in the future. This means they should expect higher production costs/time if they want good quality end results. Equally, if the company doesn’t fix its relationship with writers and directors, it’s easy to see the brand being avoided by many creatives. If Marvel wants to continue making these movies it needs creatives onside to keep people watching. The recent strikes taught us that Hollywood cannot live without its creative blood and if the studios refuse to recognize their contributions then the price will be costly.

And if the MCU still aims to indefinitely produce interconnected media then it will eventually begin to alienate audiences as individual projects keep requiring more and more things to be watched. Marvel certainly needs to think more about its plans for the future.

Also Read: The MCU Phase 4: Dividing Audiences?

The post Marvel Cinematic Universe: From A Love To Hate Relationship appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today I want to discuss the benefits of the MCU having a definitive ending. I will look at how ending the MCU will be positive for its overall narrative, the creatives behind it, and the industry as a whole.

The Narrative

The MCU has so many characters, narratives, and so many projects overlap, it’s becoming hard to keep up. This will be more pronounced in the upcoming cross-over movies. Where prior story knowledge is necessary to invest in the action. The MCU was bound to eventually encounter this problem. As its universe grows it’s gradually becoming more alienating for those who haven’t seen everything.

Since Endgame the MCU has had to conclude or continue the stories of characters with prior status in the universe, introduce new characters for future projects, and set up the next universe-spanning goal. All in a shorter time frame than the Infinity Saga. It’s a lot for non-die-hard fans to deal with. Plus with the huge cinematic end goal now passed, representing the culmination of years of emotional investment, it feels as if the MCU is only continuing because it can. Which could represent a problem in keeping fans invested. Introducing beloved characters can rejuvenate interest. But if this continues indefinitely it may lessen the shared universe’s impact by lacking focus and enforcing how replaceable characters can be.

A definitive ending meanwhile would tell audiences that everything being released is building toward something. It will also build a sense of stakes and emotional engagement as having a finite time left with these characters will build appreciation for everything audiences see. Most of all it will give audiences satisfaction from having a sense of closure to these characters and stories. People remember endings and if it’s done well the MCU’s legacy will be permanently cemented.

The Creatives

This move would also benefit the creatives. It’s often noted how few directors can showcase their own styles in the MCU. Additionally, with the number of projects increasing more demand has been placed on workers like effects artists. This has led to many MCU films feeling similar and interchangeable, along with quality suffering and artist burnout.

The Marvel brand in general shows a lack of appreciation for what industry artists bring to a project. Valuing brand cohesion above all else. It’s therefore in the best interests of creatives that the MCU has a well-planned endpoint. To ensure the films’ quality don’t continue to degrade, to give breathing room back to the artists, and to end the high-profile devaluation of industry creativity.

The Industry

Some may say ending the MCU would lower cinema attendance. But other studio superhero projects can still bring in audiences. Ending the MCU wouldn’t end superhero films. But it would allow space for new voices and stories.

The MCU represents a golden age for superhero films. If it were to end satisfactorily it could, like the classical westerns, encourage future creators to explore, experiment with and critique the genre. It also would not necessarily mean an end to future Marvel projects. However, not having to continue the ongoing MCU story and aesthetic would allow for more creative freedom. All leading to more exciting genre possibilities.

Conclusion

This isn’t meant as an anti-MCU article. The MCU experiment has had many great aspects. But post-Endgame its flaws have become impossible to ignore. Personally, I think it would be best for the MCU to end before its self-perpetuation destroys the goodwill it has engendered over the years.

Also Read: The MCU Phase 4: Dividing Audiences?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Endgame: Why The Marvel Cinematic Universe Needs A Definitive Ending appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we are going to look at the recent rise of generative A.I. programmes and how they can be used in film production. We will see if it is possible to currently use A.I. to make films. Additionally, we will look at how it could potentially change the industry.

“No Strings To Hold Me Down?”

Currently, there are many A.I. tools available that can create a movie’s building blocks. For example, OpenAI tools like ChatGPT, with enough input information, can create a refined script and shot list. Programmes like Speechify can convert text to speech using a variety of voices. Including celebrities like Snoop Dog and Gweneth Paltrow. Applications like Midjourney have already been used to create background images for animated productions. Such as the short The Dog and The Boy. And some tools allow you to edit videoes. Meaning a lot of a movie’s core elements can already be created and accomplished by A.I. But what about a film itself? 

Currently, projects like Pictory and Synesthesia use either stock footage or selected human avatars to make up their videos. Making them more useful for YouTube or business videos. However, trials are being undertaken to produce A.I. that will be able to create original video work through text inputs. Google is researching two A.I. projects aimed at making films. One aims to create realistic-looking A.I. video (Phenaki). Another wants to create high-definition short clips (Imagen Video), both from text prompts. Although these projects currently are only aiming for small videos it could potentially pave the way for longer video creation further down the line and also provides the opportunity to create original videos not based on prior material.

“A Machine, An Imitation Of Life” 

With all of the possibilities and the rate of progression of A.I. what are the implications for the film industry?

Some may say that the errors that A.I. runs into when rendering subjects in images would make it unsuitable for creating films, however, as technology improves, it could conceivably reduce those problems. On the other hand, even if this is not a possibility there is room for discussion of how this technology could be used to create experimental short films, that deal with more surrealist or unconventional imagery. If these programmes become available to the public these A.I. programmes could, like the advent of consumer film equipment and mobile phones before them act as a way of giving space to more independent filmmakers who may not have the finances and time needed to make a film.

It’s hard to see A.I. being a wholesale replacement for human film production. while these programmes can emulate human speech for writing and delivering dialogue, make artwork and other things, the spectacle of A.I.-created art will never wholly do away with the experience of seeing something achieved by humans. Whether it be acting or effects. The art of filmmaking is a collaborative process where teams of people with their own visions and experiences come together to make something with all the idiosyncrasies and sometimes improvised or unintended moments that entails. A.I. could probably never replicate that. There are also definite issues regarding image safeguarding and copyrighting and more to consider. But A.I. does present new ways to challenge and potentially help the industry in the future.

Also Read: A.I Generated Art & Movies: A Collision Course

Also Read: A.I Generated Art & Movies: The Rise A.I In Acting Performances

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post A.I. Generated Art & Movies: Can A.I. Make Movies? [Part 3] appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Study’s Aims

The second Looking Glass survey was conducted in 2021 by Brightpurpose on behalf of the Film and TV Charity. The charity focuses on promoting diversity and inclusivity within the industry. As well as helping people facing financial hardship and promoting physical, mental, and social wellbeing.

In 2019 the first Looking Glass survey was conducted. It investigated how mental health problems within the media industry compared to national levels. As well as how workers could be supported, and what aspects of the industry posed the biggest challenges to the management of workers’ mental health. The 2021 survey continued this research by looking into how the COVID-19 pandemic and other underlying industry issues e.g. racism, affected industry practitioners.

Key Findings

One of the report’s encouraging findings was that despite the two-year gap and the impact of the pandemic the industry’s wellbeing score (19.3) and the number of people who reported having “good” or “very good” mental health (32%) has remained largely unchanged from 2019s survey (wellbeing score – 19.4 and 35% reporting “good” or “very good” mental health). There is even growing optimism that the industry is starting to move toward positive change regarding workers’ mental healthcare. Certainly good news. However, the report also contains some concerning statistics.

78% of 2021s survey respondents said that the workload intensity common in the industry had negatively affected their mental health. A jump from 63% in 2019. 46% of participants also said that working under covid restrictions badly impacted them. Covid restrictions limited the amount of socialisation permitted during filming, as well as cutting many workers off from the support of family or friends. Which made work less friendly. And workers were less able to get emotional support from sources outside of work.

57% also experienced some form of abuse in the 12 months prior to the survey. Including bullying, sexual and racial harassment, or discrimination. All of which have serious consequences on a person’s mental comfort. 39% of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic respondents reportedly experienced racist abuse in the past year. This caused 43% to consider leaving the industry. Among all respondents, 65% considered leaving the industry in the past year over mental wellbeing concerns. And this number reached 74% for disabled workers.

We Must Do Better

One big contributing factor to some of these statistics is the sector’s culture and attitudes towards mental health. 51% of respondents hold these factors responsible for harming their mental wellbeing. Additionally, many workers fear being judged for talking about their mental health because of the topic’s stigmatisation (42% of people said they would not talk about their mental health with industry colleagues for this reason). And of the respondents that spoke out only 23% felt their situation improved afterwards.

This shows that the industry is not doing enough to create an atmosphere where people feel comfortable talking about their mental health struggles. Equally, it is not doing much to combat various elements that cause mental health strain on workers. Indeed many people think the industry is only paying lip service to doing more about mental health struggles right now.

Conclusion

The Looking Glass 2021 report shows that despite the industry’s average wellness score and the number of workers in a positive place with their mental health not changing significantly since 2019, the culture fostered within the industry has overwhelmingly hurt participants’ mental health. A lack of help during Covid restrictions did not help matters. But the various forms of bullying, intense workloads, and the lack of genuine commitment to listening and responding to people with mental health struggles show that the industry’s shortcomings have been present for a while. And it needs to change fast.

If you are suffering from any of the problems mentioned above, please use some of the resources provided here: Film and TV Charity, Mind, NHS. 

Also Read: How Film Changed Me: On Millennial Comedies

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Looking Glass: Report Shows Bullying & Harassment Still Prevalent In The UK’s Film & TV Industry appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Let’s take a trip through history and the current media landscape and see if we can begin to understand what led to the decline of the old studios and the rise of the streaming giants.

Where They Are Now?

In Hollywood’s Golden Age (between the 1920s and 1960s) there were eight studios that made up the biggest movie production houses: MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros, 20^th Century Fox, RKO Pictures, United Artists, Columbia Pictures, and Universal Pictures. These companies were responsible for producing some of the greatest films, both of the golden age and of all time. However, after the golden age, these studios had many varying fates.

RKO Pictures was largely folded by the late 1950s. The company was later revived, but it had little success. Its most recent film was 2015’s Barely Lethal. Along with this the other iconic studios are now all owned by other companies. Sony bought Columbia Pictures in 1989; ViacomCBS has owned Paramount since 1994; Comcast owns Universal; Disney purchased 20^th Century Fox in 2019 and rebranded it as 20^th Century Studios; AT&T controls Warner Bros; MGM acquired United Artists in 1981. And despite facing bankruptcy in 2010 MGM survived and is currently being purchased by Amazon.

Several things have contributed to the current Hollywood landscape. For example, the loss of studio control over cinemas and the prevalence of television were major factors in ending the golden age. This left many studios floundering financially and needing to be saved through buyouts. Many of these production houses have managed to recover thanks to buyouts, cinema box office, and distribution deals. But a new market is providing huge competition for them.

The Streaming Wars

Movie streaming platforms have emerged as a huge market force in the past decade. This is because streaming and VoD services offer more flexibility for viewers, allowing them to view a wide range of movies from home for reasonable prices. Which has led to a huge audience frequenting these services.

And with the Covid-19 pandemic forcing cinemas to close, over the last year streaming sites were able to rob big Hollywood studios of their control of the market. Allowing these platforms to effectively become the new Hollywood studios, bringing out big new movies weekly (both original and distributed on behalf of other companies) that captured attention.

The most prominent players in the western world of streaming are Netflix, which has 208 million subscribers worldwide and earned around $25 billion in 2020, Amazon Prime, which has 200 million worldwide subscribers, and Disney+ with over 100 million subscribers. All these companies provide wide catalogues of films and TV shows, new and old, while also having their own brands of original content. However, the way these companies acquire said content is very different.

Netflix and Amazon Prime get their originals through producing and acquiring the distribution rights to various projects. Disney+ similarly produces and has distribution rights for many IP’s. But they also have their own film production studios. Meaning Disney is fully capable of making their own original content to put on their streaming sites. Thus ensuring they keep 100% of the revenue, which makes Disney+ much more like a traditional film studio. This makes it a huge threat to other film companies because of its ability to pivot effortlessly between streaming and cinematic distribution for its movies.

Those that Survived

Streaming has transformed Hollywood and movie production/distribution over the last few years. And even with cinemas reopening big studios will need to take steps to mitigate the financial damage done by the pandemic. This means that studios are now, more than ever, having to consider pivoting to streaming to recoup their losses.

Comcast entered the streaming wars last year with Peacock, made to showcase films from Universal. ViacomCBS also replaced their streaming network, CBS All Access, with Paramount+. But other studios are going to larger lengths to win over audiences.

Through its $8.45 billion purchase of MGM, Amazon hopes to boost the content it can offer. In addition, some also speculate that Amazon will use MGM to produce content for Prime, rather than letting it remain a standalone entity. Similar to what Disney is doing with its studios. And recently AT&T announced that it will merge Warner Media and Discovery into its own streaming platform. This will put the back catalogue of Warner Bros, CNN, Turner, and Discovery (as well as the streaming services HBO Max and Discovery+) into one place. These moves have the potential to really shake up the market.

But while this influx of new streaming platforms from movie studios and the move towards studios making content for streaming may be financially beneficial and offer consumers more content, it also shows that streaming services are slowly moving towards offering content produced exclusively by them and their affiliates. Thus customers may soon have to subscribe to various sites to get everything they want. Rather than having a diverse range of material on various sites.

What do you guys think of the effect the streaming wars is having on the American film industry?

Also Read: The History of Paramount Pictures

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What are the Paramount Consent Decrees?

Before finding out which impact the halt of these decrees has, let’s go back in time and get to know more about it. The Paramount Consent Decrees saw the light of day in 1948 and cut off big production companies from only showing their films in the cinemas that they purchased. They focussed particularly on the Big Five Studio, such as Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and RKO Pictures. While there was still some space for block-booking, it was very restricted as the block size was limited to only five films. The blind buying, buying films before seeing the movies beforehand, wasn’t allowed anymore and an administration board was founded to make sure that these requirements were enforced.

While the Paramount Consent Decrees was institutionalized in 1948, a lot of discussions happened before that. Right after the first draft was drawn up in 1942, the studios disagreed with it and didn’t fully comply with the decree. Therefore they proposed another plan called the “Unity Plan” with which companies could buy theatres and cinemas could still reject the films. This was obviously to the dislike of the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers and they came up with a lawsuit. Eventually, the United States Supreme Court chose in favour of the theatres in 1948.

After more than 72 years, this hard-won case is now coming to an end. It’s no surprise that when this news was announced the market value of major American players in the movie industry rose. AMC went up by 14.7%, Cinemark with +5.3%, Marcus with +6.57%, Imax by +3.3% and National CineMedia by +2.4%.

What does the termination of Paramount Consent Decrees mean for the film industry?

Lately, we’ve seen that delaying one movie has a massive impact on many different parties. The toppling of the Paramount Consent Decrees is no different. The biggest impact is without a doubt the one felt by the film exhibitors. While at first, they were still, to some degree, able to choose what they wanted to screen and on how many screens but now those terms can be fully dictated by the big production companies. This also impacts the kind of movies that will be shown in cinemas. The blockbusters will gain even more attention, theatre slots, and ‘screen time’ while independent films or films with a lower budget aren’t getting the possibilities they deserve.

It probably will also affect the diversity we see on screen. It might not be the biggest impact because we already see the A-list actors in most of the films but that percentage of big stars will rise even more. This will give upcoming talent almost no chance due to which the diversity of nominees for award ceremonies will decrease.

Other players in the film industry that feel the aftermath of this decision are the production and distribution companies. They now have the chance to buy cinema chains that will only screen their own produced movie. This results in companies trying to monopolize the movie landscape. One of the biggest examples is without a doubt that Amazon could be the possible buyer AMC Theatres, which also includes the Odeon chain in the UK. It’s just the question of whether or not they will go for it.

They probably won’t take that chance and we’ve seen the reason for that during the last few months without even noticing it. It’s because of the rise of streaming services such their Amazon Prime but also Diney+ and Netflix. Those services, which also are production and distribution companies at the same time, saw that people wanted to see their content on their platforms so why should they invest in theatres when they can use the money to improve their platforms and content.

What will the future hold for the cinema and theatre chains?

The future of cinema and theatre chains is so unpredictable. We’re just going to have to wait what impact COVID-19, the upcoming of new streaming services and the ending of the Paramount Decree have. To be continued that’s for sure.

Also Read: BAFTA: Steering Towards Greater Inclusion

The post What Does The Termination of Paramount Consent Decrees Mean For The Film Industry? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Releases Delayed

In an effort to stop the spread of the virus, people were advised against attending large gatherings, such as concerts and weddings, with many being cancelled or postponed until a later date.

The 007 Franchise is one of the biggest, with the latest instalment carrying lots of positive behind the scenes buzz. In addition, it will also be the swansong for Daniel Craig’s version of James Bond. Originally scheduled to release on April 2nd, and at the height of marketing, with the title theme released and press tour about to begin. It will now release in November, a whole eight months later, in light of the Coronavirus situation.

Bond was arguably the biggest release of the summer, but it was shortly followed by several others, including Mulan, Peter Rabbit 2, A Quiet Place 2, Black Widow and ironically Fast 9, as well as some smaller releases.

Perhaps one of the biggest casualties is The New Mutants, which has now been delayed four times, from its original date of April 13th, 2018. Currently, there is no release date, like most of the delayed films, although it could still happen this year.

Productions Stopped

In addition to completed films having their releases delayed, films and many tv shows, are halting production, films like Matt Reeves’ “The Batman”, “Mission Impossible 7” “Jurassic World: Dominion” “The Matrix 4” and the third instalment in the Harry Potter prequel “Fantastic Beasts” series have all suspended production..This is all done for the health of cast and crew as well as an effort to stop the spread of the virus.

While these delays are understandable, they will likely have knock-on effects. While many of these films are not due for release until next year at the earliest, depending on how long this situation goes on for, this could result in some of, if not all, these films being delayed due to the new timetable.

Film release windows are a delicate science, with studios needing to consider potential competition, as well as the target audience and other factors when releasing a film, so some of these films could have severe delays, such as Fast 9 being delayed by a full year.

Festivals Cancelled

As part of cancelling large gatherings, many film festivals have been cancelled, including SXSW. This is a major blow to countless independent and smaller budget films that count on the exposure gained from these festivals to get distribution. Cannes is working on a backup plan, a “virtual marketplace” where films can be screened, and presentations from filmmakers. It would also allow for video meetings, for deals to be hashed out and more.

New Releases Streaming

With most cinemas closed, the few films that are releasing aren’t bringing in big numbers at the box office. As a result, several studios, like Universal, have released their films online, with some on the same day as they are released in theatres. Frozen 2 and (soon) Onward can also be found on Disney+. While this is a simple and effective solution to the current isolation measures put in place, it does bring into question the future of cinemas and new releases. Traditionally there is a gap of several months between a theatrical release and a film being available on demand. With these extenuating circumstances, this “rule” no longer applies. Christopher Nolan recently wrote a letter in defence of cinemas.

It remains to be seen what kind of effect this will have on digital releases in the future. Jason Blum predicts that there will be a change after the pandemic has subsided, with fewer films being given theatrical releases or having shorter runs in theatres. Netflix has encountered this problem, giving The Irishman a short stint in cinemas upon its release in order to qualify for Oscar nominations. This could give streaming another leg up over cinema, if people can watch a new release at home or go to the cinema, which would they choose?

Hopefully, cinemas will still be around for a long time yet after this crisis is over, even if we might have to wait a little longer for some of this year’s big releases.

Also Read: The Simpsons’ Obsession With Films

More: Coronavirus: How It’s Affected the Film Industry (Part 2)

The post Coronavirus: How It’s Affected The Film Industry appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

A changing Bollywood

I was recently featured in Anita Rani’s BBC 2 documentary titled “Bollywood, The World’s Biggest Film Industry“, we had a very candid chat talking about politics, culture, and sexism. The Indian film industry is the largest in the world and attracts thousands of people to the city of Mumbai every year – not only from smaller towns around India but from all over the world. Mumbai, at present, is more cosmopolitan than its ever been before. And with distribution channels like Netflix and Amazon now running, they’re also creating original Hindi content shows for audiences around the world. This surge is helping bridge the gap between the west and east. On a more positive note, we are also seeing more emerging actors on film. This is definitely refreshing. a major difference I noticed six years go in India, was that this did not exist as it does today. Fast forward to 2019 and the game is changing.

What’s the difference

As an outsider and an actor born and raised in the UK, there are definitely differences I recognised then, which still exist now. The positive being that web-based platforms are allowing new talent to come through, in what most definitely is an industry based on nepotism. I am super stoked that I have had opportunities that maybe wouldn’t have been possible when I first went out there, as well as seeing fellow actor friends thrive as they have never before.

Nonetheless, there are a few observations I have made, which I argue is still lacking in the Hindi film industry. The major one for me is work ethic. Through education in the UK and the work I have done professionally, be it on stage, or short films, I can definitely say the work ethic has been fantastic. There is a respect for all levels of cast and crew and no differentiation of treatment between actors, that I have noticed.

In India, the A-list actors are definitely treated in a different capacity to the crew and extras. Extras are often never paid and are sold the opportunity based on it being be part of a big budget Bollywood film. The concept of minimum wage, or specific unions such as Spotlight, do not really exist . There are a few unions, however, if mistreatment has happened on a production, or a production pulls you out after you signing contracts, I haven’t seen any of the unions being able to take any stand.

Punctuality is also an issue within the film industry in India. Things rarely happen on time. I have been blessed to work with bigger productions like Dharma Productions and Excel Entertainment, who have definitely set better examples of this, which is encouraging. I do think there is still much room for greater improvement.

Working with talent agents

Another difference which still exists is the formality of both industries. In the UK, it is somewhat impossible to hear about great auditioning opportunities unless you are with an agent. I struggled with this when I immediately graduated from university (studying Drama) because I did not attend a drama school. Presently, I feel due to the increase of management companies in the UK, there is a greater chance today to be able to get with an agent. The top 5 agency’s in the UK are still very difficult to get into, unless you’re a big name or cast in something great. I find it can be a vicious circle. As a new actor you want experience and of course you want to be cast ultimately. In order to get this however, you need an agent, yet the best agents want you to have had that experience. Tricky tricky!

In India, the concept of having an acting agent is fairly new. There are many more personal managers who tend to handle celebrities and make sure they accompany them on their shoots. Casting coordinators play a bigger role in the Hindi film industry. They take a commission cut for any audition you get through them, similar to how agents work in the UK.

What’s being made

Last but not least, I feel another major difference is the type of content being made, and hence the demand on the artist is different. Bollywood is known for creating fantasy worlds of escapism, with beautiful costumes, sets, music, and dance.
Though the industry is changing, and we now see more writers and directors emerging with their own styles. There are also more indie films being made for festivals, but the commercial popcorn cinema (as some call it) is still very much existent though. These are the kind of films the masses in India want to see.
For the commercial films, the typical model-like features of being tall, with a great figure is essentially what is in demand. The actor is seen as a product, and though this is of course true worldwide, there is definitely less demand on being physically “perfect” in the UK. One may argue Hollywood and Bollywood both, for commercial films, do demand a lot more “perfection” from actors in terms of how they look. The male actors, normally have a ripped physique and are required to have some basic dance skills. Though this was what was dominating at one time, the surge of young fresh actors, not always linked to film lineage, has meant we are now diverting our attention more to the craft than the actor’s body. Again, I think we have a long way to go, but the small changes are an indication of what is to come, and I am happy to see this.

I hope this article was able to shed some light on the differences of working as an actor in the UK and India. There is definitely no formula or guarantees for success. I believe hard work and perseverance is the ultimate characteristics to have, and the focus to keep getting better at the thing you love to do. I could have gone on and on about more intricate differences, but then I think I could write a book on this one day. Till then, I hope I was able to share a peak of life between both places. They’re both incredible and fascinating, and both have so much to offer in their unique ways. I am blessed to be able to work in both places.

The post My Journey From The UK To Bombay appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In Episode 2 of The Big Picture Film Club Podcast, host Presh Williams speaks with Johnny Sachon & Katie Goldfinch. Discussions issues such as sexism, the creative filmmaking process, networking, and the future of short films.

Listen on our Soundcloud channel and don’t forget to like, follow and share!

Episode 003 ft Johnny Sachon & Katie Goldfinch

The post Episode 002 The Big Picture Film Club Podcast ft Johnny Sachon & Katie Goldfinch appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Episode 1 featuring film makers Damien Swaby and Graham Higgins, discussing all things film including tech, funding and distribution.
Hosted by Presh Williams.

Listen on our Soundcloud channel and don’t forget to like, follow and share!

Episode 003 ft Damien Swaby & Graham Higgins

The post Episode 001 The Big Picture Film Club Podcast ft Graham Higgins & Damien Swaby appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.