Homework Key Questions - Channel 4

Do you see any similarities between the early channel 4 and an independent film production company?

There are similarities between Channel 4 and an independent film production company to a certain extent. What Channel 4 broadcasts is similar to the movies that an independent film company would produce. An independent production company takes risks in the genre of film that they create, the narrative and the scenes within it that may contain something controversial back in the 80's. This is similar to Channel 4 and how they would broadcast a program which contains something that the audience will talk about, in their Remit they include innovation, experimentation and creativity. The experimentation is where they would include controversial subjects like homosexuality and racism.

Also Channel 4's Remit discusses that they will appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society. This means that they will be targeting a range of audiences instead of the same audience that hollywood production companies would target to ensure their returns of finance. This is similar to how an independent production company targets a small audience which isn't part of the crowd, they type of people which would be diverse to the common population.

How do you think the move in 1993 to being a more commercially motivated broadcaster, with the ability to sell their own advertising space, affected Channel 4's acquisition and commissioning decisions?

I think that Channel 4's decision making changed for the wrong reasons in 1993. The fact that they would now be getting commissions for selling advertising space made them greedy for revenue therefore they began to forget their Remit and how they were supposed to broadcast innovative and creative programs and appeal to a diverse audience and society. Therefore they began to broadcast programs which they knew would target a mass audience so that they gain more viewers which lead to the channels ratings increasing meaning its popularity would sky, which would then enable them to get more commissions as advertisers would recognise that buying advertisement space on Channel 4 would increase the audience's awareness of their product/service and therefore increase their sales.

In what ways do you think Channel 4 have lead to innovations in British Television?

Channel 4 have lead innovations in British Television. For example, Channel 4 News triggered other broadcasters to begin with news programmes to educate and inform their viewers of recent events. Also Channel 4 lead in News programs popularity as it is seen to be the least biased and mostly viewed news programs on British Television. In the 1980's Channel 4 had developed a reputation as a broadcaster at the cutting edge of youth programming with shows like 'The Tube'. This lead to channels like ITV beginning to create programs which targeted a certain group of audience with different programs. Channel 4 was seen to give a voice to a part of the British population which didn't have one, for example the children who call graffiti an art, instead of an act of Vandalism.

But Channel 4's desperation to be the leaders of innovation in British Television lead to them showing controversial content like Racism and Homosexuality which wasn't perfectly accepted by society at the time.

How has Channel 4 strayed from the ethos of it's original remit as a public service broadcaster to showcase innovation and diversity in television?

Channel 4 strayed from the ethos of its remit as a public service broadcasters by becoming part of the crowd, and making profit maximisation their first priority even though they have claimed to stay as a broadcaster that shows innovation and diversity in the programs they broadcast. An example of this is Big Brother. Even though we can argue that BB is a innovative program which is different to all others as a reality show, and contains a diverse range of people to cater all audiences, it is mainly due to the ratings that Big Brother has brought, that Channel 4 have continued to broadcast it. I can say this as BB has created a lot of controversy through out its time on air, this is because it is aired live, therefore the people in the show are not playing a role, but themselves, and show real human emotions which occur as normal. They get angry like normal people, and get into arguments just like everyone. This is a reason in which audiences are so fascinated by the show and continue to watch it. In BB a controversial moment occured when a Celebrity Big Brother was on and Jade Goody was seen to say a racial remark towards Shilpa Shetty. Even though this occurred, and Channel 4 were in risk of being fined for this content being broadcasted, they continued to broadcast BB for further seasons, as it brought revenue to the channel. This is an example of how Channel 4 have strayed away from its original remit to satisfy a diverse audience and be innovative, but instead they broadcast the programs which attract the most common british viewers.

Does the factual programming on Channel 4 today have the same educational value as it did 25 years ago?

I believe that Channel 4 has lost a lot of its educational value in the past 25 years. Back then programs were specifically aimed at increasing a individuals knowledge on a certain interesting subject, for example A documentary on a specific breed of Animal. But now Channel 4 broadcasts programs like 'The F Word' in which Gordon Ramsay continuously swears at the kitchen staff, therefore creating that identity of himself and being passed on to the title of the show. This program doesn't have much educational value but instead contains entertaining aspects like when Ramsay begins to get angry and swear in the kitchen. A more suitable program which would fulfull the the Ethos of Channel 4 would contain more focus on the cooking and how to make it and other things like how to run a restaurant etc. This suggests that Channel 4 have lost the seriousness and importance of thier educational programs by turning them into a joke of which it brings just as much entertainment as educational value, therefore these programs have become less factual and more commercial and popular for the audience which could also lead to people saying that British Television is a cause of a less educated society.

Are there any arguments to say that Channel 4 still, in some ways maintain it's original remit?

In certain aspects Channel 4 do still maintain their original remit. They still continue to have innovation in their content, for example the Dispatches Series, and Extraordinary People. This is an example of programs which contain a factual and interesting aspect which will appeal to less of a main stream audience which want to see something different, they type that don't mind watching things that may make other think urghh! It also broadcasts many independent production companies movies as Film 4 is a subsidiary of Channel 4, they are entitled to free broadcast on Channel 4. A distinctive characteristic is seen in Channel 4, to broadcast a wide range of programs instead of the same genre of show through out the day.

Is Channel 4's ownership of Film 4 Productions an example of Horizontal or Vertical Integration?

I believe that this is an example of vertical integration. This is because whilst Film 4 are a production company which create the movie from start to finish, Channel 4 is a British Television Broadcaster therefore they are part of the exhibition sector of the film industry whereas Film 4 is involved in the Production sector. Whilst they both are part of the same single entity of Channel 4, they both work on different jobs for the same movie.

Welcome To London Zoo

In class on 8th October 09, we had a lesson based film making. We were given the chance to randomly pick our Production company, Budget and Scenario. As a group, we got Hollywood Flix (production company), a £20 Million budget and the scenario of 'A fantasy film about a boy who discovers London zoo is filled with magical animals'.

Synopsis

The synopsis of the story that we came up with was kept conventional to make it less risky, just as a Hollywood film company would conventionally do to make sure they receive views from a big target audience.

A Boy called Nicky has a day trip to London Zoo with his parents, when he gets there he is amazed by the Zoo, he loves it and wants to enjoy every moment he has in there. Nicky goes to the toilet just before leaving the Zoo, being such a clumsy child Nicky falls over in the toilet. When he comes out he notices everyones gone, and the Zoo is closed up for the night leaving him very confused and frightened without his parents. In this Zoo there are magical animals, both good and bad. The first group of animals to meet Nicky are the bad ones, the plan of the bad animals is to make them think that the animals are his friends so that he trusts them, and then they will attempt to trap him and eat him. Whilst this is going on the good animals are reviewing this and secretly protecting Nicky from the bad animals evil plans. Eventually Nicky is told that the animals are trying to hurt him, he gets close with Leon the Lion who eventually become best friends. Now that Nicky is with the good animals, the group of bad ones are planning to take him away.

As the ending approaches, the whole Zoo is forced to divide into good and bad to protect or eat the innocent child. As a conventional Hollywood children's movie, the good side wins, but at a cost. Leon the Lion dies to protect Nicky, as the heartbroken child cries away into Leon's chest, the whole surrounding fades away and he wakes up in the same place that he initially fell over in the toilet. He gets up and leaves the toilet, to see that everyones is actually there and his parents are waiting for him ready to leave. On the way out, Leon the Lion winks at Nicky, bringing a big smile to his face as the story ends.

Locations/ Sets

We had £20 Million to spend on this movie. We had 5 locations to film at.

1. London Zoo, costing £1 Million, this is for the main location of the movie.
2. Regents Park Station, £1000 to film the way to London Zoo via Transport for London.
3. A Friends home was another location, this wouldn't cost anything as its a friends property. This is to film the family's home when they're getting ready to go to the Zoo.
4. The toilet is another location, to do this we will use a public toilet which won't be a set location. This is where the kid will have his dream.
5. The last locations is the Bus stop which is free which shows the way to the train station at the start of the journey, this is also advertisement for TFL (transport for london).

The Total Cost for Sets and Locations came to £1,001,000.

Characters & Actors

Nicky is the Main character of the movie. He's a cute little 5 year old boy who is seen to be innocent and vulnerable. He will be played by Ellis Hollins, who has had experience of playing the role of 'Tom Cunningham' for the British Soap: Hollyoaks.

George the Giraffe is another character from the movie who is a Dumb, clumsy yet funny giraffe. The character is the main funny character of this children's movie, voice played by Ricky Gervais costing us £1 Million.

Leon the Lion is a Brave, courageous but reckless lion. He is the closest friend to Nicky and would do anything for him and to protect him. His voice is played by Zac Efron, the well known upcoming star from the teenage movie High School Musical. This actors cost us £5 Million.

Maya the Monkey is the wise older character, seen to be matriarch. Voice Played by £2 Million actress Julie Andrews.

Chaud the Cheetah is the final main character of this film. He is an evil and manipulative Cheetah that leads the Bad animals. His voice is played by Alan Rickman for £1 Million.

Total Cost for actors/actresses is £9,001,000.

Music

We wanted music in our movie aswell, so with our left over budget we were payed for 5 different tracks of music during the film.

A full orchestra score the the main battle of the film costing £500,000.

For the introduction of Maya the Monkey we got Miley cyrus, an International Artist costing £100,000.

The radio in the background at the security office of the Zoo will play Vanessa Hudgens which will cost £100,000.

To introduce Leon the Lion we will have Zac Efron as he already plays the character of Leon. This will cost £100,000.

To introduce the Main character: Nicky, we will use Justin Timberlake because children know of JT from a young age. This will also cost £100,000.

The Total Cost of Music is £900,000.

The Budget Review

Initial Budget: £20 Million

Total Cost for Sets and Location: £1,001,000.

Total Cost for actors/actresses is £9,001,000.

Total Cost of Music is £900,000.

Remaining Budget: Total Cost of Music is £9,098,000.

Film Audience

As this film is a hollywood movie, it will target a wide range audience to gain an appeal to all audiences. This movie is targeted at Young children and their families as the characters include a family with a young child. It would have an Age Range of 4 - 35, this is because it would appeal to a family which could have a young child in it, therefore the age range includes parents and young kids. The movie is supposed to appeal to both males and females as it has both male and female characters, also it has both male and female appealing music throughout the movie, e.g. Vanessa Hudgens for females and Justin Timberlake for the males. 'Welcome To The Zoo' should appeal to all cultures and doesn't have a specific culture or ethnicity to appeal to but instead all as its a hollywood film company therefore tries to gain as much appeal as possible by all viewers. A family from london would mainly be appealed towards as the movie is based in london in their area. Also as this movie is within britain mostly british audiences would be appealed to this as its a movie which represents british backgrounds and society. Audiences that would watch this would other hollywood family films, mainly animated e.g. Bolt. Also this movie is similar to 'Night At The Museum'.

Representation Of Britishness

My film will represent Britishness by having scenes of way to London Zoo via Train. This is a representation of British transport in london which is well known around the world. It will also use other locations like London Zoo itself, which will give an in-site into british family tour attractions. It may also show how a british family would have a day out compared to a american family. Also the use of many British actors/actresses for example, Ricky Gervais and Ellis Hollins represents this movie to be british. Ellin Hollins would not be known outside of british soil therefore this is an appeal towards british audiences more than others like american audiences.

The Chase by Shani Naik

The Day After Tomorrow vs. Flood

'The Day After Tomorrow' is about when global warming strikes by triggering a new ice age, tornadoes and floods run through major cities of America. The Northern Hemisphere freezes over leaving people to be left vulnerable to such extreme temperatures that if caught in the 'eye of the storm' would be frozen on the spot, therefore left for dead. As a leading climatologist 'Jack Hall' pushes through this disaster to try and save his son. This movie was produced by 20th Century Fox along with other producers like Lions Gate. With a budget of a massive $125,000,000.

'Flood' is about when a raging storm hits the UK, but more focused the affect on London. It overwhelms the Thames Barrier therefore flooding the whole of London creating a natural disaster never seen before. Its down to the barrier engineers to save millions of Londoners from such a devastating event. It is no longer a question of if london will flood, but when. This Movie was produced by Independent companies like Power, A Muse Productions, Flood Productions and Muse Entertainment Enterprises. This movie is seen as a 'low budget american disaster movie'.

These movies are similar due to genre of action/ disaster and thriller. I picked these movies because there is a clear comparison between these movies considering the stories are similar yet they have differences like location etc. Flood is an independent film which is also a british movie, which is not unseen before as the 'Big 6' are located in Hollywood, USA.

The Actors/Actress' and characters usually vary depending on institutional factors of a movie. In Hollywood movies character are usually based by the Protagonist and Antagonist, this is good because it makes the audience easily understand which character is the likable one and which is the one that is disliked. In 'The Day After Tomorrow' the protagonist is 'Jack Hall' (the climatologist, but in this movie there is no antagonist, but instead the problem, in this case being the Ice age storm. Also in Hollywood movies we see the characters to be brave and heroic, unlike independent movies where the characters are usually normal everyday life people. For example Jack Hall is a heroic characters as he travels through the storm to save his son. Also the actors and actress' will vary depending on the institution, for example in 'The Day After Tomorrow' well known actors like Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are part of the movie as main characters, whereas in 'Flood' actors/ actress' like Rob Carlyle Jessalyn Gilsig are involved, who are only known by a british audience due to there part in british films.

In 'Flood' there are many times of sounds, from dialogue to music. But in 'Flood' as it has a smaller budget it cannot include as much music and sound effects as a hollywood movies therefore more dialogue is used instead, but this is not a bad thing because in some cases more dialogue can further the narrative of the film. For example in 'Flood' the movie focuses on the main characters lives before getting into the action of the flood, this is done by dialogue, in this movie the story line is focusing on the bad relationship between the father and son, which later on in the story is resolved. Unlike 'The Day After Tomorrow' where the story line is focusing on the strong relationship between father and son and how they will get through the storm as survivors. But where 'The Day After Tomorrow' is superior in comparison to 'Flood' is where the movie contains more suspenseful and dramatic sounds compared to 'Flood'. As producers of 'Flood' have to be more aware of copyright it is reflected by the fact that they have no soundtracks throughout the movie.

In both movies camera work was used well, but you can tell which one is the hollywood movie and which is independent. This is through different ways like the variety of shots used during one scene, the frequency of tracks and pans, and the use of expensive shots like Crane shots which require more expensive equipment on site to film with. In 'The Day After Tomorrow' you can notice that there is more coverage of a location, this means that the focus of the scene would be filmed from many different angles to show different perspectives of the scene, whereas in 'Flood' you can see that there is coverage but less than a typical hollywood movie.

Editing is a huge aesthetic factor in both these movies. This is because both movies use visual effects in this movie to create the sense of realism about the natural disaster, in 'The Day After Tomorrow' they use editing and visual effects to freeze over the whole Liberty statue, which would cost a lot which is a reason why this movie was made by 20th Century Fox. Along with this, 'The Day After Tomorrow' has other visual effects including tornadoes and other aspects of a major storm. The image beside is an example of one of 'The Day After Tomorrow' effects.

'Flood' uses a lot of visual effects in their movie but we can notice that it is not as frequent as 'The Day After Tomorrow' because of institutional factors such as budgeting. In 'Flood' there is an effect of a major tourist attraction: The London Eye being swallowed by raging barrages of water which have come from the storm and through the Thames. Here is an example of the effect to show how it would seem realistic towards an audience.

Other editing includes transitions e.g. Cuts, fades and dissolves etc. Hollywood movies have frequent cuts and usually do not have a frame that lasts longer than a few seconds depending on dialogue, if there is long dialogue than the camera will usually move to a different location to increase coverage and keep the viewer interested so they don't get bored of the same frame for a long period of time. 'The Day After Tomorrow' cuts frequently and uses different frames to make sure the audience don't get bored. 'Flood' does this but it lower frequency as cuts and more coverage are expensive which cannot be budgeted by a independent production company.

Mise-en-scene focuses on everything within the frame apart from the characters. This can include locations, props and costumes. The locations of these movies are important as they relate to the narrative of the film. Also the independent production company that is based outside of hollywood and in England decided to do so as they could not afford to make a film in the USA, therefore this was made as a british film. Whereas 'The Day After Tomorrow' is set in Los Angeles and New York are major cities in America, which would cost a lot more to film in. 'The Day After Tomorrow' films in more locations compared to 'Flood', for example New York, Los Angeles, the library in New York and even on a Boat. Whereas 'Flood' films in locations within the known areas of London and inside the Thames Barrier etc.

Both movies are differently styled, British films and American Hollywood films are very different types of movies yet they both work well. There are basic differences between them, for example in British Films like there aren't superheroes or extreme characters, there are basic normal characters with normal flaws. 'Flood' shows this as we learn that the main male and female characters are divorced but eventually realize that there is still love in their relationship, and get back together. We can see this happening in a real life situation.

From all these comparisons we can tell that Independent movies will not be as popular as Hollywood films due to the lack of resources, the main resource being money which can be budgeted towards the production of the film. But an independent film can also have some advantages over hollywood movies, for example they appeal more to a certain audience therefore the certain type of audience will enjoy the movie a lot and another type wont, but compared to a hollywood movies audience which is usually aiming to be a wide range of audiences therefore it will not be appreciated by all types of audiences but instead more from some and less from the other. By from this, Hollywood films would still make more movies because they gain more viewers as they target the wider range of audiences, also because these production companies can afford to have a larger range of exhibition locations, e.g. Vue, Cineworld and Odeon.

These are all reasons why Hollywood Movies are more Successful that Independent Films.