Wuolah Free Completos Media Landscape NOTES PDF

completos-media-landscape-NOTES-...
Anónimo
Estructura del Sistema Audiovisual
3º Grado en Comunicación Audiovisual
Facultad de Humanidades, Comunicación y Documentación.

Campus de Getafe
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Reservados todos los derechos.

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
MEDIA LANDSCAPE NOTES
unit 1: why do we study media landscapes?
Political Economy and the Screen Industries
Media literacy as the most important skill in the 21st Century. The components of media literacy
include skills of textual analysis, understanding of media’s place in society/history and also
knowledge of the political economy of the media industries.

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” - A.J. Liebling
The two most ubiquitous screen media are very expensive to make and distribute to audiences.
(Increasingly) large corporations are central to doing both.
How movies are made
Many people are involved in making movies, and it costs a lot of money just to develop an idea into a
script.
Common scenarios in the whole movie making process: writer has the idea, pitches it to a producer
(and vice versa); producer finds money to pay writer to write a script; producer convinces a financier
to pay for the movie to be made (financiers usually want to be sure a distributor and a sales agent are
on board with the project); producer hires the director and the cast and the movie is made; and the
sales agents sells film to distributors while distributors sell the movie to theaters.
At all points, lots of money and long hours of labor are involved. Process is very precarious, and not
every idea gets made. For instance, 5% of ideas get made in Hollywood, and 16% of ideas get made in
Europe.
In addition to this, at every point partners (financiers, producers, creative talent, distributors…) make
creative inputs. Ideas change a great deal over the course of the process.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-4527173
Once a film is complete, it enters the value chain, passing through several windows like → the
theatrical window (most expensive for consumer, it lasts several months); DVD/Blu-Ray/Pay per view
(all of them last for several months); pay-television/streamers; and/or broadcast television (least
expensive for consumer, this window is usually used several years later from the launch of the movie
at theatres).
Film Circulation
Management of the film’s path through the value chain is controlled by the distributor within certain
national limits. Territoriality is key to this kind of distribution.
Producer depends on sales agents to collect money from distributors, unless the film is financed by a
multinational distributor (i.e a Hollywood studio).

Most films lose money or take very long to go into profit, but if and when they do, producers share in
profits, they often pay bonuses to creatives and workers.
Film circulation trends and patterns
The film value chain is shrinking, windows are shortening and theatrical receipts are falling. One of
the many reasons for this is piracy.
Either way, the complexity of film-making and selling requires highly specialized personnel. Producer
is particularly important in this process.
Sales agents and independent distributors are also key and need to be understood by producers.
unit 2: media landscapes in the US, global Hollywood and “independent” structures
Points to remember throughout
¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

Due to the technological development and modernization, cinema studios have lost their theatricality.
Studios are large distribution organizations that also happen to make movies from time to time.
Studios are “venture capitalists” where “nobody knows anything” - William Goldman.
American based studios have long dominated the film and television business (and we’ll be discussing
several new challenges to this existing order).
The American Landscape: the majors. The Hollywood majors.
6 companies together dominate the global film and television business, constituting an oligopoly.
They are collectively known as “the studios” or “the majors”.
Each is part of a vertically and horizontally integrated media conglomerate with 100000s of

employees and a presence in nearly every national market in the world.
- Vertical integration: owns/controls production, distribution and retail outlets.

- Horizontal integration: owns/controls competing products such as books, television,
videogames…
All these super-corporations are both vertically and horizontally integrated. They are also
able to continually renovate themselves.
Meet the Big 6
6 majors that own almost all the power (within the entertainment industry) → Disney, News
Corporation/FOX, COMCAST, AT&T Time Warner, SONY and VIACOM.
Disney: several distribution labels (Disney, Buena Vista, Touchstone Pictures…) and their own
streaming service (Disney+, once they have acquired Fox), several production companies (Pixar, Walt
Disney Studios, Lucasfilm, Marvel…), TV holdings (ABC networks, ESPN, Disney cable channels
and their own streaming service, as we have already mentioned) and thematic things like theme parks,
merchandising stores and so on. Their contents are based on adaptations (for example, right now they
are having a lot of success by making adaptations of comics for Marvel, as comics are a constant
mechanism to feed film production).

News Corporation/FOX: follows the same pattern as Disney, with multiple distribution labels (21st
Century FOX, Fox Searchlight, Fox 2000…); multiple production labels and renowned producers
(Blue Sky, Ridley Scott, TSG, New Regency, Peter Chernin and Imagine (TV)); multiple TV holdings
(Fox network, Fox cable stations, FX); newspaper publishing in the UK, Australia and the US; and
licenses to the X-Men universe and Fantastic 4 from Marvel/Disney. With Disney buying Fox, News
will be separated from Fox, meaning that things are going to change a lot.
ComCast: several film distribution labels (including Universal Studios, Focus Features and UPI);
several production companies and renowned producers (such as Illumination, Amblin Partners,
DreamWorks Animation, Working Title and Blumhouse); several television holdings (NBC networks,
Comcast cable systems, Sky Networks…) and theme parks.
AT&T Time Warner: also owns several distribution labels (Warner Bros, New Line and WBTV);
several production companies and renowned producers (DC Comics, Chuck Lorre, Greg Berlanti,
Heyday. Hanna BArbera, Lego, RatPac, Malpaso (owned by Eastwood) and Syncopy (owned by

Nolan)); several TV holdings (The CW, Turner group cable stations like CNN, and HBO); and theme
parks, publishing outlets, merch and licenses…
SONY: distribution labels (Columbia, TriStar, SPRI, Screen Gems, SPTV, Sony Picture Classics);
production labels and renowned producers (Amy Pascal, Montecito, Seth Rogen, Antoine Fuqua,
Studio 8); several TV holdings (AXN Networks, many international stations…); licenses like the
Spiderman universe from Marvel/Disney; and electronic manufacturing and music publishing
(although that they have problems finding synergies).
Viacom: several distribution labels (like Paramount and PPI); renowned producers and production
labels (Leo DiCaprio, JJ Abrams, Nickelodeon, Anonymous Content (TV), Michael Bay, Darren
Aronofsky, Neal Moritz, Tyler Perry, Skydance, Ilion Animation in Madrid); TV holdings (slew of
cable networks including MTV and Nickelodeon, US and international TV stations like Channel 5 in
the UK); it also shares ownership with CBS, who is currently trying to rebuild after languishing for
years.
The majors and their impact on contemporary cinema
Growing size of companies means that films must get bigger to “move the needle”. Increasingly the
studios make fewer, bigger movies, and more “tent poles”.

Risks involved in the tent pole film-making mean that companies do everything they can to ensure a
hit: from using stars, to known IPs (i.e sequels and remakes) and lots of special effects. The most
valuable thing is now a franchise property. However, anything can fail, as marketing spend is now out
of control (and as there is a lot of competition).
All eyes are on international markets, especially China, for production finance and audiences.
Mini-majors and independent distributors
Mini-majors are overgrown independents, aspiring towards major status. They have aspects of vertical

and horizontal integration and some international presence, but still lack the scale (and therefore
power) of the majors.
Independents in this case only operate in the US and tend to only be active in film production and
distribution, with television drama production and distribution becoming increasingly important.
Some mini majors are: Lionsgate, STX and Annapurna Pictures.
- Lionsgate: the biggest and most stable minimajor at the moment, always a takeover target. It
owns distribution labels (Summit, Pantelion, Roadside Attractions, Lionsgate UK…), TV
holdings (like Starz, which is very big in TV production); it also has a dual niche/franchise
strategy that has produced mixed results.
- STX: a recent start-up founded by former Universal executives. Currently assembling an

international network, branching out into video games and TV. It has a lot of Chinese
investment and a big slate of productions/co-pros, as well as a UK distribution subsidiary.
Last but not least, their release have struggled, with Bad Moms as their only big hit.
- Annapurna Pictures: founded by billionaire producer Megan Ellison (Her, Sausage Party), it
recently built up its own distribution operation, TV division and video game designing. Its
niche seems to be very art-y leaning products, but they also distribute Bond movies remake
for MGM. Lastly, their releases haven’t performed well, but TV looks promising (i.e Coen
brothers Netflix movie…) as do producer deals (Plan B owned by Brad Pitt and producer
Barry Jenkings (Moonlight)).
The American (truly) independent landscape
There are a number of established and emerging American independent distributors: Magnolia, A24,
Bleecker Street, Music Box, Broad Green, Open Road...and many others.
Even in the best cases, these companies are still fragile. Most of the successful companies are adept at
targeting niche audiences, marketing cheaply and selecting films well. Output agreements with
streamers (like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu) are very important to business plans as DVD dries up and
indies lose battles to get into theatres. As these are the traditional homes for non-English language
films and arthouse works, these forms are under pressure.
A24 is the indie of the moment → it launched in 2012, and since then it has consistently acquired
award-winning or other kinds of “buzzy works”. They have also been adept at creative marketing.
They moved into original production with Moonlight, which was kind of a big deal. One of the keys to
their success has been the deals with digital operators like DirectTV and Amazon, and now with
Apple.

unit 3: european cinema, between policy and the market
European Cinema: distinguishing features
A market heavily dominated by Hollywood (70% of EU markets are American films, the 26% are EU
films). Combined EU is the most lucrative market in the world for movies besides US, counting whole
value chain.
European countries have long seen Hollywood domination as a threat to indigenous culture and
language. French-led insistence on “the cultural exception” to neo-liberal trade policy. Europeans
have therefore sought to assist local, regional industry in a number of ways → principles of “market
correction” and “market protection”
Europe and the Film Policy. “Toolkit”.
The production of films is oriented to:

- direct subsidies and “soft money” grants to national projects.
- tax breaks, credits and rebates for productions.

- co-production treaties and incentives (both national and pan-european). Key organizations
like Eurimages.
- requirements that television companies invest in film production.
The circulation of films is oriented to:

- cinema and television quotas. “Television without borders”.
- subsidizing marketing expenses. I.e. MEDIA program, Europa Cinemas.
- creation of national, regional prizes. I.e the Goyas, the EFA prizes…
- support for national and regional film festivals and markets. I.e Venice, Cannes, San
Sebastian…
Institutional dimensions of European Cinema
Industry as a whole very fragmented, until recently little integration of production, exhibition and
distribution. System places pressure on producers to do a lot more than make movies.

European industry revolves around festivals and markets:
- February: Rotterdam, Berlin (EFM)
- May: Cannes (Marché du cinema)
- August: Venice, Toronto
- September: San Sebastian
- November: American Film Market
At these events and others, producers juggle sales agents, pre-sales, soft money… to get films made
and distributed.
Film production in Europe
The UK is the biggest film and TV economy in Europe. This market and France’s one are the only
ones that regularly export content on a regional and global scale. France always leads the way in terms
of local market share. All other countries tend to have a local industry that produces for the local
market and imports from the US, UK and linguistically similar neighbours.
- Local box office successes in Europe tend to be comedies, occasionally period pieces, but
these seldom travel well.

- Traditionally art cinema (auteur directors, festival-oriented films) also traveled well, but this
is in decline.
Recent developments in the film industry seek to change this, including the growth of the sales
industry, policy changes and consolidation of distributors.
Global European distributors
Studiocanal: part of Canal Plus/Vivendi, itself a major multimedia conglomerate. Direct distribution
in France, the UK, Germany and Australia/New Zealand, output deals for Switzerland and
Scandinavia, and sales everywhere else. Diversified into TV series, it has production ties with
producers across Europe, but the most important ties are with Brits and Americans. Major hits like the
Paddington franchise (2014,2017), Non Stop (2014), Happy Valley (2014-), and others.
Eone (entertainment one) : distribution in Canada, US (digital), UK, Australia, NZ, Benelux, Spain
and recently Germany as well. It owns some sales companies like Séville Intl. or Sierra/Affinity. It

also has major production deals with companies like Mark Gordon CO., Amblin, the Peppa Pig
producers and Annapurna. Very big into TV production and distribution, often talked about as a
takeover target for bigger media companies. Major hits like Spotlight (2015), Eye in the Sky (2015) or
Designated Survivor (2016-).
Pathé!: direct distribution in France, Switzerland and the UK (exhibition holdings in all three plus in
the Netherlands). Behind a number of British and French hits over the years (including Slumdog
Millionaire, The Queen and the Camping franchise). Recent management shakeup, aging chairman
leave the future uncertain.
Wildbunch: distribution in France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain (under the name Vértigo).
Sales arms (Wild Bunch, Insiders, IMR and Elle Driver) and production relationships (Space Rocket
Nation (Refn), Sixteen Films (Loach) and many other auteur directors). Not in great shape at the
moment, it needs a big to stabilize the company. Big hits in the past: I, Daniel Blake (2016), Jackie
(2016) and Medici (2016-).
Europacorp: distribution in France, for a short while in the US. It sold the biggest films to US majors
for global distribution, including titles such as Lucy (sold to Universal), the Taken series (to Fox) or
Transporter (also to Fox). In addition to this, most of its audiovisual products are either directed or
produced by Luc Besson. Also produces (but does not distribute) TV dramas. It has to shut down the

US distribution after major losses there, and some of its main key works are Valerian (2017, known as
the “bomb that brought down Europacorp”) and Taken TV series (2016-).
The impact of European Studios (so far)
Have had success in terms of sustainable production in the $10-50 million range. European production
companies are getting more opportunities to work at this level.
But most of the films produced have been made in English, with American or British stars. UK
producers have been disproportionately successful in making “European” films.

The most successful films - particularly the action films - closely resemble Holly;wood films. Certain
annoying generic forms have become popularized, like the old man action movie or the transatlantic
rom-com.
These companies are utilizing many of the incentives originally earmarked for small-scale
independent productions.
Their futures are uncertain. Only Studiocanal and Eone are stable and the latter is often the subject of
rumours, whereas the former’s management is erratic.
They nevertheless command significant European screen time and therefore remain an important hope
for diversity in the European media industry.
Regional and National players
- Scandinavia: Trust Nordisk and Svensk Filmindustri (aka SF Studios)

- Germany: Constantin, Tobis
- France: Gaumont, Mars Films, SND…
- UK: Entertainment, Icon, Dogwoof, Soda Pictures
- Italy: Lucky Red, Eagle, Leone Group, Medusa
- Russia: Volga
Making and selling films in Europe
There is a lot of soft money out there, but access often depends on language used and co-production
partners. English language films are more lucrative, and therefore more attractive to integrated
companies.
Other major trend/strategy for targeting global success are remakes.

- European remakes in Hollywood: The girl with the dragon tattoo, Vanilla Sky, The Tourist and
Tarde para la ira.
- Remakes outside of Hollywood: Mañana empieza todo, No manches Frida, Kiki el amor se
hace, Sin filtro and Perfectos Desconocidos.
unit 4: spanish cinema, institutions, audiences and trends
Spanish Cinema: general points

Spanish cinema, in all but a few aspects, is an extremely typical European cinema. The aspects that set
it apart revolve around the global Hispanic community and the country’s complex relationship with it.
Locals: ¡no os pongáis rojos! Foreigners: ¡aprovechad el cine español!
Spanish audiences
Hollywood dominates the local market. American films regularly share over 70%, while Spanish
films share typically 15-20%.
Even when Spanish films are hits locally, they’re usually distributed by the majors (or by independent
distributors like Vértigo, Avalon, Golem Distribución, Filmax, Caramel Films, DeAPlaneta,
Tripictures, A contracorriente films, or Eone).
Spanish audiences tend to be ambivalent about local films, seeing them as lower quality than
Hollywood, too arty or both. Generally comedies (like Cuerpo de Élite, Villaviciosa de Al Lado, Ocho
Apellidos Vascos, Superlópez or Perfectos Desconocidos) are the most reliably popular genre. Spain
also has a strong tradition of horror production, with a recent emphasis on thrillers. Examples of this:
Verónica, La Isla Mínima, El secreto de Marrowbone and Cien años de perdón.
10

Arthouse/auteur cinema has small audiences, but lots of national pride. Character of auteurs has
changed greatly.
The Spanish Industrial Landscape: soft money
Production incentives (mainly foreign-based film productions): the Spanish Film Commission.
Industry stimulus (mainly indigenous productions): the ICAA (Instituto de la Cinematografía y de las
Artes Audiovisuales). Also produces a great deal of industry research.
Services from local film commissions where films are shot.
The Spanish Industrial Landscape: festivals
- San Sebastián (September)

- Sitges (October) - Horror/Fantasy

- Málaga (April)
- Valladolid/Seminci (October)
The Spanish Industrial Landscape: television
Spain enforces Television Without Borders with a legal screen quota of 51% of the Euro content. That
did not help Spanish films much for long periods of time.
Spain also requires TV cos. to invest 3% of revenues in Spanish cinema. LArgely takes the form of:
pre-buying rights to show a film or fully financing/co-producing films.
Currently Telecinco and Atresmedia are leading financiers of mainstream Spanish films. Almost no
major films are made without at least pre-buys (RTVE, Movistar+. Telefonica Studios… are also big
players).
Very common industrial strategy: creative producer cobbles together ICAA soft money, several TV
pre-buys, local film commission subsidies, equity finance from TV companies, advances from sales
agents and distribution from a local division of a major.
11

Major change afoot is increasing influence of streaming services, financing films, buying and
pre-buying international rights. It has created competition that is making Movistar+ in particular more
generous. FilmIn also prebuys rights now (will HBO or Sky follow suit?).
Netflix in Spain
- Original films → Fe de Etarras, 7 años, Dos Cataluñas, Elisa y Marcela...
- Buying global rights: Los últimos de Filipinas, Sunday 's illness, El fotógrafo de Mauthausen,
La Llamada, Verónica…
Exporting Spanish cinema
Arthouse market for Spanish cinema has largely dried up. There have been many attempts to
co-produce/co-market films in Latin America, but there have been few successes. Movistar+ and
Netflix are trying to find more. Some examples of Latin American and Spanish cinematic cooperation

are Truman, También la lluvia, Relatos Salvajes, Ciudadano Ilustre or the Ibermedia program.
Most export-oriented Spanish films/filmmakers these days work directly in English.
Famous Spanish auteur directors over the years
- Pedro Almodóvar → Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios, Hable con ella, Todo sobre
mi madre and Julieta.
- Alejandro Amenábar → The Others, Mar Adentro, Regresión, Vanilla Sky…
- Isabel Coixet → Mi vida sin mí, La vida secreta de las palabras...
- J.A. Bayona → Lo Imposible, Un monstruo viene a verme, El secreto de Marrowbone, El
Orfanato…
unit 5: asian film industries
Cinema beyond Europe and North America
12

Problems of terminology: even though Latin America is in the Western Hemisphere, it does not fit
inside the “Western” cinema category. “Global South” doesn’t quite work and “World Cinema” is
repugnant. Postcolonial is not quite accurate either. There is a problem of homogenization.
Instead we’ll look at regions in terms of geography but also economic dimensions. Asian cinemas are
largely economically viable, while Latin America and Africa are still developing.
Asian cinemas: Indian cinema
Over 1500 languages are spoken in India. The state recognizes 22 official languages, including

English. Main language is Hindi, but this is native to only 40% of the country, and it is not common in
the south of India.
Most of the major languages have their own “regional” cinema. Southern languages (Tamil, Telugu,
Kannada) have very powerful industries. But Hindi films (“Bollywood”) are the only ones that
circulate within India and to all of the Indian diaspora.
Hindi films also have enormous global popularity: all of central Asia, Middle East, Russia, some parts
of South America, Africa and China are big fans of Hindi films.
Indian cinema has a very loyal home market (93% share in 2016) and produces nearly 2000 films
annually.
Classic Hindi films (Bollywood) → Mother India, Sholay, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge and Dangal.
India’s central government was long openly hostile to the film industry, refusing to grant it legal
standing as a legitimate industry.
Recognizing the international esteem for Indian art cinema (led by Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy), the
government set up the NFDC - National Film Development Corporation - to support non-commercial
industry. Ultimately developed a two-tiered industry.
International popularity of Hindi cinema has led to greater respect for the popular industry. Legal
reforms have helped to stabilize the volatile industry, but it remains very artisanal despite high volume
of output.
13
Indian cinema and the West.
Indian cinema/Hindi cinema is a dominant force in many countries, but only reaches diasporic
populations in US, Europe. In order to reach those (Westernized) audiences and maybe cross into
Western mainstream, films are getting shorter and featuring fewer musical numbers.
The majors have had little success in cracking Indian market. Disney sold UTV, Fox has a pay-tv
network there, others have gotten involved in production, and Amazon and Netflix are now trying to
break into the market.
Regional overview: Japan and South Korea
Japan has long been the dominant screen media producer, market in the region. Country features
established, vertically integrated studios, strong local market share… In addition to this, exports a
great deal in East Asia, some of them are even exported to the West.

Japanese majors → Toho, Toei and Shochiku.
Japan is known internationally (these days) for anime, horror/”asian extreme” content and so on, but
domestically it has a wide mix of genres, auteur filmmakers… Some popular Japanese titles: animes
like Ghost in the shell, Akira, Your name; horror films like The Ring, Audition, and auteur films like
Rashomon, Hana-Bi, Shoplifters…
South Korea has in recent years used film policy (particularly quotas) to nurture a boom in
film-making in the country. Including auteur works, horror and sci-fi and other genres. Now typically
dominates its own local markets and exports to neighbouring Asian countries. Popular South Korean
films: Train to Busan, The Host and Okja.
China and the world film industry
China was for a long time a sleeping giant when it came to film production and circulation. The
market was intermittently closed off by the government (although that Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan
were sometimes major imports) and the country saw an increase in international profile with “Fifth
Generation” of auteur directors like Zhang Yimou (Hero, House of Flying Daggers…), one of the
most famous directors working today from that group .
14

Fifth generation Chinese cinema → Raise the red lantern, Farewell my concubine and Yellow Earth.
The country's (legitimate) exhibition sector has grown rapidly in recent years, fueled by the
construction boom and increasing Hollywood, Bollywood… imports.
China’s growth has made it the second biggest box office in the world, but home video is still
underdeveloped.
Most Hollywood studios now chase Chinese market to the extent that it influences casting and
development of tent poles. Many films hope to make up for losses in other markets with big China
releases.
But China is rapidly changing and remains the “wild west” of contemporary film industry:
- no one knows what Chinese audiences actually want as most films targeted there are

SFX-laden blockbusters.
- Chinese government restrictions have kept money from leaving the country, seem capricious
in favoring some films and treating others harshly.
- There’s not much transparency when it comes to BO figures (box office figures). Many
involved in exhibition and production (especially the Wanda Group) are now facing
investigations and possible arrests.
- Government has been cracking down on many creatives in the industry, arresting some and
forcing owners to stop investing money in Hollywood.
unit 6: film industries in latin america and africa
African cinema basics
Continent is geographically divided into Northern Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. In economic terms,
Africa is the poorest and least developed continent.
15

Cinema remains very undeveloped. Proper theatres are rare in most countries. and they are only
attended by economic elites in other countries (e.g. South Africa).
Continent is home to a very vibrant video film industry, particularly Nigeria and Kenya. In addition to
this, the film industry employs 100s of workers and makes thousands of films, but piracy is rampant
and it affects the development of the industry.
Nigeria’s industry is often dubbed “Nollywood”
“Nollywood” films
Typically low production values, including home video cinematography, poor acting, unclear sound.
These have gotten better as industry has gained ground. In best cases, films are aspirational in that
they feature middle/upper class characters, plot surrounding wealth, love and family life. In worst
cases, they can be very misogynistic, porn-ish, and center on themes like witchcraft.

Films have such a strong following that cable networks, YouTube channels and other products are
targeted at West African diaspora. Netflix has started buying some films.
African film-making beyond Nollywood
Feature film production beyond video films is only common in some North African countries
(particularly Egypt) and a few Sub-Saharan countries (South Africa is by far the richest country).
Across the continent, filmmakers depend on soft money and other kinds of aid from abroad to
complete films. Co-production with European nations that are particularly important. For
example, we have France’s “l’aide aux cinémas du monde”.
Art/auteur cinema is almost funded from European sources. Films are seldom seen in home
countries, and they are often banned by the authorities.
Films often take on social problems such as poverty, homophobia, underdevelopment…

Contrast sharply with Nollywood’s film topics, causing debates around which is the true
African cinema.
16

Key african art films: Black Girl, Hyenas, Les negres marrons de la liberté, Timbuktu and
Rafiki.
Latin America cinema in general
One of the markets most tightly controlled by the majors, American institutions generally.
Traditionally three major film powers in the region: Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. Of these,
only Brazil and Mexico have sizable home audiences and ability for hits to recoup fully there.

Historically, filmmaking has largely been political in nature, responding to the many
historical traumas of the region. Filmmakers have had to depend on personal wealth, foreign
funding… to get their works made (and often under life threatening conditions).
Latin America cinema in recent years
Since the 1980s and 1990s most countries have seen democratic reforms and more artistic
freedoms. The entire region has largely implemented many of the same policy protections as
European countries to stimulate local production.
Tremendously important have been co-production incentives in the region, amongst European
partners. Pan-regional cooperation has been significant and sometimes this crosses linguistic
lines. Industrial, cultural forces have helped to set the stage for “La Buena Onda” of Latin
American cinema in the 2000s, shepherding in generations of important producers/directors.
Major Latin American films of the 2000s, 2010s: Amores Perros, Y tú mamá también, City of
God, No and El secreto de sus ojos
Key contemporary filmmakers
Lita Stantic → based in Argentina, her career spans the junta of the 1970s. Her career rebirths
in the 1980s up to very recently. She has mentored many key talents, including Lucrecia
Martel, Adrián Caetano and Pablo Trapero. She is a director and a producer, and especially
good at striking co production deals with Spanish and American partners.
17
Pablo Larraín → based in Chile and partnered with his brother Juan de Dios to form Fabula,
he is the key producer in the country. In addition to this, his company has important contacts
all around the world. He has also directed many acclaimed films, including No, The Club and
Jackie. He has produced as well a number of other hits, with titles such as A Fantastic
Woman or Gloria.
Jose Padilha → he directed a groundbreaking documentary about bus hijacking called Bus
174, as well as wildly popular police thrillers like Elite Squad and Elite Squad 2. He also
went to work in English on several films like Robocop. Now, he works as a key producer for
Netflix, co-creating Narcos and an upcoming Brazilian set series.
The acclaimed “Three Amigos” → Alfonso Cuarón (Roma, Gravity, Great Expectations, Y tu
mamá también, Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban…), Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s

Labyrinth, The shape of water…) and Alejandro Iñárritu (Birdman, El renacido…)
Gael García Bernal and Diego Luna: Canana Films → famous for starring in films such as
Amores Perros and Y tu mamá también. They have collaborated with the production and
distribution of films in Mexico. As producers (with their company Canana Films) they have
made/helped make El violín, Miss Bala, Güeros...and many others.
Latin America: the persistence of American control
Despite many encouraging signs, distribution (the majors), television (DirectTV, Telefe…)
and production (Patagonik) remain under control from America.
Ibermedia and other foreign incentives have fueled a lot of co-production, but the sector
mainly relies on soft money. Market forces are pushing most talents to at least part-time work
in English, mirroring the same problems as Europe.
unit 7: the impact of digital technologies on film production and circulation
18

Industrial changes: production
Barely anyone makes “films” anymore.
A key “barrier to entry” has fallen. Films are cheaper and easier to make than ever, yet there are less
films being produced.
We are now experiencing a major “glut” of film and TV production.
Industrial changes: theatrical distribution
Nobody watches “films” anymore (at least not in theatres). Most of the world exhibition sector has
moved to digital projectors.
Distributors have always had to pay “P&A” (Prints and Advertising): right now they are saving a lot

of money on prints (since everything is advertised on social media), but they are spending a lot more
on advertising.
Theoretically a great time for distributors: low cost products, lower distribution expenses and so on.
Industrial changes: the value chain
Despite growing box office figures, less people are going to the cinemas, as we have already
mentioned.
Home video experiences have improved dramatically in terms of hardware and accessibility of
content.
Most popular online distribution system is piracy. Legal alternatives to piracy seek to imitate its
immediacy (the so-called on demand culture), and this leaves the not so immediate technologies (i.e
DVDs) on the way out.
Value chain as a whole shrinking to two or three windows (theatres, VOD and TV), with time between
shrinking.
19

Industrial changes: corporate landscape
The majors have focused more attention on tent poles and theatrical numbers.
Risks inherent in theatrical means that only mega budget (i.e Black Panther) and micro budget (Get
Out) are steadily appealing to majors. Middle budget films face uncertain futures, and mini-majors
and Euro studios are chasing there.
Key emerging strategy is “day and date” multiplatform releasing to save marketing costs.
Several of the giants of Silicon Valley have become important corporate players in film and TV
business → FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google).
Three types of VOD: TVOD (transactional VOD), AVOD (ad-supported VOD) and SVOD
(subscription VOD).

TVOD and AVOD are better suited to the traditional value chain. TVOD replaces home video sales
(“digital sell through”) and has higher profit margins than DVD and these kinds of devices. Key
TVOD providers are Apple, Amazon, Google (Youtube and Google Play). AVOD (Youtube and
Crackle…) is similar to television with more accurate ratings.
SVOD is more disruptive. In addition to this, it is hard to price content, to make people pay fairly.
Netflix and Amazon are the leaders of the SVOD services(Hulu in the US is owned by majors, the
same happens with HBO).
SVOD services: film strategies
The established companies would prefer SVOD be far down the value chain, but its existence has
helped to lower the value placed upon viewing individual films.
However, the business practices of Netflix and Amazon have driven up costs and inflated budgets.
Key factor is SVOD providers’ interest in serial drama, and their initial indifference to films. This has
increased competition for talent.
20

Both Amazon and Netflix have more recently moved into Original films in a big way, although their
strategies differ.
SVOD is still seen as the hopeful savior of middle-budget, thinking cinema.
SVOD services: Amazon
Amazon has (so far) kept the theatrical window. It partners with independent distributors and is
forming its own distribution business in the US as well. In addition to this, Amazon Prime is bundled
with online shopping, which translates into the SVOD service being arguably there to help sell other

things.
Movies in theatres are used as virtual ads for Amazon Prime.
They have so far targeted upper/middle brow filmmaking with titles such as Manchester by the sea,
The Big Sick… and have done okay at BO. This is possibly changing.
Not fully global yet when it comes to its movies, a bit better with its series, but these are not as lauded
as others.
Has largely been a buyer of existing films or films in the last stages of production.
SVOD services: Netflix
Netflix has taken a very different strategy, one aimed at disrupting and arguably destroying the old
value chain.
It has a massive content budget ($12 billion annually), all borrowed. In addition, it buys pre-made
films and produces also from scratch, as well as buy certain territories and brands as Originals.
All of its Originals are released directly onto the service, only play in a handful of theatres to qualify
for awards. Has had some critical successes with Mudbound, Okja, Beast of No Nations...but many
films and series have been more harshly treated by critics (like for example Bright, Mute or Adam
Sandler’s pictures).
21
The company refuses to disclose actual viewership figures, and says that they’re all popular and that
critics are dumb and have no taste. However, the reviews are valid if the news are good (for example,
with Bird Box’s success).
Netflix has released approximately 70 films in 2017, 131 in 2018 and 40 so far in 2019. The average
Hollywood studio releases 15 films per year.
unit 8: commercial vs public service television (1950-1980)
Two systems and approaches to television: United States broadcasting
Television pre-dates WWII in theory, but was not widely adopted until after the war. Technology
really spread in the 1940s and 1950s.

Most countries adopt/continue/slightly modify the policies they were using for radio for television.
In the US, this means technological standardization, but otherwise leaving the sector to private
enterprise.
From this point on (early 1950s), the US market was dominated by three national broadcasters (ABC,
NBC and CBS) and their ad-supported model.
Programming genres varied between prestigious plays (early days), westerns, sitcoms, variety shows
and news. Much TV was live at first, filmed as the 1950s went on.
By 1959, almost 90% of homes had TVs. Programming became more and more populist, the market
for advertising exploded.
In the early 1960s, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Newton Minnow gave a
speech calling American TV a “vast wasteland”, calls for television in the “public interest”.
In part because of Minnow’s advocacy, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is created in 1969.
Begins running PBS network.
22

PBS proves to be very influential in children’s programming, inventing Sesame Street, still to this day
one of the western world’s most important kid’s shows. Otherwise, shows mainly highbrow cultural
programs, documentaries, etc. Imports a lot of British content. Network is purposely not a competitor
with commercial broadcasters.
PBS funding model requires it to attract private finance to sponsor some programs (Exxon’s
Masterpiece Theatre), etc. Also depends on fundraising from the public.
Commercial networks remain very ad-centered and whole genres grow up around advertisers' needs,
e.g. the “soap” opera. Ads are themselves one of the biggest parts of the media diet of Americans.
Two systems and approaches to television: state monopolies
Western European, Canadian, Australian systems differ sharply from the US model. Share the
similarity of growing out of radio, but continue their own systems of public service broadcasting.

What constitutes “public service”? Famous definition comes from John Reith, first director of the
BBC: Broadcasting that seeks to “inform, educate and entertain” the public. Reith himself believed
people, particularly lower classes, had to be protected from popular culture. Believed in education,
“high culture.” Had Arnoldian idea that high culture makes you better. He is often seen today as
being too “Paternalistic,” elitist.
Public service in practice
23

Implementation of Public Service Broadcasting varied (varies) widely, but commonly agreed
principles include:
- Emphasis on nonfiction “educational” programming, even in prime time.
- News coverage *should* be impartial, sober in tone. News should especially focus on
national politics and policy.
-
- Programming should reflect the nation as a whole, all regions, minority groups represented.
- All consumers in the nation have access.
- Programming should aid in the development of national citizens.
- Programming should be entertaining.

- The public should be able to complain, demand changes to management if PSB is not
fulfilling its remit
However, the reality is that there have never been ultra-clear guidelines for what constitutes PSB.
The bigger picture 1950-1980
Scarcity of spectrum, cost of owning and operating networks allowed governments to maintain
monopoly/duopoly systems.
Newness of technology, limited choices meant very large audiences for whatever was on. Helped to
unite nations, fostering “imagined communities” – Benedict Anderson.
Advertisers had little leverage as they wanted the audiences that the networks could provide.
Networks were the only game in town.
Still, some feared ad-supported television. ITV in the UK is seen at first as “a license to print money.”
Networks were vertically integrated, transnational circulation limited to US and UK industries.
24

Typical complaints about PSB
Lack of choice in programming; concentration of power, influence in capital cities, amongst urban
elites; knock on effect on representations; and the political and social upper classes often dominated
executive positions, as did men, white people, etc.
unit 9: television industries, 1980-2010: cable, satellite and deregulation
Cable, Satellite and “Narrowcasting” in the US

Technology to deliver non-broadcast TV signals to homes in the US was pioneered as early as the
1940s. Cable and satellite exist, but are not economical for most.
Pay-TV networks such as HBO/Cinemax, Showtime and “superstations” such as WTBS (Atlanta)
developed in the 1970s and 1980s, largely offered by satellite.
By the 1980s, cable and satellite were being affordably delivered to a big chunk of the US. Market
share grew into the 1990s and 2000s.
Cable networks/channels were created to cater to niche audiences thought to be too small for
broadcast networks E.g. Specialty channels for women (Lifetime), men (ESPN), African-Americans
(BET), etc.
Networks were attractive for advertisers searching for efficiency. Cable providers sought out most
popular stations, mixes that would appeal to their markets.
Consumers (who could afford it) wanted more choice, better reception, more adult content in some
cases.
Early days of cable, most networks ran reruns of broadcast shows, old movies curated for their niche.
Low-cost original programming followed in the late 1980s and 1990s, followed by more expensive
originals in 1990s and 2000s.
Popularity of technology fragments audiences: from “cultural hearth” to “electronic newsstand” –

Amanda Lotz; from “broadcasting” to “narrowcasting”; and from “Fordism'' to “Post-Fordist”.
25
Fordist Production and Consumption
Henry Ford, inventor of the Model T and mass manufacturing: “A customer can have a car painted
any color he wants, as long as it’s black” (1909)
Corporate developments in American Television
Growing popularity/availability of cable, easing of regulations sees the eventual consolidation of

power amongst the Majors.
Two key regulatory principles phased out under Regan (1980-1988), Bush (H.W., 1988-1992) and
Clinton (1992- 1998): a Financial Interest and Syndication Rules (Fin/Syn) which kept Networks
from owning their content; and several cross media ownership rules kept one company from owning
all the forms of media in any given market.

Easing these rules allowed for key mergers (discussed by Schatz) that gave us Conglomerate
Hollywood: Time and Warner Comms merge, acquire Turner Broadcasting, etc; Disney acquires
ESPN, ABC, etc; Viacom acquires CBS; Paramount News Corp. buys Fox; NBC merges with
Universal, eventually bought by Comcast…
The growing power of cable companies
Cable providers come to have virtual monopolies in local areas. Can dictate terms to consumers, states
step in to regulate costs. Providers still determine channels on offer, “bundling”. Cable providers
sometimes battle with networks over “carriage fees”.
Major corporations/players emerge: Turner Broadcasting, Sinclair Media, Liberty Media, Comcast,
etc. Some remain big players to this day.
John Malone: The “Cable Cowboy” has wheeled and dealed through a long career owning and
creating TCI, USA networks, Discovery Networks, Charter Communications, Liberty Media and
Liberty Global, Scripps, many others. He was revoked for always avoiding paying taxes.
26

American Television by the Early 2000s
Widespread adoption of digital technology led to a boom in the number of networks available. The
variety of stations meant that every niche seemed to be served, as long as the consumer could pay for
it.
Fighting for eyeballs drives push into original content that would see HBO take the creative lead in
1990s (Sopranos, Sex in the City, etc.) PBS continues to be marginalized with channels devoted to
history, arts, nature programming, catering to Anglophiles (BBC America), etc.
European Television, 1980s-2000s: Deregulation and the of Monopolies
Technological advances, deregulatory zeitgeist (“spirit of the times”) of 1980s sees greater
competition come to European and other PSB-led television ecologies.

Satellite and cable services come to the continent but are slow to spread due to regulation costs. Gov’t
inducements, however, do add greater competition to the sector across Europe.
Private broadcasters are granted licenses in most countries, while some PSBs are privatized.
France under Mitterand in the 1980s
French example is perhaps the most stark, telling of the decade. President Franҫois Mitterand:
- Privatized PSB TF1, the most watched network in the country.
- Added two other commercial broadcasters.
- Created Canal Plus, the country’s first pay-TV network. Required the station to invest in local
content, French and European films. CP would become the leading financier of cinema in the
country. Spawned Studiocanal and (indirectly) Wild Bunch CP would set the mold for how
pay TV operates in Europe: dependence on cinema, sport and pornography CP would
eventually take over many other countries’ pay nets.
27

Competition, Commercialism and the PSB Tradition

These changes in the industrial landscape of European television have had an enormous impact on
public service broadcasting:
- Audiences for the networks shrank, instantly and in long run.

- Programming had to win audiences back. “Entertainment” becomes more urgent.
- Costs for programming rise, in some cases too far for PSBs.
- Advertisers have more leverage, influence.
- PSBs still subject to more political, public scrutiny than their private sector peers.
unit 10: digital television: a post-network Era?
Recapping Television History
- 1950s-1980s: Broadcast networks. Lotz: “Network Era”

- 1980s-2000s: Cable, satellite and broadcast. Lotz: “Multi-Channel Transition”
- 2000s-Present: Digital television. Lotz: “Post-Network Era.”
Digital Era Television: Distinguishing Features
28

Digital broadcast and cable/satellite spectrum: vastly multiplying number of channels. Makes
“channel surfing” difficult, frustrating.
Proliferation of DVR technology (digital video recorders) in 2000s gave us more “time
shifting,”“zapping” and “bingeing”
Internet-based delivery systems allowed for seemingly unlimited choice, flexibility when it came to
viewing. (Also, in principle, meant unlimited access for creators.)
Network Strategies in a Digital World

Proliferation of channels has meant that networks have separated/spun off different types of
programming, increasing segmentation of the audience.
Usage of OTT technologies to support /enhance linear television: “Catch Up” services (BBC IPlayer,
Hulu, etc. aka “stacking” content); licensing SVOD rights to old episodes, ensuring they are available
before new seasons are released.; role of programming branding network and vice versa when content
is sold to SVODs; the creation of “spoiler” culture…
The creation of branded SVOD services, OTT apps (e.g. CBS All Access; HBO Go, etc.). In some
cases, making whole “networks” available only online (e.g. BBC 3).
Change in measurements of ratings. Live ratings are still most highly prized, but Live+3 and Live+7
now are important.
More emphasis on vertical integration. International sales of original series are increasingly important
to networks in larger countries. (Spanish case: national and transnational audience). Networks now
tend to favor in-house productions. – “originals”
Networks also like to co-produce content with SVOD services. For example, Netflix takes all world
rights besides home country. This is controversial as it favors content with international orientation. It
is usually a pretty good deal for SVODs (sometimes about 20% of the overall budget; rights). SVODs
as “frenemies”. There are also negotiations and tensions over the shrinking of the theatrical window
(The irishman (Scorsese, 2019) - NY Film Festival, limited theatrical release, branded as Netflix
original). In terms of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, there have been trends and adjustments,
multiple formulas and concerns for the value chain (Simultaneous releases. E.g. Wonder Woman 1984
(Jenkins, 2020) was released simultaneously on theatres and on HBO Max.
29
The impact of SVODs on TV
SVODs currently have a number of competitive advantages over even rich US TV networks, and
many over smaller networks in other countries:
- They have access to huge amounts of money at lower costs than traditional rivals.
- They do not have a “bottleneck” determining how much programming they create. Can
“flood” the market, attract talent…
- Their technology is often superior to competitors, association with better customer
experience.
- They’re fairly cheap, easy for consumers to access: subscription quotas and digital AV
catalogs; integration of TVOD, exclusive contents.

Traditional pay television networks are suffering the most right now: old HBO, Sky, Canal Plus, etc.
can’t compete with low costs, higher abundance formula of SVODs. Many people are doing away
with cable, satellite subscriptions generally. “Cord cutting”. A “cord never” generation is growing up.
SVOD popularity, financial power and creative culture has allowed them to dominate the market in
scripted formats, particularly high end drama. Cable, Pay-TV are chasing the market, fueling inflation.
Smaller national broadcasters are also chasing drama, having to work with international distributors,
make co-productions, etc.
Intense competition in drama has forced broadcasters to look more to competition, reality and live
formats. European pay-television – traditionally focused on sports and cinema – has had to pay more
and more for sports while also diversifying into series to retain subscribers. PSBs have seen talents
swallowed up by SVODs. Have had to make drama to stay relevant, but at great cost to other
programming. International sales and co-production are key. Live and competition formats are also
proving very popular, durable. More than ever they are facing existential pressure to please everyone
with lesser resources. They are trying to develop strategies to stay relevant.
unit 11: spanish television
Television history:
30

1) Scarcity (1950s-1980s). TV is a public service in consumer society, there is an expectation for
television to be a tool for social integration. There are few channels in a limited broadcast
time and with a discontinuous signal.
2) Availability (1980s-2000s). There is a market fragmentation. Local, satellite and cable TV
emerge. We have a choice (choice fatigue).
3) Plenty (2000s-). There is a boom for contemporary television (cultural products and values).
There is a fragmentation between niche specialization and mainstream hits.
Linear television industry
Television Española - TVE (1956). La 1, La 2, Teledeporte, Canal 24 horas, Clan TV, TVE
Internacional (suscription). Digital TV: RTVE.es a la carta; Playz
Atresmedia - AM (1989). Antena 3, La Sexta, Neox, Nova, Mega. Digital TV: Atreseries; Flooxer
Mediaset (IT, 1978). Telecinco, Cuatro, Factoría de Ficción, Boing, Divinity, Energy, Be Mad. Digital
TV: Mtmad

Public TV Chronology
- 1929 - The Anglo Spanish Electricity company (Barcelona) displays a TV bought in London
- 1938 - First public exhibition, bidirectional television (Fonovisión), gist from the government
of Nazi Germany, appearance on TV by the dictator Francisco Franco
- 1948 - Experimental tests by Philips (Barcelona) and RCA (Madrid)
- 1952 - Creation of a public experimental television service (Ministry of Information and
Tourism)
- 1955 - Start of test broadcasts, two programs per week
- 1956 - Beginning of regular television broadcast. There were strong political implications
associated with the regime
- 1960s - TV expansion
- dependency on advertising
- suppression of luxury tax applied to the TV set
- payment in instalments
- national-populist programming
- 1964 - RTVE moves to new headquarters, from Paseo de la Habana to Prado del Rey
- 1965-66 - La 2 (TVE2) was born, first known as UHF had a minority offer and an artistic
discourse. There were younger names such as Pedro Olea, Iván Zulueta, Mario Camus or
Josefina Molina. One of the most popular shows was Conozca usted España (La 2, 1966-69)
- 1980s - Regional television (autonomous communities). This was due to the new political
framework that allowed linguistic diversity and normalization. The Federation of Regional
Organizations of Radio and Television (FORTA) was established with 12 autonomous
communities:
- Euskal Telebista (ETB) (Basque Country, 1983)
- TV3 (Catalonia, 1983)
- Canal Sur (Andalusia, 1989)
- Canal 9 (Valencian Community, 1989-2013)
31

Reality TV, performance and competition
On public TV: OT (2001-2004; 2017-), Masterchef (2013, UK)
On private TV: Big Brother (T5, 2000-2017), Supervivientes (T5, 2000-), OT (T5, 2005-2011)
Private TV Chronology
1990. ANTENA 3. Changing integration and expansion within media conglomerate; Atresmedia. It
has popular shows such as Farmacia de guardia (Mercero, 1991-1995), Los ladrones van a la oficina
(Mercero, 1993-1996), Compañeros (1998-2002); Caiga quien caiga (1996-2007), Física o Química
(2008-2011), El Hormiguero (2011-, previously on Cuatro).
1990. TELECINCO. Previously Canale 5 in Italy by Silvio Berlusconi. It has popular shows such as
VIP (1990-1992), Médico de familia (1995-1998), Esta noche cruzamos el Mississippi (1995-1997),
Periodistas (1998-2002); Crónicas Marcianas (1997-2005); Sálvame (2009-). It has a branding and
politics of representation of sexuality, race and gender stereotypes.

1990. CANAL PLUS (pay tv license). It is an encrypted channel based on film, football and
bullfighting. In 2003-2015 it was part of Sogecable, Prisa TV. In 2015 of Telefonica and since then it
was integrated in the platform Movistar+.
In 2005 there was a change in license terms, there was a conversion into free-to-air channel. As a
result, Cuatro and La Sexta begin their regular broadcast.
- Cuatro – integration in Mediaset. Popular shows: Cuarto milenio (2005-), Supernanny

(2006-2014), Hermano mayor (2009-2017), First Dates (2016-)
- La Sexta – integration in Atresmedia. Popular shows: El intermedio (2006-), Salvados (2008),
Al Rojo Vivo (2011-), La Sexta Noche (2013), El Objetivo (2013-), Lo de Évole (2020)
Video on demand in Spain
NETFLIX (ESP, 2015)
32

HBO (ESP, 2016) Warner Media
AMAZON PRIME (ESP, 2016)
APPLE TV (ESP, 2019)
DISNEY+ (ESP, 2020) The Walt Disney Company
FILMIN (2007, relaunched in 2010)
MOVISTAR+ (2015) Telefónica
unit 12: film and tv convergences. tv drama during peak television
The growth in the number of television networks and vod services, along with lower production costs
for films has created a saturated media environment. Apple, Facebook and many telephone companies
are also coming! given changes in consumer preferences, most of these companies are turning to serial
drama to stand out. This has made for an “arms race” of sorts as more and more dramas get made. so
it is virtually interchangeable with the terms “quality drama”, “high end drama” and “prestige drama”.
33
This has helped to create a situation in which the number of scripted series are increasing at a
staggering rate. Variously described as “peak television” (landgraf), “golden age of television”, era of
“too much television”.
Other features of peak television are:
- rising costs for series, up to $20 million per episode in extreme cases.
- increasing distributor clout/pressures that shows succeed internationally to make up for losses
in home market.
- pressure for series to stretch into multiple seasons, spawn spinoffs, prequels, sequels.
- migration of talent from film industry to television drama
- production techniques of film industry come to television: importance of “packaging”
- explorations between auteur and commercial tv
- though american-led, many european nations boast international successes.

- film policy (i.e. subsidies) have been redirected to series; series festivals are now a thing, as
are series at film festivals.
The darker side of peak television
With growth in budgets comes greater risks. Many SVOD services lose money, traditional
broadcasters, those outside of the US are struggling to compete.
Film production techniques amplify risks, they take talent away from films. They also mean that some
bad parts of film-making come over too.
The resources and audiences (and critical attention) are directed away from all other formats,
particularly a problem for PSBs.
Despite the success of some works, audiences (particularly the young) tend to favor american content.
Linguistic diversity does not accompany cultural diversity. Subtitling and dubbing. Western hegemony
– ongoing debates.
34


Wuolah Free Completos Media Landscape NOTES PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wuolah Free Completos Media Landscape NOTES PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

completos-media-landscape-NOTES-...

Estructura del Sistema Audiovisual

3º Grado en Comunicación Audiovisual

Facultad de Humanidades, Comunicación y Documentación.

Reservados todos los derechos.

Political Economy and the Screen Industries

Reservados todos los derechos.

How movies are made

Reservados todos los derechos.

Film circulation trends and patterns

Points to remember throughout

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

The American Landscape: the majors. The Hollywood majors.

Reservados todos los derechos.

- Vertical integration: owns/controls production, distribution and retail outlets.

Meet the Big 6

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

Reservados todos los derechos.

The majors and their impact on contemporary cinema

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

Mini-majors and independent distributors

Reservados todos los derechos.

Some mini majors are: Lionsgate, STX and Annapurna Pictures.

- STX: a recent start-up founded by former Universal executives. Currently assembling an

Reservados todos los derechos.

European Cinema: distinguishing features

Europe and the Film Policy. “Toolkit”.

The production of films is oriented to:

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

The circulation of films is oriented to:

Institutional dimensions of European Cinema

Reservados todos los derechos.

Film production in Europe

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

Global European distributors

Reservados todos los derechos.

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

The impact of European Studios (so far)

Reservados todos los derechos.

Regional and National players

- Scandinavia: Trust Nordisk and Svensk Filmindustri (aka SF Studios)

Making and selling films in Europe

Other major trend/strategy for targeting global success are remakes.

unit 4: spanish cinema, institutions, audiences and trends

Spanish Cinema: general points

Reservados todos los derechos.

Locals: ¡no os pongáis rojos! Foreigners: ¡aprovechad el cine español!

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

The Spanish Industrial Landscape: soft money

Services from local film commissions where films are shot.

The Spanish Industrial Landscape: festivals

- San Sebastián (September)

Reservados todos los derechos.

The Spanish Industrial Landscape: television

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!

- Original films → Fe de Etarras, 7 años, Dos Cataluñas, Elisa y Marcela...

Exporting Spanish cinema

Reservados todos los derechos.

Most export-oriented Spanish films/filmmakers these days work directly in English.

Famous Spanish auteur directors over the years

unit 5: asian ﬁlm industries

Cinema beyond Europe and North America

¿Seis meses gratis en Netflix, Disney+, Spotify...? ¡Hazte cliente de BBVA!