Is the NVA a legitimate law?

The video recordings act was introduced and enforced in 1984, after the moral panic introduced by the right wing newspapers. The legislature passes this bill when the Conservative government was in office. The Bill stated that no one should see these video nasties, due to its immoral behaviour. However the moral panic focused on the availability of these video nasties and how easily accessible it was for children to watch them. The act did prevent children from watching video nasties and unregulated films, which made it successful and morally right. However this bill blocked the civil libities and freedoms of an individual over the age of 18 who is more than capable to decide wether or not to watch these films, thus making this  a morally iligitmate law. 

Notes on the 'video nasties' video

Mary Whitehouse was mates with Margret Thatcher, due to similar views regarding politics. And Christian traditional views

Mary Whitehouse would meet with high police figures to discuss campaigns to ban them. Obscene publication squad - police squad.

Had natural allies in right wing newspapers

'Rape of our children's minds' - daily mail newspaper article title. Propaganda videos and press to turn minds  

All very Christian views, hated these demonic and satan possessive films

Video nasties were used as scrape goats for all crimes. "Experts link street riots and child abuse to diet of filth fed to our young" - daily 

mail.

Videos started to get incinerate 

47 children replied ( 6 year olds ) 3 said they had seen these video nasties. They had seen 17 films between them. This equated to 40% it then became front pages news "sadism for 6 year olds" - daily mail

2/3rds of children in Birmingham claimed to have seen films that don't even exist

We're not worried about intellects, as members of Parliament started to defend them.

Shop keepers were getting fined

Started to arrest shop keepers and distributors for seeking video nasties, but shop keepers didn't know what they could and couldn't sell. Distributors were taken to court at the old Bailey 

Judges were bias as they two were against video nasties 

Quiz

1. 1978- 1984

2. Evil dead was significant as it was very gratuitous and actually got banned because of its content 

3. They pushed for video nasties to be banned and stirred the moral panic

4. They were afraid of imitable behaviour and the moral panic they used the video nasties as a scrape goat of the economic problems

5. The BBFC was an independent board which regulated the content of films, it decided to ban evil dead

6. The video recordings act was where all films that were considered to be a video nasty had to be sent to the BBFC for regulation 

Essay 1: What factors led to the decline of town or city centres cinemas in the kate 1970s and early 1980s?

"What factors led to the decline of town or city centres cinemas in the late 1970 and early 1980s?"

3 factors social technological and economic 

Point 1: coming out of a recession, film companies created sfx films as they made money, and these films were not distributed to flea pits.

Point2: the development of vhs led to the decline of cinema attendance and the only way to attract audiences back was to show sfx movies 

Point 3: the main demographic for cinema attendance was teenagers, they wanted to see the new state of the art films in the new state of the art cinemas, something a flea pit could not do.

Point4:  Mass marketing attracted these kids, which was then only shown in the multiplex. This created the event movie which was only available at multiplexes

There are three factors that led to the decline of town or city cinemas, more commonly known as fleapits. Social decline among adults through the global recession and the rise of the teenage demographic, technological advancement such as the reoccurring use of special effects and the development and popularity of VHS and finally the economic fall due to the recession.

As the UK was coming out of a global recession, economic standards among adults dropped significantly as they did not have disposable income to spend on trips to the cinema. Production companies were aware of such factors are were not willing to the take the risk of creating a character driven film which could potentially not make significant income if not none. This led to the formulaic creation of SFX driven movies such as E.T, these style over substance films were then only distributed to multiplexes which had more screens and seats with better quality sound and visual effects screens and equipment. This meant that fleapits were not being given the rights to show these SFX driven blockbusters which was generating the most income, subsequently putting them out of business and raising the audience attendance at multiplexes.

During the late 70s and the early 80s the development of VHS was a major breakthrough in the technology of film, it allowed families to watch newly released films in the comfort of their own home, it also enabled them to have money in the long run as videos were cheaper than a cinema ticket. Although this was a great jump in the entertainment industry it did lower the audience attendance in local cinemas. This was done by two factors, one, any films that would be shown in a fleapit could be easily purchased on VHS and  two the hollywood production and distribution companies were aware that to receive the best possible experience (sound and visually) you would have to see it in a state of the art cinema e.g a multiplex. So it would create these blockbusters to attract back the audiences. This led to the demise and neglect of the fleapit as it could not compete with the superior state of the art multiplexes with its formulaic but successful style over substance films.

Birth of an event movie and the transition to the modern blockbuster

Context = reasons

Blockbusters do not stimulate or challenge the mind, opposed to independent films

Film = food

We are fed these formulaic blockbusters. For instance we love to eat Big Macs (blockbusters) but they're not that good. Whereas we're not to keen to eat a healthy salad (independent) but it's good for us in the long term.

At some point between Jaws and Star Wars and the present date. Blockbusters have evolved into sc-fi  driven films and do not focus on the narrative.

1.Technology 

2.Economics=€$¥

3.Audience- social 

Context = reasons

Big dumb movies Mark Komode 

If you spend enough money, which creates an event it will still create a bad film.  People only see the film for the hype and to see the film to see where all the money was spent.

Films now can advertise patrism. And can be used for properganda for instance top gun shows how awesome it is to be in the airforce and how Americans can Kick ass, whereas the rest of the world sees american culture and army as agrogant and as invaders.

Characteristics of block busters

Easy to understand 

Simple stereotypes 

Uses franchising

Merchandising 

Global appeal

Godfarther: budget $6 mill gross $134 mill

Uses simple stereotypes. Star driven with marlo Brando. In the future it became a franchise with video games and sequels. However it is character driven and does not rely on special effects, it does use set pieces but not with SFX. It also has a big director (Francis ford Coppola)

Star Wars: budget $11 mill gross $797 mill

uses simple stereotypes such as Samuel in distress. Is not character driven and does rely on special effects, uses set pieces. It uses A list stars such as Alec Guinness. It had a higher budget than other films and brought in well over triple its budget.

Jaws: budget $8mill gross $260 mill

Is character driven, uses a list celeb with the use of Rob Schneider (nominated for an Oscar). Is part of a franchise

Audiences behaviours: duel ( 1971 tv adapted movie ) Spielbergs first film is commonly compared to jaws. Had a respectable cast. 

Technology: the technology in the jaws was faulty. Used open water not CGI

Economic: first film to ever gross $100 million, simultaneous

Star Wars ended a time of character driven complex blockbusters (new hollywood), and started a new preference where audiences prefer to see visual effects, this is evident through the total gross jaws gross 260 million dollars where as Star Wars made 797 million dollars. Star Wars would become the formula for modern blockbusters.

Does the flop formula work?

Flop formula= not a comedy+ a lister+ big budget (150 million+) + lost of special effects

Does the blockbuster formula still work?

1.highest budget. Dead mans chest budget-300mil grossed- 958mill. Highest grossing movie earned 3 times its budget. Received disappointing reviews.

2.highest grossing. Avatar 2009 budget-237 million  Grossed- 2.7 billion. Not the biggest budget but showed how it was not a major factor in the box office 

1. A flop is a film that doesn't double its profits from its budget. 

2. Double of its budget ( not reviews )

3. Money pumped into advertising and marketing, piracy also may prevent people going to the cinema as its much cheaper.

4. Films have to be similar to other successful films in order to attract audiences, creating a formula, which can actually drive away viewers.

5. A franchise is a film or a series of films that is merely a product or a business as it creates toys and other ways of making money 

Box office mojo-- use this site

Mark Komode- bbc film critic 

Multiplex- use different screens In cinemas to show a vast amount of films.

Cinema budget- the actual budget that is recorded and only spent on the production of the film

Marketing budget- is not included in the budget 

Flop Formula- high budget- visual effects- a list star- not a comedy

We have CGI in blockbusters to deter audiences from viewing the film illegally, this is to create a better experience in the cinema than to what you could get at home. This is also a way of generating a greater income as many teenagers have been spoon fed this formula and will go see it again and again.

Similarities

I Simillarities between the new Star Wars, terminator and the new Star Trek 

1. Iconic soundtracks - identifiable/ familiar/ recognise 

2. Big franchises, been running for many years with spin offs

3. All rebots 

4. Dystopian future

5. Same director

6. Hollywood- products

These similarities between these films show how Hollywood are limited on orginal ideas. These may be because of a lack of profit due to piracy.