FILM AND TELEVISION: January 2016

Sky

Seeing the bigger picture is part of our business strategy, and reflects our Believe in Better ethos, our commitment to constant renewal and improvement in everything that we do. Over the last year, Sky has grown considerably, with the acquisitions of both Sky Deutschland and Sky Italia. We now employ almost 30,000 people and reach 21 million customers across Europe. While this growth provides great opportunities for our business, it also comes with greater responsibility. Our approach to building a durable business for the long term remains the same – making a social and economic contribution, acting responsibly day to day, and reaching beyond our business to inspire action and make a positive difference. Over the coming year we’ll be building on the initiatives already in place and will continue to align our approach across the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy.

Netflix

Our core strategy is to grow our streaming subscription business domestically and globally. We are continuously improving the customer experience, with a focus on expanding our streaming content, enhancing our user interface and extending our streaming service to even more Internet-connected devices, while staying within the parameters of our consolidated net income and operating segment contribution profit targets.

BBC

To enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.

From looking and researching about these mission statement, we were asked to create our own mission statement for our corporate video sector company.

Souces:

- Anon., 2016. Sky Corporate [online]. Sky. Available from: https://corporate.sky.com/bigger-picture [Accessed 26 Jan 2016].

- Anon., 2016. Netflix Inc. [online]. Netflix Inc. Available from: http://netflixcompanyprofile.weebly.com/ [Accessed 26 Jan 2016].

- Anon., 2016. BBC News [online]. BBC News. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values [Accessed 26 Jan 2016].

My own company name

My own company name would have to represent what I intend in creating e.i corporate video’s for mass amount of unique companies for their employees.
The company name would be Imaginatio Production as it’s Latin for Imagination, which would be relevant because all of our production videos would all be made with aspiration and imagination.

Our companies mission statement would be

To impress company’s aspirations with our imagery and ambition for us to assist them for their future of the company.

Ambition has no limit.

06:50
0 Comments

Case Study

Corporate Video

My group which consists of Charlie Stringfellow, Chantelle Kelleher and I got given a corporate video opportunity for DP World.
They’re one of the largest marine terminal with 65 terminals across the whole world reaching over six continents. London Gateway was the location we are giving our full attention too.

This is the company's home page. Firstly, I like how confident they are about their company, they instantly get their customers to compare other ports just to let the customer know that there’s has the best deal.

The homepage is an easy layout, everything is easy to find and it’s not harsh colours so collide badly. They follow the colours of their company’s logo which is also another reason why this stands out.

They give detailed information about the company and their port so no one is left unanswered. The Port Benefits is easily seen which stands out to the reader. DP World wanted to get the reader to see their benefits easily so they’ll most likely request a call back.

Again, for their next link which directs the customer to the Logistics Park which is one big place to keep their warehouses, added value activities and distribution. It’s in the same layout as the port page so it wouldn’t been confusing or difficult to find more information as the company. The Park benefits are again open and eye catching.

On their Media page, this is where you can find all their Videos, press releases, newsletters and Photos. As this is giving digital information, not just text. The layout is different than the previous but they’re still easy to locate and they're the only things shown within the screen. This site will keep the customers updated with anything new, and tell them something they didn’t read while scrolling through their website.

From looking at one of their videos which persuades the customer to send their shipping to DP World London Gateway, they follow a lot of codes and conventions for a corporate video. This isn’t a video for the staff of London Gateway, this advertises their company. There’s a lot of abstract and landscape shots throughout the sequence as they’re keeping the video interesting, also the landscape shots used are of the sites at DP world, so they also let the customer know what really goes on for their cargo and see what their layout it. They talk about London Gateway and mention that it’s the easiest, most reliable and sustainable port in the UK, as they stretch throughout the whole of The United Kingdom. From watching this video, they used a lot of time lapses, so it would be best to add a time lapse so they get what they want without even asking for it.

The rate cards, staffing and services would impact on production because we would use that information to use within our production so we’ll give the viewer more fact about the website. We’ll be keeping in mind all the legal and ethical issues as that this company reaches across the whole world, we’ll be taking note of misrepresentation. We’ll need to be biased, from watching a few of their videos about their company. They had biased views towards the company, as we would need to follow that so they get what they want.

The website for London Gateway lets the customers know about all the upcoming events, opening times, how much money they’re going to save and all the business a customer has a right to know about. They engage with their customers very well by their use of facts and statistics based upon Europe's largest consumer market. They have invites to their site so other organisations can see what London Gateway really is about. With their benefits and easy access it has for their customers.

From getting a brief from a company for making them a corporate video. Briefs can come in lots of different forms written based to verbally given. Good sides from getting a written brief is that, everything you’ll need to know is written on that document, also you wouldn’t misread anything or not understand anything because it’ll be right there in front of you. Written briefs can be swapped back and forth, edit them, make some changes until both the corporate video sector and company are both happy with what needs to be done. The changes will be saved onto the new document, so if the client forgets about one of the changed, you can remind them that ask them to look at the document which has both been signed. The bad sides towards the written brief is that it’s less likely to meet the client face to face as everything would most likely be done via email. The positive sides to having a verbal brief would be that you both can negotiate into a final brief there and and then, instead of replying to emails and forwarding them back to everyone else. It would be more agreeable doing it face to face. You can also ask question with the brief that wouldn’t be able to ask when been given for the written brief. Also the negative sides for a verbal brief would that, you could forget the changes or the client could accidently miss some information out that would've been important. But a way to overcome that would be to record the brief or write it down while you’re listening, but then if you’re writing what they’re saying, you could forget or mishear some of the other information that they told you.

Working in this sector would bring me valuable skills throughout the future, as this is a big global company, other clients would be impressed that we did a corporate video for such a big company. This will also give me big valuable skills for sorting out quotes and also discussing the brief with your client so there’ll be no disagreements and it’ll be a brief you can both agree too. This corporate video would be recognised in the sector.

I’ll be explaining in the corporate video to their employees about the sustainability of their company. We’ll be discussing the organisation of the employees and encouraging new employees to do the same. A detailed background into DP World and their plans for the future.

14:07
0 Comments

Censorship

The recently released film ‘The Interview’ has grabbed a lot of attention from the media and North Korea with its offence towards North Korea. Directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, The Interview is a controversial film about the assassination of Kim Jong-un as he threatens to destroy the U.S. What’s bad about the film is that they used the actual leader in the film, whereas they could've made up a new dictator. As they used real facts and real people in the film. The Interview was going to do a Christmas Day release until there was a terror threat towards Sony Pictures, the production company, if they were to release the film. Sony Pictures backed down and didn’t go with the Christmas Day release but still tried to get their film out there, but other big chaining cinema’s backed down in showing the film to the public due to Terror Threats from ‘The Peace Keepers’. The film-makers were also pressured into removing certain jokes and a homosexual scene within the film. While also tinkering the death scene of Kim Jong-un as it was disturbing towards some audiences. The film was known as an ‘act of war’ from North Korea as they found the film highly offensive towards their supreme leader and towards their dictatorship. The film reaches out of freedom of free speech which was the argument for the film to not be censored or antagonised by terror and cyber threats.

The Film-makers were already concerned that they would’ve been pressured into having the film having some blocked content, as the original title for The Interview was going to be called ‘Kill Kim Jong-un, which this title would’ve been a definite censor. So they changed the name to The Interview to keep it clean and open. Sony Pictures were the ones who had the censor the film as it contained extremely inappropriate content, also they were threatened for the film not to be released on Christmas day due to the terrorist threats towards the chains of big cinema company doors. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) classified the film as a fifteen, as it is now appropriate towards fifteen’s and over due to the reason that the film had already been censored by hiding away offensive content. The BBFC classify films whether they are suitable towards an age group by the content shown within the production. They also have the power to censor content within the film or ban the film completely. They didn’t take any part in censoring the Interview as Sony Pictures already censored content within the production.

I believe that the film was censored because of the content that was taken place within the film because of how inappropriate the content is within the film. By how they jump to assumptions on how North Korea treat their citizens and how God like Kim Jong-un is. No one truly understands how North Korea’s government leads their country and how it all works. This was censored to protect the general public from thinking the the film was 100% factual whereas the film was just one big comedic joke. This shows examples of the Effects models of audience theory as this would influence the audience of the film to be racist towards North Korea and use the offensive language used within the film. This would be disrespectful and would become misrepresentation, from the film and towards the audience. The audience could take the film as a documentary and think everything in the film would be facts about North Korea, as in reality, they most likely wouldn’t be. Effects models of audience theory is giving influences towards the audience which would mainly be negative. As the message of the text would be so strong some audience would be incapable in order to prevent the influence. This is also connected with the Bobo doll experiment where children are placed in a room with an adult and a Bobo doll, the adult would attack the Bobo doll and make the child watch, shortly after, they place the child into the room alone with the Bobo doll and see how the child interacts with the doll. Most children will aggressively attack the doll under the influence of the adult from watching them to begin with. This comprehensively connotes with the effect model of audience theory. Censoring the film was a good thing so the audience wouldn’t be influenced under the text with all the racist comments and remarks.

There’s a big argument from people being against censorship and people being with censorship. Censorship is blocking content so audiences would be protected from the inappropriate content shown within text. Censorship is also used as keeping information away from another individual so censorship covers all areas from information to media. This can be seen as a good thing as it would protect audiences under the influence of the film and also protecting children from explicit content from the text. This also protects audiences so they’re not influenced into committing any crimes, speaking too inappropriately or causing actions are are in itself inappropriate. Keeping personal information away from another individual would also be classed as censorship and people have a right of privacy as this is persona information and you’d have a choice whether for someone to be exposed to the information. Whereas if the government were to keep information away to the public, that’s a bad thing because public shouldn’t feel so controlled and they should be able to choose what they feel is appropriate to see. Whereas keeping personal information censored is chosen to be exposed from the host.

Censorship can also be a bad thing within media as it doesn’t let the screenwriter or the director to tell the full story and most of the content would be blocked or tinkered. It wouldn’t let their creativity flow as this would give them restrictions.

14:50
0 Comments

Television Show Proposal

Studio Portfolio

Under Pressure is a fast paced game of charades with the element of giving facts and most recent news. The show consists of three contestants and three different rounds, the first round is called, ‘What did you hear?!’ Which the contestants have to act out a recent event in the news that is popular; given to them by the host. The event isn't revealed, therefore the audience at home or in the studio can play the game too. They have two minutes to act out the recent event, and if one of the contestants guesses correctly, they earn one point. Each contestant takes part in this round. The second round would be a contestant standing in front of a green screen with a VT behind them of a recent or fairly recent news event, while they get given a line to improvise and pretend they’re broadcasting the event. The other contestants have to give them clues and hints as of what event is taking place behind them, and if they guess correctly where they are or what’s happened, the contestant in front of the green screen gains another point. Again, each contestant takes part in this round. The final round is each contestant has to sing (in a style chosen by the host) a recent news affair, any of their choosing, and whoever impresses or makes the host laugh the most is the winner and gains another point, so the host decides who gets the point that round.

I had two major influences from creating Under Pressure, which were, Whose Line Is It Anyway? and Mock the Week. Whose Line is it Anyway isn't a factual nor news related television show, but the improvisation elements were inspired from that show, whereas Mock the Week, is a factual news related show with comedic conventions and script. Whose Line is it Anyway influenced me by how they get their contestants on the spot and need to improvise something, I wanted to add this element and comedic convention to bring excitement and laughs for my television show. I wanted Under Pressure to be light hearted and easy to watch because I aim for this show to be broadcasted with a wide range audience from teenagers all the way into the adults. Each round has aspects of my two influences, mainly from Whose Line is it Anyway, whereas the second round, Is a round in Whose Line is it Anyway and Mock the week, I decided the merge their two rounds together for creating my own iconic round. In Mock the Week, they had to voice over a VT from the news, but improvising and making a comedic side to the VT. Whereas on Whose Line is it Anyway, they had to stand in front of a green screen and guess where they are, the green screen didn't display recent news affairs, therefore, with joining those two rounds together, I created my own round, which is round two.

The audience is mainly for males, with the demographic category of B, C1, C2, D and E. It reaches out to most categories because each element of my show relates to each category because with the improvisation and and the comedic conventions, this would reach down lower on my list of demographics because they’ll be more interested in the comedy side, more to the factual side of Under Pressure. While this reaches out the high list of my demographics because they’ll be more interested in the factual side, as that’s more mature than the improvisation. This would mainly be for males, because there’ll be more male contestants to female contestants, as the host would be male also. With the immaturity of the television show, this would reach out more for males as men are considered to be more immature than women. This would be between of the ages of seventeen and fifty years of age, seventeen because this would be the time for teenagers to care and understand the news and fifty because anyone above fifty tends to be more mature than their younger peers.

The design of the set would be three different cameras, one camera focusing on the host at all times, the other camera would mainly be focusing on the three or two contestants sitting down on their chair and the last camera would focus on the contestant who is improvising a round. There would be three seats at the back all within a few inches apart, with the hosts seat on the right hand side (at the back) with the main floor to be the stage for the contestants to improvise when it’s their turn to play the round. We would have the green screen just to the right of the host which would be playing VT’s of recent news events and the contestant needs to broadcast the event without knowing what’s going on behind them. There wouldn't be interviews at all, this isn't a serious show, but an immature show with factual elements. Compared the Mock the Week, they have discussions about the news as that’s a panel show, there would be small discussions within Under Pressure between rounds are they talk about the event they just acted out, presented or sung. As we need to keep discussions so the higher demographic audiences would be interested, as it would become more serious but still comedic. This isn't similar to any serious news program like BBC or ITV news because the content is completely different. With my show, we’re joking with the news, whereas like BBC or ITV news, they take it seriously, so they can address the news in a formal way as it’s an important matter to the public.

The One Show show very different VT about each topic they discuss about on the set. I noticed a VT they showed about a house being flooded recently, so they resolved the issue by lifting the house. First, they told facts about the damage of the house and facts about the flooding issue in the UK, while giving panning and establishing shots of the house and of lakes, and rivers. They broadcasted shots of the water, because that’s the topic they’re talking and giving facts about. Also showing other shots of other houses that have been flooded as a comparison. The presenter of the VT then has a small interview with the person who got affected with the issue, they asked how they felt so the audience would feel sympathy towards the individual. In my VT everything would be muted as someone would be standing in front of the VT and need to improvise and guess what’s being shown behind them. The contestant who is standing in front of the green screen would be giving facts and using hand gestures, just as they’re presenting the VT so they engage with the audience. While on One Show, towards the end of the VT the presenter gives a positive conclusion about the issue that’s been resolved which I'm going to do the same with my VT, as the contestant is going to give either a negative or positive conclusion towards the end of the VT, then after the VT had finished, they had to guess what the news story was about.

When proposing a television show, you need to follow a strict guideline of ethical issues which could include, impartiality, which is the producer must be impartial about their television show and all the other television shows. They cannot be biased. All producers need to be open minded and fair with their peers. We’ll do this by respecting what is good with other television shows, without using criticism but encouragement and trust. We cannot be biased with our show. We can appreciate the good aspects within our show and our conventions, but cannot put forward that our show is the best, just because we made the show.

Another ethical issue is harm and offence. As we’ll be making a comedic factual television show, it’ll be a strict deadline not to be offensive or harmful towards any contestant or any audience that could be watching. We would need to be well aware of who could be watching, before 9PM GMT, we must not use bad language, violence, nudity, alcohol or smoking within our show. Some people can be deeply offended with any of that content if seen on the television show, which is why we need to be careful. After 9PM GMT, subtle bad language can’t be used, but give a warning before the television show starts. Give a warning about anything can will be involved into the show, which can be bad language, violence etc.

While other television shows use bad language, but they all add warning before the show starts and they’re aired after 9PM GMT.

The last ethical issue that would be thought about is misrepresentation. As this would be news based. A contestant could cover a news story of a minor or a refugee coming into the UK. It is extremely vital that we don’t misrepresent them. We would need to represent them fairly and equally amongst everyone else. We should misrepresent other shows, other people or other contestants. Everything needs to be treated fairly, diverse and equally. On BBC news, when they cover a broadcast about a refugee, homeless people, elderly, adolescents. They don’t misrepresent them in any way as the BBC has strict guidelines.

14:34
0 Comments

Pages

FILM AND TELEVISION

Case Study

Censorship

Television Show Proposal

About me

Labels

recent posts

Blog Archive