UK Film Market

In the UK Film market, an increase in the number of screens available to show films has not lead to increase in the number of films shown - Why?

Remarkably, the number of films being played in multiplex's has not increased even though there are now more screens to watch them on. This is because higher budget, Hollywood or big producer films are played at multiple times throughout the day on a number of screens, leaving other films that are released only 1 screen each.

In your opinion, what might account for the fact that cinema attendances have fluctuated between 139 million and 176 million between 1999 and 2008?

The main reason for the fluctuation of cinema audiences will be the release of bigger, more desirable films on more screens and cinemas around the world. One of the most popular franchises in history, Harry Potter was started in 2001 and carried on through 8 films, all of which drew in large audiences. This was aided by the number of multiplex's built throughout the modern world and how easy it is to find a time where one can go to the cinema.

In 2011, UK film distributors invested £330 million on advertising their new releases and on 35mm film prints. If around 450 new films receive a theatrical release every year, how much, on average, do distributors spend distributing a film in the UK?

On average, film distributors spend £0.7 million per film

This spending stirred up enormous demand, 171.5 million cinema tickets were bought in the UK in 2011. This is great news for cinemas, however what is the downside to all the excitement generated and the consumers demand for film producers in the UK?

The main reason in which the UK suffer from the massive consumer demand is caused by the fact that most UK companies are subsidiaries of their American partners. This means that the sub-brands which release films in the UK, a share of the profits go to the parent company, usually owned in America. This is basically down to size with the USA having a much greater population and so are in much greater demand.

In 2004 the average cost of releasing a Us film domestically was $39m, in addition to the average production cost of $63.8m, making an overall average production cost per film of $102.8m. What effect might this have on Hollywood production and distribution if these increases have continued?

It will have a greatly negative effect as the high prices will not always be able to be recouped due to the high cost per film rate. This could lead to a smaller amount of films being produced as not every company has the money or resources to release them.

Why are more 'middle aged people' going to the cinema in 2011? Who, in your opinion, are the current most bankable actors for the younger generation?

The rise in middle aged people attending cinemas in 2011 is mainly down to the fact that more films are being made to cater to their needs. Realizing that more middle aged people have time than younger, working citizens there is more of an opportunity to make money off them. This is shown through the increase in films being released such as The Kings Speech and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, as well as remakes of films they would have seen in their childhood such as various westerns or other types of films. The most bankable actors for the younger generation are people who are entertaining, or people the opposite sex find appealing. Some examples of these are Taylor Lautner, Edward Cullen, Bradley Cooper, Matt Damon and others along those lines as well as actress' like Eva Mendes, Mila Kunis among various others.

How many of the top 10 US films last year made 2 and a half times their budget?

3, Avengers Assemble, Ted and the Hunger Games

Is Jerry Bruckheimer a 'high concept producer'? And does he deserve his reputation for films that are high on effects and low on narrative?

In my opinion, labeling Bruckenheimer as one type of producer is unfair. With such a wide range of releases, from Confessions of a Shopaholic to Prince of Persia, there is no set film which he produces and as such no set title for the type of films he produces. 

To what extent does Hollywood dominate the UK film landscape? And how has it managed to retain its stronghold?

The extent to which the Hollywood film industry dominated the UK's is on a great scale. For many reasons, one of which being the size of the country or the greater population, the USA has a greater demand for films. This means that the majority of films are produced, thought of, made or otherwise involved in Hollywood somehow. Because of the massive interaction, the majority of films shown in the UK are produced in Hollywood, America or from a subsidiary of an American company. This shows us that was is thought of and done in Hollywood ultimately dictates what is shown and made in the UK, confirming a strong hold over our market and audience. One of the most profitable companies within the film industry is Warner Bros, a subsidiary of Time Warner. This company produced films such as the Star Wars series and multiple other, high grossing films. 
Another brand which dictates what is shown in the UK is Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures has many subsidiaries which produce films of different types, shown in the UK to test how popular they are. An example of this would be Sony Pictures Classics producing indie/Art House movies which are on the border of being mainstream and a select audience, these are shown in the UK first to test which is more likely they are gonna be then sold as such in The US. The way in which Hollywood keeps its control over the UK film industry is simple, money. Hollywood spend the most in producing their films and as such spend the most in hiring different people to do jobs. Also, the idea that change isn't necessary and if you have a winning formula stick with it could be a reason why Hollywood still has a strong grasp on us.