Questions like this one are very broad in their scope, meaning that you could write a very long and detailed essay on this question. But you won't have time to write more than 500 wds so you'll have to be concise.
This means you have to know your notes well and be able to pull them out of your head at will. This is what revision is for. You read over your notes and learn them. Then identify how you apply them to the different possible questions.
Also note that you will always be marked on the same things:
Media Terminology - 10mks
Examples from case studies (at least two) - 20mks
Explanation/Argument/Analysis - 20mks
NB: The following is simply one way you could approach answering the question above. Remember you will always get a better mark if you look closely at a couple of areas rather than trying to write about everything.
Essay Plan:
Introduction:
Simply state that the film industry has been transformed in every way by digital technology. This includes:
- Production
- Distribution
- Exhibition
Then state your view as to whether digital technology has had advantages or disadvantages for audiences and institutions. Or both. If you have a strong view either way you can state it now as long as your essay goes on to explain why you hold this view.
PARAGRAPH 1
Production: Talk about how the vast majority of major Hollywood movies have embraced digital technology and explain why but always link it to your case studies.
Star Trek was not shot on digital cameras but benefited from digital technology in its post-production esp VFX. Created a sophisticated product which its (mainly) young tech savvy target audience would be expecting.
Contrast this with Shifty Without digital cameras, because of it's miniscule budget and tight schedule, it is unlikely that Shifty would ever have been made.
We can identify advantages and disadvantages here for both institutions and audiences. Digital technology means a superior product for the producers of Star Trek and it greater satisfaction for the audience. Whereas with Shifty success for the producers is simply getting it made; for the audience it means there is potentially greater choice for them. And this in itself could be seen as a challenge to the dominance of Hollywood. Though as the essay should show, it doesn't work out like this in practice.
Another issue is that by devoting all their money, time and resources to big effects driven, action extravaganzas, the studios make fewer and fewer mid budget, adult orientated films that produced Oscar bait like The Godfather and Chinatown in the 1970s.
PARAGRAPH 2:
Distribution/Marketing: It would not be unreasonable to base your entire essay on this area as there is a great deal to discuss.
Digital technology has transformed distribution and marketing strategies. You should consider how digital distribution differs from the old model.
What does it mean for the distribution of both blockbusters and independent films?
How much money that saves and for whom.
How do the institutions benefit?
Are there any drawbacks? Certainly independent producers are more able to afford to distribute films but they still need to get them screened. If a major producer can send multiple digital prints to a cinema for the same cost as to send one, exhibitors are simply more likely to screen the blockbuster on more than one screen because it is still likely to get a larger audience than the low budget British movie. So Hollywood still seems to benefit the most and the audience's choice is still limited.
PARAGRAPH 3 (and possibly 4):
Marketing: Very important paragraph. This is all about the use of cross-media convergence and synergy.
You must know your examples for this. You have to talk about both case studies. And don't just describe what Star Trek and Shifty did. Explain HOW it worked for them. Shifty's clever use of convergence and synergy allowed them to target an audience outside what would have been their more likely middle-class Guardian reader profile and reach the urban youths. Give the examples of how it was done. How did they use synergy in their link ups with music artists, despite not being able to afford to license any music for use in the film? Yes, it was only a modest success, but it proved to be an effective launch pad for the production team to move on to bigger and better things.
Look at the Star Trek approach. How they used traditional marketing methods in combination CONVERGENCE to create a total online saturation. Because of the major studio backing they could explore the creation of additional online content to the max with games, apps, widgets. Absolutely everything a user could want for their mobile device.
REMEMBER: Massice Hollywood movies generally have teenage boys as they're primary audience but ultimately they want to try to attract as many people as possible because the movies are so expensive to make they don't want to limit their audience size. Hence their huge online presence. You could not escape Star Trek on its release.
Consider the endless product tie-ins (synergy).
So while both institutions benefit, who really benefits the most? Consider the difference in the scale of success. Is all this of benefit to the audience? Presumably so, as long as they as they're sci-fi fans.
Don't forget to comment on the audience's use of technology. Think about your own media consumption. Young people LOVE using their phones. It is just common sense to create content for mobile devices as well as focusing a great deal of the marketing energies there.
PARAGRAPH 5:
Exhibition/exchange: This does not need to be as detailed but it is important to note that since AVATAR the majority of cinemas are now digital and while this was very costly, it was inevitable. The audience benefits because of the high quality product on offer, though somehow, despite vastly reduced distribution costs cinema tickets continue to rise.
What is interesting about it is that it has placed a great deal of power in the hands of exhibitors, who are now also setting up on demand services as well and sometimes even getting involved in the finance of films. This potentially benefits the audience because there is more choice and flexibility about how they see films. Superficially at least. It is easy now to screen several different films in the same auditorium but that doesn't mean that independent films are necessarily getting shown; or if they are it is at times when there's no audience to see them (2pm on a Wednesday for example). So again the question of choice gets raised.
CONCLUSION:
Evaluate your argument. Is the advent of digital technology a good or bad thing, or somewhere in between? Certainly studies have to deal with piracy, but they are able to use the digital technology to create "new" innovations like 3D to combat piracy. In the final analysis. Who really benefits the most from digital technology the institutions (Independents v Hollywood) or audiences. Or is there something for everyone. After all, just how different is Man of Steel from Thor or The Avengers or Spiderman. How many Mission Impossibles do we need?
