What impact does media ownership have upon the range of products

available to audiences in the media area you have studied?

In film, ownership relates to certain production companies that own films.
The case studies I will be discussing include Gravity, Paddington, Harry
Potter and The Avengers.
Firstly, Gravity has some issues when it comes to ownership. The film
features two big Hollywood actors (Sandra Bullock and George Clooney)
acting out an American story which doesnt actually included any aspects
of Britishness. However, despite this it was nominated for Best British film
at the BAFTAs. So is the film British or American? Well there is a conduct
that was set up by the BFI (British Film Institution) which determines
whether a film is British or not through a certain criteria. Gravity passed
the test on the terms that the director Alfonso Cuaron, despite being
Mexican, lives in London. One of the main reasons is down to the fact that
all of the special effects were carried out by the British company
Framestore. The film was also all shot in Pinewood studios in England, so
this is also significant in classifying Gravity as a British film. Piracy is also
linked in with film ownership. People can pirate films and put them online
and this has a huge negative impact on the film industry. When Gravity
was in cinemas it was screened in 3D. This is a significant advantage to
the film because 3D movies cannot be pirated which ultimately brought in
more money for the film because more people saw it in the cinema.
An example of another British film is Paddington. This film is most
definitely classed as British and I would say it is much more British than
Gravity. For one, the majority of the film is set in the UK, predominantly in
London. It also features a British cast, with actors such as Hugh Bonneville
and Sally Hawkins. Linking back to Gravity, the special effects of the film
were carried out by Framestore also. Another thing to note is that
Paddington was distributed by British production company Studio Canal,
who are an example of a smaller British company so the film is not owned
by a large conglomerate like a lot of American films are. This could have
its drawbacks in terms of products for the audience. There were less
products brought out for this film than other large British films like Harry
Potter. I think if this film had been owned by a large conglomerate like
Harry Potter was there would be a larger amount of product brought out.
Leading on to Harry Potter, this film franchise is owned and funded by the
large American conglomerate Warner Bros. This could raise some issues
over ownership much like Gravity. It is true to say that the film is
extremely British, with an all British cast including Daniel Radcliffe and
Emma Watson. Also the films are all set in the UK and were written by
British author J.K. Rowling. So is this film American or British? I would say
that I believe this film franchise is most definitely British despite being
owned by Warner Bros. However, this ownership turned out to be a
positive thing for the franchise as it led to a huge amount of products for
the film. For example, there were games that were released, posters,

clothing, accessories and a whole manner of merchandise that was

available to the audience. This ultimately helped to bring in more money
for the films. Another thing is that Warner Bros have the Harry Potter
studio tour in London, which brings in thousands of people every day and
sells a vast amount of merchandise. There is also the Wizarding World of
Harry Potter in Florida. So, because the franchise is owned by a huge
conglomerate there is a large array of product out there and this brings in
huge amount of money for the franchise which is a really good thing.
Furthermore, another example of a film that is owned by a large American
conglomerate is Avengers Assemble. This film is owned by Marvel who is
owned by Disney and so this is an example of vertical integration and
synergy. Disney is probably one of the most well-known companies for its
produce, which is a huge advantage for the film. Much like Harry Potter,
the film had a cast amount of produce when it was released. One of the
most significant was its games. This was down to the fact that the film
had a large base of young teenage boys as an audience and this group
buy and play a lot of video games. There were examples of cross media
convergence in that they made a virtual reality app which was available to
download on pretty much any device. There were also toys such as action
figures available. These were sold in large supermarket chains across the
UK such as Tesco, Sainsburys and Asda which meant they were widely
available and so this brought in huge amount of money for the film. Since
Disney own Marvel, Avengers products were available through the Disney
shops which are in many locations around the UK. This was also true for
the Disney theme parks, so the film was projected out to thousands of
people through its products, bringing in a vast amount of profit for the
film.
To conclude, it is significant that when films are owned by large
conglomerates there is a lot more produce that is widely available and this
brings in money, therefore helping towards the films success. Also there
can be issues regarding the ownership of films, but this can be discovered
through things like the BFIs cultural test.