The proliferation of film websites and the effect on existing media institutions

Film websites have fast become a resource of study, for a wide range of purposes. Their existence is initially for entertainment purposes. For example; people ‘look up’ information on film websites for ‘fanatic’ purposes (a particular film they like, links to merchandise. Computer enhancement -, i.e. desktop themes and also images), research purposes (not only films but more often than not, providing information on cast members/actors/actresses and production crew etc.).

The need for gossip and intrigue in the ‘behind the scenes’ of productions has become a big hit with those of the tendency to gossip and also helps people feel a ‘part of’ the production. The majority of this ‘gossip-based’ aura would involve ‘sneak previews into pre-production’ and also scandalous gossip of the ‘stars’. These would be petty things such as; ‘Tom Hanks goes to World Premier with a rubber chicken in his pocket’ or ‘Kate Winslet wears a luminous pink mini skirt - outrage! Shock! Horror!’ (Eonline.com ‘celebrity gossip’) for example. The accumulation of many sites stems from a collective of sites seen as a ‘network’ of the same genre. With the success of these sites, people can easily obtain web space to set up more web sites, thus encourage more Internet traffic to their website. The existence of ‘banners’ of related sites and ‘pop up’ windows are inserted into the web page by the website designer/author and for every few clicks that get linked from the initial website, the website designer/author gets a small amount of money. Therefore, the more encouraged traffic, the more chance of people clicking on these extra links which in turn is self beneficiary. Market research is taken of the people who visit the site. (This often by online questionnaires or feedback forms), This in turn gives the website author/designer a look at the attracted market and then he or she can select particular companies by the statement of age, social class, ethnicity and economic status to tailor banners of companies that would attract this ‘crowd’.

There are extremely good points which appeal to audiences about film websites. The positive points include; access at home in comfort, where there is not much effort to find vast amounts of information within a database. The audience can feel a part of pre-production/production of the film, and the audience can participate in surveys, message boards and online chats with cast members/production crew. Also, downloads can be available to people (ie. Desktop themes, screensavers, icons, sounds and even MP3's of soundtracks). Often there is also links to other sites to buy merchandise (BOL, jungle.com, Amazon.com etc.), whether it is in the form of a screenplay of the film, the soundtrack of the film, T-shirts, posters etc.). Film websites are also more up-to-date than print versions, and sources of information are on a much wider range of news coverage (i.e. Ananova.com, thisislondon.co.uk - the Evening Standard site) has an entertainment section which lists film times at cinemas (local to west end - regionalised), for each week (Friday to Thursday). They are also long lasting depending on how much traffic they generate, thus providing comprehensive coverage of this thriving entertainment industry, free of charge (subject to an online plan) for many years.

Although minor, there are negative points which by appearance, still don’t deter people from such sites. Although there is a vast amount of information, ready to access at ones fingertips, it can clock up time on the Internet which is not practical if you are not on a flat rate/free of charge time plans. With the not as popular hardware application - WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), you can find out similar information (obviously with limitations of downloads/film excerpts). But to access this same information, extra hardware is needed for purchase, therefore not as cost-effective to the user/publication in contrast to buying an existing publication (magazine/entertainment newspaper) which is usually in the price range of £3 on average per magazine. There is a minus point regarding website banners as they can be very annoying (constantly having to close down ‘pop up banner’ windows) and yet sometimes they can be quite interesting. But, they do slow down the Internet connection, and if you are trying to download multiple pages in a web application (e.g. AOL) or download an item from the Internet, this can possibly cause cable failure and ‘chuck’ one off the Internet. There is also a particular factor of traditionalists and people without a computer/access to the Internet that prefer flicking through the pages of ‘Total film’ and ‘Empire’ magazine. In some cases where they would have to access this information online, they would have to go to an Internet café and the money that they pay for a couple of hours (the same price as a magazine), would only allow them temporary access to this information.

There are really positive points about the proliferation of film websites in conjunction with the print institution. Some publications have a website to support the publication (e.g. Empireonline.co.uk Empire magazine website) which will reach a much wider audience. With this as mentioned before, money made through advertising in print is made again if not double in web page form. As a statistic, for every 10 people who visit a site, at least three will click on one of the advertisements published. In turn, money is given to the host site (rates from about.com - 0.3p/$0.5 per click) and if the daily traffic is around 50,000 (e.g., IMDB.com/.co.uk) the company will make a substantial amount of extra income. Obviously, it is cheaper than the manufacturing/printing costs, but the main costs for the site are the hosting fee (e.g., Gold Package with larger data capacity - £50.00 per three months for a large database), website designer and contributors. If a publication supports itself with a website, the news is more up-to-date, but doesn’t include ‘full page glossy spreads’ (which some people prefer). Thus, magazines are more ‘popular’ in that respect. Websites are long lasting, a supported publication lasts longer if a variety of mediums are used to promote its existence.
There are negative effects of the ever expanding network of film websites. Firstly, people refer to sites rather than print and by ‘word of mouth’ more people become of the same opinion, it’s all a question of the ‘views of the masses’. Less money is made on the actual publication itself because more people would rather have ‘home access’ to ‘fresh information’ than make a ‘monthly pilgrimage’ to find their traditional and ‘reliable’ source of information in their favorite ‘film flick’. People have more variety and more ways of looking at previews of the film/upcoming actors/actresses. A factor in which a lot of magazines recoup a fair bit of ‘cost in production’ of the magazine money is made through advertising. Advertising space in a supported publication is a lot less to other companies and less space is used, in certain cases, money is only given to the site if people click on the advertising links. Web space is cheaper/free with some servers (e.g., 20fr.com - 20 Free MB space, Tripod - part of the Lycos network and Geocities - part of the Yahoo network). Where people may want to find reference, people would switch to a different site or network of sites, rendering the print version ‘old hat’.

The proliferation of film and entertainment websites provides major plus points on the film industry itself. Firstly, websites are long lasting and easily searched for on the Internet, this case is especially useful if a popular film is supported by a website - now looked on as the ‘norm’. People can access more media forms/items of interest, for example (taken from a selection from the Lord of the Rings website); desktop themes, icons, fonts, media player skins, pictures of cast and desktop wallpapers). There are also links to merchandise sites (obviously suggested/linked to the film company) where extra money is made through the sale of ‘high consumerism’ goods, e.g., T-shirts, jumpers, caps, mugs, action figures, posters, stickers, CD soundtracks, DVD etc. Websites are another medium of promoting a film prior to release (i.e., Pixar’s site had a link to Monsters Inc. a year prior to release which I found on my travels over the Internet a while ago), this was to download the current production trailer whilst it was still in production), this creates an interest and anticipation well before the film buffs have a chance to dig their claws into a ‘first draft’ of a film test screen. Success has been a key point at which has derived from the promotion of the ‘Blair Witch Project’. Small banners were put on such sites as Yahoo (and Yahoo chat), Lycos and MSN. As on these services there are many facilities that people access frequently throughout the day (email, e-greetings, chat, stocks, news, games etc.). Although this cos the small company which produced the film a lot of money, it reaped dividends as the media interest generated for a low-budget movie soared and this reflected in box office takings. Websites allow free-speech and opinion, this is a key for film makers because they can tailor films to suit a market/overall market by monitoring what the perspective viewers find of interest in the form of online questionnaires and ‘cookies’ (stored in the Windows C: / archives), that list visited sites.

With all these plus points the new promotional media format has negative points which could potentially harm sectors of the film industry. Inner secrets/pre-production changes are released on ‘gossip’ sites before press releases, and things can be taken out of context and generate bad press of a film even prior to the pre-production stages! .

The right of free speech is not good in cases of anti-groups against a topic/subject which some may find offensive. This can lead to campaigns and on larger scales, even worldwide by the modern advances of the Internet where web space is cheap and a site can be established in easy steps. But to the Humane standards institution, this can be looked at as a good thing. There was a big ‘hoo-ha’ about the film ‘Leon’ (a.k.a. ‘The Professional’) directed by French director/producer, Luc Besson. For those who have seen the film will know there was a stigma between the rebellious ‘on-the-run’ 12-year-old Mathilda and ‘hitman’ Leon. Mathilda thought she was developing a ‘love’ for her adoptive ‘house mate’ Leon. There was a scene which was cut where Mathilda asked Leon for sex, (although with no explicit imagery) this instantly got a huge thumbs down from participants of the screen tests and made its way out of the studios and many people took strongly against this and many people lead a petition over the Internet. This said: "Cut it or we’ll cut out your income" by boycotting the film as they thought (and rightly so) inappropriate (although in the script) a 12/13 year old Natalie Portman was asking a man in Jean Reno for something that she was not able to consent to and that it was encouraging paedophillia. Eventually, and by force it was cut (and proved to be a big success) that the Internet can dictate our viewing choices even if we are part of that dictation.

My conclusion to the proliferation of film websites is that it is going to be the new way forward in the future promotion of the film industry. Not entirely replacing print (like the MP3 will not replace the Vinyl and not necessarily the CD), it will prove the most successful communication of new ideas in the entertainment and film industry. In my opinion, printed publications will take a backseat to websites as they are more efficient in production but also the more cost-effective in the long run. More is available to the consumer in terms of exploring and retrieving information (the Internet information can be more in-depth). Almost any part of information works on a network in the modern world and technology is constantly being redeveloped to enhance our experiences and efficiency (so much so that when a new media text book is released, it goes out of date!). Email through the television is the new letter, lastminute.com is the new travel agent, p2p file sharing of MP3's is the new HMV for the latest music, BOL.com is the new ‘Watermans’ book shop, Ananova.co.uk is the new newspaper . . . could sites like IMDB be the new Total film/Empire magazine? . Only time will tell. (originally published 2002)