Dissertation

1
The ‘Bigger’ Picture:
An analysis of Hollywood’s ‘risk-averse’ business policies and its
profit orientation
Vihan Chelliah
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of a B.A (Hons.) Communications
degree
Institute of Communication Studies, University of Leeds
May 2014
Supervisor: Dr. Leslie Meier
Word Count: 11,813

2
Abstract
This critical study explores the Hollywood film industry’s fixation with certain business
practices that make it come across as risk averse. Case studies on The Walt Disney
Company and the movie Man of Steel were conducted, and used to analyse Hollywood’s
focus on ancillary markets, expansion, and blockbusters and franchises. The aim of the
research is to determine whether the film industry’s profit orientation is negatively affecting
the kinds of films that are being produced, and whether the commodification of movies is
ultimately justified.

3
Acknowledgements
Thank you Dr Meier for your constant guidance and reassurance.
To my parents for always pushing me to be the best version of myself…

4
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………….........................2
Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……...5
Literature Review………………………………………………………...………….7
Uniqueness of the Film Industry…………………………………………....7
Ancillary Markets……………………………………………………..……..8
Company Diversification…………………………………………………...10
Blockbusters and Franchises…………………………………..…………..12
Methodology……………………………………………………………………......16
Findings and Discussion………………………………………………………….19
The Majors…………………………………………...………………........19
The Role That Ancillary Markets Play………………………….....……..20
The Man of Steel Case.................................................................................20
Creating the Entertainment Empire………………………………….….24
An Analysis of Disney’s Expansion Strategies……………………….....…….24
Ensuring That The Money Comes In……………………………………28
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..…34
Appendix A: Images……………………………………………………….….....36
Appendix B: Ethics Form……………………………………………………….40
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….42

5
INTRODUCTION
The Hollywood film industry is without a doubt a powerful and successful institution that
dominates the production and distribution of on-screen entertainment across the world. Its
success is evident through the hundreds of millions of dollars each of its films make in revenue.
In 2011, it was calculated that the creative industries led by Hollywood contributed $504 billion
to the US economy, or 3.2% of its GDP (The Associated Press, 2013). This exemplifies how vast
the reach and consumption of Hollywood’s products are, and how deeply arts and culture are
embedded in society.
Despite this, Hollywood studios and producers have been thought to be highly risk averse with
the strategies that they employ. This aversion has led to an apparent adherence to certain
policies that have come under scrutiny for being too profit driven, and leading to a
deterioration of artistic quality. Since Hollywood’s business approaches affect the kinds of
products it produces and hence, all of its global consumers, it is imperative to look into what
these strategies mean for the filmmaking and film-viewing process. Hollywood is a cultural
industry and its business is innately risky. Since films are cultural products, it isn’t easy to
determine the demand for them, and thus, the establishment of a stable market is of prime
importance (Garnham, 1990, p161).
This critical study will examine Hollywood’s so called risk aversion by concentrating on three of
Hollywood’s business practices; Reliance on ancillary markets, constant expansion, and an
infatuation with blockbusters, franchises and technology. These three practices will be explored
in depth because of their high potential to affect the kind of movies that are made. The
research will investigate and ask a number of questions that are necessary to wholly
comprehend the true motives behind the adoption of these strategies, and what their actual
impact is on the content that’s produced as well as on the audience that consumes it. The
research will include an elaborate case study on the movie Man of Steel (2013), to demonstrate
the importance of ancillary markets in the overall success of a film and show how it plays a role
in the creation of value for a movie. Also, a case study on The Walt Disney Company will show

6
Hollywood’s propensity to expand and diversify, and show how film studios are ultimately
focussed on creative proficiency to drive their long term success. Finally, there will be a
discussion of how blockbusters and franchising serve the entertainment experience, and how
Hollywood’s profit orientation faces scrutiny simply due to the cultural nature of its products.
The research will draw on the works of scholars such as Thomas Elsaesser, Janet Wasko and
David Prindle among many others for the formation of its argument. The reviewed literature
serves as a contextual backdrop for this research and provides some perspective with regard to
the existing academic opinions of the film industry and Hollywood’s business model. To provide
a holistic understanding, this study will use a number of examples and statistics to draw
conclusions while linking them to academic theory. In order to understand the drives and
motivations behind Hollywood’s business policies, I drew guidance from a ‘cultural industries
approach’ within a political economy of media framework. This approach, with reference to the
works of Miège (1989), Garnham (1990), and Hesmondhalgh (2013), allowed me to develop my
critical lens in my examination of Hollywood’s distinctiveness as a cultural industry. It was
appropriate to use this approach because of its focus on the process of culture
commodification, and its emphasis on the production and distribution of content
(Hesmondhalgh, 2013, p45). Cultural industries studies matter because it’s important for one to
reflect on whether there is a provision of diverse content that has the potential to enhance
culture and society (ibid, p371).
This analysis will help contribute to the debate of whether Hollywood has truly become an
industry that refuses to take risks and one that solely focusses on churning out films that are
likely to make large sums of money. It’s necessary to understand how the industry is placed in
the present day, considering the surge in digitalisation, increased popularity of 3D and IMAX,
and the inflation of prices. It will also explore whether Hollywood’s current strategies are taking
anything away from the creative process. These are issues that must be addressed because
Hollywood films are so pervasive and transcend geographical and cultural boundaries. They are
so deeply engrained in our lives that it must be known whether there is truly anything wrong
with the kinds of film that we, as audiences, are consuming.

7
LITERATURE REVIEW
Uniqueness of the film industry
It has been noticed that there is an expansion and increasing prominence of a commercialised
Hollywood which has possibly arisen due to the risky, chaotic, and uncertain nature of the film
business (Wasko, 2003). David Hesmondhalgh (2005) has shed light on the notion that the
cultural industries are characterised by high levels of risk because of the inability to “predict
which products are going to resonate with other media (which are essential for publicising
media products) and with audiences” (p160). This risk reduction response has ultimately
cultivated a culture where the quality of a film is almost exclusively dependent on its ability to
be marketed and do commercially well, or the ‘look, hook and book’ (Wyatt, 1994). The fact is
that everyone wishes to see good movies, and yet no one knows which films will resonate with
the audience and be considered good enough to make a profit (Prindle, 1993, p4). Now, it has
been said that “the ultimate product of the motion picture business is profit; motion pictures
are but means to that end” (Guback, 1978). This comes as no surprise when movies have, since
the very beginning, been commodities that exist as objects of commerce with a world of
consumption (Hozic, 2000, p207).
Some scholars believe that film studios cannot afford to simply rely on the artistic and creative
excellence of their products. Due to the excessively competitive nature of the film and
television markets, these creative projects, they feel, must become commercially successful
films in order to see the survival and prosperity of the studios (Hoskins et al, 1997, p114). This is
quite simply the predicament of the cultural industries owing to the unpredictable consumption
of cultural commodities. There is a necessity to grow the market share, or in the case of cultural
products like films, audiences. Hollywood, like other cultural industries, offers not just one
product, “but a whole cultural repertoire across which the risks can be spread” (Garnham,
1990, p161). On the other hand, this profit orientation could also be assumed to just be a
response to the increasing threat of digital pirates and the losses that the entertainment
industry faces from the piracy of audio-visual products (Wasko, 2003, p215).

8
With studios constantly striving to minimise risk, it has been noted that they aim to produce a
large number of pictures in an attempt to counter the accurate assumption that roughly 95% of
all films will fail at the box office (Miller et al, 2001, p150). Consequently, studio heads have the
belief that audiences will exist for a film as long as it is positioned clearly, marketed well, and is
highly playable. Without this combination, the film may not be commissioned unless there are
changes that standardise the film’s commercial content and value (ibid, p157). The high risk
nature of the entertainment business has seen Hollywood resort to “a certain optimum degree
of conformity to dominant economic practices in its methods and means of production”
(Elsaessar, 2012, p87). Commodities function on the principle that they are desirable to
consumers. They promise pleasure and are governed by profit-making, an area that Haug
(1986, p35) terms as ‘commodity aesthetics’. This is also reminiscent of the concept of ‘total
entertainment’ where a movie is designed in ways that are beyond the confines of a good
narrative and aesthetic statement. These movies are conceived with the aim of recovering their
costs through their various ancillary markets; a strategy that possibly serves to counter the
volatile nature of audience expectations (Elsaesser, 2012, p272). It’s been observed that film is
comprised of a macro and micro level that governs its culture. The former is profit-oriented and
linked to business practices, while the latter is pleasure-oriented and focusses on the audience,
subjectivities and the value that a film has to a consumer (ibid). The cultural process is such that
creating audiences is just as much, if not more important than creating the cultural product
itself (Garnham, 1990, p162). In this tussle between commerce and art, Hollywood seemingly
appears to favour one over the other, but how is this exemplified and is it a bad thing?
Ancillary Markets
Now, it has been established that the Hollywood film industry is on an endless quest for profit
and expansion. There has been some study that has looked into Hollywood’s provision of
‘products’ and services’, and it has been argued that Hollywood’s services are provided through
the experiences that its films create, while its status as a commodity allows it to supply
products through its ancillary markets (Elsaesser, 2012). In fact, the industry has been described

9
as a pinball machine where the goal is to hit as many contact points, or ancillary forms of
revenue, as possible and gain more and more ‘points’, or profits (ibid, p277). Industry observers
have also noted that studios are constantly spending larger and larger sums of money on film
promotion out of a fear of box office failure and hyper competition (Wasko, 2003). This
promotion has, however, manifested itself in forms that have transformed the film industry
into a money making machine. It is such that films are often specifically produced for their
complementary merchandising and product potential (Herman and McChesney, 2001, p62). In
addition to relying on revenue from international audiences, Hollywood’s ancillary markets
have morphed films into a ‘mutating global product’ (Acland, 2003). This commodification of
film is a phenomenon that Wasko (1994) has labelled as ‘Hollywood meeting Madison Avenue’.
Vaughan (2011, p176) has described vertical integration in Hollywood as a group of media
conglomerates that own and control the different levels of production and distribution of
content, as well as merchandising and licensing deals. Vertical Integration enables the firm to
supply a product across its various levels of circulation and maximise its sales. Gabler (1995)
explained that Disney was able to drastically reduce the risk of box office failure by coming up a
form of vertical integration that combined movies, television, theme parks, merchandise, etc.
He believed that by eliminating risk, even terrible movies would be able to make large profits.
These strategies have led studios to consider the potential of tie-ins, merchandise and other
cross-promotions while films are still in production. This causes certain features to be rendered
into the content of the film, which simply exist to generate revenue through ancillary outlets
(Miller et al, 2001, p155). The scene is such that films that lack the potential for cross-
promotion are likely going to be unable to compete in the global marketplace (Herman and
McChesney, 2001). Lukk (1997, pix) has said that a film’s marketing campaign is “tackled with
the same zeal and methodical planning as a general preparing an invasion”.
Wasko (1994, p243) has noted that this increased reliance on the revenue that is generated
through ancillary markets is substantiated by the fact that these outlets can prove to be very
profitable and help give ‘legs’ to films that don’t do particularly well at the box office. She has
said that this dependency has escalated to the extent that it isn’t impossible to expect the
advertisers to one day approve and change all the elements of the filmmaking process to favour

10
their advertising goals (Wasko, 2003, p168). Schatz (2008, p37) helped illustrate the importance
of the ancillary markets by explaining that a blockbuster’s theatrical box office performance,
despite a rise in receipts, in the early 2000’s wasn’t enough to recoup the large marketing costs.
However, once the movie’s market value rose, the ancillary markets generated massive
revenue and were able to gain enormous profits for the studio. This could possibly help paint a
picture of the importance of a film’s marketing approach or the fact that studios may invest too
much of their finances and efforts in promoting their movies instead of ensuring that they
produce a ‘good’ film that “possesses coherence, inner consistency, and a purpose, all of which
can be discovered, described and assessed” (Elsaesser, 2012, p85).
Company Diversification
Hoskins et al (1997) have noted that there is a trend towards concentration of organisations
that has developed in the entertainment industry. They believe that these mergers and
acquisitions make economic sense “if the profitability of the combined company is greater than
the sum of the parts because of economies of scope, economies of scale, or increased market
power” (p21). Since the 1980s, studios have constantly strived to become large multi-faceted
media corporations that focus on the production of film, but are able to take advantage of the
distribution systems and multiple revenue streams (Schatz, 2008, p22). Herman and
McChesney (2001, p54) see the primary reason for the formation of huge conglomerates as
‘creating value’. This value is created through different levels of the conglomerate wherein, for
instance, a book is published at one level, a motion picture based on that book is produced at
another level, and movie merchandise is created at another level. This naturally appears to be
the way to go since the total profit of a vertically integrated firm can be much larger than that
of the individual parts when considered independently (ibid).
Now, although Prindle (1993, p18) has mentioned that vertical integration is one of the most
important ways to minimise risk in the entertainment industry, it has been observed that the
current way through which the industry in integrating is through ‘synergies’ and diversification.
Vaughan (2011, p176) points out that horizontal integration in Hollywood involves large media

11
corporations such as Disney and Comcast owning various kinds of content distribution that
range from film and television to radio and print. Wasko (2003, p170) explains that horizontal
integration allows for the creation of ‘synergy’, which she defines as “the cooperative action of
different parts for greater effect”. An article in ‘The Economist’ added to this by saying that
synergies help the formation of a valuable entertainment brand, which in turn is able to exploit
content through a variety of outlets including film, theme parks, and merchandising
(Anonymous, 1998). This horizontal integration sees Hollywood conglomerates operating as a
“diversified yet highly coordinated cartel made up of a relatively small number of entangled
entertainment conglomerates” (Elsaesser, 2012, p324). Wasko (1994) adds that synergy can be
can be economic, where different parts of a company are integrated and co-ordinately working
together, and cultural, where a particular piece of content can be exploited through multiple
avenues and grow the profit margin. Having said that, it makes one wonder whether this
diversification of the company through mergers and acquisitions is solely to ensure
sustainability for costly, distribution networks and increase market shares (Hoskins et al, 1997),
or whether it also adds to the value of the content and enhances the entertainment experience.
In addition to the formation of diversified media conglomerates, Hollywood is playing off its
successes and constantly expanding beyond the borders of the USA and catering to a global
audience. This is due to the large amounts of revenue that it receives from foreign markets
(Wasko, 2003). Thomas Schatz (2008, p38) has observed that the entertainment landscape is
transforming and allowing internet powers to enter. He believes that the growth of Google
poses serious challenges for Hollywood in terms of distribution and the delivery of digital
content. This is due to the studios’ extensive distribution networks being the key to their
power, which illustrates Garnham’s (1990, p161) point about cultural distribution, and not
cultural production being the main source of power and profit. The Hollywood major studios
not only intend on maintaining that power, but also enhancing it by seeking additional markets
and engaging in diversified activities. Hollywood’s expansion through product placement and
merchandising has been criticised for its commercialisation and commodification of the
industry. While this is understandable, these strategies have been justified through their adding
of an element of realism to the films (Wasko, 2003, p168). Considering the fact that the media

12
market is changing with the entry of new powers such as Google and YouTube, it might be fair
to say that organisations in the industry must utilise business strategies that could possibly
ensure profits in order to sustain themselves while constantly adapting themselves to changes
in the marketplace.
Blockbusters and Franchises
While many argue that films solely exist to serve as art, there are many Hollywood pictures that
are unabashedly produced as entertainment and don’t have any pretentions to art (Baumann,
2007). Batman (1989) laid the foundation for a new model of the blockbuster film through
which studios could focus their attention on event films and ‘tentpoles’, or large scale
productions that are very likely to become massive hits (Schatz, 2008, p28). Eileen Meehan
(1991) wrote about the release of films like Batman generating a web of cross-references,
which create an ‘intertext’ into which people are fit. This means that a big picture such as
Batman creates a whirlwind of Batman culture references, such as Batman comic and television
shows to come back to people’s memories. This is what causes the character and the film to
resonate with so many people (ibid, p48). According to Thomas Elsaesser (2012, p76), money is
arguably the most important factor in the film industry - both the large investment that goes
into making a blockbuster spectacle, as well as the massive amounts of money that is generated
through the opening weekend screening, and subsequent revenue streams. The large scale
blockbusters are likely to have budgets exceeding $100 million, and around a third of that
money is spent on marketing the films for their enormous release campaigns (Schatz. 2008,
p31). This is much higher than the $30 million that was used for Batman 25 years ago. Meehan
(1991, p54) has observed that this $30 million was an investment for a film series, and the
money was used to construct sets and develop props among other things that could be used for
subsequent films in the series. Now, while this is still how investment in big budget films works
today, the initial budgets for such films have undoubtedly gone up. Very often, these ‘high
concept’ films are criticised for the ‘excess’ that exists simply for commercial reasons. Wyatt
(1994) says that excess can be noticed whenever there is the use of certain elements in the film

13
that do very little or nothing to advance the narrative or development of characters or story.
It’s understood that the excess that is present in high concept movies is guided by the quest for
commercialisation, but it must be remembered that it does have the ability to enhance the
audience’s enjoyment and overall experience.
In addition to a focus on high concept films, Hollywood has been observed to be releasing a
large number of movies in 3-D and IMAX formats. This shift helps tackle piracy by providing a
cinematic experience that couldn’t be matched outside the cinema (Kerrigan, 2010). These
technologies, as well as filmmaking innovations such motion and performance capture, and
modern sound rendering have been thought to be able to give a much needed boost to the
DVD market. These advancements in technology are promoted as helping the audience’s
interaction with moving images and thus enhancing their film viewing experience (Elsaesser,
2012). However, there are two sides to this coin. 3-D and IMAX films generally carry a higher
ticket price at cinema, so this may just be another strategy employed by Hollywood in order to
see greater returns on their investments. It must be asked whether the pros outweigh the cons
and whether these technological developments are just gimmicks to take money out of the
audience’s pockets.
Blockbusters are often positioned as opposite to independent and art-house pictures with the
former seen as lacking any inherent cultural value (Grainge, 2008, p148). It is argued that they
can often seem like they lack artistic direction and aesthetic seriousness, however, it is also true
that many of these films can play out without losing the audience’s interest for a moment
(Elsaesser, 2012). Baumann (2007) has explained that the concept of the blockbuster has gone
against the philosophy of film as art because of its marketing and business practices, as well as
the kind of content that is produced. He has, however, clarified that not all Hollywood
productions are blockbusters and that some scholars believe that there are some blockbusters
that exist as true art (ibid). The importance that is given to huge, high-budget movies may result
in one seeing the retail end of the entertainment business as a ‘hit obsessed market’ that
simply churns out blockbusters while the smaller movies have a hard time getting released and
gaining exposure (Wasko, 1994).

14
David Prindle (1993) has highlighted the fact that film, being an art commodity, is difficult to
replicate once it’s been consumed. This makes it difficult to duplicate a successful product due
to fact that the audience will want to consume something else. However, he also mentioned
that the audience members “often value familiar plots, characters, and morals over more
artistically innovative fare” (ibid, p25). Consequently, owing to the high financial stakes, there
can tend to be a homogenisation of content and averseness to risk taking by the studios
(Herman and McChesney, 2001). Gitlin (1983, cited in Hoskins et al, 1997) has mentioned, with
reference to US television, that producers ‘milk’ a success by churning out additional episodes
even though artistic quality of the show is declining. This is a similar mind-set that exists in
Hollywood where studios channel their focus to create films that, in some way, encourage
subsidiary, spin off texts that are often thought to be of not particularly high quality
(Hesmondhalgh, 2007). This makes one wonder what truly constitutes a high quality film, and
whether it really matters because at the end of the day, a successful movie is dependent on the
sale of tickets, “not the quality of film perceived as a statistical projection of audience taste or
thought” (Miller et al, 2001, p167).
Many franchise films or the multiple comic book based series are both spectacles that provide
exhilaration and thrill, as well as service platforms through which merchandise can be created
and sold. It is often felt that this trend of recycling popular formulas and creating franchises has
led the ‘talent-factory’ Hollywood to be harnessed into Hollywood, ‘the money-making
machine’ (Elsaesser 2012, p76). Wasko (2003) goes on to say that the repetitive use of ideas,
themes and characters in order to generate profits can restrict the spread of creative ideas and
values. The production of franchises can be seen as Hollywood’s attempt to make up for the
irreplicable nature of its products and its effort to recreate its previous successes (Prindle,
1993). This proves to be an issue due to novelty use-value of cultural products, where there is a
perennial necessity to produce new and different products (Garnham, 1990, p160). The fact
that cultural production is based on the creation of novel goods, consequently means that the
costs of reproduction will be minimal compared to those of initial production. As a result, the
franchise model serves to increase Hollywood’s profit margin by cutting costs and
compensating for the large number of box-office failures that industry faces (ibid;

15
Hesmondhalgh, 2013, p29). The main question at the heart of this is whether it’s necessarily
true that spin-off products aren’t going to be of a ‘high quality’, and does a film performing well
at the box office and making a lot of money consequently mean that it is not a good cultural
product?
In 1991, Meehan (1991, p59) stated that the movie market was “similar to most consumer
markets in advanced capitalist economies” due its dependency on advertising to fuel
consumption of products that are put out by a limited number of producers. She says that films,
like most consumer products, are not produced based on public demand. Instead, the studio
decides to makes a film and then has to convince people that they wanted to see that very film.
This is an extension of Miège’s (1989, p24) theory that the cultural industry isn’t a response to a
pre-existing demand, but rather exists to create new products and generate a public demand,
which in turn gives it consistency in the market. This mode of operation has slightly changed in
the present day, where digitalisation has made information about the audience more readily
available. Napoli (2011, p11) believes that the studios are no longer making films based on their
own assumptions of what will fare well at the box office, but are putting out movies that
correspond to audience research and data analysis. This is clearly indicative of a more market
oriented Hollywood with an increased focus on the commercialisation of films and mitigation of
risk; something that absolutely demands for a thorough examination of the impact of
Hollywood’s current business practices on its products.

16
METHODOLOGY
On reviewing the literature, it was understood that the use of a variety of methods was
necessary in order for the research to be comprehensive. This study aims to further the
understanding of the Hollywood’s business strategies and its adoption of means to reduce risk
and enhance revenue. I, therefore, began my research by introducing the existing ‘major’
Hollywood studios that are represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, as well
as the other smaller studios that are in operation. This provided some context and familiarity
with the studio system and paved the way for rest of the study to unfold easily. One of the
major ways that this research was conducted was through the use of case studies. Case studies
were chosen because this research method “allows investigators to focus on a ‘case’ and retain
a holistic and real world perspective” (Yin, 2014, p4). I believe that case studies permitted me
to examine a particular topic in depth, and use specific examples to represent a much larger
picture.
An assessment of the exploitation of ancillary markets was carried by examining the case of the
Man of Steel (2013) movie. I believe Man of Steel to be a perfect example for studying the
presence of product placement owing to the extended coverage that it received for the deals it
made. In order to appropriately assess the presence of product placement in this film, I viewed
the film a number of times and made a note of the seemingly obvious advertisements for
products and brands in the movie. These advertisements were noted while considering the
context and their place in the film. I then cross referenced my findings with articles in media
and marketing magazine,’ Advertising Age’ and entertainment trade publication, ‘The
Hollywood Reporter’. Furthermore, in order to understand the necessity for the deals, find
similarities to any another film projects and draw conclusions, I researched the production
budget of the film and compared it to that of films of a similar genre through box office revenue
website, ‘Box Office Mojo’, in order to notice any outstanding trend in the industry and
understand what the desired outcomes of such strategies are.

17
In order to look into the expansion of film studios and media conglomerates, a case study
analysing The Walt Disney Company’s recent mergers and acquisitions was conducted. This
case served as a good basis to understand the strategic mind-set of an organisation, and its
reasons for engaging in these ventures. Disney is a good example because of its renowned
ability to make use of synergy. It has been said that ‘Disney’s synergy’ is often admired by other
diversified film companies who aspire to follow the same model of operation (Wasko, 2003,
p170). This understanding was aided by examining a number of video interviews and speeches
by Disney CEO, Robert Iger. Since it wouldn’t be appropriate to take everything that was said in
these interviews at face value, I chose to analyse the acquisitions more holistically and also
consider video interviews with personnel from the acquired companies such as Lucasfilm
founder, George Lucas. The analysis of these interviews proved useful in gaining a first-hand
perspective from the individuals who were responsible for carrying out these expansion deals,
and served to better comprehend the expectations and motives behind these ventures.
Additionally, the impact of these ventures was researched by studying the company’s fiscal year
financial reports, and considering analysis made by finance specialists at ‘Bloomberg TV’ and
‘CNBC’ as well as articles in ‘Business Insider’ and ‘The New York Times’. This allowed me to
incorporate a diverse range of educated opinions into my analysis of Disney’s expansion.
The final section examines Hollywood’s obsession with blockbusters, technology and franchises.
The research involved assessing the list of highest grossing movies as mentioned on ‘Box Office
Mojo’. These films were then connected to theories that were reviewed in the literature. Also,
audience and critic opinions were compiled through review websites such as ‘Rotten Tomatoes’
and ‘Metacritic’. I considered Academy Awards as a good parameter to measure how these
films were received by professionals within the industry. This is because an Oscar is the highest
honour for motion picture artists and professionals, and is voted for by members of The
Academy who are some of the “entertainment industry’s preeminent filmmakers” (Oscars,
2014). This provided an idea of the overall reception of certain films, and allowed relations to
be drawn between the quality of a film and its box-office performance. In addition to this, a
number of film trade publications including ‘Deadline Hollywood’, ‘Variety’, and ‘Empire’ were
referred to for information on developments in the entertainment industry. Official and trade

18
sources provide facts and figures and also help map general patterns in media production
(Deacon et al, 2007, p25). To complement this, business publications such as ‘Forbes’ and ‘The
Economist’ were used to gain a perspective on the financial outcomes and trends that exist in
the industry. In order to draw my conclusions, I utilised a political economy of media guided
approach because it sees media such as film, as “economic entities with an economic role as
creators of surplus value through commodity production, exchange and advertising” (Garnham,
1990, p30); a perspective that was necessary for this research.

19
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Majors
Hollywood’s incomparable power stems from the extensive distribution networks that its
studios and production companies possess. The major film studios or ‘the majors’ are the
distributors that regularly dominate a large share of box office revenues and command a
significant share of the North American and global markets. The six current major Hollywood
studios that are represented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are –
Columbia, Warner Bros., Walt Disney, Universal, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount
(MPAA, 2014). There are also large production companies which rake in a smaller percent of
the market share, but still compete with the majors. These ‘mini-majors’ include companies like
MGM, The Weinstein Company, Dreamworks, Relativity, Lionsgate, Open Road and CBS films
(Manis, 2013). It is interesting to note that that these companies keep restructuring as a result
of the mergers and acquisitions that take place. For instance, Lionsgate acquired Summit
Entertainment in 2012, and New Line Cinema was merged with its parent company Warner
Bros. in 2008. This constant realignment occurs in order for these companies to expand their
markets, and gain control over products which they believe to be stable and profitable in the
long run (Wasko, 2003). In addition to the regular acquisitions, the conglomerates have
developed specialty arthouse-indie subsidiaries to focus on the production of smaller
independent films with lower budgets. These specialty subsidiaries are Sony Pictures Classics,
Paramount Vantage, Fox Searchlight, and Focus Features. A key point about the studios is that,
despite their involvement in the filmmaking process, they function less as production
companies and more as powerful distributors and financiers and who are in control of the
marketing and distribution of the films they choose to invest in.
It must be pointed out that it is not unusual in the industry for the major studios to be acquired
by larger, often international conglomerates – Columbia is owned by Sony Corporation (Japan),
Twentieth Century Fox is a major unit of Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox mass
media conglomerate, and Universal, which was previously owned by France’s Vivendi, has now

20
been completely bought out by cable company Comcast. Also, Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of
Time Warner and Paramount is owned by Viacom. Additionally, by utilising innovative
technologies and distribution systems, The Walt Disney Company was finally able to have its
own major Hollywood studio in the 1980s with Walt Disney Studios (Schatz, 2008). These
acquisitions help bring new sources of funding to Hollywood studios, who are interesting to
large investors because of their brand value and the value of their audio-visual libraries (Wasko,
1994). This model of conglomerate Hollywood helps reduce the overall costs of sales for the
corporations by allowing them to sell their own film and television products to different
divisions within the same conglomerate. Integration of this kind allows the studios to gain
access to sister companies in order to source and provide content (Hoskins et al, 1997). For
example, Warner Bros. would have greater access to Time Warner’s subsidiaries HBO and DC
Comics than another studio would. This also benefits the corporations by removing the
expenses and efforts that go into bidding for products from different companies (Neale and
Smith, 1998). Ultimately, the profits are increased and the revenue is centralised under the
masthead of the conglomerate; a strategy that lets companies collaborate easily and makes
sense economically.
The role that ancillary markets play
The Man of Steel case
In June, 2013, Warner Bros released the highly anticipated Superman franchise reboot, Man of
Steel. The film, owing to its extensive visual effects and marketing, packed on a production
budget of $225 million (BoxOffice Mojo, 2014d); an amount that ranks it among some of the
most expensive films of all time. It’s not uncommon for comic book superhero movies to have
fairly high budgets. For instance, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) had a budget of $250 million and
The Avengers (2012) was made for $220 million (BoxOffice Mojo, 2014f). Perhaps, studios are
willing to shell out such large amounts of money because of the ‘brand value’ of superhero
movies, and the fact that fans are expected to religiously flock to the cinemas to watch the
films, thus helping the studios recoup their costs. However, in the world of global

21
entertainment, nothing is ever certain, and so Hollywood will constantly strive to minimise the
risk of losing money. Man of Steel is a perfect example of the studios’ relentless use of multiple
avenues to make as much money as possible to cover their initial costs and drive up their
profits. Even prior to the release of the film, Warner Bros. had already signed deals over 100
promotion partners to rope in about $170 million for the film even before a single ticket had
been sold (Collis, 2013). This means that roughly three-quarters of the cost of the film was able
to be recovered through promotional deals alone. There were merchandise deals with toy
partners such as Lego, JAKKS Pacific and Fisher Price, as well as tie-ins with companies like
Gillette which created a web video series on how Superman shaves, Kellogg Co., and Converse
shoes among many others (Block, 2013). The Chrysler car company had even launched a new
‘S’- series for its Ypsilon and Delta models in partnership with the movie (Morrison, 2013).
Despite all the merchandising and tie-in deals that were signed, the most outstanding of the
promotional arrangements were the numerous product placements that were visible
throughout the film. These products have conveniently been added to film and are made to
blend in with the narrative. Some of the obvious examples of placements in the film are as
follows:
 Upon an investigation of an alien Kryptonian spaceship by the US military in the Arctic,
reporter Lois Lane is sent to find out more about the spaceship and write up a story for
her newspaper, The Daily Planet. It’s visible, on multiple occasions during one sequence,
that she brought her ‘Nikon’ D3S SLR camera with her, which she uses to click and check
photos. While she does this, the ‘Nikon’ brand is highly noticeable across the screen
(Figure 1; Figure 2).
 Another sequence shows the arrival of General Zod’s spaceship from Krypton to Earth.
During this, CNN news channel is shown to be ‘breaking the news’ of the sighting of a
UFO to viewers all across Metropolis (Figure 3). Also, Clark Kent shown sipping on a
bottle of Budweiser while he watches this news unfold (Figure 4).
 The fight sequences between Superman and Zod’s army take place across the streets of
Metropolis and see either entity flying through several 7-Eleven and Sears department

22
stores on multiple occasions (Figure 5). At one point, Superman and Zod’s sub
commander, Faora, are shown crashing into an IHop restaurant (Figure 6). On another
occasion, Superman and Zod fly through a 7-Eleven gas-station and blow it up (Figure 7).
The situation is such that it appears as if there are only about three or four brands that
visually stand out and dominate the streets of Metropolis. In addition to all of this,
earlier in the film, Lois Lane is shown interviewing Clark Kent’s friend from high school,
Pete Ross, who works at IHop. Also, Clark’s mother is an employee at Sears which is
evident through the company T-Shirt that she wears. She even has many Sears branded
products in her farmhouse.
 At the end of the movie, Clark Kent is seen wearing his trademark eyeglasses when he
enters The Daily Planet (Figure 8). These glasses were made by the Warby Parker
Company. Warby Parker also launched limited edition Man of Steel frames for
Superman fans.
 The biggest of all the placement deals appears to be with Nokia. Nokia signed a deal to
promote their new Lumia 925 model in association with the film. In the film, Lois Lane is
seen with her Nokia Lumia 900. Her phone also rings with the classic Nokia ringtone
when she receives a call from Perry White (Figure 9). At another point in the film,
General Zod sends a message to all the people of Earth via all communication platforms.
One Daily Planet employee is puzzled by the message and says “It’s coming in on the RSS
feeds. It’s on my phone too”. While she does this, she nonchalantly holds out her Nokia
Lumia smartphone in front of the camera for all to see (Figure 10). Nokia also released
an exclusive trailer for the film, sponsored the New York premiere of the film, and
launched an exclusive Man of Steel app available on its devices.
It’s been noted that, in most cases, all of the placements have blended well into the narrative of
the film and haven’t necessarily taken anything away from the viewing experience. If anything,
Man of Steel exemplifies Wasko’s (2003, p168) theory of how product placement can help
enhance the realism of a movie. This means that studios that are heavily focussed on promoting
their films don’t necessarily have to ruin the content of the movie with out-of-place advertising,
but can embed it into the narrative of the feature and use the various deals to their advantage.

23
It appears as if the studio was aware of how high its initial budget for the film was, and had
capitalised on the Superman brand and made the most of the available opportunities to recoup
its costs. It’s necessary to direct one’s attention to the role that the money made through the
ancillary markets has played in the overall revenue generated by the film. On a budget of $225
million, Man of Steel made $291 million domestically, and $377 million from its foreign markets
(BoxOffice Mojo, 2014d). The fact that the movie made $170 million (which translates to
roughly 58% of its domestic gross) through its multiple promotion deals simply proves the
importance that the ancillary markets have had in the overall money made by the film. Now,
although the audiences generally had mixed reactions about the film, the critics were more or
less unimpressed with the movie and criticised it for its lack of character development and
excessive destruction of Metropolis (Rotten Tomatoes, 2014c). This shows that the film wasn’t
necessarily able to rely on ‘word of mouth’ or critical acclaim to become the box-office success
that it did. Instead, it had to look for support in the Superman brand and the value that that
carries for fans of the mythology. In all other cases, the studio had to generate awareness
about the film which was done through its marketing and promotions which helped raise the
market value of the film over time.
Warner Bros. recently announced the development of a sequel to Man of Steel scheduled for
release in May, 2016. This is reminiscent of Batman Begins (2005) that spawned off two
sequels, The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). It’s been observed that
Batman Begins was able to make a worldwide gross of $374 million, which is marginal
compared to the $1 billion that each of its sequels was able to make (BoxOffice Mojo, 2014e).
Perhaps, the studio is aware of the fact that the first film in any potential series is going to rely
heavily on ancillary markets and cross-promotion to generate substantial revenue and a large
enough hype. This hype eventually creates value for the product and allows subsequent sequels
to make the massive profits that they do. This appears to be the strategy that was used with
Man of Steel, where the film was able to minimise running the risk of box-office failure by
relying on various promotional partners to become the box-office success that it did, while
consequently raising value among consumers and the potential of a commercially successful
franchise. This demonstrates Hollywood’s new form of vertical integration wherein the aim is to

24
create multiple commodities that audiences can recognise as extensions of the movie, and thus
purchase and add to the profit total (Elsaesser, 2012). It ultimately means that the considerable
amount of money and effort that the studios put into promoting and marketing their films is an
essential part of the process and is done with the purpose of not only bringing in profits, but
also with the long term goal of creating value for the product so that it may continue to make
money through various consumer products as time goes by. This serves as an illustration of how
in a capitalist society, cultural commodities play a prominent role in the production of capital by
having the ability to generate value (Miège, 1989, p36).
Creating the entertainment empire
An analysis of Disney’s expansion strategies
This case examining The Walt Disney Company shows how it has constantly strived to be better
than most of its competitors by producing quality creative content and by being at the very
forefront of innovation. It will serve as an example to show how film studios that are part of
larger media conglomerates have strategized their growth and will also help illuminate the true
motives behind their expansion. Over the past decade, Disney has sought to maintain its
competitive advantage by growing the company through a series of thought-out and bold
acquisitions. These were acquisitions that have not only reflected well in tripling Disney’s
market cap (YCharts, 2014; Parr, 2012), but have also brought many memorable movies and
characters to life.
At the time of the appointment of Robert Iger as Disney’s CEO in 2005, the company had
become heavily reliant on its relationship with Pixar, then a much smaller company that created
ground-breaking computer animated feature film hits such as Toy Story (1995) and Finding
Nemo (2003). This was a collaboration that was based on Pixar creating the material, and
Disney using its resources to market and distribute the product. At this point, Pixar was
seemingly replacing Disney as the most technologically advanced and culturally relevant
animation studio. With the relationship becoming strained and not willing to lose ties with

25
Pixar, Robert Iger was able to negotiate a deal, in early 2006, in which Disney would purchase
Pixar for $7.4 billion. Furthermore, in 2009, Marvel Entertainment was bought by Disney for $4
billion which meant that Disney gained control over the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its
many iconic characters. Most recently, Disney acquired Lucasfilm and all of its operating
businesses for $4billion (Parr, 2012). This resulted in Disney bringing legendary franchises such
as ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Indiana Jones’, as well as leading visual effects team Industrial Light and
Magic under its banner.
Referring to Disney’s acquisitions, Robert Iger, in an interview, once said that there is always
bound to be risk involved with anything in the creative industry. He said that the acquisition of
Pixar was risky because of the high price that was paid, and because of the fact that the value of
the deal was dependent on Pixar’s potential for the future and not on what it had achieved in
the past (HRTSvideo, 2013). Pixar proved to be attractive to Disney due to its establishment as a
strong brand creatively and technologically, as well as the recognition that it had received from
the audiences and industry peers (ibid). This demonstrates that despite Disney’s awareness of
the risk involved with expanding the company, it has made it a point to focus on the
opportunity that such acquisitions present to the company. This deal was also seen as a way to
eliminate the friction that can usually exist between companies which work together that aren’t
part of the same entity (MrSicksinister, 2009).
The Marvel acquisition came with a certain amount of risk owing to Marvel’s image as a male
targeted superhero brand, as opposed to Disney’s preoccupation with fairies and castles
(Bhasin, 2011). However, this move allowed Disney to expand its appeal and branch out into
slightly more mature content, and thus grow the company further. Disney’s acquisitions show
that synergy plays a big role in a firm’s expansion considerations. For instance, the purchase of
Pixar brought in new talent to Disney’s animation department, as well as a whole range of
popular characters which it could “intensively exploit via cultural synergistic strategies across its
numerous divisions of consumer products, theme parks, and other ancillary businesses”
(Vaughan, 2011, p174). In addition to this, an economic synergy was created between Disney
and Apple Computers, since Steve Jobs was the CEO of both Pixar and Apple. This allowed

26
Disney to sell its television content through Apple iTunes, and help form a synergistic
relationship between the companies. This kind of deal lets the firms “pool their resources not
only to share costs, but also to spread their risks” (ibid); something that simply makes economic
sense.
Robert Iger also said that these deals were an opportunity for Disney to strengthen its position
as a leading global provider of high quality, branded entertainment by growing its businesses
and providing long-term value for its shareholders (The Walt Disney Company, 2013). It’s
understood that instead of simply being an expansion of the company, these acquisitions have
been more about the unification of creative forces and the merging of iconic companies with
great legacies. Iger explained that Disney doesn’t plan on rebranding any of the content from
these companies as exclusively ‘Disney’, but instead on using its global marketing and
distribution resources to extend and increase the reach of the acquired brands and
consequently grow both businesses (HRTSvideo, 2013). These deals were made on the
foundation that Disney was looking to purchase entertainment that was branded and of high
quality, as well as talented people who help create brand value (ibid). This is indicative of
Disney’s inclination to concentrate on expansion strategies that involve growth of its brand and
the creation of long-term value, instead of what could help add to its immediate revenue total.
This extends to a point made by David Hesmondhalgh (2007, p168) where Disney has
understood the significance of intellectual property and the necessity to circulate a brand,
narratives and characters in order for them to become a part of the public consciousness. It is
interesting to note that Disney believed that the growth of both companies could be
augmented if they worked together; a strategy that would help substantially increase value
(MrSicksinister, 2009). In the first quarter of 2014, this strategy continues to be effective with
revenue increases being observed in departments all across the company including: Media
Networks, Studio Entertainment, Consumer Products, and Parks and Resorts (The Walt Disney
Company, 2014).
The Walt Disney Company has a rich legacy and a cultural significance with its studio having
produced feature films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) and The Lion King (1994).

27
However, it appears that the company refuses to be complacent and rest on its laurels. Instead,
Disney has chosen to take the risk and spend large amounts of money to strengthen its
business by only purchasing premium quality content that is related to the ‘family
entertainment’ brand that Disney represents. In fact, Disney has said that it is always looking to
“buy either new characters or businesses that are capable of creating great characters and
great stories” (Bhasin, 2011). Responding to the acquisition of Lucasfilm, founder George Lucas
said that the match between the companies was perfect because of the similar nature of
operations and products that both organisations deal with (Disney Post, 2012). Lucasfilm
president Kathleen Kennedy also mentioned that Disney, like Lucasfilm, defined family
entertainment and was the best company to take ‘Star Wars’ into the future (Star Wars, 2012).
It must be pointed out that Disney was able to foresee the growth potential of such companies,
and notice the possibility of enhancing the value of these brands as well as its own to the
consumers. For instance, prior to Disney’s acquisition of Marvel, Iron Man (2008) was a huge
success and had distribution deals with Paramount Pictures for a few upcoming releases (Fritz,
2010). However, owing to the acquisition and a settlement payment, Disney gained the rights
to The Avengers (2012) and Iron Man 3 (2013) which were the highest grossing movies in their
respective years of release and grossed over $1 billion each (ibid; BoxOffice Mojo, 2014c). Iger
explained that box office performance of these movies has paved the way for the creation of
many more franchises and consumer products. It’s understood that Disney plans on leveraging
the success of these movies into a prolonged effect on the company (CNBC, 2012).
Furthermore, it was also announced that Disney will bring the ‘Star Wars’ franchise back to life
with a new feature film in 2015, as well as more consumer products, theme park attractions
and television projects (Disney Post, 2012).
The company’s primary focus is to rely on creative success to drive its net income, however this
doesn’t mean that it isn’t going to adapt to changes over time. Disney, as many other media
organisations do, has a priority of utilising technology to reach as many people as possible
around the world. It has recognised that the content consumption has changed with people
consuming media through their mobile devices and tablets; hence Disney has decided to
expand into these popular markets by launching apps that allow audiences to watch its content

28
on their portable devices, and monetising these apps through advertising and distribution fees
(Brodie, 2013). Also, it was recently announced that Disney would be opening a Disneyland in
Shanghai in late 2015. This obviously comes along with the risk that the brand is not as familiar
in China as it is all over the world, which means that the Chinese population may not be as
drawn to the Disneyland attractions as people elsewhere (Barboza and Barnes, 2011). Shanghai
Disneyland being the company’s largest ever investment outside the United States also adds to
the risk factor. Despite this, The Walt Disney Company has been swayed by the fact that China
is the world’s most populous country and by the opportunity that that presents (TheNCUSCR,
2011). This shows that Disney has chosen not to adhere to the status quo as a strategy because
it has noted that consumer choices are varying and the world’s markets are changing, and it is
essential to evolve in order to continue to create value.
This case study has demonstrated that the process of conglomeration in the film industry is
generally risky, but primarily opportunity driven. While it does help bring in additional revenue,
it is made of the premise of enhancing the creative output of the company and building its
brand value. It’s also been shown that expansion doesn’t effectively mean a decline in the
quality of films being produced, and that film studios such as Disney are fully aware that it is
ultimately creative excellence that eventually drives the long term success of the company.
Ensuring that the money comes in
Hollywood, being the business that it is, has a focus on creating successful products that will
continue to bring in profits over time. However, there are a number of critiques to this model of
operation owing to film being a work of art. There is also much more to these strategies than
what meets the eye; this will be explained over the course of this section and there will also be
an attempt to account for these seemingly ‘risk-averse’ approaches and address whether they
are justified or not.
Hollywood has been argued to have become a ‘hit obsessed market’, where big-budget
blockbusters are given most of the attention by the studios, and this proves true when one

29
recognises that the primary goal of the studios is to produce entertainment that will do
commercially well. The mass production of these kinds of movies is due to their potential to
fare better at the box-office. It springs to mind that the fact that blockbusters do well at the
box-office means that a large portion of public is buying tickets to see these films. Therefore, it
would be safe to assume that audiences don’t mind watching these movies, and are willing to
spend their money because they probably enjoy what these movies have to offer. The inflation
of ticket prices does definitely play a role in the fact that box-office records are constantly being
broken and overall grosses are rising (Khatchatourian, 2014). However, considering the films
that are shown at the cinema at any particular time, a high concept movie has better odds of
selling more tickets than a smaller independent film because of its appeal, and the fact that a
majority of the audience possibly prefers blockbuster entertainment.
This does, however, become an issue when these high concept films are thought to lack artistic
quality. Considering this, it must be said that these event movies that make hundreds of
millions of dollars are also able to exist as culturally significant works of art. For instance, Titanic
(1997) made billions of dollars and was also able to gain ‘recognition value’. Also, The Matrix
(1999) was a science-fiction action movie that not only made over $400 million, but also
secured a lot of ‘cultural capital’ (Elsaesser, 2012, p278). A movie scoring on cultural capital
means that it doesn’t exist solely to make money, but also to generate meaning for society and
be of personal value to the viewer (ibid). David Hesmondhalgh (2013, p397) has said that critics
of commercially produced culture are worried that large corporations are promoting the
consumption of inferior media texts. However, he adds that they cannot prove a decline in the
standard of cultural products by solely referring to their own personal tastes and assumptions
of what is high quality. Furthermore, Edward Jay Epstein (2006, p131) has explained that
Hollywood’s business approach has taken several social factors into consideration including
prestige and recognition. He elaborates by saying that studios are aware that they would be
risking their connection with the public if they only produced films that were designed to make
money. It is for this reason that Hollywood studios have art-house, specialty subsidiaries that
can earn them awards, artistic recognition, and appreciation from the audience (ibid, p342).
This shows that studios aren’t simply preoccupied with manufacturing hits, but also have a long

30
term vision for the company. The strategy of earning awards and recognition is one that helps
bring value to the studio brand, and ensures that audiences can trust the products that the
studio creates for a long period of time (Grainge, 2008, p146). It’s also been observed that films
made by studios other than the majors have the ability to become commercial successes. This is
true in the case of films like The King’s Speech (2010), The Intouchables (2011), and Slumdog
Millionnaire (2008). This is connected to a point made by Kerrigan (2010, p35) who mentioned
that a commercial success doesn’t mean the removal of the creative integrity of the filmmaker.
This simply shows that commercial success and artistic quality aren’t mutually exclusive and can
both exist at the same time.
It’s fairly obvious that Hollywood is now operating with the intention of creating franchises
whenever possible. By looking at the highest grossing films of all time, one would be able to
notice that out of the top 25 films, there are only two films that aren’t either part of a franchise
or have a sequel in the works ‘yet’ (BoxOffice Mojo, 2014a). Both these films, Titanic (1997) and
Frozen (2013) received highly positive critical acclaim and won Oscars for Best Picture and Best
Animated Feature, respectively. Now, while Disney hasn’t yet announced that there will be any
sequels to Frozen, its representatives revealed that the film has ‘real franchise potential’ and
that a Broadway musical spin-off is currently being developed (Dockterman, 2014). Also, ‘Harry
Potter’ which is the highest grossing film franchise of all time has a prequel stage play which is
being developed for London’s West End (Tartaglione, 2013). The franchise model of operation
has been adopted because it is noticeably bringing in profits, and so producers have no reason
to not create spin-offs for their films. The key point about this is that audiences are more willing
to watch films that they may be familiar with because they are “assured that the story elements
that thrilled them in the past are present in the current offering” (Prindle, 1993, p27). This
familiarity is created through the recognition of a brand, noticeable characters or stories that
they may know. Hollywood has decided to take advantage of this, and market these ‘pre-sold’
films to the public (The Economist, 2011). The studios see the creation of franchises as building
successful businesses across markets over long periods of time (Bloomberg, 2014). This is a
basic directive in any capitalistic industry, and just because Hollywood’s products are cultural
goods, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t use such strategies to further its business.

31
The fact is that as long as a particular film with ‘franchise potential’ is performing commercially
well, then the studios will be sure to expand that brand, and churn out sequels that can serve
as ‘tentpoles’ and ensure that their business margins are increased. Also, while some argue that
the ubiquity of franchises has led to a reduction in the spread of creativity, and a
homogenisation of content, Simone Murray (2005, p431) has explained that the influx of
franchises should not be identified with uniformity of content. The fickleness and
unpredictability of audiences shows that they are more willing to be satisfied with a familiar
brand, than with something they haven’t heard of or seen before (ibid). Furthermore, the
independents exist to produce the non-formulaic, low concept art because they have less to
lose than the major studios. They provide varied kinds of content, something that the majors
have been accused of lacking. It is for this reason that the independents should remain free
from the control of the majors, so that they can maintain the artistic balance with regards to
the range of content that is produced (Prindle, 1993, p34).
The important question is whether the formation of franchises necessarily means the
production of lower quality films. Research shows that Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the
Tolkein’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ has created films that have each been huge critical and commercial
successes. The final installment of the series, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
(2003) also holds the record for most Academy Awards won by a single film (Morales, 2004).
Franchises such as this, as well ‘Toy Story’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ trilogy among many others
have received very high ratings from critics and audiences alike, and have even gone on to
create memorable performances such as Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning role as The Joker in The
Dark Knight (2008), which was the second film in ‘The Dark Knight’ series. In addition to this,
renowned film critic Roger Ebert called Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 (2004) “The best superhero
movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman (1978)” (Ebert, 2004). These
examples simply serve as proof that sequels have the capability to bring great characters to life,
and exist as memorable films by themselves. It’s agreeable that the franchise model of
operation is currently being exploited by Hollywood to its fullest, but that doesn’t mean that
the second or third films in a series are necessarily going to be of lower quality than the film

32
that precedes them. In fact, they can be better than their predecessor and be quite necessary
to complete the story that was initiated in the first film.
It’s been observed that the prominence of digitisation has risen over the past two decades, and
appears to be Hollywood’s new way of making movies. There has been a surge in Hollywood 3-
D and IMAX releases and re-releases of older films in 3-D. This provides basis for the argument
made by those who simply believe that this technology exists to contribute to the rise in ticket
prices, and provide studios with another way to make extra money (Fleming Jr, 2010). However,
despite this, these technologies have been advocated by Hollywood heavyweights like James
Cameron and studio executive, Jeffrey Katzenberg. For them and many others, 3-D is not just
another element that’s part of the visual effects, but a tool by which “much more pervasive
changes are being proposed and implemented” (Elsaesser, 2012, p301).
Now, the release of Avatar (2009) brought with it a new understanding of how the use of 3-D
can change visual imagery and consequently affect box office performance by showing that
“people would pay a premium for value” (Fleming Jr, 2010). It saw multiple box office records
being broken on its way to becoming the highest grossing film of all time with a worldwide
gross of over $2.7 billion (BoxOffice Mojo, 2014b). This unprecedented success could be
attributed to a very well timed albeit exorbitantly expensive marketing campaign which
primarily promoted Cameron’s ground-breaking 3-D and performance-capture technology, and
then the film itself. The studio was able increase the odds of commercial success by building the
audience’s expectations and raising their curiosity with a yearlong campaign that advertised the
movie as a grand-scale 3-dimensional IMAX experience (Elsaesser, 2012, p291). With reference
to the Avatar sequels, James Cameron mentioned that he wishes to break technological
barriers and shoot the films in 4K resolution and at a high frame rate. He is currently developing
this software which he hopes to use in order to make the world of Pandora more realistic
(O’Hara, 2014). The current issue with Hollywood is that everyone believes that the success of a
film is dependent on the 3-D, and not on the story or characters. Cameron has explained that
filmmakers are now simply converting films from 2-D to 3-D, which wasn’t the case with Avatar.
As a result, they believe that they will have success comparable to that of Avatar’s, when

33
instead they are producing products of lower quality (Fleming Jr, 2010). One can thus possibly
notice that James Cameron, as a 3-D pioneer, is far more invested in his goals of merging
technology with visual-arts to enhance the story-telling experience than in the business aspects
of the films per se (Elsaesser, 2012, p301).
The release of a film in 3-D doesn’t guarantee that it will be successful at the box-office, in the
same way that it doesn’t promise to perform badly with the critics. There have even been films
which have utilised the technology like never before, garnered rave reviews from the critics,
and still flopped miserably. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo (2011) was made on an estimated
production budget of between $156 million and $170 million, and managed to rake in a
relatively poor $185 million (Goldstein, 2012). Hugo received universal critical acclaim with a
94% ‘Fresh’ approval rating on ‘Rotten Tomatoes’, with many critics citing it as one of the best
films of the year (Rotten Tomatoes, 2014a). In fact, James Cameron mentioned that Scorsese
had made the best use of 3-D he had ever seen, bettering even his own films (Hammond, 2011).
There are other films like Life of Pi (2012) and Gravity (2013) which aren’t conventional
blockbusters, but have pushed the envelope for 3-D filmmaking with critics saying that the
technology used in Life of Pi “sets staggering heights for what can be accomplished with 3-D
technology” (Rotten Tomatoes, 2014b), while the 3-D in Gravity is treated as “essential to the
information that it wants to share’ and that the film ‘rewrites the rules of cinema as we have
known them” (Scott, 2013). Both these films grossed over $600 million worldwide and won
multiple Oscars in their respective years. This perhaps helps shed some light on the fact that 3-
D and IMAX technology doesn’t solely exist to raise cinema ticket prices, although Hollywood
seems to take advantage of this with the influx of films being released in these formats. Yet,
these are technologies that, if used appropriately by talented filmmakers, can push story-telling
to greater heights and create the memorable cinematic experiences that audiences long for.
This demonstrates that the detractors of Hollywood’s content have failed to consider the
numerous well appreciated and visually exemplary blockbusters and franchises that’ve been
created, which effectively means that the criticisms that the industry faces for its films are
mostly generalisations that lack thorough examination and holistic consideration.

34
CONCLUSION
Over the course of the research conducted, it was found that Hollywood studios have a model
of operation that makes them come across as averse to risk taking and indifferent to the kinds
of films they produce as long as these films make money. Yet, according to my findings, this is
merely how it appears on the surface. Scholars such as Murdock and Golding (2005, p67) have
suggested that cultural production being controlled by large media corporations, as in the case
of Hollywood, is a matter of concern due to the diversity of cultural goods being limited in order
to further their commercial needs. However, I add that there is more complexity to this as
companies in the cultural industry are required to constantly produce novel goods in order to
meet the expectations of their consumers.
It’s obvious that the studios engage in revenue generation through a number of different
avenues, but this is just a step to help cover for the high initial investments that go into making
a picture. Furthermore, the promotional ties and merchandising are ways to generate a public
demand for the film and help raise the value of the product, after which the film can continue
to make money through the brand that it has created. It was understood that the expansion of
Hollywood conglomerates allow for the formation of synergies, which provide the companies
with the opportunity to not only spread their risks, but also build their legacies by pushing the
creative frontiers and producing potentially iconic products. Also, while it appears that studios
focus all their resources into making pictures that are guaranteed to bring returns, it is actually
much more of a thought out process that involves bringing value and credibility to the studio
brand. One argues that it isn’t appropriate to jump to conclusions and say that franchises and
IMAX, 3-D pictures solely exist as ploys to make money when in fact, they have the potential to
be exemplary works of art and also help push the boundaries of the visual medium. Baumann
(2007, p177) has appropriately stated that Hollywood movies are produced by large profit-
oriented companies, which doesn’t necessarily mean that these films are substandard. He adds
that the very same movies might probably be deemed as ‘high quality’ works of art if they
weren’t being produced by these corporate giants. The common thread to be noted is that

35
commercial success in Hollywood involves the commodification of culture, which, I have
argued, isn’t necessarily a bad thing because there is much more to Hollywood’s business
strategies than what meets the eye.
This thesis has sought to show that risk is something that is inherent in the territory in which
Hollywood operates, i.e. cultural production. However, it’s been observed that Hollywood
doesn’t solely focus on managing risk to drive all its endeavours. The reality is that its current
business policies prove to be highly effective in growing profit margins, and therefore it sees no
reason to change its current model of operation. Now, while there are certain strategies that
have been exploited by Hollywood for everything they’re worth, one has to accept that
Hollywood is a part of a capitalist media, where the primary purpose is to do business, because
“no business means no show and doing business means constructing shows according to
business needs” (Meehan, 1991, p62).
This research paper has made use of examples to draw conclusions and try to understand the
Hollywood business mindset, and how it affects its films and audiences. I hope this study will
pave the way for further research and show that it is important to address Hollywood’s
approaches to risk and how its strategies impact the products that it creates. I believe that
media and communications scholars will be able to use this thesis to address the scrutiny that
Hollywood faces for its business policies and see that the commodification of movies is
something that is necessary for the industry to thrive. It mustn’t be forgotten that film is a
cultural product whose reception and interpretation is subjective, and that ultimately, “the long
term success or failure of a film is dependent upon how well this film lives up to the
expectations of the audiences” (Kerrigan, 2010, p111), and gives them what they truly desire
from a cinematic experience.

36
APPENDIX A: IMAGES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.

37
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.

38
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.

40
APPENDIX B: ETHICS FORM
It is a University of Leeds requirement that all research involving human participants, their data or their
tissue must be reviewed by a Research Ethics Committee, this applies to both externally and internally
funded projects and the review must take place before the research can commence.
Examples of human participation include using interviews (including email or online interviews),
questionnaires and carrying out observations.
For the dissertation, you do not need to submit your application to a committee, but you must take this
form to your supervisor and ask them to sign it, to confirm that you have considered and
accommodated the ethical issues associated with your research. You cannot proceed to fieldwork until
this form has been signed by your supervisor. You must discuss ethics with your supervisor and they
must sign this form whether or not your project involves human participants.
In considering the ethical implications of your research, you must reflect on the following issues:
• the balance of risks and benefits to participants in your research, or to the people who have
created the data you are investigating;
• the physical and psychological health and safety of participants;
• the importance of obtaining informed consent, and guaranteeing anonymity where possible;
• whether you are offering any inducement to participate in research, and the effect this might
have on your participants;
• conflicts of interest that they (or you) may have;
• confidentiality;
• data protection and storage;
• intellectual property issues.
Please note that students are not permitted to conduct research with vulnerable subjects. This
includes: children under 16, adults with learning disabilities / other mental health issues; adults in
emergency situations; prisoners or young offenders; those who have a particularly dependent
relationship with the researcher (e.g. children); or any other group that your supervisor considers
vulnerable in the context of your research.

41
Ethics checklist
Whether you are doing research that involves human participants or not, you must discuss your
dissertation project with your supervisor. Following your discussion, you must ensure you can confirm the
following:
 That your project is necessary for advancement of knowledge;
 That your chosen method will enable you to answer your research question(s);
 That you have you discussed your project and approach fully with your supervisor, including the
ethical issues associated with your topic and method;
 That you have completed an information sheet for any human participants involved in the research,
including clear information about your participants’ contribution to the research, and that your
supervisor has reviewed it;
 That you have completed an information sheet for any human participants involved in the research,
including clear information about confidentiality, anonymity and your participants’ ability to with
draw from the project at any time without giving a reason, and that your supervisor has reviewed
this;
 That you will put in place measures to address any psychological, physical or other form of risk to
your participants.
One you can confirm the above statements, you must ask your supervisor to sign the attached form.
Confirmation of supervisor’s research ethics approval
Student name: Vihan Chelliah
Student ID: 200638272
BA Programme: Communications
Title of dissertation/ research project: The ‘Bigger’ Picture: An analysis of Hollywood’s ‘risk-averse’
business policies and its profit orientation
I confirm that I am satisfied, following discussions with the student, that a full consideration of research
ethics has been given and appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the ethical conduct of the
research.
Supervisor signature: Dr Leslie Meier
I confirm that I have discussed the ethical implications of my project with my supervisor and adopted
appropriate measures to ensure the ethical conduct of the research.
Student signature: Vihan Chelliah

42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acland, C.R. (2003) Screen Traffic: Movies, Multiplexes, and Global Culture, Durham: Duke
University Press
Anonymous (1998) Business: Size Does Matter. The Economist. May 23, p57-59
Avatar (2009) [Film]. James Cameron. Dir. USA: 20th
Century Fox
Barboza, D. and Barnes, B. (2011) Disney Plans Lavish Park in Shanghai. The New York Times.
[Online]. [Accessed 10 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/business/media/08disney.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnl
x=1393698981-IlvT5KJ4HMoTOao0zQXIBA&
Batman (1989) [Film]. Tim Burton. Dir. USA: Warner Bros.
Batman Begins (2005) [Film]. Christopher Nolan. Dir. USA: Warner Bros.
Baumann, S. (2007) Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art, Princeton; Oxford:
Princeton University Press
Bhasin, K. (2011) Disney Is Looking To Buy Even More Stables of Characters. Business Insider.
[Online]. [Accessed 9 February 2014]. Available from: http://www.businessinsider.com/disneys-
looking-to-buy-up-some-more-stables-of-characters-2011-8
Block, A.B. (2013) Warner Bros.' 'Man of Steel' Nabs $170 Million in Promotional Dollars. The
Hollywood Reporter. [Online]. [Accessed 1 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-man-steel-nabs-562225
Bloomberg (2014) Disney CEO Says `Frozen' Shows Animation Turnaround. [Online]. [6 March
2014]. Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/disney-ceo-says-frozen-shows-
animation-turnaround-3Sx~DYlwQaulM3GArdRV0A.html

43
BoxOffice Mojo (2014a) All Time Box Office. [Online] [Accessed 7 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
BoxOffice Mojo (2014b) Avatar. [Online] [Accessed 7 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm
BoxOffice Mojo (2014c) Yearly Box Office. [Online] [3 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=worldwide&view=releasedate&p=.htm
BoxOffice Mojo (2014d) Man of Steel. [Online] [26 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
BoxOffice Mojo (2014e) Batman Battle [Online] [28 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=batmanvs.htm
BoxOffice Mojo (2014f) Blockbuster Superhero Showdown [Online] [28 February 2014].
Available from: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=topsuperhero.htm
Brodie, L. (2013) Cramer’s Disney Interview: Buy, buy Iger?. CNBC. [Online]. [Accessed 4 March
2014]. Available from: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101056254
CNBC (2012) Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger on Earnings. [Online]. [Accessed 4 March 2014].
Available from: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000089089
Collis, H. (2013) How Superman Has Made $170 Million Without Even Selling a Ticket: Man of
Steel Takes Product Placement to New Level. Daily Mail. [Online]. [Accessed 1 February 2014].
Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339011/How-Superman-170million-
selling-ticket-Man-Steel-takes-product-placement-new-level.html
Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P., and Murdock, G. (2007) Researching Communications: A
Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis. 2nd
ed. London: Hodder Arnold
Disney Post (2012) Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm. [Online]. [Accessed 5 February 2014]. Available
from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkqX5fG_tA

44
Dockterman, E. (2014) Frozen Headed to Broadway. Time. [Online]. [Accessed 9 February 2014].
Available from: http://entertainment.time.com/2014/01/13/frozen-headed-to-broadway/
Ebert, R. (2004) Spider-Man 2. Roger Ebert’s Website. [Online]. [Accessed 5 March 2014].
Available from: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/spider-man-2-2004
Elsaesser, T. (2012) The Perspective of Hollywood, New York, NY: Routledge
Epstein, E.J. (2006) The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood, New York: Random House
Finding Nemo (2003) [Film]. Andrew Stanton. Dir. USA: Buena Vista.
Fleming Jr, M. (2010) Michael Bay and James Cameron Skeptical of 3D Conversions: “The Jury Is
Out”. Deadline. [Online]. [Accessed 18 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-
the-jury-is-out/
Fritz, B. (2010) Disney buys rights to release 'Avengers,' 'Iron Man 3' from Paramount. Los
Angeles Times. [Online]. [Accessed 4 March 2014]. Available from:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/10/disney-buys-rights-to-
distribute-avengers-iron-man-3-from-paramount.html
Frozen (2013) [Film]. Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee. Dirs. USA: Walt Disney Studios.
Gabler, N. (1995) The Revenge of the Studio System, The New York Times, August 22, p.A15
Garnham, N. (1990) Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and the Economics of
Information, London: SAGE
Gitlin, T. (1983) Inside Prime Time. New York: Pantheon
Goldstein, P. (2012) Graham King on 'Hugo's' box-office woes: 'It's been painful'. Los Angeles
Times. [Online]. [Accessed 10 March 2014]. Available from:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/02/graham-king-on-hugos-rough-ride-its-been-
painful.html

45
Grainge, P. (2008) Brand Hollywood: Selling Entertainment in a Global Media Age, London:
Routledge
Gravity (2013) [Film]. Alfonso Cuaron. Dir. UK; USA: Warner Bros.
Guback, T. (1978) “Are We Looking at the Right Things in Film?” paper presented at the Society
for Cinema Studies conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Hammond, P. (2011) HAMMOND: Scorsese’s ‘Hugo’ Takes Hollywood; Is It A Best Picture
Contender – Or Pretender?. Deadline. [Online]. [Accessed 10 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/11/hammond-scorseses-hugo-takes-hollywood-is-it-a-best-
picture-contender-or-pretender/
Haug, W.F. (1986) Critique of Commodity Aesthetics: Appearance, Sexuality and Advertising in
Capitalist Society. Cambridge: Polity
Herman, E. and McChesney, R.W (2001) The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate
Capitalism, London: Continuum
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) The Production of Media Entertainment. In: Curran, J. and Gurevitch,
M. eds. Mass Media and Society. 4th
ed, London: Hodder Arnold
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007) The Cultural Industries. 2nd
ed, Los Angeles; London: SAGE
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013) The Cultural Industries. 3rd
ed, London: SAGE
Hoskins, C. et al. (1997) Global Television and Film: An Introduction to the Economics of the
Business, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Hozic, A. (2000) Hollywood Goes on Sale: or, What Do the Violet Eyes of Elizabeth Taylor Have
to Do With The ‘Cinema of Attractions’?. In: Desser, D. and Jowett, G. eds. Hollywood Goes
Shopping, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press
HRTSvideo (2013) (HRTS) A conversation with Robert Iger 2013. [Online]. [Accessed 5 February,
2014]. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chfxde7WvA

46
Hugo (2011) [Film]. Martin Scorsese. Dir. UK; USA: Paramount Pictures
Iron Man (2008) [Film]. Jon Favreau. Dir. USA: Paramount Pictures
Iron Man 3 (2013) [Film]. Shane Black. Dir. USA: Walt Disney Studios.
Kerrigan, F. (2010) Film Marketing, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
Khatchatourian, M. (2014) Movie Ticket Prices Rose 2% in 2013. Variety. [Online]. [Accessed 5
March 2014]. Available from: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/movie-ticket-prices-rose-2-in-
2013-1201062724/
Life of Pi (2012) [Film]. Ang Lee. Dir. USA: 20th
Century Fox
Lukk, T. (1997) Movie Marketing: Opening the Picture and Giving it Legs. Los Angeles: Silman-
James Press
Manis, A. (2013) Beyond the Big 6: Mini Majors Gain Momentum. StudioSystem News. [Online].
[Accessed 2 March 2014]. Available from: http://www.studiosystemnews.com/beyond-the-big-
6-mini-majors-gain-momentum/
Man of Steel (2013) [Film]. Zack Snyder. Dir. USA: Warner Bros.
Meehan, E.R (1991) Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman! The Political Economy of the Commercial
Intertext. In: Uricchio, W. and Pearson, R.E. eds. The Many Lives of Batman: Critical Approaches
to a Superhero and His Media, New York: Routledge
Miège, B. (1989) The Capitalization of Cultural Production, New York: International General
Miller, T. et al. (2001) Global Hollywood, London: BFI
Morales, T. (2004) Peter Jackson, Lord of the Oscars. CBS News. [Online] [Accessed 15 March
2014]. Available from: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/peter-jackson-lord-of-the-oscars/

47
Morrison, M. (2013) Superman Reboot 'Man of Steel' Snares $160M in Promotions. Ad Age.
[Online]. [Accessed 2 February 2014]. Available from:
http://adage.com/article/news/superman-reboot-man-steel-snares-160m-promotions/241822/
MPAA (2014) Our Story. [Online]. [Accessed 2 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.mpaa.org/our-story/
MrSicksinister (2009) Disney Buys Out Marvel!!!!!. [Online]. [Accessed 6 February, 2014].
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsnYUjsbOc
Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (2005) Culture, Communications and Political Economy. In: Curran,
J. and Gurevitch, M. eds. Mass Media and Society. 4th ed, London: Hodder Arnold
Murray, S. (2005) Brand Loyalties: Rethinking Content within Global Corporate Media. Media
Culture & Society, 27(3): 415-435
Napoli, P.M. (2011) Audience Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press
Neale, S. and Smith, M. eds. (1998) Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, London: Routledge
O’Hara, H. (2014) Cameron Will Shoot Avatar 2 in 4K. Empire. [Online]. [Accessed 16 February
2014]. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=40188
Oscars (2014) Meet the Members. [Online]. [Accessed 10 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/index.html
Parr, B. (2012) The Disney Way with Acquisitions. CNET. [Online]. [Accessed 1 March 2014].
Available from: http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/the-disney-way-with-acquisitions/
Prindle, D. (1993) Risky Business: The Political Economy of Hollywood, Boulder: Westview
Rotten Tomatoes (2014a) Hugo (2011). [Online]. [Accessed 20 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hugo/
Rotten Tomatoes (2014b) Life of Pi (2012). [Online]. [Accessed 20 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life-of-pi/

48
Rotten Tomatoes (2014c) Man of Steel (2013). [Online]. [Accessed 19 February 2014]. Available
from: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/
Schatz, T. (2008) The Studio System and Conglomerate Hollywood. In: McDonald, P. and Wasko,
J. eds. The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Scott, A.O. (2013) Between Earth and Heaven. The New York Times. [Online]. [Accessed 12
March 2014]. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/movies/gravity-stars-
sandra-bullock-and-george-clooney.html?_r=1&
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) [Film]. Danny Boyle. Dir. UK: Pathé
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) [Film]. David Hand. Dir. USA: RKO Radio Pictures
Spiderman 2 (2004) [Film]. Sam Raimi. Dir. USA: Columbia Pictures
Star Wars (2012) Part 1: George Lucas & Kathleen Kennedy Discuss Disney and the Future of Star
Wars. [Online]. [Accessed 6 February, 2014]. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyqlTi7lkhY
Superman (1978) [Film]. Richard Donner. Dir. UK; USA: Warner Bros.
Tartaglione, N. (2013) J.K. Rowling to Co-Produce ‘ Harry Potter’ Prequel Play on London’s West
End. Deadline. [Online]. [Accessed 8 March 2014]. Available from:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/j-k-rowling-to-co-produce-harry-potter-prequel-play-on-
londons-west-end/
The Associated Press (2013) Hollywood, Creative Industries Add $504 Billion to U.S. GDP. The
Hollywood Reporter. [Online]. [Accessed 23 February 2014]. Available from:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-creative-industries-add-504-662691
The Avengers (2012) [Film]. Joss Whedon. Dir. USA: Walt Disney Studios.
The Dark Knight (2008) [Film]. Christopher Nolan. Dir. USA: Warner Bros.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) [Film]. Christopher Nolan. Dir. USA: Warner Bros.

49
The Economist (2011) Pottering On, and On. The Economist. [Online]. [Accessed 10 March
2014]. Available from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/film-franchises
The Intouchables (2011) [Film]. Olivier Nakache & Éric Toledano. Dirs. France: Gaumont
The King’s Speech (2010) [Film]. Tom Hooper. Dir. UK: Momentum Pictures
The Lion King (1994) [Film]. Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff. Dirs. USA: Buena Vista
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003). Peter Jackson. Dir. New Zealand: New Line
Cinema
The Matrix (1999) [Film]. The Wachowskis. Dirs. USA: Warner Bros.
TheNCUSCR (2011) The Walt Disney Company President and CEO Robert A. Iger on China.
[Online]. [Accessed 7 February, 2014]. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzlL-IPB0xg
The Walt Disney Company (2013) Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Financial Report and Shareholder
Letter. [Online] [Accessed 8 February, 2014]. Available from:
http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/10k-wrap-2013.pdf
The Walt Disney Company (2014) The Walt Disney Company Reports: First Quarter Earnings for
Fiscal 2014. [Online]. [Accessed 8 February, 2014]. Available from:
http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q1-fy14-earnings.pdf
Titanic (1997) [Film]. James Cameron. Dir. USA: 20th
Century Fox; Paramount Pictures
Toy Story (1995) [Film]. John Lasseter. Dir. USA: Buena Vista.
Vaughan, N. (2011) Maximizing Value: Economic and Cultural Synergies. In: Wasko, J., Murdock,
G. and Sousa, I. eds. The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell
Wasko, J. (1994) Hollywood in the Information Age: Beyond the Silver Screen, Cambridge: Polity

50
Wasko, J. (2003) How Hollywood Works, London: SAGE
Wyatt, J. (1994) High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood, Austin: University of Texas
Press
YCharts (2014) Walt Disney (DIS) Market Cap. [Online]. [Accessed 3 March 2014]. Available
from: http://ycharts.com/companies/DIS/market_cap
Yin, R.K (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th
ed. Los Angeles: SAGE

Dissertation

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation