Ex_Machina Research

Ex_Machina (2015) Directed by Alex Garland

 

Producer: - Andrew Macdonald

     - Allon Reich

 

Director: Alex Garland

 

Distributor: Universal Pictures

 

Cast: Alicia Vikander as Ava

   Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb Smith

   Oscar Isaac as Nathan Bateman

   Sonoya Mizuno as Kyoko

   Symara A. Templeman as Jasmine

   Elina Alminas as Amber

   Gana Bayarsaikhan as Jade

   Tiffany Pisani as Katya

   Claire Selby as Lily

   Corey Johnson as Jay the helicopter pilot

 

Budget: $15 million

 

Locations: was shot over four weeks at Pinewood Studios and two weeks at Juvet Landscape Hotel in Valldalen, Norway.

 

Technology: The film was shot like ordinary live action. There were no special effects, green screen, or tracking markers used during filming. All effects were done in post-production. To create Ava's robotic features, they filmed the scenes both with and without actress Alicia Vikander's presence, which allowed them to capture the background behind her. The parts they wanted to keep, especially her hands and face, were then rotoscoped while the rest was digitally painted out and the background behind her restored. Camera and body tracking systems transferred Vikander's performance to the CGI robot's movements. In total, there were about 800 VFX shots, of which 350 or so were robot shots. Other visual effects were Ava's clothes seen through the transparent areas of her body, Nathan's blood after being stabbed and the interior of the artificial brains.

Number of screens - opening weekend: 4

Number of screens - peak number: 2,055

Box office figures: $36.9 million

Issues raised by media ownership in contemporary media practice

Two small companies, Film4 - a British company owned by Channel 4 Television Corporation, and DNA Films - also a British company and actually one of the most successful production companies located in the UK, were responsible for the making of Ex_Machina. Compared to different film companies, these two really are very small and very impressive considering the quality and success of the film. The size of the companies would obviously have a big impact on the number of resources and quality of the technology available for the companies but this did not affect their success. Both of the companies are very good at what they do. Neither of them are global or really successful in many other countries but each of them have been very successful in their own way, having been behind some very big and successful films for example; one of DNA's most popular films was Love Actually. The film only had a small budget as they are such small production companies however, that does make it more likely that they would've used the money they had effectively and cover what they needed to. Sometimes the work of bigger companies can often have an affect on the overall look of the film and can make the audience less interested as they pre-judge the companies by the quality of their latest work.

The importance of cross media convergence for institutions and audiences

Universal Pictures, they are able to use their name and power to get the word out there about the film and get it on as many screens as possible. They were behind the advertising for the film and released the trailers for the film in order to spread the word and get their audience interested. Both Film4 and DNA Films are small production companies, if they worked with a small distributor then the film wouldn't get anywhere and it wouldn't be as successful as it was. By working with a big distributor like Universal Pictures it is more likely that the film will be more widespread and generate a bigger audience than it would with a small distributor. Universal Pictures have an advanced understanding about the film industry and what audiences like and don't like. In order to minimise the risk of a loss, they will be careful with how many screens they choose to show the film on. Universal helped finance the film in exchange for worldwide sale rights. However, after the film was finished, Universal decided that the film was too quirky for a big studio release. They knew that it wouldn't work in the way they thought it would so tried to sell the rights to somebody else. Eventually the distributor A24, known for working with indie films, picked it up and put it in cinemas in the US. Initially the film was only shown on 4 screens but just a week later that number had raised to 2,050. This is a clear example of how successful the film was in the US box office as it made such a significant jump.

The technologies that have been introduced in recent years at the levels of production, distribution, marketing and exchange

Ex-Machina only had a small budget so they couldn't spend a lot of money on special effects and green screens during production. Also, they were working with small production companies who just didn't have the access to high quality technology like some other bigger production companies would. All of the special effects were added in post-production. This meant that they had to prepare for this during production knowing that they would have to edit it later to create the effect they wanted. An example of this is the appearance of Alicia Vikander's character who is a robot with a transparent middle section. In order to add in this transparent effect later on the production team filmed the scenes both with and without her to capture the background behind her. When it got to the stage of post-production they rotoscoped her hands and face, the main features they wanted to keep, then digitally painted the rest of her body and restored the background. This then completed the final look of her with features of both the scenes with her, without her and the post-production effects that digitally painted the rest of her body on. They didn't use any tracking markers during filming, they just relied on camera and body tracking systems to transfer to the robot's CGI movements. The entire film was filmed in digital, which is a cheaper way to film especially for distribution of the film because most cinemas have the technology for digital films instead as that is the format most companies film on.

The significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audience

To make the film available further after the film has been released in the cinema the distributors have to work to find ways for the film to be released that fit in with what modern audiences want. Modern audiences are more likely to stream a film online or through an app with an online subscription than actually going out and buying the film. Films are still released on DVD as there are still audiences that buy them in this format and there are some people who won't use streaming services. If they don't use services and formats that fit nearly everyone then they are at risk of losing a chunk of their market. The film is available on Blu-Ray, DVD, Amazon Video, iTunes, Google Play, PlayStation Video and YouTube. They have ensured that the film is available on a number of different services so that nearly anyone could go access to the film if they wanted to.

The importance of technological convergence for institutions and audiences

The main marketing campaign that the promotional team ran was on Tinder. They created a profile for Ava, the robot in the film, using pictures of Alicia Vikander. The campaign was launched at the South by Southwest Festival where the film was screened. Ava was matched with other Tinder users who could get to the festival. In the conversation she would send them to the Instagram handle that they thought was hers but was actually promoting the film. The idea behind this was to engage with a younger audience by using an app they may have and interacting with them directly. It was important for the team to reach out to their audience with a medium that suited their target audience.

The issues raised in the targeting of national and local audiences (specifically, British) by international or global institutions

The promotion team had an issue with the big marketing campaign they launched on Tinder. The campaign was met with mixed responses, it did well and proved to be effective but most people had more negative views of it. Many people described it as being 'counter-productive', 'an invasion of privacy', 'trolling' and 'trickery'. Even though it was effective it didn't get the best response from the audience they were targeting which doesn't make it a very successful campaign on the whole. Another issue with this is that it only targets audience members who were in that area, which is only a small area, so even though the campaign may have been successful in general it wouldn't have targeted a large audience on a national basis.

The ways in which the candidates' own experiences of media consumption illustrate wider patterns and trends of audience behaviour

I think it's a definite fact that audiences, specifically younger audiences, are more likely to watch a film streamed online than they are to go and see it at the cinema. Often there are a lot of films that we may be interested in but not enough to pay to go and see it at the cinema or maybe it isn't on at a cinema near us and we don't want to travel. The thing that audiences like most about streaming services is having the ability to watch on the go or from the comfort of their own home, they are able to watch it on their phone/laptop without having to use their TV. I think it's important to ensure films are readily available online, as this is where modern audiences are more likely to watch it especially if the film is shown on a limited number of screens.