Hypodermic Needle Theory and Stuart Hall's reception Theory

The hypodermic needle theory is an outdated belief system about how audiences receive texts, the theory if from the 1920s. Basically the theory means that people watch a texts and then engage with the specific texts and then want to do what they have just seen. For example, someone watching a murder scene in a film, or in a music video and then someone going out to do what they have just seen. We are passive receivers, we just watch the text and let it absorb over us. We have no part in interpreting the information, we simply receive it and believe it.


Stuart Halls theory is that he disagreed with the hypodermic needle, and basically he says that everyone brings there own message and opinions into the media text. People react to the media  dependent on there own life experiences - If we agree with the writers message, this is called the preferred reading, however we might have a negotiated reading where out own cultural and life experiences affect our interpretation. Or... we might go further and create an oppositional reading where we question or challenge the message given to us.
Jay-Z has encoded the song with the message that he has a lot of problems  but women are not one of them, for example he doesn't bother with women because they are just 'problems' he has other problems to deal with - This is the message i got from this music video, by interoperating the lyrics and the video.
Media producers encode a media text with their ideological values, creating the preferred reading and audiences.


Audience members/decoders
Hall suggests that we receive the ideological message differently according to our own life experiences. We might agree with the preferred reading, or we may come up with a negotiated reading where our own cultural and life experiences bring a different interpretation. Or.. we might go even further and create an oppositional reading where we question or challenge the message given to us.


Harry Brown
I think the dominant reading from the producer is that he wanted to make people aware about drugs and violence and knife/gun crime that is current in our lives today. We hear about these kinds of crimes on the news, and the producer has taken these news stories and turned them into a film, and he lets us see the 'behind the scenes' of what happens with these crimes, and then there is this rouge pensioner which is just there to add to the film however the story about knife crime and violence is the key message in this film.
The way that I read (Negotiated reading) this film is that there is crime in parts of London that look like they do in the film, and we all know as a nation that this kind of things happen, but it is interesting to see what kind of investigation goes on into these crimes, and how the police and detectives react to these problems, on the other hand I think that I don't agree that the things that happen in the film, happen in real life to that extent, the film is somewhat exaggerated. However if I was younger and didn't entirely understand the film, and all the aspects of the film, I wouldn't understand the messages that the producer is trying to get across I would only watch the film for entertainment. 
I was attracted to this film because of the actors but the main attraction for me watching this film was because of the way people recommended this film, and this made me watch Harry Brown.

Fandom

What is a fan?
Fans are people who appreciated a specific person, for example a producer or an actor, or even a series of films. Someone who follows a person, or a franchise over a period of time.
Fans are useful because you can make money off them because they buy merchandise. They buy the tickets, they follow the films. They advertise the films though word of mouth, fans can be dangerous if they don't like the film, and they then tell people not to see it because its not good. Review sites, or social networking can be dangerous for example someone starting up a Facebook group. Make people listen to it, recommended it, share it on social network sites, all ways of making fans. People use teaser trailers and teaser sneak previews of films to create a fan, or to show there is a new series or a second film.




The walking dead - The Site was AMC
- Board games
- Clothes
- Action figures
- Photos from each episode
- Cast information
- Interviews
- Blogs
- Trivia
- Behind the scenes
- Downloads
- Newsletters


Harry Potter
People rein-act the battles from the film in real life
There is an online website, where you can real the story-line that never actually got written, like a behind the scenes for novelists. 
Theme parks, harry potter worlds.
Use youtube to watch snippets of the film, and other bits with the film, and people post videos and sing about there life.


The Dark Knight
Using the internet now to talk, and message each other, ask questions.
Shops to buy merchandise.
Video games and conventions in america people dress up and walk around talking to each other. The dark knight had a ride.

Questionaire Results

1) What originally attracted you to watch this film?

I found that most people wanted to watch the film because of the actors, such as Plan B and Michael Cane. Also because it was a classic British film. Also someone was told by another person to watch the film, because they found it entertaining and they just passed it on via word of mouth.

2) Is there anyway that you think you can relate to this film? E.G. Characters, feelings or meanings

I don’t think that many people could relate to the characters in the film, and this is because the film was just so violent. The fact that this was so violent,

3) In what way did this film give you 'entertainment'

All the action in the film, and the violence gave the people the entertainment and because it was a thrilling violent film. I think that certain types of people find different films entertaining. The mass violence just I think some people get a kick out of it. Also people thought that it had a great story-line.

4) If you could describe this film in three words, what would they be?

Bloody, Gore, Interesting, Shocking, Thrilling, Real, Exciting, Passionate, Entertaining – These were all the words that people used (some came up more than once). The most used word was thrilling, and I think that people found this film thrilling because of all the action in the film.

5) Is there anything that you took away from watching this film, for example a view of someone or something that you didn't have before?

I found that people do take things away with them after the film, in this case they took away the fact that they didn’t realize to what extent this kind of thing happens outside of the film. Like the areas of London that are actually like they are in the film, people didn’t know how bad it actually was. Also they had a different view

6) What was the sole reason that you wanted to watch this film? E.G. For an escape, or because you can relate to the film?

I found that most people decided to watch this film because they had been told by someone else to watch it, they had recommended it, however there was someone who wanted to see the film because of the message that it gives across. I found that they wanted to watch the film because they live in the same kind of situation and wanted to see how it related to them.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

Uses and Gratifications Theory is an approach to understanding why people actively seek out specific media outlets and content for gratification purposes. The theory discusses how users proactively search for media that will not only meet a given need but enhance knowledge, social interactions and diversion.

It assumes that members of the audience are not passive but take an active role in interpreting and integrating media into their own lives. The theory also holds that audiences are responsible for choosing media to meet their needs. The approach suggests that people use the media to fulfill specific gratifications. This theory would then imply that the media compete against other information sources for viewers' gratification. [1]

This approach focuses on why people use particular media rather than on content. In contrast to the concern of the 'media effects' tradition with 'what media do to people', U & G can be seen as part of a broader trend amongst media researchers which is more concerned with 'what people do with media', allowing for a variety of responses and interpretations. [2]

Chosen film: Harry Brown

1) What originally attracted you to watch this film?

2) Is there anyway that you think you can relate to this film? E.G. Characters, feelings or meanings 

3) In what way did this film give you 'entertainment'

4) If you could describe this film in three words, what would they be?

5) Is there anything that you took away from watching this film, for example a view of someone or something that you didn't have before?

6) What was the sole reason that you wanted to watch this film? E.G. For an escape, or because you can relate to the film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_and_gratifications_theory [1]

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/usegrat.html [2]

'Old films for new'

'Old films for new'


Old films, that are made into remakes can sometimes become a great success or sometimes can be a failure. I will cover some of the different production contexts and the effects on the films successes – do they ‘make it’ or ‘break it’?

One of the films we studied was The Ring (2002) and Ringu (1998),The Ring is an American remake of the Japanese film Ringu. There are many differences and similarities between there two films. There is some synergy between the films in terms of narrative, however there was an extremely large (~$48,000,000) budget for the American film. The Ringu film was made on a considerably lower budget (~$1,200,000) than the American one. The Ring was made 4 years after Ringu, and in these four years there was a slight advance in technology. The profit made from each different was completely different like the budget, I think that the profit reflects the budget. Ringu didn’t actually make much profit, however the American version did. For example the American remake had a profit of around $128 million, however Ringu only had a profit of around $1.7 million. The reason for not much money being made would be because of the distribution of the film. America was able to distribute the film across many countries: such as Argentina, Germany Finland, Greece, Netherlands, and more, where as Ringu only went abroad 3 years after it was released in Japan. But for America to make this success they needed Ringu to be made, because they wouldn’t of had any idea about the storyline of the film, but also without the original having success in Japan, the remake would not have made it in the counties that it did.

Vertical integration is where a specific company over-looks all the aspects of a film, and Ringu is an example of this. There was two main companies and both of these companies would have overlooked everything that happened, from the filming, sets and equipment and the original ring, would have been horizontal integration, which means there are lots of companies involved in making the film, for example some companies are listed for editing, special effects, and another for the equipment hire. The total amount of companies used in the original ring was thirty-nine however the America has a wider choice of companies they can use to assist them when creating a film that Japan had at the time.

The advantage of the American version of this film is the fact that they had an extremely larger budget. For example they had a lot more money to spend on effects, and SFX. Although the SFX in the newer film were extremely similar to the Japanese version, these effects would have been made by different companies and then come back to DreamWorks when the final version of the film was to be edited.

Each film is different in its own way, the original is slightly harder to follow because of the subtitles, the remake is extremely similar to the original in-fact in some parts of the film they have copied the same shots and camera angles, also the dialect is the same. The American version of the film, had different social situations and contexts, the psychological effect on the characters were shown more in the American version, because the story went into more depth, for example the whole story with the horses and how the ring came about was completely different to the Japanese version. American films have much more depth of explanation within the film, which reflects differences in social contexts, un-like the Japanese version which was more just based on the characters and how the characters are feeling, un-like the American films, they have a lot of explanation in there films, for example in The Ring (2002) she finds out a lot about the girl, and the film is more orientated around the girl, where as in Ringu, the film is just focused on saving her own life, and her sons life.

The remake of Psycho was made in 1998 and the original film was made in 1960, this version was made almost 40 years after and the film is exactly the same in every where, the shot types, and the settings. This film was made to make a remark to Alfred Hitchcock who directed the original, because he is seen to be an auteur. Some people think that the film should have been changed in some way instead of it being exactly the same to how Alfred Hitchcock made it. However personally I think that re-creating the original makes him seem better because obviously he must have been so good for them to not even have to change it in the slightest.

Alfred Hitchcock’s version of Psycho made a considerable more amount of money ($51 Million) than the remake ($38 Million), although Hitchcock’s version has had many years to make that money, the remake is no-where near. If they changed something within the remake this may have affected the amount of money that the new remake made.

Alfred Hitchcock was already popular when the Psycho remake was released, therefore he had already made his name, and he was already so well known in the American film industry, his film made so much money, and as for Ringu it made the most amount of money a film has ever made in Japan, if it wasn’t for this release then the American version wouldn’t have made the amount of money it did.